jimmyraythomason
Member
Seems to me that not throwing anything out of your car window, while driving, could have prevented this entire mess.
Seems to me that not throwing anything out of your car window, while driving, could have prevented this entire mess.
If the attack was over then the justification for deadly force does not exist. You can not defend yourself against an attack that has ended. It's as simple as that. If she reasonably believed that the attack would continue then she would have been justified in using deadly force, but a solid rule of thumb is that deadly force is about prevention/defense, not about retaliation/punishment.Your first sentence is too absolute to be accurate; there was a window (and it's what I was referring to) after the slam where she would have been fully justified in defending herself; since he was larger, male and (presumably) disproportionately strong, lethal force would likely have been seen as 'reasonable.'
That's what I was trying to get across with the comment about: "If the evidence showed that the attack was still in progress at the time deadly force was used and also that the attack was likely to cause serious injury or death, and also that there was no reasonable alternative but to use deadly force, then deadly force would have been justified to prevent serious death/injury."After the body slam, she had been the victim of a physical assault which would make a reasonable person afraid for their life; IMMEDIATELY following (as in, we're hitting the ground) she would have, IMHO, been fully justified in stopping what a reasonable person could conclude was an on-going attack.
If the attack was over then the justification for deadly force does not exist. You can not defend yourself against an attack that has ended. It's as simple as that. If she reasonably believed that the attack would continue then she would have been justified in using deadly force, but a solid rule of thumb is that deadly force is about prevention/defense, not about retaliation/punishment.
In the video, the attack ended with the body slam and therefore shooting the man afterwards would have been murder.That's what I was trying to get across with the comment about: "If the evidence showed that the attack was still in progress at the time deadly force was used and also that the attack was likely to cause serious injury or death, and also that there was no reasonable alternative but to use deadly force, then deadly force would have been justified to prevent serious death/injury."
The word "after" should be a red flag when it comes to the use of deadly force. Justification for deadly force is associated with the words "imminent" and "in progress", punishment and retaliation are associated with the word "after".
Did you read my entire post?Did you check the time period I suggested, John?
.Perhaps.Until he turns away, most reasonable people, having been body-slammed, would believe they were in the *middle* of an attack; ...
At least the person slammed could so contend.....until he does something to signal he's not pursuing it further, self-defense would be warranted.
.Perhaps.
At least the person slammed could so contend.
But one who has not done everything possible to avoid the need for using deadly force (the legal term is preclusion) may not prevail in a defense of justification.
The man was obviously acting in an unlawful manner, but that alone would not justify the use of deadly force against him.
The first sentence of the original post, ''The backstory that's been released is that this woman threw something from her car that the guy in the pickup says hit his truck''.The perp accused the lady of throwing something out her window. There's a difference.
Irrelevant.The first sentence of the original post, ''The backstory that's been released is that this woman threw something from her car that the guy in the pickup says hit his truck''.
i don't believe the "back story". Who were the witnesses? We have a scumbag who has served two prison sentences for domestic violence. You can believe that this man was provoked if you want to.
That is not a sure thing, but it is likely. That is what I was getting at with one of my earlier posts.Something caused him to choose this particular woman.
Ya... Probably a whole lot of stupid on both sides; criminal on one side. I always tell my kids, if they end up in a road rage situation, to dial 911 and just drive to the nearest police station.
And how many folks know where their local police station is, let alone if you are traveling someplace you have never been before?
And how many folks know where their local police station is, let alone if you are traveling someplace you have never been before?
Unless this is a serious road rage where the other person is driving erratically and maybe trying to force you off the road; then you might not be able to use your phone. If I'm taking a cross country trip, I am not taking chances of getting an Interstate and maybe finding myself in that "wrong neighborhood" or getting lost on side streets. Just sayin', finding that local police station isn't always that easy. We had a situation where a young woman went to the main police station in town about 8 or 9 at night and couldn't get in. She was being chased by her ex who gunned her down at the front door because it was locked..........With all of the navigation apps on smart phones and all the navigation systems in vehicles the location of the nearest police station should be easy enough to find. Even if you don't have a navigation app on your phone or a nav system in your vehicle, a call to the police should be able to get you directions. They can also dispatch an officer to meet you somewhere if it's a long drive to the nearest police station.