imported post
Hendo wrote:
I also have mixed feelings on this shoot but for an unmentioned (I think) reason.
Self defense does not come into play if the shooter instigated the fracas. ie - I can not call you a blanky blank - leave the immediate area, have the person follow me wanting a come back, escalationand I then shoot him claiming self defense. No.
Saying that "Although she may have made obscene gestures, she did not initiate the physical confrontation." is certainly straying into a gray and nebulous area.
Having said that, as several have mentioned, several other factors came into play, disparity of force, fear of being attacked.
My .02 judgement is - - - - -Looks like mama's got a mouth (andteaching her kidshow)and thinks carrying a gun is her Plan B backup. Bad combo.
She got a pass this time - and both are damn lucky he survived.
State v. Harris, 717 S.W.2d 233, 236 (Mo. Ct. App.
1986) (insulting or inflammatory language is not sufficient provocation to
justify an assault against the speaker; language does not make the speaker
an aggressor when he resists an assault made by the person addressed);
Additionally, (my notes in italics) from
State of Washington v. Johnny Lee Riley, Jr (Wa 1999). :
If words alone, and in
particular insulting words alone, could justify the "victim"
(victim of the words, Sanders) in using force
in response and preclude the speaker
(Brereton) from self-defense, principles of self-
defense would be distorted. The right of self-defense would be rendered
essentially meaningless because even if the "victim"
(Sanders) responded with deadly
force
(gross bodily injury is generally equivalent), the speaker
(Brereton) could not lawfully defend with force and would instead
be faced with the risk of suffering injury or a criminal conviction.
In addition, such a rule would effectively permit violence by a "victim" of
mere words
(would justify pressing an attack despite only being cursed at), contrary to the underpinnings of the initial aggressor
doctrine.