The basis of the article is this. The State of Kansas has a law on the books that allows a citizen to ‘use a weapon’ in defense of self, or defense of others, when an attacker ‘uses force.’
In this particular case the defendant brandished a weapon, the attackers backed down and he did not use it. Simply brandishing the weapon stopped the attack.
The defendant was charged and convicted of brandishing a weapon in public.
The court’s decision is based on the belief that the defendent did not ‘use’ the weapon and therefore, because the weapon ‘was not used’, he is not protected by the self defense law. Therefore, he is guilty of brandishing a weapon.
Basically, he is guilty because he did not shoot anyone. Had he fired the gun he would have been protected by the law. By not firing the gun, he did not use force as allowed by the law. Therefore, he is not protected by the law.
In Kansas, if you pull a gun in self defense you must shoot, or you are in violation of the law. Can you say stupid, stupid, stupid.
To often attorneys have no interest in the intent of law. Instead their actions are based on the politics of law.
As an example, when President Clinton responded to a question with the reply ‘that depends on what your definition of is is.’ A perfect example of a skillful defense based not on law, or the intent of law, but on the political perception of law, or semantics.
In the eyes of today’s modern legal system law has no meaning. Its’ only purpose is to enrich those that practice it. That is why modern law does not offer the pubic any right other than the right to hire an attorney.