Why not. Would she have been justified in shooting Drejka in those circumstances?
Why not read the law and find the answer to your own question?
Based on the interpretation of the law you and others are using? Then clearly she would be in the right. Based on the law itself I would say no, but based on the law Drejka should not have gotten off either. The law states that deadly force can be used to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another person. Does being pushed down constitute "great bodily harm"? The law states that deadly force is not authorized to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. Like a push. So by the law, she shouldn't be able to shoot. But by popular opinion around here she could claim that she was in fear of imminent death and blaze away.
“Based on the interpretation of the law you and others are using? Then clearly she would be in the right.”
Did Drejka commit battery on the woman? Did he enter her car? No he did not so she never had the right to use deadly force.
Don’t paraphrase the law to your liking. If you reference it cite it because you’re just making things up to suit your own opinion. Like omitting the “reasonably believe” part from great bodily harm.
When Drejka was pushed down battery occurred fully displaying Markeis’s intent to harm. When Drejka was on the ground Markeis took another step towards him. THAT is the point Drejka had the right of self defense. At that point Markeis had established his intent to harm Drejka and by stepping towards Drejka when he was on the ground his intent to cause additional harm to Drejka. The self defense law was triggered.
Yeah, everyone else has it wrong but you got it right.
I asked you to read the law and get your answers from that. But you refuse to read or accept it. Why? Because you are biased. You are a bigot. Don’t respond to me anymore.
You could not care less about the law or the opinion of others. You respect neither.