Strange ruling by Missouri prosecutor

Some people saying the guy was “rude” to the cashier. Others seem to be saying the guy was actually threatening the cashier and suggesting the cashier was in danger. Seems like a big difference to me in terms of how it may have gone down in the beginning. I am interested to know what the cashier has to say. Also, the person who was recording.

 

I don’t blame the firefighter in terms of assigning him the majority of the blame, I just don’t deny his likely role in escalating what was a situation *everyone* should have walked away from (and admittedly I have no idea what “started” it, how it spilled into the parking lot, etc). Details are missing.

 

Obviously if it was an armed robbery or crime that would totally change the prism through which you would look at the shooting, but then of course the woman probably would have been charged as an accessory AND the shooting would be considered a homicide.

 

Yeah, I wasn’t so much speaking about the legal issue there but more generally about the standing up for others versus minding one’s business discussion. I think there’s a wide gulf between protecting others who are in danger and trying to police rude people with bad attitudes. I don’t think we know enough here to say where this fell on that spectrum.

 

According to the story River linked to:

Sounds to me like the Prosecutor evaluated the evidence and found it was not chargeable under the state SYG law. That doesn't sound like she is light on crime, just that there was no way to get an indictment under the law. Can you link a news story where the Prosecutor's history is discussed as being light on crime?

 

Yup, that's how stand your ground works. In these situations, the person that lives just has to say they were scared for their life ... or this case, scared for someone else's life ... and BOOM, you are usually off the hook. The prosecutor has to prove that she didn't have a reasonable belief the other man was going to kill or injure her friend, and that would be pretty hard to prove when there is a video of him choking the man for a prolonged period of time while she pleads for him to stop ...

Stupid laws get stupid results...

 

uhmm,,the firefighter was choking out her husband while their children watched. was she supposed to watch the guy choke her husband to death? would you have watched a man choke your wife to death if you could not have convinced him to stop otherwise

 

Even without the stand your ground laws this was a justifiable shoot, probably in states far less “gun crazed” than Missouri.

It seems some want charges mostly because one guy involved in the fight is an off duty firefighter, but that isn’t factually relevant. It’s an emotional appeal. The reality is two guys fighting in a parking lot, one guy refused to stop choking his opponent even with a gun trained on him. Unfortunately at that point it’s reasonable for the woman to be afraid for her man’s life. Legally, that is what matters. The fact she gave warning also demonstrates additional restraint. She obviously didn’t want to shoot him. The “firefighter shot in back!” headline is just a bs emotional appeal, and I think intentionally dishonest.

 

Use of deadly force in protection of another far predates Rittenhouse (and really didn't have anything to do with his case since he was defending himself). Most states with self defense laws provide for defense of another in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The problem is when deadly force scenarios occur you can have situations like the Kansas City situation, where one bad actor is stopped by another actor, and a third party, who is either biased or otherwise misinformed or ignorant to the complete facts, acts to defend the bad actor with no criminal intent whatsoever.

One of the things you quickly learn if you take any sort of quality use of force training is that lethal force situations are dynamic and can change on a dime. People involved almost never have the complete picture. It's one of the reasons many experts say aside from completely, objectively clear cut situations (i.e. observing a mass shooter, seeing an adult beat a child, armed robbery, carjacking, etc), do not get involved in third party conflicts. There is a very great possibility that you could end up injuring or killing someone who was the "good guy." Even if you aren't found legally culpable, you'll have to live with that mistake forever.

 

Doesn't really matter if there was a SYG law in this case. The boyfriend was in a chokehold and thus retreat was not really an option. Even in states without SYG, reasonable belief that the person being defended is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm is generally the standard when retreat has been attempted or does not apply. Given how dynamic these situations are, I'm not sure how you could make the standard something that is going to get the right result all of the time.

 

So you feel that he deserved the death penalty be judicated and administered by a civilian because he is an ahole? Is that your position?

 

And I'm assuming your wife also knows how to mind her own business, which is the most important lesson here.

 

Intervening in a mass shooter event, armed robbery, etc. with deadly force is kind of like the old adage of passing the football - 3 outcomes, 2 of which are bad.

I suffer a huge moral dilemma in considering these situations. It would be hard for me to exit stage left when I could save someone. On the other hand, at what cost? Should I force my wife and son to bury me because I wanted to save a stranger. Very difficult rationalization here, and it is one I consider every time I leave the house with my Sig inside the waistband.

 

Of course I have stood up for people. I’ve helped an old lady who got her purse snatched and I’ve stopped a gang of bullies from beating up on a kid. But I’m not interfering with a store clerk who is being berated by some jackass customer. I guarantee you the deceased is kicking himself in the afterlife for not leaving that situation alone.

 

I'm selfish. I have a wife who is medically unable to work and 3 young kids. My priorities are 1) keeping them all alive and safe and 2) ensuring my ability to continue to provide for and raise them. I'll sleep perfectly fine next to my smoke show wife knowing I am taking care of the people I have been blessed with the privilege of caring with and doing all I can to ensure their future and ability to shape the world in a positive manner.