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.
I wish it were that simple as acknowledging these are members of a violent organization.
Without a vocal and visually apparent threat (e.g. something to cause maiming or death) you don't get the presumption of reasonableness.
Maybe I wish people were that logical, because at the end of the day it's up to a jury to determine if you were acting reasonably without the legal presumption of reasonableness met; hoi polloi is being the final determinant of your fate is always disheartening.
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.
I wish it were that simple as acknowledging these are members of a violent organization.
Without a vocal and visually apparent threat (e.g. something to cause maiming or death) you don't get the presumption of reasonableness.
Maybe I wish people were that logical, because at the end of the day it's up to a jury to determine if you were acting reasonably without the legal presumption of reasonableness met; hoi polloi is being the final determinant of your fate is always disheartening.