Here in SC at least, your wife has no duty to retreat in her car. (And if that wasn’t true, she’s still arguably trapped in the car.) According to my CCW class, that would be a good shoot in South Carolina. Would a reasonable person have felt themselves in mortal danger? I’d say yes.
Since his hand is already on the gun, the point is probably moot. He’d shoot you first.
Well since the OP said his friend said it happened to him recently, and didn’t mention that the friend and/or his wife were shot, I’d have to assume the Strange Jerk either didn’t have a gun at all, or at least didn’t pull it out and start shooting.
And that’s where it could get interesting. According to most USA self-defense laws, you have to “reasonably” believe yourself or another to be in imminent danger. That’s where a DA or a jury would have to make a judgement - was your belief reasonable? If it turned out the guy you shot DID have a gun, that’s a much easier conclusion to make - you actually were in danger, so your belief you were in danger seems pretty reasonable. But if he didn’t have a gun - then you get into a more difficult situation.
No, but the OP didn’t say his friend was packing and/or went for his gun, either. I’d have to assume that if I was packing and went for my gun, Strange Jerk would have gone for his (if he had one), and would be a lot quicker on the draw with his hand already on it.
I would like to state that I have never had a problem with anybody reaching into their pants, and shall never object, nor bring bodily harm, deliberately, to somebody reaching into their pants. Heck, I’ve even reached into my pants myself, and never felt that that warranted so much as a gentle rebuke, let alone being shot. Reaching into pants was never the issue of the OP.
hh
I’m assuming that they didn’t precede this by breaking into somebody’s car, demanding money, and making threats of violence. That puts the action in a different context.
I guess that’s a point, maybe its all a misunderstanding. The guy is in the habit of talking to his cigarettes, which he keeps in his underwear 
Well, somebody has clearly never picked up a street hooker.
So what are you supposed to do, in that situation, in Iceland? Die? Become a martyr for Iceland’s government-mandated pacifism?
Do they at least allow non-lethal forms of defense like stun guns?
I would guess you say, “Hey, I live in Iceland, where nobody has a handgun, so his balls are probably just itchy.”
Pray for shrinkage
RNATB got it in one. And I really don’t know what would happen, legally, if we substitute guns for knifes.
I wouldn’t blame you if you shoot him. You have to protect your family. You could get in trouble for it though.
I think shooting the guy is pretty reasonable, but your fate may depend on who the guy turns out to be. If the guy has a record and a weapon, the shooting will be deemed justified. If he turns out to be a homeless guy reaching for his squeegee, and you might be in trouble.
I sort of love this answer (for surrous!), mainly because it describes being indicted for a capital offense as just “getting in trouble.” But with the consolation that at least you wouldn’t blame him. Understatement is so seldom done these days.
Just wanted to add…
In addition to the (recently) enacted ‘castle doctrine’ in Texas–that is, no duty to retreat–that same legislative session gave Texans civil immunity in these types of shootings.
Per the OP’s scenario, I concur with ‘good shoot’ based on my Texas CHL class.
Having shot two intruders breaking into my house at 1:00 AM, and killing one, I have a bit of experience. In my situation one thing was not in doubt…these two guys were caught in the midst of a crime. In the scenario described it’s not quite as clear. Could be a problem. What made my shooting justified (in the county where I live) was my belief that my life and the lives of my family were in danger. Very plausible, all things considered.
The scenario described could be a little iffy in that a gun was never seen and unless someone else heard what was said, the threat would be tough to prove. Therefore, shooting him might be judged as being disproportionate. Back to my situation, because it was dark I had no way of knowing whether these guys were aremed or not (they were, albeit with knives).
While the thought of liability crossed my mind, the decision to do what I did was based upon what I believed my #1 priority was. I distinctly remember answering this question in my mind…protect my family. No charges filed.
Classic common law allowed a person to use reasonable force in defence of person, property and even a third person (R v Rose and an overreaction in the circumstances would be permitted (Shannon.What cosntistuted reasonable meant, would a reasonable man in the defendants position have acted in the same way.
Of course it depends on the juridiction, but generally this (with some modifications) is what is followed in the common law world.
Now in reality a lot more info would be needed, I can well see witnesses being being examined in chief and cross examined on many things, how far was the defendant, how his eyesight is like, what the lighting was like, how long did he observe etc.
Not to derail but wow, that is impressive. People talk about this situation hypothetically all the time but I’ve never met anyone who has actually lived it. Have you considered starting a thread “Ask the person who has killed a man?”. I’d love to see that, if you’re comfortable talking about it.
He wouldn’t go to Valhalla. That’s for the chosen (i.e., honoured) dead. Being a scumbag mugger, he’d probably go elsewhere.