Update: According to Lane County Jail records, the counter-protester who was arrested has been identified as Jonathan James Wisbey. Wisbey, age 51, was charged with 1st Degree Menacing, 2nd Degree …
Slashed tire doesn't justify threatening with deadly force. Since that is what it was. How are the protesters to know its a replica airsoft gun from distance and not a real firearm. Person was injured since this person caused a fearing their lives scattering and rampage of people.
Hence why he is in charge for menacing charge. Since that is what it is and why it is a crime. Since society knows just threatening with deadly force causes panic and leads to injuries and damage.
The right response to "someone slashed my tire" us to call the cops and should one catch the perpetrator red handed, take out the obiguitous camera phone and take evidence footage of the likely by now running away perpetrator and turn that evidence over to police. That call insurance company.
The article reports everything without a hint of ambiguity, except who the tire belonged to, who slashed the tire, and whether a tire was even slashed. Would any of those details justify the actions of the goober in the pickup? No. From my point of view, it looks like dishonest and/or sloppy reporting.
Taking you at your word, if you know the fact of the slashed tire is morally and legally irrelevant, why bring it up? Might be sloppy for the reporter to have mentioned it at all.
Yes. If a tire being slashed doesn't have anything to do with either the rally or the "counter-protester", there's no real reason it should be included in a story about them.
Depending on the specific circumstances, Slashed tire doesn'tmay or may not justify threatening with deadly force.
FTFY. I do not (yet) know the particular circumstances of this case, so I can't make a definitive argument on this specific circumstance. I am addressing your blanket claim on the subject.
Slashing the tire of a car can be considered assault with a deadly weapon. If a reasonable person would believe it to be done in an attempt to illegally stop or detain an occupant of the vehicle, any level of force - up to and including lethal force - reasonably believed to be necessary to stop that attack would be justified.
That's not a particularly high bar to reach. There aren't many circumstances where slashing tires would be a justifiable use of force.
Again, I have not (yet) reviewed this particular case in depth, I'm only addressing your claim. I would not be surprised to see a claim of self defense, and I would not be surprised if that claim were successful.
It is hard for me to read this article without thinking that the author is trying to downplay that someone slashed one of his tires.
Slashed tire doesn't justify threatening with deadly force. Since that is what it was. How are the protesters to know its a replica airsoft gun from distance and not a real firearm. Person was injured since this person caused a fearing their lives scattering and rampage of people.
Hence why he is in charge for menacing charge. Since that is what it is and why it is a crime. Since society knows just threatening with deadly force causes panic and leads to injuries and damage.
The right response to "someone slashed my tire" us to call the cops and should one catch the perpetrator red handed, take out the obiguitous camera phone and take evidence footage of the likely by now running away perpetrator and turn that evidence over to police. That call insurance company.
I'm not defending the guy. He showed up to start shit and shit got started. You reap what you sow, be careful what you wish for, etc.
On top of that, the pair in the truck seem to be nuts: https://theava.com/archives/80497
The article reports everything without a hint of ambiguity, except who the tire belonged to, who slashed the tire, and whether a tire was even slashed. Would any of those details justify the actions of the goober in the pickup? No. From my point of view, it looks like dishonest and/or sloppy reporting.
Taking you at your word, if you know the fact of the slashed tire is morally and legally irrelevant, why bring it up? Might be sloppy for the reporter to have mentioned it at all.
Yes. If a tire being slashed doesn't have anything to do with either the rally or the "counter-protester", there's no real reason it should be included in a story about them.
FTFY. I do not (yet) know the particular circumstances of this case, so I can't make a definitive argument on this specific circumstance. I am addressing your blanket claim on the subject.
Slashing the tire of a car can be considered assault with a deadly weapon. If a reasonable person would believe it to be done in an attempt to illegally stop or detain an occupant of the vehicle, any level of force - up to and including lethal force - reasonably believed to be necessary to stop that attack would be justified.
That's not a particularly high bar to reach. There aren't many circumstances where slashing tires would be a justifiable use of force.
Again, I have not (yet) reviewed this particular case in depth, I'm only addressing your claim. I would not be surprised to see a claim of self defense, and I would not be surprised if that claim were successful.
deleted by creator