[sourcery]

In the absence of mens rea, there is no basis on which to charge Mr. Beck of, or convict him for, any crime. However, Mrs. Denmark is fully entitled to civil compensation by Mr. Beck for her injuries, pain and suffering. This is because Mr. Beck's need to defend himself, although it prevents his actions from being criminal, does not give him the right to injure any innocent person. One person's need never justifies violation of the rights of someone else.

[Mulder]

However, Mrs. Denmark is fully entitled to civil compensation by Mr. Beck for her injuries, pain and suffering.

Mr. Beck was acting in defense of his life. In the process he probably saved the life of Mrs. Denmark, not to mention saving her some trauma to areas below her belt.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone that attempts to bring criminal or civil charges against someone else that was acting in self-defense is a real POS.

Even moreso, when they probably save your life.

[KrisKrinkle]

"...Mr. Beck's need to defend himself...does not give him the right to injure any innocent person. One person's need never justifies violation of the rights of someone else."

You're asserting that self-defense is a need, not a right?

[SUSSA]

If Denmark sues, I hope the jury considers that Mr. Beck probably saved her life.

"Logan opened the sliding door of the van but was shot before getting inside, police said."

Had this turd gotten in the van, you can bet she wouldn't be here to "whine about people taking the law into their own hands."

[PLMerite]

"However, Mrs. Denmark is fully entitled to civil compensation by Mr. Beck for her injuries, pain and suffering."

All responsibility should fall upon the thug, Logan. Of course, Logan doesn't have any money. Mr. Beck's employers however have insurance and "deep pockets." The lawyers will dictate who gets sued by whom.