Seattle: Husband and wife involved in 2017 DGU on trial

[Duces Tecum]

I note in your hypothetical Fred hasn't been instigating a fight and pepper spraying people.

Well, was not antifa also instigating fights? As someone else has said, whose fault is it if both are perps? Reasonably, if fault must be found in these acts, would the faulty one not be the one who precipitated the most recent inflection point? Don't you think that pulling a knife in response to pepper spray is a bit over reactive?

Can you legally defend yourselves or others against an illegal use of force? Can someone then use force to protect the bad actor?

I'm not sure I understand who is playing which role. Is the suggestion being made that the wife (who defended her husband against Thug's illegal use of force) is righteous? But she's the one facing 15 years. Or are we saying that the husband, who appears to have been there to meet antifa on it's own terms is a worse actor than the thuggish knife-man? I would agree with the first, and disagree with the second.

[runcible]

Then that is up to:
1. The electorate to change their local representatives.
2. Prudent use of civil actions.
3. Prudent use of federal law enforcement agencies where appropriate.

Well looking at it a little more from the Woman's perspective, he just attacked her and probably threatened her. She could have employed her right to self defense right there.
*Did she know she could have the police get the firearms?
*Based on experience to date, would she have believed it? Would a reasonable person?
*She went to jail, but frankly she is alive. She might not have been had he gotten out and had access to them.

That latter from: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post896568

Having read what are seemingly endorsements both for and against vigilantism from you in a 2-week period, I was curious as to what discriminates one from the other in your judgement?

[feudist]

Do I read this right?

An lawfully armed man disarmed himself before going to a political rally.

In that rally, he got into an altercation with a man who pulled a knife on him and his wife shot the knife wielder.

She, and only she, is charged with assault.

And there is hand wringing here that the couple are violating pithy sayings? And...ergo, off to prison to learn a lesson in humility.

I get that this is a site of rather "liberal" viewpoints, socially. And there is a marked NeverTrumper presence. But, seriously?

Had she left her gun at home also and her husband was successfully stabbed, would the "3 stupids" still apply? Does the ANTIFA thug have some legitimacy of which I'm not aware?

While I personally, do stay away from crowds-period-is that the new normal? Have the streets been ceded to those whose cause is Politically Correct, and we trespass at our own risk?

[Borderland]

Then that is up to:
1. The electorate to change their local representatives.
2. Prudent use of civil actions.
3. Prudent use of federal law enforcement agencies where appropriate.

Lets keep perspective. Certain media is pushing this as a big deal. Less crime there than your average Tuesday morning in LA or Dallas.

If it weren't for the media many wouldn't waste the time to even go to a demonstration.

[Stephanie B]

Well lets apply this to the Civil Right Era. Peaceful marchers were attacked by hoses, clubs, dogs and guns. They achieved the 1964 Civil Rights Act and killed Jim Crow.

Black Panthers got shot up.

Condoleezza Rice has mentioned before that her father and other men were patrolling with shotguns to keep the bombers out in the early '60s.

[Stephanie B]

You're kidding right? You have never heard of legislating from the bench? Decisions based on a judges beliefs, not the letter of the law?

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

[Stephanie B]

I'm not the one who thinks that there are fine people engaging in political street-fighting.

Instead of insinuating that Trump actually said that, you should read the transcript in Politico: In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript). He was talking about the people that resented removing historical statues, not the right, not the left.

I know it is easier to use twisted clips from the propaganda media, but you shouldn't, really.

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.)

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, was not antifa also instigating fights?

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.

As someone else has said, whose fault is it if both are perps?

Fact dependent, and I would suppose laws vary. I've already posted my state's take on it. If you are an instigator or active participant, you have severely limited your ability to use force and then claim self-defense. My state isn't every state, though.

Reasonably, if fault must be found in these acts, would the faulty one not be the one who precipitated the most recent inflection point? Don't you think that pulling a knife in response to pepper spray is a bit over reactive?

Overreactive and legal may, or may not, be different things. I am ignorant as to how pepper spray is classified under their state laws.

[Gray01]

Have the streets been ceded to those whose cause is Politically Correct, and we trespass at our own risk?

Sympathetically: Yes. 100%

And the risk is twofold. The first risk is from the dominant culture, defined as that subset willing to aggressively use anarchic violence to enforce its demands, and apparently supported by a large political cross-section sufficient to cause law enforcement to stand-down.

The second risk is from the aforementioned political cross-section that will remain silent regarding the aggressors (signalling tacit condoning if not approval), and bring the whole force of their enforcers against the targets of the aggression, and at very least making due process into a penalty.

Fair? No. The fair is where the geeks and freaks are employed.

A self-reprise: you cannot possess incongruity without congruity. You cannot have congruity unless things go together in a particular way. If the meaning of anything is subjective, with the meaning assigned by a system willing to assign arbitrary meanings, then this is just another way of saying that the meaning is actually meaningless.

[Borderland]

You're kidding right? You have never heard of legislating from the bench? Decisions based on a judges beliefs, not the letter of the law?

It's only legislating from the bench when you don't agree with the judges decision.

I'm pretty sure when the 3 branches of gov't were set up everyone realized that judges were human just like congressmen and presidents.

How can the judicial system be any different? Of course they will be biased but they try very hard not to be. Not in the job description.