Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it can't. It has to be what a "reasonable person" would perceive to be a real threat of death or great bodily harm.
Reasonable person....most reasonable people once thought the world was flat. Biases, ignorance and fear of the general masses can and does play into perceptions of feat and reasonable threat.
Reasonable person....most reasonable people once thought the world was flat. Biases and fear of the general masses can and does play into perceptions of feat and reasonable threat.
"Reasonable" is a term of art, and is how a lot of laws are defined. If you shoot because someone looked at you sideways, you're definitely not a "reasonable" person. Try to argue that it's "reasonable" in front of a jury, see how far you get.
But after that he didn't start stomping, kicking or punching him. He waited to see what the man was going to do next. If the man had stood up quickly then it would have been a fight.
His next move should have been getting into the car. He didn't "wait." He took a step back, and that step back could have just as well been to wind up for a kick.
From the point of view of a man who has just hit the pavement hard, a step back would not have even been discernible. That's a point a lot of people in this thread are consistently diminishing or are simply ignorant about. The only thing the man on the ground would have known for sure is that he was in a fight and losing it.
The thing to understand is this: Don't expect to blindside a grown man, put him on the ground, and think it's just going to end like a playground tussle. Expect the man standing to start stomping, expect the man on the ground to come up fighting for his life. If you expect it to happen any other way, you're naive.
A lot of news programs are freezing the footage in that moment and then jump-cutting to the shooter raising his gun, and giving a wholly erroneous impression of what was happening.
His next move should have been getting into the car. He didn't "wait." He took a step back, and that step back could have just as well been to wind up for a kick.
From the point of view of a man who has just hit the pavement hard, a step back would not have even been discernible. That's a point a lot of people in this thread are consistently diminishing or are simply ignorant about. The only thing the man on the ground would have known for sure is that he was in a fight and losing it.
The thing to understand is this: Don't expect to blindside a grown man, put him on the ground, and think it's just going to end like a playground tussle. Expect the man standing to start stomping, expect the man on the ground to come up fighting for his life. If you expect it to happen any other way, you're naive.
A lot of news programs are freezing the footage in that moment and then jump-cutting to the shooter raising his gun, and giving a wholly erroneous impression of what was happening.
Now you are making things up. Earlier you said that he was pushed so hard that he was seeing stars. Now he's stepping back to kick him or maybe suplex him.
This is part of the problem. A dirty look or rude remark can be interpreted as a "perceived threat".
That's why "reasonable" plays such an integral part in the law. It is difficult if not impossible for the law to precisely define it, that's why it comes down to a judge and/or jury to determine if an action or feeling is "reasonable" given the context.
Now you are making things up. Earlier you said that he was pushed so hard that he was seeing stars. Now he's stepping back to kick him or maybe suplex him.
Reasonable person....most reasonable people once thought the world was flat. Biases, ignorance and fear of the general masses can and does play into perceptions of feat and reasonable threat.
Yes, that is correct. And interpretations of "reasonable" can vary from person to person. That is the way our law is designed. A panel or jury applies their standard of what is "reasonable". That is one reason you see inconsistent results where one jury might acquit while another might convict in very similar cases. That is one reason why lawyers often settle and will admit that there are no guarantees of what will happen if a case goes to trial. It's not a perfect system but it's the best system available.
Watched the video ...I think the shooter is wrong...after he gets pushed and brandishes the gun, the pusher backs off, but he shoots him anyway
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
