pauldun170
Diamond Member
- Sep 26, 2011
- 9,241
- 5,266
- 136
This case has me all sorts of curious.
Is slapping someone and macing them enough cause for them to defend themselves with deadly force?
In most other cases where I side with taking the shot, they were either being pursued, in a sustained attack, being pinned, or facing a greater threat.
This seems like a case where a warning (brandishing) would be a better outcome than just pulling a gun out and killing someone out of the blue. But then I've never experienced pepper spray or mace. I don't know how harmful it is.
Then again, I think most States (if not all?) give zero regard for warnings... and outright make it illegal to brandish. AKA the Saint Louis couple facing charges. It is more criminal to brandish and warn people off than to simply pull out the weapon and kill them. Thanks Government.
Back to the case.... hitting someone with that spray should certainly be an illegal and criminal act, in addition to to the physical assault. So we do have multiple sustained assaults going on from the person who was shot. I remain conflicted at seeing use of the gun being the first act of self defense in this case. Seems wrong.
Depends on your occupation.
If you are an accountant, then slapping you and spraying you with mace is a misdemeanor.
If you are a plumber, then slapping you is a felony assault with a deadly weapon and as a protected class the perpetrator must serve a 10 years minimum.
Above were random occupations picked out of the hat
Insert relevant occupation as needed
In all seriousness
Watch the vieo and note the amount of time
An individual is surrounded by an armed group. A member of that group that is clearly holding a weapon (Pepper Spray is considered a weapon) approaches someone...strikes them and then uses a weapon on them.
The guy approached the confrontation with no weapon drawn and was struck
After striking he steps back and reaches for his weapon. The assailanrt already has his weapon in hand
Both pull weapons
Last edited: