This does not excuse her wrongdoing, but to suggest that it's OK to physically assault someone because they flipped you off or said something mean is ridiculous. And that's what you're saying if you say
Quote:
It is no longer self defense if you provoked the fight, IMHO.
No actually it is not. Any attack on them is still illegal (if there was even going to be some further attack which is debatable as he stopped and spit on her), but the liability becomes split and it is no longer simply self defense.
Let us give a more clear cut example of why:
Take for example gang member A seeing gang member B. Gang member A starts saying things about gang member B's gang to intentionally spark a fight. If gang member B attacks him that is still a crime being committed. Gang member B may even be intent on doing serious damage or killing gang member A. So Gang member A may really have his life in danger.
But because gang member A said things he knew would cause a violent reaction if he then "defends" himself in a way which results in serious injury or death to gang member B he is still guilty of criminal action.
If you call someone out to a fight you are a mutual combatant. If you say things a reasonable person would expect to illicit a violent response you are a mutual combatant. They are still breaking the law as well, but if the law they are breaking is misdemeanor battery and the law you are breaking is 'assault with a deadly weapon', 'aggravated assault', or even 'homicide/attempted homicide/murder'.
That is where there is a lot of discretion left to a jury. What would a reasonable person expect to illicit a violent response from such an individual?
Another example would be your typical chest thumping between men often in places like bars. Where one man starts saying things which clearly are not merely an opinion or a disagreement, but names or words inclined to incite violence. Even if the other guy throws the first punch, they are both mutual combatants and every injury that results criminal because of how things started.
You cannot simply say whatever you want as long as the other person reacts violently first. Like those who bait people into a fight and then claiming self defense. That is a mutual combatant.
The person that attacked them can still be arrested and charged for breaking the law, but so can they.
The fact that he moved near her and fell on her sounds suspicious to me, especially when he wasn't even at his stop yet as he remained on the bus when she got off. It sounds like he may have tried to grope her and claim it was an accident.
Possible. He may also have been intoxicated and losing his balance or simply fell as a result of a turn or action of the driver.
Either way his actions were wrong. He sounds like a jerk and even if the result was a woman over reacting verbally to an accidental fall, unable to swallow his pride.
She would have been right to be upset with him, even if his fall was a complete accident.
To get off the bus some time after the incident and then taunt him though is still a choice which takes her from any possibility of being on the moral high road down to his level. Except she carries a loaded firearm with her and relies on it to back up her up when her mouth gets her into unnecessary and avoidable trouble.
Prosecutors said in the statement that that Sara Brereton, 31, "acted in defense of herself, her children and her partner" by using her legally licensed pistol.
So it sounds like a lesbian couple, as there is no mention of boyfriend, spouse, or husband, but rather politically correct terms like "partner" in related stories.
What type of influence did that have in Seattle? I know it would have a big influence in places like San Francisco. Where the entire influential and vocal gay/lesbian community will cry foul if any even perceived potential of injustice takes place against one of their own, even when a straight person would have received the same result. Seattle being somewhat similar it may have played a big role.
The individual who was shot may have been a person that would have required self-defense, or he may have been someone simply unwilling to let an argument go after being taunted. The actions of the entire group though greatly reduce their credibility in the area of making appropriate decisions while emotionally upset.
Which while it does not mean they are necessarily criminally guilty of having acted wrongly in the decision to shoot, most people would still have had to go to court for that to be decided by a jury in a similar situation where they demonstrated poor judgment.
Yet they did not.
They provoked someone, mutually escalated the situation, and then someone got shot, but they do not even have to prove the facts in their favor in a court of law.
It is a unique result, and one no reader on this board should expect as a normal response from the legal system if they are in a similar situation.
