Charges dropped against the Wuestenbergs

[Nick Burkhardt]

wouldnt own a car with those "features".

My 2020 Honda has the auto braking, but there is a button to turn it off. The salesperson called it protestor mode.

 

[Yarome]

That must have been pretty convenient having it pre-seasoned like that.

 

[American123]

Haha. Good luck with that.

Happens lots of times, not something new. It also happened in this instance and what was the result?

Woman who initiated the altercation didn't take it any farther. She might have been a ghetto turd, but she wasn't completely dumb.

 

[Koda]

The reasons someone does or doesn't get charged varies so greatly I wouldn't take one incident as evidence something is right or wrong.
I'm glad the pregnant lady wasn't charged. She did get lucky she wasnt.

 

[American123]

You cant draw a gun because something "could" turn fatal, the fatal threat has to be imminent. Nothing in the video was a deadly threat especially the slap to the car. Your right about a fight turning fatal for an unborn child, but the preggo woman left the safety of her car. She pulled a gun when she didn't need to pull the trigger.... thats not going to win in court. In fact, she even had time to rack the slide and the other woman was well within reach but wasn't attacking.
To me this is a lession in controlling emotions. Clearly the other woman was doing everything to escalate a fight on camera for her youtube fame. People like that are the worst but one cant over react to drawing guns.

Driver thinks she hit her when the aggressor ran in front of her backing up, trying to leave, she get's out to be the responsible driver and finds her unharmed and instead starting to advance at her in what she perceives is a threatening manner.

Easily argued by a lawyer that pregnant woman feared grievous bodily harm could commence that would be very easily fatal for her unborn child, draws to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation for the perceived attacker and hopes she doesn't have to fire, but is willing too because she can't afford to get into a physical altercation while keeping her child safe so she leaves it at the next decision making of the aggressor.

Again- you don't have to wait to be physically assaulted to draw, you just have to perceive that serious harm is imminent.

 

[Koda]

Driver thinks she hit her when the aggressor ran in front of her backing up, trying to leave, she get's out to be the responsible driver and finds her unharmed and instead starting to advance at her in what she perceives is a threatening manner.

Easily argued by a lawyer that pregnant woman feared grievous bodily harm could commence that would be very easily fatal for her unborn child, draws to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation for the perceived attacker and hopes she doesn't have to fire, but is willing too because she can't afford to get into a physical altercation while keeping her child safe so she leaves it at the next decision making of the aggressor.

Again- you don't have to wait to be physically assaulted to draw, you just have to perceive that serious harm is imminent.

That would be the best argument and plausable. The video was too shakey in that scene to see any details for that context. It would be the best argument. But the problem is when it comes down to a trial its up to an opinion of a jury or judge that can go either way. I believe the pregnant lady was scared, but I also didnt see any weapons or actual physical attack in the video.
Personally I wish the discussion was about charging the accuser who wrongfully instigated the situation, what she did has to be a crime on some level.

 

[American123]

That would be the best argument and plausable. The video was too shakey in that scene to see any details for that context. It would be the best argument. But the problem is when it comes down to a trial its up to an opinion of a jury or judge that can go either way. I believe the pregnant lady was scared, but I also didnt see any weapons or actual physical attack in the video.
Personally I wish the discussion was about charging the accuser who wrongfully instigated the situation, what she did has to be a crime on some level.

Yep, I'm not saying it's a great situation. It's a cluster all around. The ghetto turd was simply trying to create a lawsuit situation and "racist" has become such a easy way to launch that attack, that people like this know it and go after it.

At the end of the day, they couldn't even bother to get themselves to court, so clearly it wasn't that big of a deal to them.

Sadly, being a complete POS isn't a criminal offense. It's also why carrying spray is advised, because it's far less of a criminal issue and police use it to try and defuse situations so it's got that automatic defense precedent. Criminals even use it in the commission of crimes and they barely, if at all, catch charges for it.

 

[Koda]

Yep, I'm not saying it's a great situation. It's a cluster all around. The ghetto turd was simply trying to create a lawsuit situation and "racist" has become such a easy way to launch that attack, that people like this know it and go after it.

At the end of the day, they couldn't even bother to get themselves to court, so clearly it wasn't that big of a deal to them.

Sadly, being a complete POS isn't a criminal offense. It's also why carrying spray is advised, because it's far less of a criminal issue and police use it to try and defuse situations so it's got that automatic defense precedent. Criminals even use it in the commission of crimes and they barely, if at all, catch charges for it.

Actually, early on they threatened to "beat your bubblegum too" then challenged the husband to "do something". Here it is queued up to that spot.
After seeing that a lot could be argued for what happened when the camera was all shakey right before the wife pulled her gun. If there was some legal reason they didnt get prosecuted being preggo probably had to do with it. The couple also did a lot of things right trying to leave and deescalate.
Seeing the part where they threatened them does change the context now. What they did to the couple could be argued assault.

