Posted on 07/24/2013 1:37:04 PM PDT by marktwain
If she had drove away she might have been charged with theft. Unless she paid in advance. And if she paid in advance she needed to get all the gas she paid for. Then she could leave.
It looks like she put one in the chamber right in from of him yet he still took a swing at her.
I say No Bill.
The principle being pushed here is that SYG means a white man has no right to defend himself against a black man and a black man has every right to defend himself against anybody.
I was mistaken, slightly, about the 911 call. She called her mother and had her mother call 911.
SnakeDoc
Even the son, in the video, while he was defending his father, was saying that the woman just didn’t understand that he was really just a harmless old guy and implied thereby that the lady’s judgment was justified.
The article explains in detail why SYG was not relevant in this instance any more than it was with Z. This is a highly educational site. It is on my Main Bookmarks list right after FR and Sultan Knish..
I think it has gone as far as it is going to go. The Left is not interested because blacks killing blacks is just so normal and Sharpton isn't interested because he can't make any hay against white devils and Black people are Innocent by definition anyway and the Feminists aren't interested because it puts two of their Holy Principles in opposition to each other.
It would be “conflicting” for the left to get righteous about a woman killing a man who was attacking her even if she were white and he black.
Read the article and learn why SYG does not apply outside the minds of left agitators who have other reasons to not get all blustery about this one.
He was a big man and I have small bones. If he punched me, I likely couldn’t have shot the weapon after his punch. I think I would have shot him before he punched me because I would know I was at a great disadvantage. I’d worry about the DA and grand jury later and hope there would be a couple of women with small bones on the grand jury.
I can prove the small bones to the grand jury or jury several ways - for one, a dentist has trouble getting his hand in my mouth. Other people always finish eating before I do. Takes me longer to eat the same amount of food they do.
Had a problem with my knee and that doctor put a needle in my knee with slippery stuff in the needle (made out of rooster comb), and when I got up, I fainted due to the pain. Then, the doctor says my knee was too small to take all the liquid so major pain happened. Hated that doctor for knowing that and still trying to get all the liquid in there. I also wear very narrow shoes, a AAA and it was AAAA when younger.
My point is, each individual does not have the same amount of strength/power to confront an attacker. A hefty woman has a better chance of taking a blow and still be able to function. I couldn’t, so I’m shooting - remember that when you come to my house - please knock and wave a white flag so I won’t shoot you.
Any other small boned women out there? Never in my life before have I had to think about the danger of having small bones. Our society is becoming a race of fighters/killers - one group against another. This is pitiful and I don’t know how much worse it is going to get.
Actually, the author at LegalInsurrection makes a pretty good case it’s just classic self-defense, not SYG at all. Everybody is treating them as the same thing and they are not. The law is like a flow chart, with exceptions and counter-exceptions all tripping on various combinations of conditions. SYG is only for a special subcategory of self-defense scenario, where an objectively safe means of retreat was available and the would-be victim opts not to retreat. In cases where you can argue there was no *safe* means of escape, and that was when you elected to use deadly force to defend yourself, that is NOT a SYG scenario. That is the main line of the classical self-defense flow chart. The LegalInsurrection writer argues that this case meets scenario meets the “no safe escape” criteria as traditionally applied, so the shooter has no need of the SYG law.
BTW, I was unaware of (or possibly forgetful of) this distinction myself until recently, when O’Mara opted not to use it for Z. So the confusion is very common. Some on the left who should know better seem to be conflating the two anyway. I suppose it gives them a convenient boogeyman to attack classic self-defense using guns, because the real objective isn’t some narrow self-defense exception, its degrading the 2A, root and branch, and along with that to turn us all into Euro-wimps who would rather die than fight, because fighting back, especially with guns, would make us such mean people. Truly psychotic.
A lot of this will come down to whether a grand jury forwards an indictment. If not, they should publicly exonerate her, and quickly.
Precisely. Sure, Quanell the 10th is trying to argue that the law properly applies here because the assailant was armed, where Trayvon was not... but had the racial roles in the Sanford, Florida incident been reversed you would not hear that argument.
“A lot of this will come down to whether a grand jury forwards an indictment. If not, they should publicly exonerate her, and quickly.”
Texas grand juries seem to be pretty common sense. They usually give verdicts fairly soon, but in obvious cases it may take a while.
As this case has come under national scrutiny, it may be done quickly.
“Actually, the author at LegalInsurrection makes a pretty good case it’s just classic self-defense, not SYG at all.”
I’m not sure SYG has no relevance here. Could the woman
have gotten away as the bully was advancing? She simply
said, I am going to arm myself in case this nut pulls
something on me. She stood her ground as evidenced
by her getting her rifle. She charged the weapon.
His aggressive approach was slow. He didn’t run up
and punch her, although he did punch her. The issue
is not whether she was right in defending herself, but
whether SYG comes into play, and it does. God bless
her for standing up to a dangerous bully. We need more
of her. We need to be dangerous to the dangerous
and some of those cockroaches will get the message
and back off.
While in the store, he asked about the junk in her trunk - so she showed it to him.
No, you see, you’re approaching this as if the words as used in law mean the same thing as they mean in English. Nothing could be further from the truth. And that is why I was initially confused too. And I’m supposed to know better.
See, it all hinges on whether there was a demonstrably “safe” exit. But in self-defense law “safe” is not merely, “she might get away,” but, “if she goes that route, she definitely gets away.”
And as the article points out, there are formulas of distance and speed used as a matter of regular practice in determining whether an escape route was truly “safe” in context of a particular aggressor and victim. If he’s close enough, and moving, she incurs some risk on any exit route she elects to use.
So, according to the argument in the article, which I find credible, there is no guaranteed safe route out, according to the way this would normally processed in a court of law. You may imagine a safe way out, but the court will factor back in all the risk factors. That’s why SYG is less commonly used than classic self defense. It’s actually fairly difficult to come up with the exact scenario required to invoke it.
He was only holding back because she was armed. If she had turned to get in her car and leave, she had a reasonable belief he might knife her. Thus, SYG doesn't apply, since she didn't have a safe avenue of retreat. You needn't risk your life to avoid taking out trash.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.