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.
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 4 days 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 4 days 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.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Go ask a criminal attorney if there’s a self defense claim when you murder an unarmed person. In this case the transwoman was the larger person in the conflict so even if that coukd be a factor it is not one in this case
rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
But you’re making absolute statements and it’s just false.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 days ago
If you had ever followed that advice, you wouldn’t be repeating this nonsense. You would have learned the 6 general criteria required for a self defense claim, and that none of thoae criteria require the defender to be less-well-armed than the attacker.
This subject is too serious for your uninformed opinion. PM me your zip code, and I would be happy to find you a class on the laws regulating self defense.
krashmo@lemmy.world 4 days 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.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
If you are armed you can force them to leave through threats before you act violently. She did not do that according to witnesses but instead chose to murder him.
If you are armed and the other party is not you have a decided advantage that courts will not overlook. They will expect you to tell the other person to back the fuck off which this woman did not do.
You are defending someone who chose to casually murder someone because they called them a name. Is that something you should be doing?
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 days ago
You are not required to brandish a weapon because this isn’t a thing you should do outside of a movie. Waving around your gun means someone takes it from you.
This is even more laughable with a knife.
krashmo@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I’m not defending anything except my position that your assertion is incorrect. Brandishing a weapon with the intent to scare someone off is illegal in its own right in every jurisdiction I am familiar with in the US. You are giving bad advice and you need to educate yourself before you give what could be interpreted as legal advice.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 days ago
Most of the people here are rebutting your general claim that self defense is only available to the unarmed. Those rebuttals don’t constitute support for this woman.
I am making a general comment on your argument, and not specific to this case. Like most of the arguments directed at you in this thread, My comments should not be construed as support for this woman in this particular case.
You are conflating “threat” and “force”. They are distinct. A “threat” is an attempt to influence the subject’s decision to act, by making them fear a future action. “Force” is a physical action imposed on the subject.
A threat is something intended to convince the subject to decide to act in a particular way. Force is when the subject’s choices are removed, and their body is physically manipulated against their will.
Force can also be a threat, but a threat alone is not force. Holding a knife to your neck and demanding your wallet is force (your neck is being physically manipulated against your will) and a threat (you are being coerced into giving up your wallet).
There are six generalized criteria for defensive force. A person who 1. Reasonably Believes an imperiled person faces a 2. Credible, 3. Criminal, 4. Imminent, 5. Sufficient threat (sufficient = "death or grievous bodily harm) may use any level of force 6. Necessary to stop that threat.
When you articulate your arguments about this specific case using the above terminology, you will find that your opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority. There is very little support in this thread for her self defense argument.
An armed person theoretically has a greater capacity of force than an unarmed person, but threats made be an unarmed person can certainly justify a forceful response by the armed person.
secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 4 days ago
What is the acceptable level of violence LGBT people must endure before responding? Keep in mind LGBT people are constantly receiving low levels of emotional abuse: dirty looks, mean laugh, cruel comments… So when violence happens, exactly how long should someone like that wait? Would 4 punches have been okay?
Also, have you ever heard of one punch knockout deaths? They do happen, people get into bar fights, someone gets knocked out, falls backward, hits their head, and dies. Being hit and punches can get lethal…
Your logic feels transphobic to me, not genuine thought free of prejudice
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 days 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
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
So a different state has different standards. Do ypu not get how the law works in America?