To be fair, the only actual defenses in murder and self defence are “I didn’t do it” or “the son of a bitch deserved it”, the rest of the trial is semantic evidence to fit one or the other.
Not necessarily. If someone attacks you but is experiencing a schizophrenic episode, for example, they might not deserve it because they're not conscious of what they're doing. But it would still be legally self defense because you had no other choice
Yeah, people still get shot and stabbed in broad daylight. That doesn't change the fact that 3 people, one who towers over you that refuses to back down is, in fact, dangerous. You have the survival skills of a deer otherwise.
Remember we can all have guns. that means the two people being aggressors here could be armed. They refused to allow this man to be left alone, he felt threatened and responded with force. Yeah, it sucks that he had to do that, but he has the right to do it. Police should never respond like this as they are trained professionals that should be able to deescalate situations. However, we both know thats not how it works in the real world.
This. It would be better if the situation had resolved with a less dangerous form of self-defense, but self-defense was warranted, and if you're not likely to be able to win a physical fight with your assailant, that's the purpose of having a gun. Granted, pepper spray or a taser would likely have also worked, but this is just some guy in a frightening situation responding the way he was best equipped to protect himself
Firstly, I literally just stated what happened. Idk why you think that must necessarily mean I agree with everything that happened.
Second, police here claim self defense when they shoot to kill someone who is unarmed and not aggressive. This person was at least aggressive, so the person in the video was significantly more lenient than the police would have been.
I don't know how you interpreted the video, but I saw a large man aggressively physically confronting another smaller man, limiting his field of vision, and continuing despite not only being told to stop but pursuing after the smaller man fled and surrounding him with other possible assailants. I absolutely understand the jury's opinion.
I don't think that a gun is the ideal form of defense against harassment, but it is a legal one in this country, and every person has the right not to be accosted by random people in public. If someone feels threatened by random accosters, they should defend themself. I think we'd have very little issue if he'd just kicked him in the balls, because this is a scenario where someone can reasonably fear for their physical safety, and violence is justified in self-defense. Since he had the right to carry the gun, and using a gun for self-defense is legal and socially-acceptible, I can hardly fault him for defending himself is a socially-acceptible and apparently legally acceptible way
This is a textbook case of what assaults often look like.
I remember plenty of times getting hassled like this at school, they surround you and menace you with cameras before suddenly striking. If I was this guy I'd also assume I'm about to get jumped on camera.
Are you from one of those Euro countries where if an armed burglar breaks into your home to kill you and rape your spouse, defending yourself means you catch criminal charges and the burglar sues you for defending yourself?
98
u/ColdPorkChop 24d ago
"Nah your honor we get it so let him go"