but the shooter would have to explain to the jury why he felt the need to issue shots #6,7,8 - and then blood spatter starts showing the gun was already on the gound when the headshot(s) were administered, etc. If ya execute someone who dropped the gun already, their blood spatter Dexter guy is going to be able to tell.
not that the bag of shit wouldn't DESERVE to be finished off... but the law (at least in FL) says once a person is laying on the ground without a weapon, you can't shoot more.
if they're still standing, and you're shooting fast, yes, you keep protecting yourself. And if he's on the ground with his gun, yes, you're legal. But when he's no longer a threat, gotta stop.
Sorry, but no.
The shooter acting in self defense does not need to explain anything to anyone except to give his or her attorney the facts. Because is the prosecutor's burden of proving it was not self-defense. It's prima facia self-defense.
Self-defense is a complete defense to murder.
"Headshots" you're either a good shot and meant to do that (which a prosecutor could use to charge you after the fact depending on the facts, or it was just a shot out of fear that happend to hit the head, it can show premeditation and deliberation - but again self defense is a perfect defense for murder)
"If you execute" now you've introduced assumptions into the facts and speculation that is was a murder rather than self-defense. Anyhow, there is no black letter law that states you can't shoot someone that is on the ground in a pool of their own blood. There are cases where that was found to not be believeable but that's a case by case basis.
If someone is on the ground bleeding - THEY CAN STILL REACH FOR A WEAPON OR CAUSE SOMEONE INJURY (kick, claw, bite, etc) - therefore someone defending themselves or merely believing they are still in danger may continue to shoot.
There is no text in a law reading in part to convey a person's actions such as shooting fast, shooting slow, somoene still standing, etc.
