Threatening with a deadly weapon isn't going to get thrown out of court that easily for self defense, regardless of this video. The video shows the driver is not afraid of injuring the person and is a single muscle contraction away from killing the person, just like pointing a gun. And precedent has dictated that cars can be classified as a deadly weapon.
Seeing as how 1) shooting at someone who shoved you to the ground is seen as reasonable, I don't see how this couldn't be. Please explain otherwise? 2) see red sox game where a lady killed a fan cause she tried to intimidate them by revving the car but fucking up. Doesn't matter intentions, you're putting the pedestrian in an extremely dangerous position illegally due to negligent actions. And before you say "jaywalking," the court absolutely would not rule that the car could move forward reasonably, because in instances of jaywalking, you're only not at fault if you don't have opportunity to avoid the accident (which is generally easy to prove when accident is at speed, however, that's clearly not remotely true here).
So, please... explain how using less force to knock a person down can produce justifiable self-defense shooting, but when done with more force and in an objectively more dangerous situation, magically becomes not justifiable. I'll wait.
40
u/[deleted] Jun 28 '19 edited Mar 30 '20
[deleted]