On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:15:47 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 8:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?

To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

You didn't answer the question. It was not about any specific
trial/case/circumstance.


If the law were written as you state, 'deadly violence is permissible simply by claiming an imagined
fear', I would see a big problem with it.

I believe the fear must be shown to have a basis in reality and meet the other requirements of the
applicable law.

The 'fear' cannot simply be 'imagined'.