If that's the case then there should be some kind of exposition where the mother or such about to be raped and murdered and also her children would go "I would first ponder the legal ramifications and whether this is indeed self defense and whether I could claim insanity as I stomp just one more time on my ex-husband's head who tried and will try to murder and rape me and my children and Gbaji even if that stomp is insufficient".
I was not talking about what may or may not be the thought process of the person, in that situation, right at that moment, but how the legal system may view those actions after the fact
. Fair or not "finishing someone off" is pretty much automatically going to get you at least investigated, if not charged, with some form of voluntary manslaughter charge. It's not something most people will do, except under the most dire circumstances. And yeah, one of the question that will be invariably asked is "if he was helpless and on the ground, couldn't you have just run away"? My point is that criticizing actions of a character in a story for doing what would normally be assumed to be the correct course of action in that situation is a bit off. It's not odd at all. It's what most people will normally do.
And uh....in the real world stomping someone once rendering to unconsciousness is often fatal. Being knocked out is very, very bad. Not as bad as stomping them into a paste. Surety.
Which is somewhat the point. Instead of criticizing the choice not to finish the person off as being "unrealistic", you should be pointing out how unrealistic the trope of the bad guy inevitably recovering from unconsciousness to continue to pursue the victim, apparently unaffected by the injury that knocked him out is. As you say, that person is likely to be seriously injured, and incredibly unlikely to do much of anything for *hours* after suffering such an injury.
Which, um... sorta goes to the whole "no need to finish him off". Just run to the authorities and have them pick him up, take him to a hospital, and charge him with this crimes. Killing the person in that situation will almost certainly result in the legal ramifications I mention above.
Yup. Note that this is all about the legal case resulting from the action. Hence my point. In the story it's presented as a given that she has more or less no choice. She's done everything she can to deal with the situation legally. She's filed complaints. She's in an environment in which divorce or separation isn't as legally easy as it is now, and options for battered women were close to nil. A lot of our legal changes with regard to marriage exist precisely because of that scenario.
Today, a woman would have a much harder time making that same case. Not because we've somehow gone backwards socially or something, but because we've created so many options for women in this situation to help them get out of it.
--from Gbaji, who thinks cops are more justified shooting people who look bad, then wives shooting husbands who abuse and rape them and their kids and pets and are imminent threats telling them they will kill them.
Drama much? Can we agree that the issue of domestic violence is far far more complex than that, and should not just be shoehorned into a simplistic "for or against" kind of thing?
Where are the SWAT militarization knock-downs due to 911 calls of domestic violence?
They flashbang to death babies. Shoot to death anyone answering a door. DRUGS. Essentially commerce, non-violent. Domestic violence--violent. Uh. GRRRRR. Sorry if strawmanning you, *******, or your ****** logic or priorities.
You kinda answer your own question. The police are always in a tough spot with these issues. If they don't act strongly enough, they get accused of not caring, or not doing enough. If they act too strongly, they get accused of overreacting, arresting people who shouldn't be arrested, breaking up families unnecessarily, sending kinds to social services, etc. There's no one perfect answer for this. And there's always room for failure. Far too much room.