Those claims about Rory are unsubstantiated. There was no evidence of an alleged 70s arrest and non found in 1991. In fact, as I recall, those “crimes” weren’t allowed to be used at his trial. He was tried as if he had no past from what I read. While I’m no expert, my dad has an associates in law and an alleged felons having a gun for self defense would not be inadmissible, suggesting it never happened. His lawyer had been described as unhinged about him and reprimanded for it. The hearsay stories that float around about him are crazy. All of that, in my mind, leads toward him being made an example. Maine isn’t big on diligence.
As for topic, I understand that. Keep in mind, Maine 's self defense law removes the window of defense of they comply with a command, suggesting that, unless it is split second, one has to attempt to halt the crime in progress. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to suggest “stop” and “you’re under citizens arrest” would be equivocal.
C. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force as provided in paragraph A if:
(1) With the intent to cause physical harm to another, the person provokes such other person to use unlawful deadly force against anyone;
(2) The person knows that the person against whom the unlawful deadly force is directed intentionally and unlawfully provoked the use of such force; or
(3) The person knows that the person or a 3rd person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that the person or the 3rd person is not required to retreat if the person or the 3rd person is in the person’s dwelling place and was not the initial aggressor;
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a colorable claim of right thereto; or
© Comply with a demand that the person abstain from performing an act that the person is not obliged to perform. [PL 2007, c. 173, §24 (AMD).]
The most confusing part of this law. Non-force use of sexual harassment by certain minority classes is no justification for self defense. how is one a “victim” if they’re using sexual harassment? What this implies is weird. See below:
- A person is not justified in using force against another based solely on the discovery of, knowledge about or potential disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted nonforcible romantic or sexual advance toward the person or in which the person and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship.
[PL 2019, c. 462, §2 (NEW).]