Seattle: Husband and wife involved in 2017 DGU on trial

[GardoneVT]

Coming back to the facts of the case as recorded, a reasonable person goes out of their way to avoid trouble. This burden is in fact even higher if they are armed.

Others have made this point as well, but IIRC Mas Ayoob once wrote the acceptance of a CCW meant the surrender of their “badass” card. Seeking out situations involving a fight or provoking one thereof is not likely to win points with a competent jury. Shooting someone over a political difference might be celebrated in some areas of the world, and thankfully this isn’t one of them.

[ssb]

Ok, so are we now in agreement that Hypothetical Fred is NOT the same fact pattern as this real case? He's not just walking through a crowd, he's not just somewhere stupid. He's an active participant. I keep asking, but did you read the charging information? He's telling people to stand in front of him so he can pepper spray the crowd or individuals per witnesses. What, exactly, do you think his goal was to have someone stand in front of him to hide his actions while he pepper sprayed people? Multiple witnesses used terms like "egging on" and "aggressive", that he kept touching people, etc. He is *not* simply attending a political rally. He is *not* simply walking were stupid people are gathered. He is actively being one of the stupid people and, legally, likely inciting a riot. Let's stop with the hypothetical scenarios that suggest it's the same.

While I generally agree with your analysis here, one concern I do have is that these witnesses apparently placing the pair acting like willing participants in the political thunderdome are almost certainly themselves participants in that same political thunderdome. They're likely interested parties in the sense that their "side" was attacked, which may color their perceptions of the events.
Worse, it could lead to outright falsification -- from watching the news over the past few years, I've developed the distinct impression that our current crop of millennial leftists aren't the most honest people on the planet.

The non-testimony evidence they've been able to piece together seems to show:

1) Husband, who ostensibly has [pro-Milo/pro-Trump/pro-Whatever] views, says dumb things about cracking skulls if Team: anti-Milo/anti-Trump/anti-Whatever gets out of line; he indicates he will not carry a gun to the event, but that his wife will be armed;
2) The husband pepper sprayed somebody at some point for reasons unknown;
3) Dukes assaulted -- or could reasonably be perceived as having assaulted -- the husband and his hand appeared to be empty during that assault;
4) Some statements to the effect of "calm down," "don't shoot," and "they have to start it" -- with no context given -- are ascribed to the husband by an analyst; and
5) The wife shot Dukes.

Interestingly, the alleged victim is refusing to testify based upon a supposed belief in "restorative justice" and a criminal conviction not solving anything, which the cynic in me views as a way to skirt taking the Fifth. I think it's a shit-show all around, but without seeing the full suite of evidence, what's contained in that charging document isn't enough to convince me the couple used self-defense as a pretext to shoot up some snowflakes.

[Bart Carter]

Point out, to me, where I brought up Trump saying that.

Clue: I didn't. I was responding to the comments of another participant. (Feel free to go back and look.)

Really? You expect people to believe that you don't know that is attributed to Trump?

[Duces Tecum]

Ok, so are we now in agreement that Hypothetical Fred is NOT the same fact pattern as this real case? He's not just walking through a crowd, he's not just somewhere stupid. He's an active participant. I keep asking, but did you read the charging information? He's telling people to stand in front of him so he can pepper spray the crowd or individuals per witnesses. What, exactly, do you think his goal was to have someone stand in front of him to hide his actions while he pepper sprayed people? Multiple witnesses used terms like "egging on" and "aggressive", that he kept touching people, etc. He is *not* simply attending a political rally. He is *not* simply walking were stupid people are gathered. He is actively being one of the stupid people and, legally, likely inciting a riot. Let's stop with the hypothetical scenarios that suggest it's the same.

Perhaps he was (technically) inciting a riot but so was the antifa contingent. In any event, that is a side issue.

We seem to differ on five major points:

• The husband's intent was never lethal: he brought pepper spray, which the Post Office issues to their delivery people as as dog repellent.
• The Thug's intent was clearly otherwise: he planned just as carefully and brought a knife.
• The husband's stupidity at no point rose to a level justifying deadly force, thus
• the Thug was inappropriate when he responded to a dog repellent with a lethal weapon.
• The wife's deadly response was appropriate to the circumstances.

Because I do not think common ground can be found, I can extend this discussion no further than identifying our points of disagreement. Clarity is important. If we differ, we should know where. I compliment you on your responses. You have carried your position longer than I imagined possible, and I'm grateful you took the time to noodle this around.

I benefited from your thoughts.

Thank you.

[HCM]

While I generally agree with your analysis here, one concern I do have is that these witnesses apparently placing the pair acting like willing participants in the political thunderdome are almost certainly themselves participants in that same political thunderdome. They're likely interested parties in the sense that their "side" was attacked, which may color their perceptions of the events.
Worse, it could lead to outright falsification -- from watching the news over the past few years, I've developed the distinct impression that our current crop of millennial leftists aren't the most honest people on the planet.

The non-testimony evidence they've been able to piece together seems to show:

1) Husband, who ostensibly has [pro-Milo/pro-Trump/pro-Whatever] views, says dumb things about cracking skulls if Team: anti-Milo/anti-Trump/anti-Whatever gets out of line; he indicates he will not carry a gun to the event, but that his wife will be armed;
2) The husband pepper sprayed somebody at some point for reasons unknown;
3) Dukes assaulted -- or could reasonably be perceived as having assaulted -- the husband and his hand appeared to be empty during that assault;
4) Some statements to the effect of "calm down," "don't shoot," and "they have to start it" -- with no context given -- are ascribed to the husband by an analyst; and
5) The wife shot Dukes.

