Yeh, but when someone attacks you and it's the heat of the moment, you continue to stab/shoot until the threat stops (just as the police do.) That's pretty much black letter law. Now, if the attacker backed off or fell to the ground or ran out the store and the guy advanced and kept stabbing, then maybe we'd need to talk about it. But once you attack me and violate my rights, you forfeit your rights. And I agree with you regarding our only having a vid and not all the facts. I feel the same way every time there's a vid about police behaviour and the media plays an excerpt of the action over and over and over with no context.
No, it's just certain (D) cities. It's like that "American has more gun violence that the rest of the world" stat that keeps getting posted. It's not America...it's a handful of liberal cities with lax criminal prosecutions and hyper gun-control laws. Adjust the data for their violence, and we drop from #1 to #185 or so.
The whole process has already exacted punishment on him and told the rest of us what will happen should we be in his position and do what he did. In the meantime, the list of actual crimes prohibited by actual legislation that shall not get enforced grows even longer. *sigh*
Yeah, they always want to send the message that if you defend yourself, you're going to jail. Years ago, every news station and newspaper covered a story about a guy who had been saved from a shark attack. Only a few mentioned that he was saved when a citizen on the beach used a gun to shoot the shark. That didn't fit the narrative so they chose to leave people wondering how he managed to save himself.
Did anyone read coverage of the mall shooting in Greenwood, Indiana? It was stopped when an armed citizen shot the perpetrator before the cops even got there.
If it isn't broke, don't try and fix it ! If the court had spent more time on more serious matters that have yet been rectified versus undoing something that was already declared legal, we would not have such a mess going on now. I am neither pro or con , as it depends on the circumstances of each person.
I never lived in New York City or state, but I used to spend a lot of time there, as I had friends and college mates who lived in the City. I tried to take my wife once, but when she saw all the cars that had been stripped along the highway, she refused to stop. I was born in northern New Jersey, and my parents used to take us (brother and me) there a lot. The reports I get form the City and state now make it sound like I wouldn't want to go there now. Wonderful Mayor Adams has mentioned taking busloads of New Yorkers to Texas to campaign and knock on doors in Texas to get folks to vote for O'Rourke since the "Sanctuary City" stuff doesn't look so good when you have to stand behind your words. Supporters of Abbott said, "Send 'em down. Once they see what life is like in a "Free State", many of them may elect to stay, and we can use the buses to transport more illegals to the city when the buses return. We are blessed with Lisa Murkowski because her opponent in her first election decided to bring college kids from California up here to campaign for him. Nothing could have been stupider. Alaskans--and I imagine Texans also--don't look favorably on "foreigners" trying to influence our elections. Murkowski was behind in the polls then, as she was--and still is, hated by many people who live here, but everyone on the fence voted for Murkowski because of the interference.
The toll to get across bridges and tunnels to Manhattan, I have heard, is over $35. That alone would keep me out.
Maybe a New Yorker can answer that, but they used to let you cross free INTO the city, but charge you to leave.