You've got this all wrong fren. there is no "less dangerous of a weapon" rule in any red state. ALL that matters is whether the weapon is capable of doing serious bodily harm - which a bicycle certainly is. Once this single determining factor is satisfied, lethal force is in fact legal.
Reference Kyle Rittenhouse case- he shot a kid who hit him with a skateboard and the Jury determined it was self defense. He also shot an unarmed man who simply tried to grab his gun. Self Defense.
The person in this instance is attacking the vehicle, not the passenger. At least, it can be argued as such.
It's indeterminate that the intended target was the passenger, so arguing self-defense (requiring a reasonable sense of threat to one's life) is essentially bunk. It's actually easier to argue the assailant was attacking the vehicle because most of his strikes were on the side of the van further away from the passenger. On top of that, as soon as the assailant did significant damage to the van he did back off. It's too easy to claim that his intent was to attack the vehicle, not the passenger.
So, we now only have a question of defense of personal property.
In which case, a gun would not be a suitable defensive weapon for the property in question.
If someone were to attack my backpack with a knife, for example, shooting them for the destruction of my property would be an unreasonable response.
If they turn the knife on me, however, then things can change. Even so, some States still will not offer lenience when pulling a gun on someone with a knife unless you can offer some reason to believe they intended to use the knife on you to take your life. They could just be posturing, in which case you are obligated to try and diffuse the situation before pulling your own weapon.
Then, if they do continue their assault, and you pull the gun it is advisable to tell them you are feeling threatened and they must back off or you will shoot -- in some cases even before you aim the gun directly at them. Just showing them the gun would be the first step, and even then some States will say you haven't a right to do so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law, just that in this particular case, just pulling a gun would in almost all States be a bad idea. All I've said above is essential for a lawful defense. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a jury to decide, which you don't want to happen in the first place.
I didn't say the argument isn't stupid, but in a court of "innocent until proven guilty" the prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that he was targeting the individual instead of the vehicle.
Had the window not been there, would he have continued his assault?
Only the defendant can answer that, and he will obviously say that he wouldn't have attacked him directly with the bicycle and only lunged the wheel toward him because he knew the glass was in the way.
Prosecutors can't prove what he did or didn't know or think at the time, so they cannot show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended great bodily harm against the passenger.
Thems the rules, I didn't make them, and yes, I agree, they are stupid and don't account for proper context.
"It is not indeterminate wether the attacker was targeting the vehicle or the man.
It shows clearly the attacker was targeting the man at the onset of the attack and only began to attack the vehicle as it was shielding the intended target.
The evidence is clear in the first 5 seconds of the video in which attacker clearly runs to attack the man, shouting "Shut the fuck up", making direct eye contact and raising his hand to swing against the man, but being deflected by the megaphone device.
It is clearly evident the attacker intended to target the man but simply failed to strike him."
Attacker to the stand
"Mr attacker was it your intent to strike the man with the megaphone."
"No, I was only trying to hit the vehicle"
Attacker to watch a slowed down replay of the first 8 seconds of footage.
"Mr attacker, you seemed to have attempted to strike the man through the window here."
You've got this all wrong fren. there is no "less dangerous of a weapon" rule in any red state. ALL that matters is whether the weapon is capable of doing serious bodily harm - which a bicycle certainly is. Once this single determining factor is satisfied, lethal force is in fact legal.
Reference Kyle Rittenhouse case- he shot a kid who hit him with a skateboard and the Jury determined it was self defense. He also shot an unarmed man who simply tried to grab his gun. Self Defense.
The person in this instance is attacking the vehicle, not the passenger. At least, it can be argued as such.
It's indeterminate that the intended target was the passenger, so arguing self-defense (requiring a reasonable sense of threat to one's life) is essentially bunk. It's actually easier to argue the assailant was attacking the vehicle because most of his strikes were on the side of the van further away from the passenger. On top of that, as soon as the assailant did significant damage to the van he did back off. It's too easy to claim that his intent was to attack the vehicle, not the passenger.
So, we now only have a question of defense of personal property.
In which case, a gun would not be a suitable defensive weapon for the property in question.
If someone were to attack my backpack with a knife, for example, shooting them for the destruction of my property would be an unreasonable response.
If they turn the knife on me, however, then things can change. Even so, some States still will not offer lenience when pulling a gun on someone with a knife unless you can offer some reason to believe they intended to use the knife on you to take your life. They could just be posturing, in which case you are obligated to try and diffuse the situation before pulling your own weapon.
Then, if they do continue their assault, and you pull the gun it is advisable to tell them you are feeling threatened and they must back off or you will shoot -- in some cases even before you aim the gun directly at them. Just showing them the gun would be the first step, and even then some States will say you haven't a right to do so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law, just that in this particular case, just pulling a gun would in almost all States be a bad idea. All I've said above is essential for a lawful defense. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a jury to decide, which you don't want to happen in the first place.
Thats stupid, the vehicle was between the idiot and his target. You should be an ambulance chaser.
I didn't say the argument isn't stupid, but in a court of "innocent until proven guilty" the prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that he was targeting the individual instead of the vehicle.
Had the window not been there, would he have continued his assault?
Only the defendant can answer that, and he will obviously say that he wouldn't have attacked him directly with the bicycle and only lunged the wheel toward him because he knew the glass was in the way.
Prosecutors can't prove what he did or didn't know or think at the time, so they cannot show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended great bodily harm against the passenger.
Thems the rules, I didn't make them, and yes, I agree, they are stupid and don't account for proper context.
the first time the bike came against the window its an attack on the person, not vehicle.
Yeah - I'm not a lawyer but..
OBJECTION!
"It is not indeterminate wether the attacker was targeting the vehicle or the man.
It shows clearly the attacker was targeting the man at the onset of the attack and only began to attack the vehicle as it was shielding the intended target.
The evidence is clear in the first 5 seconds of the video in which attacker clearly runs to attack the man, shouting "Shut the fuck up", making direct eye contact and raising his hand to swing against the man, but being deflected by the megaphone device.
It is clearly evident the attacker intended to target the man but simply failed to strike him."
Attacker to the stand
"Mr attacker was it your intent to strike the man with the megaphone."
"No, I was only trying to hit the vehicle"
Attacker to watch a slowed down replay of the first 8 seconds of footage.
"Mr attacker, you seemed to have attempted to strike the man through the window here."