Gun Not Needed.

[Rivoak]

It’s good to see an SD situation where just a good case of old fashioned pint sized whoop butt is all that’s needed. I was a little disappointed that the other bigger male employees didn’t come to her defense, but the on the other hand she had enough fire in her maybe they weren’t needed.

https://apple.news/AWw3IJAWFRFyY1TPlHtqtAg

The point is even if I had been there, I would not have used a gun to intervene. I don’t think under the circumstances, resorting to lethal force could have been justified. The danger in pulling a gun in such a situation would be if rather than subduing the situation it escalated it, could be a manslaughter charge as a result if you did end up shooting. My philosophy is never pull a gun unless I intend to shoot it.

Opinions?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rivoak]

It’s good to see an SD situation where just a good case of old fashioned pint sized whoop butt is all that’s needed. I was a little disappointed that the other bigger male employees didn’t come to her defense, but the on the other hand she had enough fire in her maybe they weren’t needed.

https://apple.news/AWw3IJAWFRFyY1TPlHtqtAg

The point is even if I had been there, I would not have used a gun to intervene. I don’t think under the circumstances, resorting to lethal force could have been justified. The danger in pulling a gun in such a situation would be if rather than subduing the situation it escalated it, could be a manslaughter charge as a result if you did end up shooting. My philosophy is never pull a gun unless I intend to shoot it.

Opinions?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I realized this is probably in the wrong forum so the moderator should feel free to move it to news and politics or delete if need be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Citori_cx]

Honestly extremely hard to say not being there none of us really know how dire the situation was. Let's however play Devil's Advocate. In order to justify lethal force in self-defense you have to meet five elements and all must be met. Innocence, Imminence, proportionality, Avoidance and reasonableness.
First let's look at innocence. Obviously as a bystander that is armed you did not start the argument there for innocence armed bystander.
Next Imminence. This I guess could possibly be a little more difficult not being there and seeing what actually happened. Was she in immediate danger of grave bodily injury or death let's face it it was a man versus a woman who is much larger and much stronger so maybe so will leave this one up in the air for now.
Next proportionality. Is the use of deadly force proportional to what the offender is using himself. Well a man again is much bigger and stronger than a woman there for much love more likely to do grave bodily harm even though he doesn't have a weapon other than his hands and feet. I would therefore concurred that proportionality would be in your favor. Avoidance I guess that kind of depends on the state do you have a duty to retreat does that even apply to defending someone else's life maybe so if she could have broken free from the guy and retreated back behind the counter again hard to say not being there and I'm not really sure on this stuff. Next reasonableness. Again the actual circumstances would really depend and it's hard to say not being there. However I would think that it could be seen as a reasonable act acting reasonable in defending a woman that is much smaller less strength etc etc against a male attacker even though he doesn't have a weapon so I could see where reasonableness would be in your favor.

I am going to guess that the woman reacted so quickly to fight back that there would have been no time or need to defend her with a gun I'm sure it could not even have been safely done without risking her life as well. However had she remained defenseless in the guy started beating on her I think you would be justified in all five elements would be in your favor
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk