An illumination of my comment "Tough call but I would like to think that I would waited to get involved until deadly force was already in progress."
The scenario that I am presupposing is inside the store rather than the actual scenario where the BGs tried to draw on the GG and they lost big time.
Per the newspaper account:
"According to police, the robbers entered Krick's Korner, pointed guns at the store owner and demanded cash. The robbers walked into the store with their handguns drawn, Adams said, and then proceeded to terrorize the store owner before stealing money, cigarettes and lottery tickets."
Now based on the recounting, would you engage with deadly force? Based on the wording extracted from the code below, you would be justified if you can convince the jury that what you believed was plausible.
11 Del C §466c. ...use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:
(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and
a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant
GZ's belief that he was in danger of being killed was aggressively assaulted by the prosecutors and by public opinion. Remember, though you may think you are being tried by a court of justice, you are in fact being tried in a court of of law that is mightily swayed by public opinion. Consider the consequences when protecting property. Hence, my remark "deadly force in progress". Once the BG launches a bullet at the third person, you can then be sure the BG is not a kid with a toy replica gun.
Comments?
-----------------------
11 Del C § 466. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of property.
(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.
(b) The defendant may in the circumstances named in subsection (a) of this section use such force as the defendant believes is necessary to protect the threatened property, provided that the defendant first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from interference with the property, unless the defendant believes that:
(1) Such a request would be useless; or
(2) It would be dangerous to the defendant or another person to make the request; or
(3) Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.
(c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:
(1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:
a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or
b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.
