The Trace is Michael Bloomberg’s other news site. One dedicated entirely to spreading misinformation about guns and gun crime.
The Trace weighed in on Twitter on a shooting in New York, to attack the NRA for supporting women’s self defense.
A NY woman who fatally shot her boyfriend after years of alleged physical abuse—some of it documented—was convicted of murder, highlighting a problem with the NRA’s position that women should shoot their abusers in self-defense. https://t.co/duMku65iRg
— The Trace (@teamtrace) April 15, 2019
So what are the details of this case that would make a woman who defended herself from an abuser be guilty of murder?
Nicole Addimando found guilty of murder in boyfriend’s shooting death
Nicole Addimando said she was acting in self-defense when she shot and killed Christoper Grover, her longtime-boyfriend and the father of her children, in September 2017.
A woman a right to defend herself from violence, even if that violence comes from an intimate partner.
In New York, prosecutors must disprove a self-defense justification of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.
That burden of proof was a challenge they welcomed, said Chana Krauss of the Putnam County District Attorney’s Office, during her closing statement.
“That wasn’t self-defense,” said Krauss, whose office handled the case as special prosecutor. “Chris Grover was sleeping on the couch. This was intentional murder.” Chris Grover was killed by a gunshot wound to the head.
It is not self defense to shoot a man in the head while he is sleeping on the couch.
It doesn’t matter if he beat you 10 minutes before he decided to take a nap.
Justification for Defense is covered in New York Penal Law Article 35.
The general justification for defense is:
Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an
imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a
situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and
which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of
intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such
injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought
to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.
So if the man beats the woman then lays down on the couch, the “imminent public or private injury” has ended. The violence is done.
That may seem unfair, but it’s the law. Trust me, there are parts of self defense law I want changed.
But, self defense is just that, defense against an imminent threat. Shooting a sleeping person for revenge or even to preemptively stop a future beating is not self defense.
When the Left gets so wrapped up in identity politics they fail to understand that. To them, the issue seems to be powerful vs. powerless and gender politics rather than the imminency of violence.
The NRA is not wrong to encourage women to defend themselves.
The Trace is wrong to imply that a woman shooting a sleeping man because he beat her before and probably will beat her again is self defense.
4 thoughts on “Anti-Gunners can’t tell self defense from cold blooded murder”
Judging by that legalese you quoted, NY doesn’t seem to recognize justification of force in protection of third parties. If some thugs try to kill you, you can defend yourself. If those same thugs try to kill the old lady walking next to you, you must let them do it.
Can that really be true? Clearly it shouldn’t be.
What you are talking about is in a different section of Article 35:
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter’s conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Thanks. That reads like a good law.
The liberals were fine with Farrah Fawcett’s character doing the same on screen – oh, wait, she didn’t have access to a gun. Ref. The Burning Bed, 1984.
Login or register to comment.