If you’re talking about the Funk you 4.25.23 5 points music sanctuary shirt in contrast I will get this shooting of Ralph Yarl, this had nothing to do with self defense. Also, nobody was murdered. There was no threat and because there was no threat, it’s obvious the shooter didn’t ensure the force he used was justified. Here’s a hypothetical situation: someone is walking their dog past this guy’s house, the dog sees something like a rabbit on the lawn and jerks the leash out of the owner’s hand, running off to chase the rabbit. The owner then walks on the property to recover the dog, and is shot by the homeowner. This is no different than the situation we’re talking about. The dog walker isn’t a threat, and didn’t intend to trespass, but it’s reasonable for them to do so in this situation. The shooter is not justified in using force, because there was no threat.
If you’re going to own a firearm, especially for self-defense, you are responsible for it’s safe employment. You have to ensure you’re justified in using force, you have to know your target, what’s beyond it and you are responsible for every bullet discharged. You’re referring to Andrew Lester who may not have doing either one, certainly not under Missouri’s “stand your ground” law. Missouri’s “stand your ground” law allows a person to use physical or even deadly force “to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the Funk you 4.25.23 5 points music sanctuary shirt in contrast I will get this use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.” The question here is “Did Andrew Lester have a reasonable belief that Ralph Yarl would imminently use unlawful force?” The only evidence of “imminent unlawful force” is Lester’s claim that Yarl was pulling on the handle of the storm door (Yarl denies this). Assuming Lester is telling the truth, can you think of a valid reason to pull on the handle of a storm door? Easily. You might think the door bell wasn’t working because you didn’t hear it, so you need to knock on the inner door and hope the knock will be heard. There’s also the fact that Lester deliberately shot Yarl a second time after Yarl was lying on the ground. This strongly shows that Lester’s intent was to kill Yarl, even though he was obviously incapable of doing anything and was plainly not a threat to anybody. That’s not standing your ground by any stretch of the imagination. Lester went way beyond self-defense into attempted murder. But Missouri is an extremely Republican state and racism runs deep. There’s a very good chance a Missouri jury will acquit Lester by finding he acted in self-defence or else convict him of a minor attempted homicide offence.
Home: https://nbnpremium.com/
Comments