I would be very interested to hear about my alternative, not now.
Please tell us all about it.
I have already heard it. Why don't you give your own answers for a change.
btw, in your 'expert' opinion. Does chasing after an unarmed guy, fleeing in the dark qualify as a 'gunfight'?
As has been stated ad nauseum, what matters both practically and as a matter of law is the perception of the (in this case) Officer. If he/she reasonably feels a threat to life or great bodily injury by the actions of the suspect, then yes, it is still a gunfight.
I may be completely mistaken, since I do not possess your superior intellectual powers and awesome prowess with guns and what not, but don't these 'gunfights' you speak of normally include guns on both sides?
Well, I do possess education, training, and experience that you obviously do not....and no, gunfights do not 'always' require a gun on each side. EVERY fight a police officer gets into involves a gun, with all of the attendant risks and required training.
Does this extend to matters of wildlife as well?
For example, when a hunter shoots a deer, can he legitimately claim to have 'won' the 'gunfight'?
Is it possible for the deer to win one of these gunfights occasionally?
The next time a deer commits a felony, leads me on a high speed pursuit and following foot chase and then performs an action that puts me in fear for my life, I'll let you know. (This is the kind of silliness that makes it so obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about.)
Please enlighten us. Your posts on the subject are clearly so well thought out!