Posted on 07/15/2013 5:33:57 PM PDT by neverdem
Only if she's rational.
It has been my experience that the woman that is rational 24/7/365 does not exist.
Rev. Al was going on about this, I don’t tune the show in, sometimes at work, we have multiple TVs going on in the lounge. I’ll take a peek at it.
> 50% would be a plus.
Somebody needs to convert those documents to to text so that we can more easily use them, also the one describing her craziness and illegal activities, and problems with the court, after she was charged.
This gal is a psycho witch.
Her problem was she was at her ex-husband's home (she apparently had moved out). They got into a fight, and she felt threatened, and went outside to get her gun. At that point, she was no longer in danger, so self-defense was no longer a valid claim. She then went back into the house, placing herself back into a "threatening" situation, this time with her gun. In those circumstances, it was no longer a self-defense situation. If as I read she had moved out of the house, it can be argued that she was not in a location where she had a legal right to be in the first place, eliminating SYG as a defense. Even if that is not true, once she went back into a situation that she felt was threatening after arming herself, she became the aggressor.
I really though Z was going to get convicted of something, because, even though it was not a ‘lawful’ order, the dispatcher did say ‘no need to follow TM’.
As ‘liberated’ as we are in VA the law can be interpreted that if you are carrying (LEGAL OR NOT) you are basically required to avoid ANY confrontation.
Say in a ‘road rage’ type of thing that you cut someone off, then flip them the bird and become confrontational, when the other guy is ‘whuppin your butt’, it isn’t (may not always be) self defense if you shoot him as you STARTED the altercation.
‘They’ recently charged someone with brandishing in VA because (HIS CLAIM) he was taking his gun from his glove compartment and putting it in his console (or vice verse) and a school bus driver claimed he BRANDISHED the weapon at her. 2 days later they arrested him.
If there would be no justification for deadly force, "warning shots" may not be justified either, but I would think there could be situations, especially in cases where deadly force is used for a reason other than imminent risk of harm to the shooter, where a warning shot might be appropriate. As an example, if a person sees someone trying to attack someone with a knife, and it may be hard to shoot the knife-wielding attacker without risk of hitting the victim, but there exists a clear direction where a shot could be fired into the ground without danger. Would it be better to wait in the hope that one gets a clear shot at the knife-wielding attacker before he kills the victim, or fire into the ground in the hope that the sound of the gunshot would dissuade the attacker? I would think the latter course could be safer.
The fact that he allowed her to leave and gave her the opportunity to get her gun, indicates to me that she was not under the level of threat justifying deadly force in self defense.
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.