This could get interesting

[Hawkmoon]

What part of "substantial risk" are you not getting?

Where are you getting the words "substantial risk" from? We have 50 states, and then we have federal law. I don't claim to have read the self defense laws of even half the states, but I have read a number of them and I have not yet encountered the words "substantial risk." The usual language is something along the lines of "in danger of suffering death or grievous bodily injury."

The other thing you're either forgetting or choosing to overlook is that ALL the states' self defense/lethal force laws are based on the victim's (meaning the person who engaged in the self defense act) perception of the risk of death or grievous bodily injury. In other words, you don't really have to be in danger (that punk trying to stick you up doesn't have a real gun, it's an unloaded airsoft replica), you only have to reasonably believe that you're in danger ("It looked like a real gun when he pointed it at me, your Honor").

[KD5NRH]

The other thing you're either forgetting or choosing to overlook is that ALL the states' self defense/lethal force laws are based on the victim's (meaning the person who engaged in the self defense act) perception of the risk of death or grievous bodily injury. In other words, you don't really have to be in danger (that punk trying to stick you up doesn't have a real gun, it's an unloaded airsoft replica), you only have to reasonably believe that you're in danger ("It looked like a real gun when he pointed it at me, your Honor").

There you go; reasonable belief.  You're not going to have such an easy time in court if it was a clear squirt gun, and your argument is that it might have been filled with poison.  That's about as sensible as going Dirty Harry on kids tossing rocks from a distance.

[Jim147]

 

[dm1333]

Just try shooting someone for throwing rocks at you from 100+ feet away and see how that goes in court. 

How do you know the kid was 100+ feet away?  And what really matters here is the Border Patrol Use of Force Policy, not state law.

[dm1333]

D. Use of Deadly Force

1. Deadly force is force that is likely to cause serious physical injury or death.

2. The Department of Homeland Security Policy on the Use of Deadly Force
governs the use of deadly force by all DHS employees.

3. Authorized Officers/Agents may use deadly force only when necessary, that is,
when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force
poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury or death to the officer/agent
or to another person.

a. Serious Physical Injury - Injury which creates a substantial risk of death or
which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ or structure or involves
serious concussive impact to the head.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/UseofForcePolicyHandbook.pdf

[Blakenzy]

Video of the shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa2LjgL40KE

Tomo News version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huGKQFnM8E8

CBS news:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCh-9sMkVPU

[Hawkmoon]

There you go; reasonable belief.  You're not going to have such an easy time in court if it was a clear squirt gun, and your argument is that it might have been filled with poison.  That's about as sensible as going Dirty Harry on kids tossing rocks from a distance.

Wait! I misread the article. Did it say the Mexican kid was pointing a clear squirt gun at the Border Patrol Agent? I could have sworn I read "rocks."

[wmenorr67]

Wait! I misread the article. Did it say the Mexican kid was pointing a clear squirt gun at the Border Patrol Agent? I could have sworn I read "rocks."