Here in Washington, DC the law states the following:
“You are entitled to claim self-defense:
(1) if you actually believe you are in imminent danger of bodily harm; and
(2) if you have reasonable grounds for that belief.”
What a person believes is subjective, and should be case closed for the good person who defends his/herself (period). The law continues with the following subjective ratification for the use of deadly force:
“You may use the amount of force which, at the time of the incident, you actually and reasonably believe is necessary to protect yourself (or a third person) from imminent bodily harm. This may extend to the use of deadly force if you actually and reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which you can save yourself only by using deadly force against your assailant.”
Even though the last sentence is shady, however, it’s objective for the good person to believe that a shot to the torso would not be enough “from which you can save yourself”. This objectivity should be presented in the form of bad people being shot several time in the torso, then to kill the good person who shot them. The law continues again with the following subjective ratification for the use of deadly force:
“Even if the other person is the aggressor and you are justified in using force in self-defense, you may not use any greater force than you actually and reasonably believe is necessary under the circumstances to prevent the harm you reasonably believe is intended or to save your life or avoid serious bodily harm.”
What a human being believes in a case of self preservation in a deadly force encounter should always be considered subjective. 12 jurors in no way shape or form could put themselves in the mindset of a good person defending his/her life against a bad person with a weapon.
“Under the case law of the District of Columbia, the District is neither a “right to stand and kill” nor a “duty to retreat to the wall before killing” jurisdiction. The District case law has established a “middle ground.” You should take reasonable steps, such as stepping back or walking away, to avoid the necessity of taking a human life, so long as those steps are consistent with your own safety. However, you do not have to retreat or consider retreating when you actually and reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary to repel that danger.”
What’s my point? With laws such as DC, good people are more inclined not intervene in a third party encounter UNLESS it is family and or friends you’re out and about with. In the case of the store robbery incident, as frustrating it may be, if the bad guy doesn’t shoot the store owner, I won’t intervene. The store is insured for robberies and theft, the owner is alive and I won’t have to deal with the legal system; a win win if you ask me.