Eugene Volokh brings up an interesting case in Kansas in which a man pulled a gun, ostensibly in self-defense, but was denied the chance to argue self-defense because he never actually fired the gun.
Had Flint actually shot the gun, he would presumably have been entitled to have the jury consider his defense-of-others defense. (Such a defense would generally be roughly similar to a self-defense defense, and use of deadly force is generally allowed in self-defense against sufficiently serious threats.) But because Flint merely brandished the gun, he’s a felon — even if he reasonably believed that brandishing the gun was necessary to save his fiancee’s life. That is simply absurd.
And interesting read, especially for Kansas residents. There seems to be a problem with the legislation here that needs to be fixed.