[youngunz4life]

That's the way it was reported in at least one account. It was reported differently in others.

it came from the woman's own mouth during the televised interview(someone posted a link if you are interested). I have no reason to doubt her, and I believe her as well.

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.

yes, and I will not answer that question again. The man committed an assault on this woman and child; if caught he can face the possibility of being a registered sex-offender for life. I for one would like to know his record & if he was involved in the previous incident. As you mentioned in your other posts, the legal threshold for shooting this man in self-defense is higher. She did not fire the weapon though. It was not necessary for her to do so. Do you have evidence that this situation was "political" as you mentioned earlier?

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.

thank you for the clarification and/or explanation about the brandishing issue. As I mentioned, I wasn't sure about that one. You almost never hear about it unless the reason was egregious: man doing it because he wants to frighten off someone flirting with his girlfriend, roadrage, etc. The charge is also tacked on when the cops want to throw the book at an idiot with as much as they can. In a situation like this, it wouldn't even be an issue.

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..

verbal warnings are extremely common. Case in point: "Ma'am, we respect what you did to protect yourself and your child but just keep in mind....yada yada yada." Basically there are nice people out there that would look out for this woman + give her advice if she was walking a fine line. It happens a lot when a cop gives a break to a criminal or someone less respected as well. It also can come from higher up.

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.

I can't take that bet. I think the focus on the investigation was catching this perp. Staright from the bottom to the top the recommendation was probably that this woman was not at fault in any way. It seems the media was informed about a possible linked, previous incident & a description was fed to the public to try and catch this person. Even the most hardcore prosecutors probably didn't give this one a second glance. As mentioned earlier, that doesn't mean the issue can't be revisited if other stuf comes to light.

Pure speculation, but at what conference, involving whom, do you assert that that probably happened?

that was watercooler talk...a joke so-to-speak

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

I know this happens. you misunderstood me if you thought otherwise.