...when and if a Chicago security guard, who allegedly shot a man three times over a dispute about him not wearing a "Covid mask", is found not guilty based upon his defense lawyer's claim he shot the man in self defense (once while the victim was standing and two times after he fled and had already fallen to the ground) because he was not wearing a mask and posed a threat to others!
As I seem to recall, you shoot to stop and the guy was stopped as he had fallen to the ground after the first shot. Also, except under very limited circumstances, a threat of death or serious bodily injury must be imminent for someone to shoot another person in self defense; I don't see how imminence was present. One more thing, the guard is allegedly a four (4) time convicted felon, twice convicted of sexual crimes against children, who was forbidden by law from carrying firearms. More at the source.
Honestly folks, if this guy's defense is successful based on that claim, well it really may be time to leave the planet. Hopefully the guy he shot will recover fully and will sue the company that hired the guy as a guard with that criminal record. In defense of the alleged shooter, he claimed he was not the guy with the sexual assault against children convictions; maybe he is and maybe he is not but he reportedly admitted to the cops he shot the guy. As for his defense of self-defense though, it should be laughed out of court and his lawyer disbarred in my opinion!
All the best,
Glenn B
1 comment:
I remember seeing this argument floated a year ago, when someone was trying to make the argument that sneezing on someone during a pandemic was grounds for shooting them in self-defense.
The normal justification for deadly force self defense is imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm. Even at the most panic-stricken part of the pandemic, the covid survival rate was in the high 90% range meaning the chance of death/grave bodily harm was quite low (more like 0.2%)
Lawyers will argue with what they have and this guy has a (scumbag) lawyer who's doing it, but with any luck the prosecutor will make this point and make the defendent explain why at worst a 0.2% chance of harm was worth shooting someone over.
Especially when you add in the other things you mentioned such as the number of rounds fired, the timing of the shots and was the guy down and he kept shooting.
Post a Comment