 

[Yarome]

Personally I wish the discussion was about charging the accuser who wrongfully instigated the situation, what she did has to be a crime on some level.

Agreed. Harrassment, threat of bodily injury, malicious mischief to a vehicle and in some states preventing them from leaving can be charged as false imprisonment... force or threat of violence isn't even required for a charge. Simply detaining someone without their consent.

The pregnant woman was attempting to deescalate the situation, apologizing, and attempting to leave. It's reasonable that the further escalation by the other party by preventing them from leaving with a display of force could easily be argued to have hightened the perceived threat. Irrational behavior often doesn't have any limitations.

In the day and age we live in even jutsified actions can be prosecuted. Was it "smart" to display a firearm? Not at all. Was it arguably justifiable based on the victims state of mind at that moment? Probably.

 

[WillametteWill]

The reasons someone does or doesn't get charged varies so greatly I wouldn't take one incident as evidence something is right or wrong.
I'm glad the pregnant lady wasn't charged. She did get lucky she wasnt.

Sage advice. Branca and others use this concept frequently. And the only reason the case fell apart (for the moment) was because the witness did not show up. Charges can still be refiled so the gun lady still has potential charges hanging over her.

Easily argued by a lawyer that pregnant woman feared grievous bodily harm could commence that would be very easily fatal for her unborn child, draws to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation

(Let me start by saying I always like reading your posts and great perspectives.) Everything is easily argued by attorneys, but there needs to be manifest intent (jeopardy) for the jury to believe. Anytime you are fearing GBI or death from an unarmed attacker you are fighting an uphill battle (but easier if you are pregnant).

Personally I wish the discussion was about charging the accuser who wrongfully instigated the situation, what she did has to be a crime on some level.

Word.

In this fecal matinee, great thoughts like this get lost in the noise but it is actually what begins the situation. In my experience, you can almost always point to black letter laws that show instigators violated something (words/actions likely to cause a fight, false imprisonment for not allowing someone to leave by blocking a vehicle) but DA's almost never will consider these. Well, unless you are a lawful gun owner trying to do the right thing then they will take a hard look.

 

[Yarome]

...but DA's almost never will consider these.

I agree. If it ever goes to a trial though (dismissed without prejudice) the defense would have some ammo to through at the jury showing a pattern of escalation and wrong doing on the offending parties side.

Persuing them outside of the building while they attempted to leave, etc etc....

When a firearm is presented though with the capability of far greater and immediate harm/death... that's a pretty uphill battle.

I always thought it was a golden rule though. You just don't mess with a pregnant woman. Female hormones are a game changer and you'll always end up at the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Bobbygun]

DA's almost never will consider these.

Or anything else these days it seems. Particularly in Lane County where they tell us they don't have enough experienced DA's or public defenders.

 

[Koda]

...

 

[MichaelH]

So does this mean "dropped" like they are no longer being charged or "dropped" like there are new charges?

Sorry...

(This will make sense to wee few forum members)

No witness means no case for the DA. No charges.

 

[Provincial]

Was the no-show witness the instigator/black lady? If that is he case, someone savvy realized that having her on the witness stand, under oath, would put her at risk of several criminal charges, as well as civil action. She may have a history of confrontations like this, and pursuing this case could blow up the narrative favored by the political elites in the area.

The dismissal "without prejudice" may be a warning to the defendants not to pursue civil actions against the instigator. Another act of intimidation, this time from the halls of justice.

 

[Xaevian]

The dismissal "without prejudice" may be a warning to the defendants not to pursue civil actions against the instigator. Another act of intimidation, this time from the halls of justice.

That is reading a bit much into it. It is almost always dismiss without prejudice unless there is some major issue or injustice involved.

 

[Member 53328]

Where was the "life threatening" or "imminent danger" in this scenario?

Cause I sure as hell don't see it.

Again words are just words.

People need to grow up.

Chick who pulled the gun should count her blessings.

 

[Koda]

Where was the "life threatening" or "imminent danger" in this scenario?

When she threatened to "beat their bubblegum"

 

[Xaevian]

Where was the "life threatening" or "imminent danger" in this scenario?

Cause I sure as hell don't see it.

Again words are just words.

People need to grow up.

I didn't really dig into this scenario, but there is such a thing as use of force continuum that could apply. I did watch the video when it first came out. My initial reaction was that, as in almost all situations like this, there are way more details that we don't know than what we see. And it's all "I'm the victim" until the defense subpoenas the phone of the person doing the video and the social media accounts of their entire family. Then reality kinda might set in.

 

[Koda]

This is an interesting case because the attacker is unarmed but threatening violence and escalating. IMO its more like she was trying to egg them into making the first move so she could claim the victim. The dilemma here is how does anyone know the true intentions under such stress? What could we learn from this ?

If someone is harassing you, then says they are going to beat you that seems to escalate the fear of being attacked as immanent. But does it justify using (or threatening to use) deadly force?