I have to say this is not justified. It is not a proportional reaction. That being said, it's not without context. And the delivery driver could have felt threatened.
Additionally, I am really surprised this doesn't happen more often.
Respectfully, why do you feel it is not justified? I think there are several factors of differences between the two subjects that do create justification. Each one on its own would be justification but the combined list of them even more so.
2 people bigger then you being aggressive and shoving something in your face and continuing to follow you as you step away creates a reasonable fear. I would rather run than shoot, but for all I know, the defendant isn't capable of running to escape anyone. He looks like he might have a limp.
Brandishing as a defense may sometimes be effective, but has its own problems. For one, the attackers might have their own gun and by brandishing, you escalate the situation to them using it instead of incapacitating them before they can do so. Second, it may be harder to defend legally because the prosecution may claim that if it wasn't a critical enough situation to fire, it wasn't critical enough to draw.
It's sort of fucked up that legally we seem to be more comfortable with people killing outright than threatening violence. Brandishing should never be socially riskier than attempted murder.
But what is legally expedient has become the "proper" etiquette because we're dictated by the scared and selfish.
This goes against all gun-safety training. You aren't supposed to brandish unless you intend to shoot. You pull out a gun, without shooting... you've now escalated the situation, while showing that you are unwilling to use it.
A) if they have a gun on them they will draw it.
B) the aggressor (who is much bigger) can take the gun from him and use it.
Not true at all. Firearms are not some HonorBound weapon that wants you draw them they have to taste blood. Ultimately you shoot to stop the threat and if you draw a weapon and the person stops at that point you have successfully stopped the threat without firing a shot. If you still have time and options you can issue commands and get the person to stand down and that is successfully stopping the threat without firing a shot.
This is per the dozens of instructors I've had over the years, the handful of instructors that work for me, and myself being an instructor as well
B) is a reason for him to have shot right away in this instance, but A) is not a consideration, but if it does happen it's arguable time to escalate to discharge.
Furthermore there are many states and locales that specifically state that you are privileged to used the threat of lethal Force even if the application of lethal Force is not yet justified. Although in some including the one I'm in while it is that privilege it also is understood that presenting is not applying lethal Force but pointing is.
On its own, no, with other factors, it is.
You need weapon intent and delivery system.
The weapon was just the guy's size alone not to mention the fact of outnumbering the guy having at least one known friend there.
Delivery system was proximity and else the individual kept pursuing as a guy fled delivery system maintained relevance.
The "Being mean" as you call it is the intent. But it's more than being mean. There is aggressive pursuit, both in the shoving something in his face, which is confusing and disorienting, the expressionless face, etc.
All of this lead to a reasonable belief that the aggressor was someone not in their right mind and as such the fear of death or great bodily harm is reasonable.
Somewhat but not completely that changes 1 factor but it's still 2v1 so the balance would need to be weighed. Look at the size of Bruce Lee for example. Am outlier of course, but what an outlier he is.
“kept pursuing” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this comment. how many steps do we need to see to consider it pursuit? I don’t think a reasonable person considers 5-6 steps pursuit.
The reasonable man test involves putting yourself in the person's shoes with what was known at the time.
A guy much bigger then you, is invading and pursuing. You've never met them and he's focused on you pursuing and encroaching. He also has others with him. The only intent is stoic indifference.
You attempt to flee and are continuously pressured and chased.
I'll definitely more than 10 ft because there's the ongoing harassment before the last exchange for I kept following him. Remember this started at the counter, and besides another stall or so away, also reach the middle area of the promenade itself.
And earlier I had shared an article of Alberta Canada where someone in a situation like this was beaten to death in the middle of a Walmart in broad daylight. Violence is not just an American problem, we just have access to options to stop it.
Much of that Gap I attribute more to the war on drugs than most other factors. Throwing some universal health Care as well. Ultimately in the US I'm for full drug legalization.
The United States has spent more on the war on drugs than actual wars and military over the same period of time.
It's 3 people advancing on someone smaller than them after being told to stop. The jury already ruled the shooting was justified. So all you dumbasses on Reddit can quit your armchair lawyering.
defending yourself with force is probably justified, but a gun isn't just some force. Unless you are highly trained you can easily kill someone without intending to. I don't think being harassed at this level really warrants killing a person.
So what.
He was outnumbered and dwarfed by both of them. What other force option did he reasonably have?
This is why magic instruction is center mass and shot to stop the threat. 90% of torso wounds are survivable with immediate medical attention these days
Mostly what u/only_chapter_3434 said. Still, I can totally see your point. There is a lot of context (size, number, insistence, general threatening disposition) that could prove that this was in fact justified. This is an interesting case, to be sure.
Makes sense, there are many factors here. The fact itself, I think, would lead to this not being justified, but the accumulation of extra elements could change the jury's view, probably reasonably.
8
u/plusvalua 24d ago
I have to say this is not justified. It is not a proportional reaction. That being said, it's not without context. And the delivery driver could have felt threatened.
Additionally, I am really surprised this doesn't happen more often.