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.
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?
krashmo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
You are defending someone
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.
If you are armed you can force them to leave through threats
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 3 weeks 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
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The standard is the same foreveryone in NY. Your life has to actually be at risk As the transwoman was armed and the larger of the two people in this fight AND they started the entire conflict they do not meet this standard.
Im bisexual. i have been called many names and threatened many times and yet I havent murdered anyone. Why are you defending this person who was at every single step in the wrong?
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.