Current Events > Kayle the victim of the school brawl, another video has surfaced

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheGoldenEel posted...

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:

(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(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or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.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

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:

(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(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or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.

We dont know who the initial aggressor was. The video starts after the beginning of the encounter

I specifically said in the case where the hospitalized girl attacked the other girl first

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.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

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.

There is a reason with gun training double tap is a thing. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

If you truly believe they are out to kill you I could see justification for a couple slams. Make sure they stay down.

There is a reason with gun training double tap is a thing. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone.

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.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

There is a reason with gun training double tap is a thing. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone.

There's also a reason why "controlled pairs" is the prevailing teaching over "double tap." "Double tap" is now a frowned upon thing.

Look at this tool the TC posted
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/957d1bad.jpg

BunkerBoy posted...

Look at this tool the TC posted
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/957d1bad.jpg

User Info: TinyTim01

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.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

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.

I was speaking in general my bad.

StealThisSheen posted...

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

Sufferedphoenix posted...

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

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.

StealThisSheen posted...

User Info: TinyTim01
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.

itcheyness posted...

He's a known anti-Ukrainian troll who constantly posted fringe news YouTubers justifying the Russian invasion and spreading Russian propaganda on 261.

Good call, I didn't recognize the name. Probably because he likely spent a lot of time in purg, given his karma.

What is with all these high testosterone young girls ready to fight nowadays?

This is why we need to teach children to walk away.

StealThisSheen posted...

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.

Hmm pretty sure I always re aimed after the first shot. Then again I only know double tap from my grandad. Instructors in training didn't really use any terminology.

cjsdowg posted...

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.

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.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

it goes both ways though.

A lot of people would have to switch and defend both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, but I dont believe theyd want that.

Its more so that if the law protects them, it should also protect this girl.

But we know it wontfor reasons.

ModernPost posted...

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.

Howso, in this case? What in the video, in your eyes, would provide for "reasonable fear," considering the attacker is the one who struck first?

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. Some people on the internet appear to be filing a "stand your ground" defense on her behalf. Maybe you should contact her lawyer?

ThePieReborn posted...

There's a line that's crossed when the threat is neutralized.

does that apply to the bully too?

Nukazie posted...

does that apply to the bully too?

Maybe I missed something, but is there literally any source for the victim being a bully other than... The word of the attacker's family? If there is, then by all means, that may change my opinion. But, so far, the only source calling the victim a bully appears to be... The attacker's family?

I don't get it, where's the clip of Kayle being a bully

All I see in TC's first post is another out of context fight. How do I know she wasn't the one being bullied, cause someone said so?

StealThisSheen posted...

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."

ModernPost posted...

What I am arguing is not "stand your ground."

What are you arguing, then? Because I can't imagine any other law that allows you to claim self defense when you are the aggressor in the specific instance. Again, what part of the video makes you think a self-defense claim has merit?

StealThisSheen posted...

What are you arguing, then?

The basic standard of self-defense claims. "Stand your ground" and self-defense are not interchangeable terms.

ModernPost posted...

The basic standard of self-defense claims. "Stand your ground" and self-defense are not interchangeable terms.

You, specifically, said you think a self-defense claim has merit. So, I ask, again. What in the video makes you think a self-defense claim has merit? The basic standard for self-defense means you are NOT the aggressor. Only "stand your ground" consistently allows you to be the aggressor and still claim self-defense, hence my obvious confusion.