Nm
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
"No duty to retreat" can almost never be used if one chases after someone, especially over a petty, allegedly 'assault' (with no 'battery') like this.
Although I do have to say ... some will think twice about doing this to someone at a fast food joint next time.
Although I do have to say ... some will think twice about doing this to someone at a fast food joint next time.
As soon as someone disengages, say to drive or run away, you lose the imminent threat. Without imminence, there is no self-defense, period. SYG doesn’t even enter into the conversation."No duty to retreat" can almost never be used if one chases after someone, especially over a petty, allegedly 'assault' (with no 'battery') like this.
Although I do have to say ... some will think twice about doing this to someone at a fast food joint next time.
Assuming a standard prosecution, unless she can convince a jury that the guy represented a clear and imminent threat to her or another, she will be found guilty. I’m guessing that she will plead to something less than attempted murder and spend a good deal of time in prison. Although you never know what SA’s are going to choose to prosecute or not these days.
Yep. I explain this to Progressives outside of Florida, especially DC, and they don't believe me. But they are media sheep.
Similar threads
