On 5/28/04 8:29 PM, "John M. Maraldo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There were a couple of meth heads in his front yard - the father of his
> wife's daughter and the father's girlfriend. They had come onto his property
> to argue their custody case. They tore up his front yard with their car,
> cursing and threatening him and his wife all the while. Then the woman
> advanced on him, still cursing, with her right arm behind her back (it
> turned out she was holding a Jack Daniels bottle behind her back though my
> friend did not know at the time what if anything she was holding), even
> though my friend held his pistol in plain view at his side. At one point, my
> friend yelled, "That's far enough, damn it!" and fired a single round into
> the turf to the right of his feet. That put an end to the physical
> confrontation, but resulted in his prosecution.
>
> I'm sure most will agree with me that he ought not to have been even
> charged, much less prosecuted.
Not I.* From the facts you give, I'd say that he should have gone back
inside the house at the point he felt sufficiently threatened to draw his
gun. If instead of carrying it and drawing it, he had actually gone back
inside to retrieve it, then came out again, he was just asking for legal
trouble.
*Caveat: I don't know what he was charged with, so on these bare facts I'
can't judge whether it was, e.g., "reckless," which would make it a felony
in Minnesota. I'm just stating as a general rule that it sounds like his
conduct was not in keeping with the #1 rule of avoiding confrontation when
it's reasonably possible to do so.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
-- Steven Wright
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
