https://codes.findlaw.com/mo/title-xxxviii-crimes-and-punishment-peace-officers-and-public-defenders/mo-rev-st-563-031/
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:We dont know who the initial aggressor was. The video starts after the beginning of the encounter
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or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 use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
Don't quote law if you don't know how to evaluate a law. The hubris of people, for fucks sake.
I just still absolutely cant justify smashing someones head onto the ground multiple times, no matter how much of a perfect honor student you supposedly are. That girl was done after the first slam, much less a fucking third one.
If you truly believe they are out to kill you I could see justification for a couple slams. Make sure they stay down.Nothing in the video showed any evidence that one of the fighters needed to be killed to stop the fight. Other people around them only started fighting after the literal death blows were dealt and the girl was twitching on the ground.
There is a reason with gun training double tap is a thing. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone.
There is a reason with gun training double tap is a thing. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone.
Look at this tool the TC posted
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/957d1bad.jpg
Nothing in the video showed any evidence that one of the fighters needed to be killed to stop the fight. Other people around them only started fighting after the literal death blows were dealt and the girl was twitching on the ground.
This was not justified.
There's also a reason why "controlled pairs" is the prevailing teaching over "double tap." "Double tap" is now a frowned upon thing.
I'll have to look up this new thing. Its been a long time since I went through proper gun training just thr yearly qualifying
User Info: TinyTim01He's a known anti-Ukrainian troll who constantly posted fringe news YouTubers justifying the Russian invasion and spreading Russian propaganda on 261.
1. Elite
2. User Since: Aug 2009
3. Karma: 736
TC is literally an alt, and yet certain posters couldn't help but trip over themselves to support them, anyway.
He's a known anti-Ukrainian troll who constantly posted fringe news YouTubers justifying the Russian invasion and spreading Russian propaganda on 261.
Basically, "double tap" is the idea of shooting twice after only aiming once. "Controlled pairs" is the idea of aiming, shooting, aiming, shooting. The idea is that, by aiming the second shot, you're basically providing enough time to not only make sure you actually hit the target, instead of blindly firing based on your initial aim, but you're also providing time to gauge if the second shot is actually necessary. The actual difference could literally result in only a second or two, but it does make a difference.
It is funny how so many people who support stand your ground threw it out of the window for this case .
it goes both ways though.Its more so that if the law protects them, it should also protect this girl.
A lot of people would have to switch and defend both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, but I dont believe theyd want that.
The law allows lethal force in self defense if you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm, not necessarily strictly in fear for your life. If you're being attacked by people who have had a pattern of abuse and violent bullying, this level of force could be justified. I do think there is merit to a self defense claim.
There's a line that's crossed when the threat is neutralized.does that apply to the bully too?
does that apply to the bully too?
Again, I find it kinda weird that certain people on the internet are arguing "stand your ground" when not even the actual attacker's family/legal team are doing so.What I am arguing is not "stand your ground."
What I am arguing is not "stand your ground."
What are you arguing, then?The basic standard of self-defense claims. "Stand your ground" and self-defense are not interchangeable terms.
The basic standard of self-defense claims. "Stand your ground" and self-defense are not interchangeable terms.