There is almost no self defense claim to be made in a stabbing in NY. If you have a knife and the other person is unarmed, as was the case here, your life isn’t the one at risk.
You cannot legally argue you were acting in self defense when you stab an unarmed person. The courts won’t even let you start that argument. There is nothing that would indicate their life was specifically at risk in that moment.
Armed vs unarmed is not a definitive factor in a self defense case. The criteria are that a defender who 1. reasonably believes they face a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm, may use any level of force 6. necessary to stop that threat.
An unarmed attacker can, indeed, generate all six criteria required to justify lethal force in self defense.
The jury doesn’t seem to think that happened in this particular case, but it certainly can happen and has happened. Please don’t repeat that nonsense that it can’t.
The person doesn’t have to have a weapon to be a threat to your lif. Based on your logic someone could say I’m going to beat you to death and go about doing it and 10 minutes later with 17 broken bones you’d have no case for self defense that doesn’t track at all.
Yes, as the armed person you do not have any claim of self defense against an unarmed person.
This is absolutely false. Arming yourself does not prevent you from making a claim of self defense against an unarmed attacker. “Being armed” does not negate your claim.
Regardless armed people will never have a self defense claim against an unarmed person. She cuts in line, starts the fight by spitting on the guy and then murders him. there isn’t a court that would see a self defense claim there.
The specifics of this case are irrelevant. You said multiple times that an armed person has no claim to self defense against an unarmed person and that is demonstrably and obviously untrue. The fact that you’re carrying a weapon doesn’t require you to tolerate unlimited violence by someone without a weapon. That’s crazy.
This is basically fabrication. For instance around here in WA a woman shooting a man attacking her was deemed self defense because he presented a threat of great bodily harm or death you know actual legal standards. If she didn’t use it her merely having the gun wouldn’t prevent said harm so she got a free pass to ventilate him.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
There is almost no self defense claim to be made in a stabbing in NY. If you have a knife and the other person is unarmed, as was the case here, your life isn’t the one at risk.
Witchfire@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You can absolutely get murdered by an unarmed person
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
You cannot legally argue you were acting in self defense when you stab an unarmed person. The courts won’t even let you start that argument. There is nothing that would indicate their life was specifically at risk in that moment.
Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
That’s complete bullshit.
How many manslaughter cases have there been where 2 people get in a fist fight and one of them gets brained on the concrete?
To be clear, the claim that it’s legally indefensible may be true, but your life is absolutely in danger in an unarmed fight
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
So if an MMA fighter starts kicking your ass, you aren’t allowed to use a weapon to defend yourself because they are unarmed?
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Armed vs unarmed is not a definitive factor in a self defense case. The criteria are that a defender who 1. reasonably believes they face a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm, may use any level of force 6. necessary to stop that threat.
Reasonable belief, credible threat, criminal threat, imminent threat, sufficient threat, necessity of force.
An unarmed attacker can, indeed, generate all six criteria required to justify lethal force in self defense.
The jury doesn’t seem to think that happened in this particular case, but it certainly can happen and has happened. Please don’t repeat that nonsense that it can’t.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
After getting hit 3 times?
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yes, as the armed person you do not have any claim of self defense against an unarmed person.
She was s struck after she spit on the guy which is also assault.
She is lucky she is not in a state with the death penalty
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The person doesn’t have to have a weapon to be a threat to your lif. Based on your logic someone could say I’m going to beat you to death and go about doing it and 10 minutes later with 17 broken bones you’d have no case for self defense that doesn’t track at all.
I think you misunderstand
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
This is absolutely false. Arming yourself does not prevent you from making a claim of self defense against an unarmed attacker. “Being armed” does not negate your claim.
krashmo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s easy to say when you’re not the one getting punched in the face repeatedly. You never know he far a violent person will go.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
She spat on him first which is also assault.
Regardless armed people will never have a self defense claim against an unarmed person. She cuts in line, starts the fight by spitting on the guy and then murders him. there isn’t a court that would see a self defense claim there.
rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Oh bullshit. 95lb woman against me, a 225lb man? If I were to attack a woman like that you are saying she shouldn’t be able to level the field.
krashmo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The specifics of this case are irrelevant. You said multiple times that an armed person has no claim to self defense against an unarmed person and that is demonstrably and obviously untrue. The fact that you’re carrying a weapon doesn’t require you to tolerate unlimited violence by someone without a weapon. That’s crazy.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is basically fabrication. For instance around here in WA a woman shooting a man attacking her was deemed self defense because he presented a threat of great bodily harm or death you know actual legal standards. If she didn’t use it her merely having the gun wouldn’t prevent said harm so she got a free pass to ventilate him.
He lived she didn’t go to jail