Stltoday - St. Louis teen charged in Central West End 'knockout' attack
The 30-year-old male victim was walking on the sidewalk in the 4600 block of McPherson Avenue about 10 p.m. Friday when a group of teens approached. Townsend punched the man.
Honestly, I don't think there's really anything you can do about it except hope that it just kind of goes away and maybe put a few people in jail here and there.
Serious legal question....let's say someone is surrounded by six people. One plays knockout on you but you are circled by all six. Can a person kill all six or just the one specific attacker?
The right of, and degree of, self-defense is highly dependent on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. Don't take this for actual legal advice, but I believe that Missouri law provides a general ban against the use of deadly force against another, except in two cases: when a perpetrator unlawfully enters and remains on the individual's private property ("castle doctrine"); or when the individual reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to protect him/her against death or serious physical injury. The latter situation would apply here... so, if you were in the victim's shoes in the "knockout game," you would need to reasonably believe that you were in danger of serious physical harm or impending death in order to justify your use of deadly force. Again, proving a reasonable belief is highly fact dependent and how well you meet your burden of persuasion. Facts would start to weigh in your favor if the 6 hypothetical perpetrators had already punched you a few times... courts/juries won't like it if you shot six guys who were crowding in on you and they hadn't even attacked you first. Since the knockout game doesn't seem to result in serious physical harm let alone death, if you just shot and killed these 6 guys to "pre-empt" an attack, it's doubtful your actions will be justifiable. And, even if they did punch you first, you're still going to need to show that you thought you were in danger of serious physical harm or death. A punch is probably not enough to make you think you were in such serious danger. Now, if they brandished weapons and had beaten you with a tire iron a couple times, then yeah it'll be easier for you to show you were justified in shooting/killing them.
Regarding your question about whether you can shoot all 6 or just the one that punched you, you'll probably be able to justify your actions (if your shooting/killing were justifiable by itself) against all six if you prove that all 6 were in a criminal conspiracy. This seems like a slam dunk for you. In a properly proven criminal conspiracy, the actions of one individual will be attributed to each of his co-conspirators. All six will be considered to have punched you out, so you justifiably exercised deadly self-defense against all.
But, you can use "regular" physical force under a much lower standard: you reasonable believe "regular" physical force to be necessary to defend yourself from harm. This will be rather easy to prove in your scenario.
Under Missouri law, it doesn't seem you need to prove that you tried to retreat from an escalating situation. (See also: Florida's stand your ground law, which seems similar to Missouri law at first glance), unless you were the first aggressor to begin with.
This deserves mention. Nice young man killed needlessly by a subhuman who's mind wasn't right after being raised on orange soda, potato chips and cake donuts.
Subhuman is actually an understatement. I'd be more harsh when describing these useless thugs. They murdered a young man (hard-working at that) for a ------- pizza! Only positive, you take two murders off of the streets. Only negative, when you incarcerate murderers, does not put a dent in the thug population. There will always be 1000s more thugs lined up to rob and shoot the innocent citizens. As evidenced by the shooting in Benton Park last night:
Unfortunately, these types of incidents lead to good, hard-working people giving up and moving out of great places like Benton Park, especially families. It is sad to see great areas that have been moving in a positive direction, taken over by thugs.
I'm scared of guns and I've barely even touched a gun. Do not own one. That said, don't encourage me to make the world's oldest argument in defense of having the right to own a gun which are:
1) If you restrict ownership only the "thugs" will have guns (and they're the only ones actually USING them anyway).
2) It doesn't work. Chicago has the nation's toughest gun laws and there are shootouts every weekend and more gun violence than any city in the nation.
This simply cannot be disputed.
Why did you make defend gun ownership?!! Why??!! I feel gross now....
^ So is it just American society? Places like Australia and England have much, much tougher gun laws than Chicago, or NYC or wherever in the US and they have significantly less gun violence.
Alex Ihnen wrote:^ So is it just American society?
Yes, sadly it IS American society. Or at least one small subculture of American society.
That's exactly right. If you replaced the the current 350k in STL with 350k Australians or Swedes and gave them all a gun there would probably be very little gun violence.
That's an odd way to look at it. I mean, Australians and Swedes generally do not have guns - do you think that giving them all guns would mean there's very little gun violence? If so, why do those countries need/have strict gun laws? I'd suggest that it just may be worth trying more strict gun laws here. It's time to act as though we're actually in the desperate situation we are.
Im pretty sure laws only work for the people that follow them. Most of the law abiding citizens that own guns (I'm one and I know several others) follow all of the current gun laws and regulations.
My point being your average gun owner is not the problem demographic.
Secondly, how many of the nations that we're comparing have a population of people who were once slaves and who still struggle against racism, marginalization and all of the major issues the come with them?
^I am not saying that comment is not accurate, but making excuses for criminal and overall irresponsible behavior using those things you have cited is a major reason it seems to continue into perpetuity. As long as everyone provides a faction of the populace with ready made excuses for certain behavior, there will be no incentive to change the behavior and no shame for those who refuse to exercise personal responsibility.
If everyone is equal, they should be held to equal standards, regardless of what happened to African slaves in America 150 years ago.
(I know this is a gross over simplification, but sometimes to fix a complex problem you have to start as simple as possible)
"I'm pretty sure laws only work for the people that follow them." By that logic, why have laws at all? Or are you saying that people such as yourself would steal and kill if it weren't against the law?
