Note that I’m not necessarily opposed to her facing consequences for killing him – my issue is with how gleefully NYPost is framing it as if she just attacked him out of the blue and shoehorning her into the “evil transgenders” stereotype

        • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
          131·
          16 days ago

          That’s complete bullshit.

          How many manslaughter cases have there been where 2 people get in a fist fight and one of them gets brained on the concrete?

          To be clear, the claim that it’s legally indefensible may be true, but your life is absolutely in danger in an unarmed fight

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
          3·
          16 days ago

          Armed vs unarmed is not a definitive factor in a self defense case. The criteria are that a defender who 1. reasonably believes they face a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm, may use any level of force 6. necessary to stop that threat.

          Reasonable belief, credible threat, criminal threat, imminent threat, sufficient threat, necessity of force.

          An unarmed attacker can, indeed, generate all six criteria required to justify lethal force in self defense.

          The jury doesn’t seem to think that happened in this particular case, but it certainly can happen and has happened. Please don’t repeat that nonsense that it can’t.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
          131·
          16 days ago

          The person doesn’t have to have a weapon to be a threat to your lif. Based on your logic someone could say I’m going to beat you to death and go about doing it and 10 minutes later with 17 broken bones you’d have no case for self defense that doesn’t track at all.

          I think you misunderstand

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
          51·
          16 days ago

          Yes, as the armed person you do not have any claim of self defense against an unarmed person.

          This is absolutely false. Arming yourself does not prevent you from making a claim of self defense against an unarmed attacker. “Being armed” does not negate your claim.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      73·
      16 days ago

      That’s easy to say when you’re not the one getting punched in the face repeatedly. You never know how far a violent person will go.

        • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
          72·
          16 days ago

          armed people will never have a self defense claim against an unarmed person

          Oh bullshit. 95lb woman against me, a 225lb man? If I were to attack a woman like that you are saying she shouldn’t be able to level the field.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          16 days ago

          This is basically fabrication. For instance around here in WA a woman shooting a man attacking her was deemed self defense because he presented a threat of great bodily harm or death you know actual legal standards. If she didn’t use it her merely having the gun wouldn’t prevent said harm so she got a free pass to ventilate him.

          He lived she didn’t go to jail

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          75·
          16 days ago

          The specifics of this case are irrelevant. You said multiple times that an armed person has no claim to self defense against an unarmed person and that is demonstrably and obviously untrue. The fact that you’re carrying a weapon doesn’t require you to tolerate unlimited violence by someone without a weapon. That’s crazy.

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
              6·
              16 days ago

              You are not required to brandish a weapon because this isn’t a thing you should do outside of a movie. Waving around your gun means someone takes it from you.

              This is even more laughable with a knife.

            • krashmo@lemmy.world
              3·
              16 days ago

              I’m not defending anything except my position that your assertion is incorrect. Brandishing a weapon with the intent to scare someone off is illegal in its own right in every jurisdiction I am familiar with in the US. You are giving bad advice and you need to educate yourself before you give what could be interpreted as legal advice.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
              2·
              15 days ago

              You are defending someone

              Most of the people here are rebutting your general claim that self defense is only available to the unarmed. Those rebuttals don’t constitute support for this woman.

              If you are armed you can force them to leave through threats

              I am making a general comment on your argument, and not specific to this case. Like most of the arguments directed at you in this thread, My comments should not be construed as support for this woman in this particular case.

              You are conflating “threat” and “force”. They are distinct. A “threat” is an attempt to influence the subject’s decision to act, by making them fear a future action. “Force” is a physical action imposed on the subject.

              A threat is something intended to convince the subject to decide to act in a particular way. Force is when the subject’s choices are removed, and their body is physically manipulated against their will.

              Force can also be a threat, but a threat alone is not force. Holding a knife to your neck and demanding your wallet is force (your neck is being physically manipulated against your will) and a threat (you are being coerced into giving up your wallet).

              There are six generalized criteria for defensive force. A person who 1. Reasonably Believes an imperiled person faces a 2. Credible, 3. Criminal, 4. Imminent, 5. Sufficient threat (sufficient = “death or grievous bodily harm”) may use any level of force 6. Necessary to stop that threat.

              When you articulate your arguments about this specific case using the above terminology, you will find that your opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority. There is very little support in this thread for her self defense argument.

              An armed person theoretically has a greater capacity of force than an unarmed person, but threats made be an unarmed person can certainly justify a forceful response by the armed person.