Ok, I have always felt that our judicial branch reads entirely too deep into stuff. This is a perfect example.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Op...1023/97323.pdf
That is quoted from page 7 of this recent decision. According to this decision, the woman COULD NOT claim self-defense because the "use of force" was not present. Subsequently she could now be charged with agg assault.
According to this decision, if she would have just shot the large man, then she could claim self-defense. They are saying nowhere in the K.S.A. is the term "use of force" defined, therefore it means just that, the use of force, not threat of force, not forceful yelling, etc.
So in short, tell your friends and such if they are in a situation which they believe they need to defend themselves or someone else from bodily harm or death, then they NEED NOT threaten the person, they just need to act.
Anyone else have an opinion on this??????
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Op...1023/97323.pdf
Consider the following example. One evening, a large man approaches a woman in a menacing manner and threatens, "I'm going to hurt you!" Worried for her life, the woman takes a gun from her purse, points it at her assailant, and says, "Stay where you are!" The assailant turns and runs.
According to this decision, if she would have just shot the large man, then she could claim self-defense. They are saying nowhere in the K.S.A. is the term "use of force" defined, therefore it means just that, the use of force, not threat of force, not forceful yelling, etc.
So in short, tell your friends and such if they are in a situation which they believe they need to defend themselves or someone else from bodily harm or death, then they NEED NOT threaten the person, they just need to act.
Anyone else have an opinion on this??????
Comment