Justifed? Yes? No?

[Nidan Melbourne]

As much as it is morally justified to defend the clerk. you can cannot claim defense as you essentially killed someone. For all you know there could have been no rounds in the gun or it could have been a fake.

The end of the story is that someone didn't go home at the end of the day

[ineluki]

As much as it is morally justified to defend the clerk. you can cannot claim defense as you essentially killed someone.

In what Country? Could you give us some examples where a court ruled like that?

Assuming you are actually in Melbourne, a quick search found this:

http://www.australiancriminallawyers.com.au/web/page/nt_self_defence

Criminal Defence - Self Defence - The Test

The High Court has defined the test for self-defence, for both homicide and non-homicide cases, as follows:

The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he [or she] did (Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 162 CLR 645 at 661 per Wilson, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

Now, unless Australian laws are really special, then most rules probably are also valid for the defence of a third party.

Going by the bold part, killing the offender is obviously no ground to exclude self-defence.

I also doubt that "reasonable grounds" require waiting until the gun is fired or the presence of bullets ist confirmed.