Strange ruling by Missouri prosecutor

I just realized the article in OP is titled "Far-left Missouri prosecutor declines to charge woman" lol sounds like a very unbiased news source from the same contingent who cries about media stories being biased

 

yes, "thepostmillenial" is one of those sites that been on my "trash" list for a while.

 

If someone attacked my loved one and was choking them? As soon as I needed to keep them from dying. If my loved one attacked someone with a gun and was losing the fight I might still do it but I should be prosecuted. The law isn’t based on what I would do in a selfish and emotional situation. If my son hit someone and they died, it’s possible I would try to cover it up. Would be illegal and I should be prosecuted.

Do you actually think the law should be based on what I would do?

 

I don’t have enough information yet to have an opinion about the lack of a charge.

At first glance, seems like the man who lived was wrong to get the gun but was not really fighting back when the woman was pleading with the other guy to get off of him. She sounded legitimately scared but was lethal force reasonable? Is there more video than what is now public?

Not surprisingly, I pulled up the story on Twitter and many if not most of the posts seemed partisan and/or racial.

 

If she would have cracked his skull open with a baseball bat killing him, this story wouldn’t hardly make the news.

It’s all about the gun.

 

Actually, it seems the law does allow for people to protect other people, even with deadly force of their own, when they have reason to believe someone is about to be killed. Even in the Zimmerman case, I was told repeatedly that it didn't matter if Zimmerman stalked the kid, or if he instigated the physical fight (which couldn't be proven either way), the only thing that mattered was the Zimmerman had reason to believe his life was on the line and that gave him a legal excuse to kill to protect himself. It appears that's the law.

This is from the link in the second post, and explains why charges were not filed:

The state law says, "A person may... use physical force... (if) she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend... a third person from what... she reasonably believes to be the... imminent use of unlawful force by such other person."

"The question was did she reasonably believe that he was subject to imminent risk of death or serious physical injury?" Leben said.

By not issuing charges, the prosecutor believes a jury would think the actions in defense of someone else were reasonable.

"So the investigation really focuses on what that person believed and whether that was a reasonable belief at the time," McInerney said.

 

If you're looking for a little more balanced and less sensational explanation ...

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article267700397.html#storylink=cpy

Here's what the law says:

 

So you agreed that Zimmerman was in the right? I didn’t. I recall that many posters assumed I was liberal back then based on that thread. Not sure why that case has been brought up more than once here but if you sided with Zimmerman then at least you’re being consistent.

I will say if it turns out this was just a fight between equally willing participants then my comments are wrong. If the guy who died was attacked by a man with a gun then I’m not going to agree that he was at fault.

 

No, I think it’s a stupid law. The old law was you had to make an attempt to retreat before using deadly force. Now, this law just encourages people not to back down, and makes it legal for a person to kill the other if the other person acts in the same exact manner and doesn’t back down…… it hardly even matters which person does the killing. Like I said earlier, the guy with gun wins the fight and usually has enough legal backing to win in court.

 

A couple of questions… it seems (if I read it right) that the fireman spoke up about the couple being rude to the cashier. When they went out side the couple picked a fight over it and the fireman got the upper hand… at which point the woman shot him in the back? It also seems that there were bystanders trying to break the fight up. As in other men trying to get the men apart and she warns them to get out of the way and then shoots the fireman?
Is this correct?
If so isn’t this th liberal thought process that someone with a gun can pick a fight and then claim self defense when they shoot the person the started a fight with?
A “chokehold” can mean a lot of different things. If the “choke” was applied for anywhere close to ten minutes the guy would be dead. Was it a true choke hold or a submission hold in order to control the fight?
Kyle Rittenhouse had a mob attacking him and a gun pointed at his head and he has been vilified for firing his AR15.
I appreciate someone standing up for a cashier just trying to do their job. No need to continue and escalate the fight outside. Don’t want to get hurt or beaten.. don’t start be a jerk and start fights.

 

That’s reasonable. Someone shouldn’t be able to stand your ground for you if you started the fight.

 

It says they were fighting over a firearm with an extended magazine but doesn’t say whose weapon it was. That information is important. Also important to know if the weapon was used in a threatening manner prior to the fight.

 

The firefighter had the guy in a Chokehold

 

I’m aware of that but it wasn’t my question. Before the chokehold they were fighting over a gun. If someone is coming after me with a gun, I have every right to put the guy in a chokehold. If the firefighter was the one threatening the other with the gun, it completely changes his right to put the guy in the chokehold.

 

Fyi, I’m certainly not trying to defend the shooting
Just trying give a little context than the first piece

 

From the article, it states that if the woman did not know who started the conflict, then she was within the stand your ground law to shoot the firefighter, and even a defense attorney interviewed for the article stated the prosecutor made the right call by not charging. Goes on to say the law cannot be applied to the aggressor, which the Florida law seems to differ as Zimmerman was both aggressor and killer. Overall, the since passage of the Missouri law, gun fatalities have increased in the state. Ideally, people walk away from conflicts like this, no one really wins, even the survivors.

 

Semantics? You lied about him choking the guy for 10 minutes straight as justification for the shooting. You’re the one who thought the length of time and the choking were important or you wouldn’t have lied about it. Here’s an idea. Don’t make shit up as part of your argument and you won’t be called out for it.

 

When talking about who started the “conflict” I doubt they are talking about the argument in the store. According to this news article, her boyfriend got his gun out of the truck that she was in. They fought over the gun. She obviously knew her boyfriend got his gun and she could see the fight. She didn’t just walk up and see her boyfriend in a headlock with no idea how it got to that point.

https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article267519578.html

 

Did she get the gun from guy on the ground and then use it to shoot the fireman?

 

It was the same gun that her convicted felon boyfriend dropped during the scuffle.