Link Removed
Neglecting all the argument about alcohol and guns and assuming (like in Washington), this woman would have been perfectly legal to possess a firearm (I know South Carolina is different) as long as she wasn't in the >21 years old restricted area (Washington law). At what point would she have been justified in shooting the perpetrator?
Would it make a difference if he showed a badge at the beginning and claimed that he was arresting her on some BS "causing a disturbance" or "breaching the peace violation" given the totality of the circumstances involved?
Is it justified to use deadly force to prevent a restraint which could result in grave bodily harm or death, or is it required to ascertain an actual intent to cause grave bodily harm. For example, let's say this guy just flashed his badge and said he was going to arrest her, while he was obviously under the influence of alcohol but showed no indication he was going to harm her. And then after he got the handcuffs on, he proceeded to do what he did.
Neglecting all the argument about alcohol and guns and assuming (like in Washington), this woman would have been perfectly legal to possess a firearm (I know South Carolina is different) as long as she wasn't in the >21 years old restricted area (Washington law). At what point would she have been justified in shooting the perpetrator?
Derrick approached a female soldier from Fort Jackson who appeared to be upset. The report states 23-year-old Brittany Ball showed no interest in Derrick and the two started arguing.
Police say Derrick, who was not in uniform and was drinking alcohol, left the restaurant and returned with handcuffs he retrieved from his vehicle.
Derrick overpowered Ball, handcuffed her, pulled her to her feet, and slammed her head into a metal table, the report states. Ball, according to the report, was also drinking alcohol.
"And about the time I got my video out, he had her turned around and was putting her in handcuffs. I mean she never yelled at him. She never resisted. She was as calm as she could be. Obviously she was scared, I mean when you get arrested, especially if it's your first time you're going to be scared."
A police officer who reviewed video of the incident reports hearing Derrick say, "This is how Marines deal with soldiers," while slamming the woman into the table.
Would it make a difference if he showed a badge at the beginning and claimed that he was arresting her on some BS "causing a disturbance" or "breaching the peace violation" given the totality of the circumstances involved?
Is it justified to use deadly force to prevent a restraint which could result in grave bodily harm or death, or is it required to ascertain an actual intent to cause grave bodily harm. For example, let's say this guy just flashed his badge and said he was going to arrest her, while he was obviously under the influence of alcohol but showed no indication he was going to harm her. And then after he got the handcuffs on, he proceeded to do what he did.