Am I understanding correctly that you believe because the two people attacking him were unarmed, he did not have the right to shoot them? You say you "accept" it was lawful, but it doesn't seem like you believe it should be.
I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.
I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.