Thoughts on the this self-defense case?

[Oscar77]

Why should a man be cut off in traffic, punched, potentially have multiple attackers, on a busy roadway where a crash might occur due to the situation, and not be legally scared for his life?

I mean, I sure as heck would be and I’d have shot that white trash just like he did.

If the article is accurate, and that’s what happened, good shoot.

Is the outrage that if the situation hadn’t been a great test case for her ideological beliefs she would have charged and prosecuted, that’s a different conversation about legal ethics. The self defense conversation is about a reasonable moral onus to use a firearm in self defense. A prosecutor could just as easily choose not to charge any CCW holder even if the circumstances were unclear. Or any other number of criteria. If that criteria were in line with a staunch originalist understanding of the Constitution, that would be awesome.

I think the better course of action would be to influence the public in some fashion to make that brand, 2A self defense is good to go, stick on the DA. Make them own it and have to readjust their own leanings to meet public opinion desires. If they’re flippable narcissists who will chase the approval and adulation, make them realize an incremental win for us if at all possible.

We all know where they stand and their long term desires. Maybe make em flinch so we have a chance to influence something good.

What would the harm be in not over analyzing and playing by a book? Why not overwhelm that DA with a love bombing campaign that sullies them forever as betraying the plan, or maybe even flips them into realizing there’s a lot of potential power on center and right wing causes?

I'm not sure if your comments are directed at me or not.......... but I'll reply just the same and reply, in sort of, reverse order...............

-If you think this is some sort of opportunity to get someone like DA McCann (or other liberals) to realize or sympathize with the 2A or gun rights etc......... I'm sorry, you are not understanding them at all. They don't care about any of that. They saw this as a chance to right a wrong or as they put it....." ..... criminal proceedings has brought to light significant systemic inadequacies and racial disparities in the application of self-defense laws......."

-I'm not outraged by this at all FWIW.
And as far as the Constitution............ it has nothing to do with this. The Constitution guarantees (well supposed to) firearm ownership by private Citizens. The USE of said firearms, like in Self Defense, are covered by State law.
In this case CRS 18-1-704.

-As far as a "Good Shoot," me, personally, I'm not so sure. The article isn't a legal brief or Police report. It's a summary. So there are alot of details that aren't there to really make an informed decision.
And if you read 18-1-704 (Which you have read right?)....... there are very important facts to weigh that are missing in that brief news article.

But lets switch this around............ Are you saying this is an example of a "good shoot?"
Cop is sitting at a red light, minding his own business, window open.
Dude gets out of another car, with friends waiting inside, runs up and begins punching the Cop.
Cop draws his gun, shoots him dead and starts to drive away.
Another guy jumps out of same car, and grabs onto the police car to stop him from leaving, and he gets shot dead too.
Cop then finishes driving off.........
Thats a good shoot? Or do you have questions........ especially if you read 18-1-704.

[Clint45]

If he had his window up and was more observant, he likely could've driven away... he didn't seem to have any problem driving off... but if he hit the guy with his car and killed him he'd still be facing similar charges.