Interestingly, the alleged victim is refusing to testify based upon a supposed belief in "restorative justice" and a criminal conviction not solving anything, which the cynic in me views as a way to skirt taking the Fifth. I think it's a shit-show all around, but without seeing the full suite of evidence, what's contained in that charging document isn't enough to convince me the couple used self-defense as a pretext to shoot up some snowflakes.

The cynic in you may be at least partially correct but another factor is the victim, Dukes, is an avowed anarchist and ANTIFA member. ANTIFA’s motto is literally “All Cops Are Bastards” or “ACAB.” In keeping with their anarchist ideology they routinely refuse to call police, file charges or participate in court proceedings as victims or witnesses. They prefer to handle it themselves in the street or by doxxing their opponents.

[ssb]

The cynic in you may be at least partially correct but another factor is the victim, Dukes, is an avowed anarchist and ANTIFA member. ANTIFA’s motto is literally “All Cops Are Bastards” or “ACAB.” In keeping with their anarchist ideology they routinely refuse to call police, file charges or participate in court proceedings as victims or witnesses. They prefer to handle it themselves in the street or by doxxing their opponents.

That's an angle I didn't factor in.

From a prosecution side, despite my initial reaction of "that's what subpoenas are for" when I read he wasn't going to testify, I can understand not calling him as a witness. The case -- if it can be proved -- can likely be proved without his input, and I can't imagine him being a good witness (and that's setting aside the fact he'd be forced to admit he assaulted one of the defendants immediately prior to being shot). That probably took some wind out of the defense's sails, as while I doubt he'd admit to having a knife as is apparently claimed by the wife, there's all sorts of fun stuff I could imagine getting out of an Antifa member as part of an attempt to prove the victim was the first aggressor.

[HCM]

Interestingly enough, though, the Feds held that only the non-CWP individual killed was the one the KKK was responsible for (in a civil rights trial). They basically said since both sides knew the other would show up prepared for violence, that there wasn’t a clear rights violation when they engaged each other.

It’s an interesting thought. Setting aside state laws, basically the Feds said if you want to show up and mutually kill each other, we’re fine with that. But don’t kill people not formally part of either group that plans violence on the other. And you have to both be prepared and planning violence.

Anyways - back to the topic at hand. This case does make an interesting public litmus for both Antifa and Self-Defense.

On the one hand, given the proclivities of Antifa protesters to be violent, going armed makes logical sense. On the other, planning to run your mouth and engage directly you start to run against the line of “reasonable” actions.

First, Greensboro was a long time ago.

Second, the problem with your hypothesis is that both Antifa and Alt right protestors have proclivity to be violent. The people attending these things are doing so to engage in mutual combat. It is well established that knowingly and willingly engaging in mutual combat negates claims of self defense and victim hood.

[LittleLebowski]

Wow, I’m taking a step back as I can’t keep up. Ya’ll holler if it gets too rowdy

[Bart Carter]

Again: What do judges have to do with the issue that's being discussed here?

Well, if you re-read my post, I thought my questions had to do with my concerns about consequences of my decisions to carry and protect. One of them is the possibility of a bad ruling by certain biased jurists. Sorry if it was too off-topic for this thread. BTW, where are the rules for staying on topic in a thread? I don't want to be called out again for concerns that I may post.

At what point do we say to ourselves we will stop going places because we are afraid of bad people? Not saying going to be confrontational. What if I wanted to hear Ben Shapiro speak at a conservative event? Should I just stay home because of fear of protesters left wing fascists? Do I not carry as I normally do because of leftest judges?

[HCM]

Perhaps he was (technically) inciting a riot but so was the antifa contingent. In any event, that is a side issue.

We seem to differ on five major points:

• The husband's intent was never lethal: he brought pepper spray, which the Post Office issues to their delivery people as as dog repellent.
• The Thug's intent was clearly otherwise: he planned just as carefully and brought a knife.
• The husband's stupidity at no point rose to a level justifying deadly force, thus
• the Thug was inappropriate when he responded to a dog repellent with a lethal weapon.
• The wife's deadly response was appropriate to the circumstances.

Because I do not think common ground can be found, I can extend this discussion no further than identifying our points of disagreement. Clarity is important. If we differ, we should know where. I compliment you on your responses. You have carried your position longer than I imagined possible, and I'm grateful you took the time to noodle this around.

I benefited from your thoughts.

Thank you.

What’s missing from your analysis was that this was thug vs thug.

The wife claims the Antifa subject had a knife but the video of the incident doesn’t support that. Do we know if a knife was recovered? I’m not aware of one.

The husbands intent was to engage in mutual combat so he left his gun at home and only brought pepper spray because he knew his wife would provide him lethal cover if he bit off more than he could chew. The Antifa subject, I call him that rather than the V word because he also came to engage in mutual combat, had the same intent and also bit off more than he bargained for.

It is important to be intellectually honest about the fact that people who seem to share some of our beliefs can be extremists and criminals.