Quote:
|
Most people will grudgingly accept the necessity to use violence in self defense, but generally only under the clearest and most compelling circumstances.
|
....and grudgingly accepting or rejecting by people as to the necessity to use violence in self defense should be weighed after all the facts are gathered.
One would like to think that with diligent investigating and today's modern forensics , if a person is guilty of shooting a person and claims SD and it's not, the shooter gets put away. On the other hand, if facts prove it is SD, then no charges pressed.
A couple years ago, in the South end of Cols.,Ohio, we had a group of teenagers(anywhere from 10-15 teens) cruising the parks. They were ,as they put it, "playing a game they called 'knockout". They would randomly choose a victim and make bets before they approached the victim to see if a chosen teen could knock the victim out with one punch.
Most of the victims were middle aged to older males. I believe the oldest victim was in his mid 60's.
This went on about all summer before a group of teens was finally arrested. Prior to the teens hearings, the media showed up at the courthouse and interviewed some of the victims as well as the parents of some of the teens. One parent(term used loosely) actually said on camera that "she didn't feel her son was being treated fairly and that all the kids were doing was playing a game".
At any rate, the judge passed out strict sentences to the teens along with a very stern tongue lashing which entailed not only was it possible to injure or kill someone with one punch but the possibility of someone shooting them in SD.
Course, this same stupid mother that stated "the kids were just playing a game and her son was just being picked on and singled out", left the courtroom talking that same, all to familiar crap...
....Her son was specifically I.D.'ed as a hitter by a victim in the courtroom.