Jenin Younes

So there are two major elements, I would say.

The first is whether they had the right to arrest her in the first place.

And I would say no, although I admit that's debatable, and that would probably be an issue if this ever goes to trial, which is probably pretty unlikely.

That's probably something that will be litigated, whether he had the authority to arrest and stop her.

Because, again, the question is whether she was – not whether she was committing a traffic violation because, again, he didn't have the authority.

Those officers didn't have the authority to police that.

But whether what she was doing rose to the level of obstruction of a lawful enforcement operation.

And, again, I maintain probably not because it wasn't like she was stopping them from really doing the overall – Vehicles were able to get by her where she was parked.

I think so.

I mean, I'm not, I wouldn't call myself an expert on exactly that, but I think there's, yeah.

So for that reason, I don't think they were entitled to try to arrest her and get her out of the car.

Other people might differ.

And anyway, even if they were entitled to, I think that they behave pretty badly.

Like that is not how you deescalate a situation.

So in terms of the second part, I think, yes, it can.

So whether or not they were entitled to – he was entitled to shoot her in self-defense, the standard for that is in order to succeed on a justification – justification, self-defense is the same thing, theory at trial – you have to show the jury that you were in reasonable –

fear of death or, sorry, let me phrase it differently.

You reasonably believed that you were at risk of death or serious physical injury from the person that you stopped and that you needed to use that force in order to stop them.

So it has both a subjective and objective component.

Like you have to have the belief that you're about to be killed or very seriously harmed, and you also, that belief has to be reasonable.