“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.
An angry man advancing on a woman in a threatening manner? Fear for life and safety - bang.
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.
You could not care less about the law or the opinion of others. You respect neither.
Half right. I respect the law. Your opinions? Not so much.