View Single Post
Old November 19, 2012, 08:11 AM   #121
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
Posted by youngguzforlife: ...her mag was actually already in the firearm(just not punched all the way in).
That's the way it was reported in at least one account. It was reported differently in others.

Quote:
if you saw someone approaching you to attack and had time to load your weapon, does that mean you weren't in any danger or threatened? of course not.
One--just one-- of the issues that is routinely evaluated in any self defense case, whether or not force was used, is the speed at which the incident unfolded. It pertains to the very critical legal questions of immediate necessity and of imminent threat.


Quote:
She had every right with absolutely no question to pull her weapon, morally, legally, ethically, in the realms of common sense, etc.
Are you aware of some evidence that she had reason to believe it immediately necessary to protect herself or her child against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another? That's the legal threshold for justification in that jurisdiction.

Quote:
I might be wrong on terminiology, but I don't think she brandished her weapon(as I said not positive about this one). I believe brandish is just to show the weapon by pulling up your shirt, making a nonverbal communication to the effect that I can use this on you, and so-on.
The term "brandish" has different meanings, and it would not be used in the Sate of Washington, where the law refers to persons who "exhibit, display, or draw" any firearm,... in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." In Missouri, the law refer to one who "exhibits a weapon...in an angry or threatening manner." The question in both jurisdictions is whether there was evidence of lawful justification.

Those are weapons offenses. In most states (but not Washington, where only the weapons offense would apparently apply), the more serious charge is aggravated assault.

Quote:
There are no behind the scenes chatter, investigation, Anything going on about anything she did wrong...no verbal warnings, nothing. He does have a point that something like that would probably be mentioned.....
Difficult to prove a negative, but you seem to think you can do it.

Why would you expect "verbal warnings?"

But you can bet your last dollar that authorities continued to evaluate the evidence and discuss her testimony after the police interviews and that no decision on charging had been made. A decision to not charge may have been made by others by now. Or not. But it is likely, I think, that she will not be charged..

Quote:
Frank ... I read some posts(not from you) talking about "politics". No, it's not politics.
In Post #38, Frank said "She'll probably suffer no legal repercussions. But that will most likely be more a question of politics."

Quote:
This one was an opened and closed book and someone probably said: "Next" while asking for another coffee.
Pure speculation, but at what conference, involving whom, do you assert that that probably happened?

Quote:
News crews usually don't get interviews from criminals(at least on purpose) while 'painting them as heroes'. That might be too strong of an expression, but she is pretty much labeled as the 'goodguy'.
There have been a number of well publicized cases in the last two or three years in which persons have been considered to have acted heroically, and have given interviews, and have ended up later being criminally charged and sometimes convicted.

Not likely to happen here, but do not believe that it does not.

Last edited by OldMarksman; November 19, 2012 at 08:17 AM.
OldMarksman is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04832 seconds with 7 queries