I think the woman behaved in an acceptable and understandable manner.
Anyone who has ever been in a situation where they have been under immediate attack will be under an adrenaline rush. Fine motor skills and highly reasoned thinking is not possible.
Someone else in hindsight might say it was an overreaction, and the woman carried on when it was unnecessary. Put that person in the same situation, with them under attack, they will change their tune, or end up being the one going to the hospital or the morgue.
The person going through the trauma at the time will feel totally justified, because they are acting in the moment, and perceive that the threat isnât over.
Understandable, maybe. Acceptable, no. Otherwise she wouldnât have legal trouble. It was also reckless. I know we all want to be Charles Bronson but in a self-defense situation, survival is the most important thing. Chasing after someone does not get you out of danger but potentially gets you into more danger.
The last shot that she appears to take, is at someone actively approaching her.
The video makes this a lot less clear than an open field with no cover, where she might be shotting at someone hot footing away.
I agree chasing after someone, potentially can get you into more danger. That can be a classic ambush manoeuvre.
My argument still stands, sheâs still reacting to the situation, and its undecided at the time if in her mind the altercation is actually over, whether the attackers possessed their own concealed weapons. Were they regrouping. Sheâs still in fight mode, after them bitches jumped her.
If I was in a jury I would always rule in favour of the defendant, for self defence. The person unjustifiably attacked always has the benefit of the doubt from me. Monday morning quarterbacking doesnât work in the heat of the moment.
And if she were to chase after an attacker, catch them and the attacker begs her to not shoot her but she shoots anyway (executes her, really), then what? I donât like the idea that we can get away with killing people because of what we think they might do.
If you canât control your emotions you shouldnât own a gun.
Under the situation you described things start to change, the context is different, she is being offered a choice, and there is a reasonable chance for the person with the gun to disengage with fight mode. In this case that didnât happen, so its not of much relevance, in this situation.
When someone gets ambushed out of the blue, almost no one would be able to control their emotions, despite psychological training. You arenât thinking you are reacting, in the most primitive way. Its a hormonal dump, fight or flight response, and no one can know what they would actually do in the situation, unless they have been through something similar.It can even happen to experienced police or soldiers. How many times do you hear about a cop getting criticised by a well meaning member of the public for emptying a whole mag into an armed offender. Some people say why didnât he shoot the weapon out of the offenders hand, or just shoot them in the limb. `You just donât have the luxury of time, there and then to make a considered decision.
~There are cases where police officers have thought they were grabbing their tasers to subdue an offender, and instead end up drawing their pistol and accidently shoot and kill the person.
~In that case yes the police made a mistake, but under the stress of the situation plans and training can and sometimes do get thrown out of the window unintentionally.
Shooting the weapon out of the hand is something only a few dummies say. Also, officers are not trained to to use wound force with a firearm. But thatâs the point; the justification for lethal force. State of mind can explain its use but not justify it.
And that cop should not have been or continue to be a cop.
But that doesnât mean you get a get out of jail free card. No one forces anyone to be a cop just as no one forces anyone to legally buy and carry a gun. The idea that it isnât fair to hold human beings to a certain standard because they are, after all, only human doesnât take into account that we are talking about people who willingly armed themselves with a weapon that can kill another person relatively easily. If they arenât prepared to accept that reality and responsibility then they shouldnât arm themselves. Not everyone should be a cop and not everyone should carry a gun.
I donât know whether she would automatically be justified in shooting a single, unarmed attacker, just because that person is returning.
Itâs also important to remember that charges are just based on probable cause. Theyâre not a guilty verdict. Thereâs a vast sea between âitâs reasonable to believe that she probably intended to commit aggravated assaultâ and âthereâs no reasonable doubt that she intended to commit aggravated assault.â
I havenât seen the video or anything but I think the discussion has moved on from this specific incident to a general self-defense discussion about when itâs justifiable to use lethal force.
State of mind can justify why someone uses deadly force, in a self defence scenario. If they believed they were under a serious threat and feared for their life. Thatâs really the only justification and reasoning they need to show.
No ones saying anyone gets a get out of jail free card(except Jussie Smollet). Sometimes prosecutors have a hard on to convict a certain person in these self defence cases, despite the majority of reasonable individuals think it shouldnât go to a trial. In most cases its due to politics, and its an abuse of the judicial system, and the defendant.
Slightly different caseâŠwhere a 40 odd year old female security guard was doing her job, collecting cash payments from businesses to be banked. She was attacked by a man in the carpark, had the shit beaten out of her and the money stolen. As the attacker was fleeing, she drew her pistol and shot him dead.
Despite having obvious, gratuitous facial injuries, the fact she had publicly pissed herself out of fear(a common involuntary response), the police or prosecutors wanted to charge her with some kind of murder related crime. There was a massive public outcry due to the unfairness of the situation, and the authorities didnât take it any further. Nevertheless she spent several weeks under the stress of the crime against her, and the impending charges. The case was open and shut and she should have never been threatened with charges.
Iâve refrained from further commenting in this thread because Iâm not familiar with the law in the US when it pertains to the use of firearms. But looking at what you described here, it is possible she would have been found guilty if the case had made it to court. Itâs certainly not âopen and shutâ.
Yes Nick, Thatâs the case, Sydney Australia, 15 years ago. It only seems like 5 or 10 years at the most to me.
Australia has much tougher gun laws the United States, you arenât legally allowed to carry weapons for self defence, not even non lethal stuff like Mace, or a taser.
That report is pretty bare bones. I remember watching the news that night, the news crew got there pretty quickly. The woman had the shit beaten out of her, the crotch of her pants was soaked with piss, she looked distraught.
I question common sense of the security company to let a tiny woman security guard, by herself do collections. You really need at least two people, even if they are both men.
The women never worked security again.
Why complain about a security guard killing a robber, especially after he had beaten the shit out of here. They are trained and licenced to carry firearms to do their job, surely it can be no surprise when they have to actually do what they are supposed to do.
Even the robbers parents didnât hold a grudge against the security guard, for doing her job.