Man is threatened with a knife on school property, he retrieves a gun, situation diffused. He is charged with having a gun on school property. Judge says he should have pointed the gun at the guy to prove he needed the gun for self defense.
I immediately thought of a comment I left at Marko's place.
... Of interest is the fact that in some states, the only level of response to a threat you are afforded is the final level. Similar to warning shots, anything short of “I feared for my life” response can be interpreted as unlawful activity. If I have a gun and a bat, and a man approaches to attack me, and I decided to use the bat, it could be argued that I was not in fear for my life, and simply wanted to take the opportunity to beat someone up. Similarly, use of a paintball gun when I had a gun nearby could mean I wasn’t in fear for my life, and therefore unlawfully discharged a gas-powered projectile launcher within city limits, and perpetrated animal cruelty (a felony in Ca.)
In such cases, it makes legal sense to go straight to self-defense level force.
It’s unfortunate that the laws are such that we have limited non-lethal options, but no one seems to be in any rush to stop civil and criminal lawsuits where people chose not to use lethal force. The gray area has been turned into a white area, leaving the only sensible action in the black.
Kinda sucks.
No comments:
Post a Comment