My 2 cents, though long winded ones:
As a criminal defense attorney in CA, where the PC anti-gun anti-2nd AM hatred is rampant, even we still have generally the same ‘self defense’ rules and definitions as the rest of the country - deadly force only if imminent harm if threatened. Juries here, and elsewhere, regularly convict shooters that act outside those rules. especially the extreme cases like the TV woman ‘finishing the job’ on the stalker out on the sidewalk. The rare exceptions to convictions are also like that TV show, where the jurors recognized the reality that the stalker was not going to stop his criminal attacks, and the jury decided to act as a ‘Star Chamber’ since the woman did the ‘right’ thing under the circumstances when they learned the ‘justice’ system failed her.
Yes it is a form of vigilante justice, both for the woman and the jury, but sometimes, hopefully rarely, that is the ‘only’ justice available from the legal system.
The worst case scenario, least justifiable - How many times over the years have you read about some obviously guilty, caught red-handed, already confessed, evil murderer, rapist, child molester, etc., getting off on a ‘technicality’, and some grieving family member taking the law into his own hands? Was he right/justified?? Depends upon the true facts, the failures of the justice system, and your righteous moral outrage. Was he doing justice, protecting society from imminent harm, or acting in vengeance?
Remember please, that We The People have the God given right and responsibility of our self defense, otherwise we wouldn’t be carrying guns, right? We have merely assigned part of those rights to the government, courts and ‘law enforcement’ agencies. If that system fails to faithfully act, or can’t successfully do so, then the People sometimes may have the need and moral right to apply the law themselves to the benefit of society. That is little different from the reality that if a violent criminal is attacking you in your home, you don’t have to wait for 911 response instead of defending yourself, since help may never come, or be untimely. Kind of like the TV woman.
Just to be clear, as an attorney I would never counsel anyone to break the law or exert vigilante justice, before or after the fact, or directly ask a jury to do so. That is a difficult moral decision only the citizen or juror can make for themselves. Although, I would ask jurors to have ‘sympathy’, to do real ‘justice’, and put themselves emotionally in the shoes of the stressed, fearful defendant at the time of the act before deciding guilt. Ask yourselves whether you are doing ‘justice’ or ‘vengeance’. There is a moral difference.
The attorneys trying to explain, and the law abiding citizens trying to understand, these rules and arguments, point up the reality that most people don’t know enough about the ‘law’ to make ‘proper’ judgments under high stress, like the TV woman. As one of the posts mentioned, if she had in panic rapidly fired all shots inside her house, she would have been on much sounder footing to asset self defense ‘under stress’, and an easier case for me to argue to the jury.
My position, with clients, family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, as is the position of USCCA, is to be prepared to defend yourself where-ever you are, be legal in doing so, get good training in self defense law, and in use of your firearms.
Yes, I question a lot when it comes to TV shows and movies.)
