3 ms·
By saying "did not clearly rise to lethal", you have changed the goalposts. You started by saying the grandmother needed it to defend herself against assault.
by dalke 10y ago
By saying "did not clearly rise to lethal", you have changed the goalposts.
You started by saying the grandmother needed it to defend herself against assault. I gave an example of an assault where a weapon proved worse than useless.
You did not say the grandmother needed it to defend herself against manslaughter or attempted manslaughter, which is what it would have been had the level of force risen to lethal.
You said a weapon was useful so ""anyone weaker than an attacker" being able to successfully make themselves an unattractive target." Yet here was a case where the presence of a gun made the victim an attractive target for assault.
- hga 10y agoYou're confusing me with one or more others in this sub-thread, all I've mentioned in my single other comment was about the number of fatal accidents and the like, I've not even commented on disparity of strength issues here. In short, I said nothing that you said I said... I commented on the assault on Clarence Daniels simply because it made a big stir in RKBA circles and therefore I know a fair amount about it, and I felt you were misrepresenting its lessons, as well as possibly the law. And misinformation on when you're allowed to use lethal force is downright dangerous, although this case is relatively close to the threshold, depending on how effective the perpetrator's choke-hold was (it was said to be not very good). I also presume this 62 year old man was a lot more fit and strong than an "80-year-old grandmother" (especially having watched my parents make the transition from late '60s to early '80s or thereabouts in the last dozen years, kinda scary).