Posted on 07/24/2013 1:37:04 PM PDT by marktwain
Hungry for another claimed example of a deadly Stand-Your-Ground defensive encounter, the mainstream media has seized upon the gas-station shooting death of a black man by a rifle-armed woman, also black, this past Sunday in Houston.
Video of the encounter was captured by the gas station’s security cameras, both inside the enclosed portion of the station, where it seems the encounter began, and out by the pumps where the encounter turned deadly.
Much of the information available to date is from “news” sources, so the “facts” as described must be considered malleable. It appears, however, that the man made some unwanted sexual advances on the woman inside the gas station.
When the woman was standing beside her car near the pumps, the man–58-year-old Louis Daniel–who was killed can be seen circling around the rear of the car, in an aggressive predator-like fashion, then closing distance with her. He was holding what appears to be an umbrella in his right hand, and the news claims he was holding a knife in his left, although this is not discernible in the low qualify security footage. A knife was, however, recovered near his body.
Pretty rough when even Quannell says he checked it out and could not come up with any verification.
“I was mistaken, slightly, about the 911 call. She called her mother and had her mother call 911.”
Interesting. At least on author recommends that you have someone else call 911, because everything you say on 911 is recorded and can be used against you in a court of law.
“If she had turned to get in her car and leave, she had a reasonable belief he might knife her.”
Problem with that is that she *did* turn her back
for a second. Maybe that was to show herself to
be tough enough not to be scared, which is reasonable
tactic. (She turned her back when she was getting
her rifle!)
I agree that she was justified in what she did,
on these grounds:
1. “I’m not going to run even though I have a knife
wielding person menacing me. Instead, I’m going to
get my rifle to make him back off.” This is reasonable
because no one is required to be terrorized by thugs.
2. “I’m ready to do what it takes, but I want him
to back off by a. telling him to do so, then b.
presenting my weapon, and then c. shooting at his
foot.”
3. “I’ve just been attacked by the knife wielder;
he’s obviously more sick than I thought because he
did so in the face of my deadly weapon; and so
I know he presents a more deadly threat than I thought.
so now I need to shoot to kill.”
Inside #1 is the choice to stand her ground. (She
even looks down for a second and points to the ground,
ostensibly to inform him that he’s about to have
some toes go missing.)
#2 shows the fact that she had not yet determined
how grave the threat was. The weapon was not yet
pointed at the man’s chest; yet it was one foot from him.
He could easily have wrestled her for it. Her
move here is a sign that she thought he would still
see the sense of backing off.
In #3, she *now* realizes that she can’t retreat.
Before she is obviously not expecting a blow or a stabbing,
but now she has to assume that her life really is
in grave danger. Not before as evidenced by her
actions! Otherwise she would have immediately pointed
the weapon at his chest or head.
The no-safe-exit doctrine obviously only comes in at #3.
It doesn’t matter whether she actually could have had a safe
exit at #1 or #2; what matters in a court of law is
whether a reasonable person would believe that she
feared for her life with no way out.
Maybe you could say that SYG is irrelevant because
of #3, but I think #1 and #2 also come into play.
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.