On 7 Aug 2005 06:49:03 -0700, the opaque jim rozen
clearly wrote:

In article , JohnM says...

I think I see your point, Ken, but I don't agree. You always have to
draw a line somewhere, in my book if you're assaulted with anything you
defend with what you please, and tough luck to the assaultor who regrets
his actions.

Legally I think you are allowed (in many places) to only use up to
and including the same level of force, to defend oneself.

Sucks, doesn't it? When in fear for your life (5 attackers), why must
you limit your choices as to a way out of the situation?


HOWEVER in this case there were several boys attacking - and only
one of her. If I were the judge/jury in this thing, that would
tip the scales. She was justified in knocking the kid down.

Agreed. If I'd been in her shoes, I'd have picked up two rocks.
One to throw and one to use as a weapon if they came any closer
after I'd nailed (or missed) the target. That she was harassed
by the police is inexcusable, especially when you take into account
that the bully's parents didn't press charges.

--
"I'm sick and tired of having to rearrange my life
because of what the STUPIDEST people *might* do or
how they *might* react."
-- Bill Maher