And no one's out to get the "average gun owner". Making guns more difficult to buy wouldn't affect people like you whatsoever. Again, isn't it about time to try something else? I guess many people are OK with the current situation as those with enough money can choose to live somewhere where there isn't a lot of gun violence.
As we all know, most gun laws are useless (in reference to criminals), since thugs/gangstas do not abide by or follow the same sets of laws that we do. Unless there is a complete ban on gun manufacturing, possession, buying, a 100% removal of guns from the US (never going to happen), illegal guns will always be out there for thugs to obtain. If we tighten gun laws, say automatic 2 year sentence for possession of illegal guns, it will be great in getting thugs off of the streets, but how does a cash-straped state pay for incarceration of these fine individuals. The system could not handle all of the gun-toting thugs. I'm sure crime would go down, since almost every street criminal/gangsta thug, carries a gun. I assume there would an increase in 'non-violent' crimes, if guns were less available and laws harsher, but most thugs are bold and just DGAF. I don't see gun laws affecting thugs much at all. It is the average Joe hunter and gun-owner (who has a legal gun), that will be affected most by legislation.
"As we all know, most gun laws are useless (in reference to criminals), since thugs/gangstas do not abide by or follow the same sets of laws that we do."
Simply untrue. Again, either you're happy with the status quo, or perhaps we should try something else. There's zero clear evidence that enacting laws similar to Australia or England (and many other countries) would "solve" the issue, but we must do something. We're not talking draconian laws here. NYC has done it/is doing it and many other "freedom loving" places as well.
In terms of national histories, Australia was founded by convicts - you know, scum that were locked up and shipped around the world to an island penitentiary. England? A couple thousand years of revolts, civil war, war... but I guess the American culture just is what it is and we should just accept that everyone should be able to have a gun, oh, and carry it wherever they want - at universities, on public transit...
If we tighten gun laws, say automatic 2 year sentence for possession of illegal guns, it will be great in getting thugs off of the streets, but how does a cash-straped state pay for incarceration of these fine individuals. The system could not handle all of the gun-toting thugs.
You could always decriminalize/reduce sentences for drug related offenses
Simply untrue. Again, either you're happy with the status quo, or perhaps we should try something else. There's zero clear evidence that enacting laws similar to Australia or England (and many other countries) would "solve" the issue, but we must do something. We're not talking draconian laws here. NYC has done it/is doing it and many other "freedom loving" places as well.
In terms of national histories, Australia was founded by convicts - you know, scum that were locked up and shipped around the world to an island penitentiary. England? A couple thousand years of revolts, civil war, war... but I guess the American culture just is what it is and we should just accept that everyone should be able to have a gun, oh, and carry it wherever they want - at universities, on public transit...
I don't know that England or Australia are a good example of the issues we have in the U.S. The types of thugs that roam the streets of US cities are the mostly street hardened, IDGAF, kill you for a pizza, criminals. There is a MAJOR illegal drug trade, light sentences on certain crimes, LOTS of illiegal weapons and overcrowded prisons, leading to the environment we have here. I do agree that something has to be done, but face the facts. There is no way that guns are ever banned in this country, much less, this state. Enact laws that penalize criminals/felons for carrying guns. I would be shocked if just ONE criminal thug had a CC. Not going to happen. I would be all for an NYC type law. Gun play is out of control in St. Louis. I do not want the status quo, but it does not look like things will change any time soon. On top of that the City is cutting back on the police force.
Google "Asymmetric Threat" then plan to approach the gun problem that way. I'd be on on board with a creative solution but the idea that you could somehow stop gun violence by "making it harder to buy guns" is absolutely absurd.
Seriously, I get and agree with a lot of the ideology and logic that everyone is talking about. Now juxtapose your "logic" with reality. If you have time Friday evening, go down to W. Florissant at Goodfellow or walk through Castlepoint (Chambers @ Halls Ferry) around the same time Saturday. Report back to the forum on what you observe.
Having lived and grown up in North County nearly my entire life and having visited these neighborhoods several times as a home investor, I can tell you with 100% assurance that the criminal elements operating in these neighborhoods have absolutely no use for "laws" as governed to them by our political structure. You think this sub-tier or our culture actually "buy" guns let alone "earn" money, "pay" taxes or "own" property? They exploit our legal structure, they exploit our social welfare systems, and they impart fear on the law-abiding citizens around them by enforcing a street-level code of silence.
Seriously, get down into those neighborhoods and ask those folks what they think of Australia's gun restrictions. See how that works out for you.
ttricamo wrote:Seriously, get down into those neighborhoods and ask those folks what they think of Australia's gun restrictions. See how that works out for you.
That's about the absolutely dumbest way to consider the situation that anyone could have possibly suggested. And I'm being nice.
Those living in neighborhoods with gun violence know that there are too many guns on the street and that they're too easily purchased, legally. It's the Constitution-thumpers who live in safe areas that rant about how gun laws aren't needed.
There are three choices:
1) There are too many guns on the streets.
2) There are just the right amount of guns on the streets.
3) There are not enough guns on the streets.
Alex Ihnen wrote:Those living in neighborhoods with gun violence know that there are too many guns on the street and that they're too easily purchased, legally. It's the Constitution-thumpers who live in safe areas that rant about how gun laws aren't needed.
Says the Claytonite to the guy that lives in Florissant. I think we might be in bizarro world today!
