"You will have to prove the elements of self-defense to be exonerated of brandishing a weapon or firearm in violation of PC 417, which includes:
You reasonably believed you or another person were in imminent danger of physical harm
And you fought the person who threatened you with only enough force to subdue that person or otherwise defend yourself."
They were trespassing and threatening them, she pointed her gun and said GTFO, they GTFO, and she didn't shoot anyone. I'm not a lawyer, but I assume she's got a hell a case.
Unfortunately, probably not. Look, I'm not happy about her situation, but like it or not, if you try to claim you pulled a gun on someone and pointed it at them because you were in fear for your life/fear of imminent danger, and then DON'T pull the trigger (or worse yet, give a warning shot, or ';shoot to wound') : Well, in that case your inaction disproves your claim .I don't like it, but that's what will be said.
This is why lawyers argue. Because one can be wrong.
If I'm legitimately in fear for my life, and therefore pull my gun, but then the other guy surrenders or stops threatening me so I don't shoot him, THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. Nobody got hurt, and my life being in danger passed.
Tell me what state REQUIRES YOU TO SHOOT SOMEONE if you pull a gun even if the sight of the gun makes the criminal stop threatening you.
"You will have to prove the elements of self-defense to be exonerated of brandishing a weapon or firearm in violation of PC 417, which includes:
You reasonably believed you or another person were in imminent danger of physical harm And you fought the person who threatened you with only enough force to subdue that person or otherwise defend yourself."
They were trespassing and threatening them, she pointed her gun and said GTFO, they GTFO, and she didn't shoot anyone. I'm not a lawyer, but I assume she's got a hell a case.
Unfortunately, probably not. Look, I'm not happy about her situation, but like it or not, if you try to claim you pulled a gun on someone and pointed it at them because you were in fear for your life/fear of imminent danger, and then DON'T pull the trigger (or worse yet, give a warning shot, or ';shoot to wound') : Well, in that case your inaction disproves your claim .I don't like it, but that's what will be said.
This is why lawyers argue. Because one can be wrong.
If I'm legitimately in fear for my life, and therefore pull my gun, but then the other guy surrenders or stops threatening me so I don't shoot him, THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. Nobody got hurt, and my life being in danger passed.
Tell me what state REQUIRES YOU TO SHOOT SOMEONE if you pull a gun even if the sight of the gun makes the criminal stop threatening you.
You're wrong.