Self defense in Seattle
Clayton Cramer has a post on a case in Seattle. Basically, a guy classed as a mentally ill criminal offender (he'd tried to burn down a day care), and was self-medicating with crack cocaine (generally not considered therapeutic for mental disease) attacked a fellow and was shot.
The attacker's uncle has written an article, basically blaming the person on the receiving end for carrying a firearm and not running away or fighting with fists (as Clayton points out, he'd been knocked to the ground in the first assault). "There is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day, but he did have a diagnosed mental illness. I am certain he would admit that what he did was wrong, if he were alive, but he was taken from us by a misguided man with a gun."
Yeah, like it was the victim's fault for not knowing that the crackhead didn't really mean it when he knocked him over? Does he wear a sweatshirt that says, "Caution, mentally unstable...don't kill me when I attack you."?
Posted by: Doug In Colorado at October 31, 2006 01:42 PM
I think the PC assumption is that an legitimate violent attacker will wear a sweatshirt or other prominant sign saying "Notice: this is an actual violent felonious assault". In the absence of such notification, one is required to assume that the attacker is excused by mental deffect or that society is to blame, so that no real harm is intended.
Posted by: Ken at October 31, 2006 04:09 PM