“If you are the first person to raise a lethal threat, you lose. Period.”
Ok, then how do you defend yourself against the knockout game.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2945577/posts
According to your theory no one is allowed to defend their
self until after they are attacked. That’s B/S. I’ve had
cops pull their gun out when approaching my vehicle at night
for not signaling a right turn. I was a perceived threat
and so was the old man in the article. And just because
a person is old doesn’t mean they can’t cause bodily harm.
If you are the first person to raise an act of aggression you lose. That’s common sense. At least in Texas anyway.
I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say but I
believe it fly’s in the face of “stand your ground” laws.
My theory is that the old guy smarted off about the young
guys bumper sticker and an argument ensued. Whether baited
into or not the old guy probably threatened the younger guy
with some form of bodily harm, making himself a perceived
threat and out comes the heat. On the other hand the young
guy could be the “foolish martial artist” with his first
gun. Sill a good defense can be made on the grounds of a
perceived threat of bodily harm.
Ok, then how do you defend yourself against the knockout game
Um, its easy. The knockout game is demonstrably lethal. The question for the jury is going to be 1) did defendant perceive a real threat of great bodily harm or death, and 2) was that perception a reasonable interpretation of conditions. The knockout game would satisfy those criteria, no problem. Shouting and shoving over a bumper sticker doesn't, of itself, rise to lethal threat. Without something more in the record, the first person to raise a credible lethal threat (apparently Williams in this case) is going to have a tough time playing the self defense card. Its not my theory. It's basic crim law 101.