If your life is in danger it is always justified to use deadly force. That woman had 8 ravenous terrorists trying to take her down. These are terrorists. Shooting a Terrorist is justified. Saving your own life from death is justified.
Really depends on your jurisdiction. I wouldn't shoot at what was shown on the video need a bit more than that if you don't want to risk a good few years in prison almost guaranteed. You gotta take into account the DA in that area if they are a Dem she'd be 100% charged. I'm not saying she'd win or lose the case but with a reasonable DA it would get dropped but if it is a blue area with a blue DA judge etc she'd be fucked.
Oh 100% agree. I’m not saying she should have done it but that was the only point in the video where she could possibly claim she was in fear of her life and safety. Any blue DA she would be more than fucked. She would get the entire book thrown at her for being “racist”.
Depends on the state laws. If you could show assault and prove that your life was in danger, yes. But since on camera and if it really wasn't then you'd be screwed.
So there's something referred to as legally "reasonable", and thus when you are in court it makes it an easy defense. You can shoot anyone for anything, but it may not be considered reasonable.
So something like this is kind of grey, it doesn't meet the legal reasonable standard.
To meet that standard they have to have a visible and obvious weapon intended to create life threatening or maiming harm and vocally iterate that they are intending to harm you, basically aggravated assault. You also have to be legally allowed to be where you are, and committing no crimes at the time.
Your right is basically to be able to use enough force to end the threat
Now, hypothetically, in this situation, because there could be considered overwhelming force given the number of instigators. If one of them flashed a knife or club or any kind of weapon that could do serious harm to you, and then vocally threatened to hurt you explicitly, you have a high degree of falling into legally reasonable if you killed one of them.
Of course different states have different laws and restrictions on your personal protection.
I strongly suggest carry insurance to help with the legal situation you WILL find yourself in.
Yeah people on here don't always understand the intricacies of how law is applied in the real world you make an excellent point. The cone is a simple assault at most especially the push she did with it as opposed to cock back and swinging it like a bat that makes a big difference any good lawyer would be able to convict a shoot on just that little thrust of a cone and nothing else. The crowd and current events certainly do change the situation though
BLM people have been beating people to death as recently as yesterday. I think that should come into play, in court. Shit part is, thats in court...after you’ve been arrested.
Except the state could prosecute. The everyone is dead so I can't go to jail don't fly. People get charged all the time when the other person dies with no other witness. Detectives do have jobs and do them despite what people think. That ain't even getting started with people who get falsely convicted. I wouldn't roll the dice on a shot with what was shown. What happened after may very well call for a firearm to be used but idk what happened after
She’s retreating and they are pursuing. Then, the vocal triggered bitch assaults her. That’s weapons free at that point. They don’t have a right to tell her to leave from anywhere. I’m shocked (I’m not) that the #MeToo movement isn’t defending her when men start threatening her and stalking her.
Yeah you could fuck someone up with that traffic barricade. If it hits you and knocks you down and you hit your head on the cement. Falling on cement can result in great bodily harm or even death. Two perfectly good reasons for a justified shooting. Especially when you’re outnumbered like that.
Her first misfortune was that they were probably too close for her to draw if possible.
Would it be legally justified to shoot these shrieking low iq assholes?
Under a just and un-compromised judicial system? yes.
If your life is in danger it is always justified to use deadly force. That woman had 8 ravenous terrorists trying to take her down. These are terrorists. Shooting a Terrorist is justified. Saving your own life from death is justified.
As soon as that one shrieking whale attacked her with a cone I’d say it would be deemed justified
Really depends on your jurisdiction. I wouldn't shoot at what was shown on the video need a bit more than that if you don't want to risk a good few years in prison almost guaranteed. You gotta take into account the DA in that area if they are a Dem she'd be 100% charged. I'm not saying she'd win or lose the case but with a reasonable DA it would get dropped but if it is a blue area with a blue DA judge etc she'd be fucked.
Oh 100% agree. I’m not saying she should have done it but that was the only point in the video where she could possibly claim she was in fear of her life and safety. Any blue DA she would be more than fucked. She would get the entire book thrown at her for being “racist”.
It’s pretty fucking sad that we have to worry about the political affiliation of the goddamn District Attorney when deciding to defend our lives.
When you threaten innocent people you give up your right to life. Its admission that your life doesn't matter.
Depends on the state laws. If you could show assault and prove that your life was in danger, yes. But since on camera and if it really wasn't then you'd be screwed.
That orange cone was assault. And dead people can’t tell their side of the story of there’s not a video of it.
Yup, she used it as a weapon
So there's something referred to as legally "reasonable", and thus when you are in court it makes it an easy defense. You can shoot anyone for anything, but it may not be considered reasonable.
So something like this is kind of grey, it doesn't meet the legal reasonable standard.
To meet that standard they have to have a visible and obvious weapon intended to create life threatening or maiming harm and vocally iterate that they are intending to harm you, basically aggravated assault. You also have to be legally allowed to be where you are, and committing no crimes at the time.
Your right is basically to be able to use enough force to end the threat
Now, hypothetically, in this situation, because there could be considered overwhelming force given the number of instigators. If one of them flashed a knife or club or any kind of weapon that could do serious harm to you, and then vocally threatened to hurt you explicitly, you have a high degree of falling into legally reasonable if you killed one of them.
Of course different states have different laws and restrictions on your personal protection.
I strongly suggest carry insurance to help with the legal situation you WILL find yourself in.
Yeah people on here don't always understand the intricacies of how law is applied in the real world you make an excellent point. The cone is a simple assault at most especially the push she did with it as opposed to cock back and swinging it like a bat that makes a big difference any good lawyer would be able to convict a shoot on just that little thrust of a cone and nothing else. The crowd and current events certainly do change the situation though
Good advice, thank you
BLM people have been beating people to death as recently as yesterday. I think that should come into play, in court. Shit part is, thats in court...after you’ve been arrested.
Except the state could prosecute. The everyone is dead so I can't go to jail don't fly. People get charged all the time when the other person dies with no other witness. Detectives do have jobs and do them despite what people think. That ain't even getting started with people who get falsely convicted. I wouldn't roll the dice on a shot with what was shown. What happened after may very well call for a firearm to be used but idk what happened after
The absence of evidence doesn't provide evidence of absence.
The situation would have changed in an instant if she'd gone down. Then one kick, and they all kick; one stomp and they all stomp.
That's how humans predictably behave in such situations.
Minnesota has a retreat law, so that's the first line of defense you are suppose use. Retreat to safest place. Sucks
She’s retreating and they are pursuing. Then, the vocal triggered bitch assaults her. That’s weapons free at that point. They don’t have a right to tell her to leave from anywhere. I’m shocked (I’m not) that the #MeToo movement isn’t defending her when men start threatening her and stalking her.
Yeah you could fuck someone up with that traffic barricade. If it hits you and knocks you down and you hit your head on the cement. Falling on cement can result in great bodily harm or even death. Two perfectly good reasons for a justified shooting. Especially when you’re outnumbered like that.
Her first misfortune was that they were probably too close for her to draw if possible.