Originally Posted by SDW2001
Check out the lawyer's quote:
Good lord. Okay, you can make the argument he went too far in defending himself (or may have). In fact, I believe I did just that earlier. But to frame it is "the guy that did the beating?" Wow, that takes some cojones.
Well prepare to see the exact same type of cojones in the general election. Can you believe the head of the DNC actually claimed there have been no job losses under Obama? I mean they aren't even attempting to be truthful.
The case here was a clear loser from the get go. The law is pretty clear about how much of a threat a layperson has to absorb when being attacked. The answer is none. Occasionally cops get into trouble for being overly aggressive in their treatment but they have an entire system of responses, levels of threat and leadership they are supposed to consult. A regular person on the street has nothing like that.
It's also crazy to see how the bar has moved on matters like this. We used to see people complaining about wild and out of control people pointing silver cellphones at the police and they ended up dead. Now we see the same people complaining about.....pepper spray. It just shows there's no level of force they will endorse and they basically want their own authoritarian views endorsed and their own force tolerated. That is the view of the lawyer and his clients. The women were clearly out of control and chasing the man yet they are the "innocent victim" here. It's nonsense.