harry wrote:

Where does it say it was his intention to kill her or her baby?
Once again your comrehension of English is poor.

Under the common law - beginning with the Magna Carta - the offense is in
the eye of the beholder. Threatening a bank teller with a water gun is - in
all jurisdictions - an armed robbery if the bank teller THINKS the assailant
is wielding a real pistol.

That said, then, a potential victim does not have to wait until the assault
matures. If the potential victim THINKS he is about to be put in jeopardy of
life or serious bodily injury, that thought alone is sufficient.


BTW, she would have been entitled to shoot him in the UK too.
And she could legally have a shotgun.

Absolutely not true if she had an opportunity to further retreat. And in the
UK she could not have had the handgun with which she was also armed.


I also notice the police didn't say it was OK to shoot him.

Neither did the mayor, her next-door neighbor, or her pastor. The police
were never in the loop. In fact the cops didn't even SHOW UP until 21
minutes after the woman contacted emergency dispatch.

As an aside, I find that time lag reprehensible.