Posted on 03/30/2017 8:41:14 AM PDT by SSS Two
Elizabeth Hokoana shot a protester because she believed her husband, Marc Hokoana, was in imminent danger of death or serious injury during a Jan. 20 demonstration at the University of Washington, her attorney says.
The wife of the man initially suspected of shooting and wounding a protester during a January demonstration at the University of Washington has told police and prosecutors that she was the person who fired, her attorney said Tuesday.
In an interview with The Seattle Times, the attorney, Steve Wells, said his client, Elizabeth Hokoana, shot the protester because she believed her husband, Marc Hokoana, was in imminent danger of death or serious injury during the Jan. 20 incident in Red Square.
“The evidence shows Mrs. Hokoana was legally justified,’’ Wells said of the incident, which occurred outside a campus hall where then-Breitbart editor and “alt-right” provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was delivering a speech.
The case remains under investigation by the UW Police Department and has yet to be submitted to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which will decide if charges should be filed.
Marc Hokoana, whose Facebook page has indicated he is a supporter of President Donald Trump, Yiannopoulos and the National Rifle Association, was identified in a Feb. 14 Seattle Times story as the shooter based on court documents and previous accounts of the incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
At this point, liberals could use this line of reasoning to walk up to any Trump supporter and shoot him (or her) dead.
In general, I’m a big fan of shooting terrorists. If this was a Ctrl-Left thug attacking a decent American for supporting free speech, I’m okay with the permanent solution to that problem. [Even if it was a lefty shooting someone who identifies as a republican but who was using violence to suppress free speech, I’m okay with the permanent solution to that problem too.] About 47% of the country supported Hillary - we don’t need any more traitors or terrorists.
Well we all know about those vicious dangerous troublemaking Trump conservatives.
The University of Washington has a “Red Square”? Whodda thunk.
Looks like a colorable claim of self defense does indeed exist. The two individuals were some distance apart. The guy who got shot closed the distance quickly and confronted the alleged shooter. The only thing is that I can't say with certainty who fired the shot.I still think self-defense (or defense of others) is a colorable defense, and I still don't know who fired the shot.
This is a new version of events. Everything I’ve seen before said that it was the husband who fired the shot, and most people assumed he was anti-Trump because he described the protester who was shot as “some kind of white supremacist,” not a leftist thug. We thought he was a somewhat naïve and inexperienced liberal who didn’t know that these Antifa thugs look and act like the very sort of skinheads they claim to oppose.
No. You mean he was attacked by a Trump supporter?
In that case, I have some sympathy.
If indeed Elizabeth Hokoana is the shooter, it will put into doubt any witness who claimed that Marc Hokoana was the shooter.
Think about it, if a witness claimed Marc Hokoana was the aggressor and shot Joshua Dukes, what would you think of that testimony? I mean, if this hypothetical witness didn’t see the event well enough to identify the shooter, his description of things that happened *before* the shooting would be suspect, too.
It’s called that because of the brick used as pavers.
In other words, just being in the presence of patriotic, freedom-loving Americans, regardless of any overt aggressive behavior, constitutes “being in danger” and thus justifies all measures of “self-defense.”
Within days of the event, local Seattle media had identified the shooter as a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos. Of course, the media seemingly inaccurately identified Marc Hoakana as the shooter.
The bottom line is that this isn't a new version of events except for the claim that Elizabeth Hokoana is the shooter.
They could say it, and they would. That doesn’t mean it would hold up.
I hope you didn’t change your mind because of which “side” the players were on.
You’re reading it wrong.
The “protester”, who was “protesting”, i.e., attacking, anything Trump, was attacking Mark Hokoana, who is a Trump supporter. Mark Hokana did not shoot the protester. Mark Hokana’s wife shot the protester because she believed, correctly, that her husband Mark was indeed in danger.
I WONDERED when this story would resurface.
Story says video indicates shootER was retreating, shootEE was advancing. People engaged in lawful activity were being assaulted and battered. LEOs were dodging thrown bricks. I predict shooter walks.
I would hope so, but not optimistic in the liberal sh!thole of WA.
No, I changed my mind because I had assumed the Trump people were the victims, not the perpetrators. I didn't think the Trump people attacked anyone.
I don't think it's good for people to attack other people, regardless of which side they're on.
Stuff like this shouldn’t be happening. That is, Democrats phyically assaulting people because they do not agree with them. I see this as a failure of the mayors and police in this city. They may have even been on a stand down order like Berkeley 2016?
Any judge working on common sense would throw this charge out.
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.