Cuck harder, @NRO / @DavidAFrench
"If a 20-something parks in a handicapped spot, a handicapped man should just avoid making a scene, on the off chance that her thug boyfriend might assault him ... and if assaulted and knocked down, he should just hope he doesn't get kicked"https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1021497144170217472 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You are always justified in firing if you are justified in drawing. There is no situation in which you can threaten lethal force but not use lethal force.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie @RdlLn and
I haven't watched the video. Someone said that he drew, and THEN the assailant backed away, and THEN he fired. If so, then that might not be justified. The attack would have justified drawing OR firing, but the retreat AFTER drawing would have made subsequent firing unjustified.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The key word is "reasonable". The standard is that the shooter /reasonably/ believes there to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. The belief is subjective. Whether that belief is reasonable is objective.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @random_eddie @RdlLn and
It's possible for a shooter to believe in an imminent deadly threat, and for that belief to be objectively reasonable, even if there was objectively no such threat at all. In such a case, the shooter would be justified in shooting and would face no legal sanction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
100% agree w Eddie. It's fundamental component of law (yes, THIS law is new, but old building block). We can not insist that person X know the full truth at time t. We can not know the exact details of someone's mind at time t. We CAN decide if their beliefs were reasonable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.