Quote:
|
The level of threat is defined by the recently brandished gun. If the imminence of the threat does not exist the use of pepper spray was unjustified
|
I'm not sure that I agree on any basis, whether it has been written into law or just as defined by 'reasonable man'. This is still a pretty lousy example of justification of use of force.
If an assailant at some point goes beyond the threshold that justifies use of force and then stands down, it's pretty simple, the justification for use of force is changed. On a case-by-case basis, a gun put back in a pocket is de-escalation, and until he drew it again defensive use of lethal force had been totally redefined. So, unless the situation is clearly codified into law, the question and every complication is thrown into the hands of the court system.
There obviously is no defining legal code that fits this.
He put the gun down, but at no point that I saw did he drop his aggression. The level of threat was altered a bit, but not eliminated, was it? The guy was still in possession of the gun and still exhibiting the same level of aggression.
A person who believes that an armed and aggressive assailant intends to cause him great bodily harm doesn't have to have a gun in his face to be absolutely certain that he is in imminent danger of harm. Mace is an acceptable way of dealing with a situation exactly like that.
From what I, a reasonable person saw, very little had changed. An armed man was acting unpredictably and aggressively. He took reasonable and sensible measures to prevent a murder.
The police and prosecutors believe so.