Under this law, it is plainly spoken that if one party was the first aggressor, but clearly breaks off the attack, and the second party continues the attack, a third party may intervene to prevent injury on the first party by continued aggression by the second party.
By the provisions of this law, I would be justified in using deadly force if I believe that it is necessary, to protect myself or another.
being on the ground in a fetal position while another person savagely beats on the first party is pretty clearly covered here.
Again. Read and understand the laws.
By the provisions of this law, I would be justified in using deadly force if I believe that it is necessary, to protect myself or another.
being on the ground in a fetal position while another person savagely beats on the first party is pretty clearly covered here.
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(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or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
Again. Read and understand the laws.