I understand the “no longer a threat” position. The prosecution could argue that he was a threat with the weapon, the women had to disarm him and neutralize the threat by beating the shit out of him. Besides, he may have had a knife.
“he may have had a knife.”
The article didn’t mention any other weapon besides the gun she pounded on his head. I didn’t say they should catch some flack, I said they may.
This thought can go a long way. I’m reminded of a rancher driving his tractor on the edge of his property that bordered a town water reservoir I believe in Ohio. About half way down the bank was a thug raping a 14 year old girl. The rancher yelled at him to stop, and the guy got up, pulled up his pants, and started up the bank at the rancher. Well this was a huge mistake as many of the ranchers carried a shotgun on the tractors and this one pulled it out and blasted the guy at which time he rolled down the bank into the water.
When it came to trial, no jury is going to convict him, even though he was guilty. But the smart-assed judge turned around and fined the guy $1000 for littering a public drinking storage facility with a dead animal.
The father of the girl paid the fine. The people remembered that one. Four years later, at the end of his six year elected term, he was not re-elected. Bye bye.
rwood