Long time readers know that I am an accredited self defense and home security expert with close to two decades of experience. Ever since my state legalized concealed carry, I am routinely armed not only with a concealed firearm, but also a variety of less-lethal self defense devices.
Lethal force is considered to be a reasonable response to a threat of grievous bodily harm or death. At least it is here in Ohio.
So what presents this threat? When would a reasonable person think that they are in danger of losing their lives, or becoming disabled or disfigured? Easy enough to determine if the criminal attacker is armed with a knife or gun, but it can be tricky if they aren’t.
Interesting video over at Gateway Pundit, where two people were the victims of an unprovoked attack by protesters taking part in a sidewalk chant organized by ANSWER, the Communist group.
Notice that the victims are outnumbered, and the attackers are using the wooden shafts of their protest signs as weapons. Also note that one of the victims was young and fit, and was smart enough to use the tripod of his video recorder as a makeshift self defense device against the perps.
Am I suggesting that the victims should have shot their attackers? No, and not least because I agree with comment #16 at the GP post. But I am wondering if it would have been legal.
Any lawyers amongst our readers want to tackle this one?