Originally Posted by Mattk
You will find I have case law on my side, RC. Self-defence requires a nexus between the attack and the response. You can't simply chase down a former attacker and thump him. You can conflate the first two incidents into one mob attack incident and you'd still have two. Though, if he pulled a gun out and shot them immediately, you're right in saying that it would've been self-defence, although if they died, there may be problems.
Look, he's not going to be charged, let's leave it at that.
|
Why should we leave it?
The man was attacked and is being denied protecion or justice or defense by the system that purports to be his defender - only problem he is the victim so while the laws of the land stood to protect him before the attcak, the moment the attackers appeared, the law then stood by the side of the criminal.
Those 2 folks should come try that same stunt in a state with castle doctrine inplace - they will be surprised that the sound of the breaking glass window will be followed up very quickly by a gun shot.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that ina castle doctrine state such an attck is unlikley to have taken palce to begin with.