The initial closure was to invite either a clearer and concise specification of facts; or a trimming to a focused legal question
The question was not closed to necessarily invite a flurry of bite-sized questions about the elements of self-defence law. The hope was that the initial question be edited. If you see the comments, they say:
Instead of making this about the real circumstance, which invites improper fact-finding instead of a focus on the law, please state/stipulate a concrete set of facts that one is to assume for the sake of the analysis and then ask how the law of self-defence applies. Also, this question is improperly asserting too much about what the law is. Questions should ask, not tell. Let the assertions about what the law is come out in an answer. I will close temporarily to let you edit to trim to a concrete set of facts. I have chosen the "needs more focus" reason, but this comment explains.
It is not helpful to have your analysis in the question. If you have a view of the answer, you can self-answer. But keep the question simple. How to ask a good question
For example, are you just asking "if a person has 'no purpose to firing the gun', but nonetheless fires it and kills someone, is a self-defence defence available?" If so, you could ask a question that simply and directly. It would be a great improvement.
Note the final comment says, "If so,..." If the asker was just asking that, I suggested they edit to simply ask that.
If instead, they wanted to know how an analysis of self-defence would apply in a certain set of facts, they could have edited the question to state that set of facts and then ask (as the first comment said was available to them.)
Regardless, there is nothing wrong per se with a set of standalone focused questions about a specific area of law
Focused questions are usually best, and this sometimes results in multiple questions. But, this is a small site, with relatively low question rate. Consider whether a bunch of questions in short succession by one user about one specific topic might "annoy" (for lack of better term) the community. I have observed this once in the past for questions about UK tenancy law. I personally do not see any issue, and think that more questions is better. It's not like we can't handle them all, and it isn't every day this happens. But I'm just one voter out there.
In this case, each question happened to touch on a different aspect of the self-defence analysis (at least under the Canadian approach). In other cases, the question author might inadvertently ask a duplicate, which is okay — we would just close to point to the Q&A that answers the question.
Questions can be about a specific incident, but they need to tell us what to assume about the incident
The question can be about a specific incident, but we aren't fact finders. The question author needs to tell us what facts we are to assume for the purpose of the question, and it should not tell us a bunch about what the law is, nor present its own analysis of what the answer might be.
There is no need to follow a formula, but here's an approach that is clear and avoids any ambiguity about what the question author is guessing, what they're asking us to find ourselves, etc.
Assume the following facts:
- A person / law enforcement officer / etc. is [in some relation to a vehicle]
- The driver does X
- The person / law enforcement officer / etc. does Y
- etc.
[Ask the question.]
Note that in the above, the facts are not interspersed with any assertions about what the law is.
The genericization stripped away what was irrelevant; it was not for the sake of genericizing
Regarding this question, the "genericization" (as you call it) stripped away parts of the question text that did not make their way into the facts that the question author said we should assume. The fact that the question author wanted us to assume was that there was "no legitimate purpose." Given that asserted fact, the rest didn't add anything. If there were further facts that were important, they could have been added.
