Wouldn’t that also very much point towards self defense of the guy that was killed? Some teenage boy waving an assault rifle at people including him, so he tried to grab the barrel to stop him from shooting him?
But an armed person can more reasonably see that as perilous.
Not if it was unreasonable for a peaceful person to insert themselves into that situation.
He isn’t being charged with murder, so is unlikely to utilise the defense.
Aggravated assault does not require physical contact.
If a heavyweight mma fighter lunged at you, would you describe it as “that’s it?” Would you give him a fair fight? What would a fair fight even mean?
That’s revisionist history. Did the driver injure anyone? Usually accelerating a car into people does that.
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. We are discussing self defence as a raised defence, not what the correct thing to do in a given circumstance is.
I think you don’t understand how self-defense works. You don’t have to wait for the other guy to throw the first punch.
Is that what he did?
No, but it does require intent to serously harm… a lunge does not qualify. At all.
The uber driver made 2 separate turns to intentionally put him on the path with the protest (look at the map of where he turned), and then accelerated into people before slamming on the brakes. He also went searching for a confrontation. FWIW in my state he would be charged with reckless driving as pedestrians have carte blanche ROW in intersections.
The people he shot were not peaceful.
I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to a 17 year old instead of a convicted sex offender. But that’s just me.
But perilous as to what? See my knife to throat analogy above - you instigate, someone tries to disarm you, and it’s reasonable to cut them because you were in peril? That’s not what the law of self-defense is designed to protect. He can argue that, sure, but there is an “unclean hands” aspect to claiming that.
Let Stipe Miocic lunge at you. I’m sure it will turn out fine. This was a boy being attacked by grown men.
You might want to listen to the interview the dead guy gave before getting killed. He was the one who showed up looking for a fight.
Can a person claim they reasonably feared for their life (or does it matter) if it was unreasonable for a peaceful person to voluntarily be in that situation?
I think if “reasonable” becomes the deciding factor then the reasonableness of his actions leading up to the shootings should have to be considered, no?
You do know that’s another terrible analogy. He would have had to have had his gun pointing at someone’s head. No one has claimed that. Again, even those who think the kid is guilty agree that he was approached.
Yeah, like him not shooting people at random or when they got in his face calling him the n word and daring him to shoot.
Is it self defense if bait Stipe into lunging at me?
He might have showed up looking for a fight. But the kid showed up looking for someone to shoot.
Bait how? By calling his mother a whore?
He showed up unarmed so…
True - as such, unarmed people who approach gun-wielding individuals and try to disarm them prior to shots fired will enjoy the benefit of the doubt on themselves acting in self-defense.
Both parties can’t be acting in self-defense - so who do you think under the circumstances was the aggressor who aggresses prior to the first punch? The protesters? Or the guy showing up with an assault rifle?
Once more. They were chasing him, from behind one fired a gun. THEN, and only then, did he turn to see someone from the pursuers lunging in.
I repeat he was trying to escape them before a single bullet was fired. Trying to retreat. Then one of the pursuers fired a gun.
2 Likes
It’s illustrating instigation versus being a passive bystander. Here, we have instigation, and you don’t get the benefit of the doubt when you “bring it on yourself” - the fact of showing up the way he did makes it hard to argue he was a passive bystander, and it’s hard to think a jury would see it that way.
But thanks anyway.