this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
150 points (100.0% liked)
Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'
1364 readers
5 users here now
Rules:
-
News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.
-
Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.
-
Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.
-
Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.
Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.
Communities We Like:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Problematic" is an individual attacking you with a tow truck.
Individuals realizing that their lives are forfeit should they decide to attack is not at all problematic. Their subsequent decision to not engage in that attack is the exact opposite of problematic: that voluntary decision not to become a violent criminal is the best solution possible. There is no crime when the would-be criminal decides against perpetrating it.
"Problematic" is looking at people who stop such attacks and believing their defensive force to be a bigger problem than the attack itself. That attitude, in the mind of a would-be criminal, leads them to a different decision.
I am not discussing morality here. I am describing the laws regulating the use of force in self defense and defense of others. I am discussing some of the legal principles of self defense and defense of others.
Legally, if the article is an accurate reflection of the circumstances, the driver of this tow truck established all the criteria necessary for an individual to shoot him until his criminal threat had ended.
I don't mean to suggest that shooting him is the preferred solution. Rather, I am trying to suggest that the tow truck driver was either unaware of or unconcerned with that possibility as he engaged in his attack. Had he been aware of or concerned about that possibility, he would not likely have engaged in such egregious behavior.
He's not stealing the car. That would merely be a property crime, and you can't use lethal force in defense of property. (You can use less than lethal force, though, and if the attacker escalates from property crime to crime of violence, additional force would be justified.)
No, because the car is occupied, it's not a property crime, but a crime of violence. And again, in many states, Castle Doctrine extends to one's occupied vehicle as well as their home: any deliberate attack on the occupied car is presumed to be a violent attack on the occupants.
This is Cali, all bets are off.