What do you think of this legal case involving self-defense?

Question

What do you make of the following case?

A person moves into the city and rents a room after obtaining a job at a restaurant. The landlady allows her niece to move in without notice after she decides to leave her home town to finish school. She comes down and forces herself on the landlady. The woman begins beating and verbally abusing the three-year-old daughter immediately. There are twenty-one incidents counted in less than two weeks. The matter is mentioned to the landlady by the new resident, who has been there less than one month and did not expect this lady to move in.

The landlady sides with her niece and insists that she'd 'cut off the child's hands herself' if she keeps going into items at the grocery store. One late afternoon the new resident comes home and goes downstairs to avoid the chain-smoking, verbally abusive, -oriented and Internet crazy woman yelling at her child. She goes downstairs and begins to work on an art project, with the radio on full blast to drown out the sounds of the yelling. The niece starts to beat the three-year-old. The new resident runs upstairs and tells her to stop doing it, to distract attention. Her cell phone is upstairs along with her uniform and her keys, shoes and purse are downstairs. There are no locks on any inside doors, no way out of the basement and she'd have to return downstairs to get her things.

The niece begins slapping and pushing the new resident after an exchange of words, mostly insults with no meaning. She yells, pushes and gangs up on the new resident, not allowing her to leave. They are located in the front living room. The niece has the phone by the computer, which is behind her. She pushes the new resident twice against a loose shoe rack against the wall, which nearly falls on her. The niece slaps and threatens to kill the new resident.

She gets away and grabs a glass. She tells the niece to get away from her or she will hit her with the glass. The niece jumps her, pushes her head into the hardwood cement floor (which leads later on to a concussion), busts her knees open and it starts bleeding and after a struggle with the niece on top, the new resident gets up and gets away and strikes the niece on the head three times after she (the niece) lunges at her. There is little difference in the strength, body size and physical makeup between the two as described.

The niece grabs a towel and the phone. She is bleeding. The child screams. The new resident tells her she is going to the police and goes upstairs and then downstairs to get her things and then leaves, walking two kilometres to the police station. She reports the matter to the police who tell her to return to the resident, wait outside and then they will come. They agree that it was necessary and they are worried for the child because of the niece's actions towards her. The new resident returns after a quick stop at a convenience store and is unarmed. The police arrest her and take her in, charging her with assault with a weapon.

The defense counsel agrees that it is self-defense but that is 'was excessive'. The crown prosecutor pays to have the woman brought down, but has no idea what the 'weapon' was, believing it to be a beer mug or a tea cup. There is no motive. The defense concludes that they have little evidence and no motive. There is no presentation of physical evidence, no doctor's reports, no eyewitness accounts, no samples, no pictures, no police present at court, etc. just the niece who has healed completely with no damage or physical scarring. The crown prosecutor is convinced she was struck ten times but there is no evidence to support this claim. What do you make of this case?

The new resident rents a room in the house, stupid.

Answer 1

This can't be real! This must be a new "Reality TV" show planned for next fall's season...

Answer 2

The fact that you even ASK this question shows that you are probably a sensible and careful person and want to know the rules on using the deadly tool you are about to have possession of. It does NOT indicate any premeditation, regardless of what any ignorant, psycho, left-wing gun-grabbers may claim. Laws and cases do vary widely from state to state. You may have to "prove" you had a reasonable belief that your life (or the lives of others) were in imminent jeopardy and that you had exhausted every other safe alternative (including running away like a liberal weenie and calling the police, who will come and investigate your murder once the gunfire stops). In other states you may only have to prove (as your defense against a manslaughter charge) that you reasonably thought it was the best way to stop the bad man from killing good people. In some states, you won't be charged with anything (self-defense is a constitutional right in some states) and will be hailed as the brave hero you set out to be, by taking on the responsibility for control of such potentially lethal power. This is somewhat rare in today's news, even though an estimated ninety percent of dangerous crime in America is stopped by armed citizens, not the police (who naturally can't be everywhere at the same time). On the other hand, looking for trouble is almost NEVER deemed self-defense, and walking away from any non-lethal fight is almost always the best solution. You don't want to be the one who makes it lethal; you want to be the one who STOPS it from continuing to be lethal. Even the mere "display" of a gun, intended as a deterrent to further aggression, could be interpreted as a lethal threat and could be twisted to show you "intended" to kill, rather than simply de-animate the dangerous aggressor. BTW, "emptying a clip" into a bad guy is not always consider

Answer 3

i think the woman who is hitting the child needs serious help... she needs to be taken from that child, put in jail, and some therapy..

as for the self defense, the other resident was doing what they could to keep the niece from killing them, so i go with self defense, even through they used a weapon. i would have done a lot more to that woman than just hit her over the head a coulde times.

Answer 4

I do not understand how it is possible that the case can even be debated when out evidence, let alone charging someone with no proof.

As for using self defence.
I would defend a child if a woman was beating them up, probably even if it cost me my life.
I will not stand for any abuse for any reason.

Sabretooth

Answer 5

The new resident is at fault and will be subject to arrest. She entered a private apartment without permission.

Answer 6

...Reading...

---
Never take a case that involves a catfight.
"The niece starts to beat the three-year-old...". Must be a lunatic.

Answer 7

me thinks that the neice needs to get ***** slapped