Excessive or Well Deserved?

Off Topic
222

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

…And the only reason I think the cashier was in the wrong is because he beat the person down with a metal rod, not because he fought back.

[/quote]

I ain’t buying this. In the heat of the moment of a violent self defense situation an innocent civilian should not be required to go through a deliberative mental process of choosing his weapons carefully.

In addition, I don’t necessarily see “excessive force” being used strictly because he whacked them a few times while they were down. In a violent situation everything happens at a blur for an untrained person. By untrained I mean as opposed to a LEO who is specifically disciplined for encounters like this one.[/quote]

You’re missing the point too which surprises me b/c we both know you’re a gun owner. This is not simple self defense as I’ve already explained. This is a an issue of deadly force.

Do you believe this was an encounter that justified the use of deadly force?

And do you think that deadly force was justified when they women were down?

223

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Guys and gals. There is ONE legal question here. Was he justified using DEADLY FORCE. The minute he wielded the metal object and struck his “assailants” repeatedly, this became an issue of DEADLY FORCE, not simple self-defense. Some of you are missing that point by a mile. It’s the law, agree with it or not.

If you think two apparently unarmed women coming at one man is potentially deadly, then argue that. I think it’s a losing argument under most circumstances. It’s certainly not “impossible” to imagine such a scenario, but I think you have to engage in some serious speculation that is contrary to this video evidence.

And, even if we conceded his picking up a weapon was reasonable, once those woman are down, and he’s still striking them (again, assuming they are unarmed and this is NOT an unreasonable assumption), you have to argue that they still constituted a deadly threat. I’m not sure how anyone can make that conclusion.

Ladies and gents, either way, that’s a tough position to take.

And X, IF the women had a weapon, they would certainly face weapons charges. They did not. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that based on the lack of a weapon charge AND the response of the coworkers, these women were unarmed. I’d even go further and say they did not threaten a weapon, as you’d likely see a “terroristic threat” charge on them as well.[/quote]

I dunno I think the justification for deadly force depends on the state. I am not particularly familiar with New York but it seems it has a very tight definition of the ability to use lethal force. Which also sucks for this guy. In a state with a more broad definition of the castle doctrine he’d probably be better off, [/quote]

They are small nuances.

I don’t see this as a castle doctrine issue. He or his employer wasn’t being robbed. His home wasn’t being invaded.

224

[quote]groo wrote:
I don’t think most people know how to respond to violence anymore. In both incidents all kinds of people that could have stepped in basically did nothing out of shock or whatever. I think people like women in the video take advantage of most people’s aversion to any type of violence to get away with acting like they do. There have been several people saying most of us are different than this guy in our propensity to violence and we are, but thats a relatively recent thing in terms of the species. [/quote]

What are you basing that off of? I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, just wondering.

225

[quote]debraD wrote:
Out of curiosity, who is responsible for laying charges in a case like this? If it’s the victim, then you might look at the cashier as to why there isn’t an assault and battery charge on the women. If it’s the police or the DA then that changes things.

I think for sure the women should be facing assault & battery (there really is no controversy here–we all seem to agree) but I really need more info to judge whether they are being adequately charged because for all I know they made some plea bargains.[/quote]
Lets take Ohio but I assume its fairly similar everywhere. If police respond and there is sufficient evidence to bring charges they generally will, but if they like one of the parties, are getting off work and don’t want to waste a lot of time or a host of other reasons they might not bring any charges they might just take a report from everyone. After that a citizen can contact a prosecutor with the situation and bring their evidence and attempt to get the prosecutor to bring charges on their own. There is a lot more art than science here in most cases.

Most fights are a lot less clear even than this one, but lets hypothetically say some random gentleman enters a place of business and shoves someone’s girlfriend and this hypothetical gentleman gets an ass beating then he calls the cops then these cops show up to this business where they might know the guys that allegedly did the ass whooping. And there are no charges brought but the police report stresses the guy who’s showed up being very intoxicated with injuries that didn’t require hospitalization and were consistent with being intoxicated and falling down a lot. This hypothetical guy would have a hard time bringing any charges. Especially if all the video cameras in this hypothetical somehow were broken that day.

Its very very difficult to bring charges after that fact if you don’t know anyone because generally if the police don’t bring them they will stack the deck against you.

226

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Out of curiosity, who is responsible for laying charges in a case like this? If it’s the victim, then you might look at the cashier as to why there isn’t an assault and battery charge on the women. If it’s the police or the DA then that changes things.

I think for sure the women should be facing assault & battery (there really is no controversy here–we all seem to agree) but I really need more info to judge whether they are being adequately charged because for all I know they made some plea bargains.[/quote]

LEO, private citizen or grand jury can bring a charge in this country. The cashier can sign a complaint but in reality he’s facing felony charges and a complaint against these two women are the least of his concerns as they will do nothing to mitigate the charges against him. Nothing.

He’s got bigger fish to fry right now.

This happened recently. Way to early for any plea bargains. As for the cashier, he’s already a violent felon accused of another violent felony. About the only plea he’s going to get is a discussion about the length of his imprisonment being the primary issue. Our courts are usually amenable to some type of plea due to the number of cases going thru the court. It’s cheaper and more expeditious to make deals. Witnesses change their mind, become uncooperative, move away, etc. So there is risk for both sides when it comes to trial. However, they have video here and that’s pretty strong. [/quote]

Yeah that was what I was thinking about the cashier too. It still seems the police should be charging assault and battery. I suspect if the cashier reacted more appropriately they would be getting more charges.

227

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Guys and gals. There is ONE legal question here. Was he justified using DEADLY FORCE. The minute he wielded the metal object and struck his “assailants” repeatedly, this became an issue of DEADLY FORCE, not simple self-defense. Some of you are missing that point by a mile. It’s the law, agree with it or not.

If you think two apparently unarmed women coming at one man is potentially deadly, then argue that. I think it’s a losing argument under most circumstances. It’s certainly not “impossible” to imagine such a scenario, but I think you have to engage in some serious speculation that is contrary to this video evidence.

And, even if we conceded his picking up a weapon was reasonable, once those woman are down, and he’s still striking them (again, assuming they are unarmed and this is NOT an unreasonable assumption), you have to argue that they still constituted a deadly threat. I’m not sure how anyone can make that conclusion.

Ladies and gents, either way, that’s a tough position to take.

And X, IF the women had a weapon, they would certainly face weapons charges. They did not. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that based on the lack of a weapon charge AND the response of the coworkers, these women were unarmed. I’d even go further and say they did not threaten a weapon, as you’d likely see a “terroristic threat” charge on them as well.[/quote]

I dunno I think the justification for deadly force depends on the state. I am not particularly familiar with New York but it seems it has a very tight definition of the ability to use lethal force. Which also sucks for this guy. In a state with a more broad definition of the castle doctrine he’d probably be better off, [/quote]

They are small nuances.

I don’t see this as a castle doctrine issue. He or his employer wasn’t being robbed. His home wasn’t being invaded.

[/quote]
I looked up Texas’s last night after one of the guys questioned it and its super broad. It really looks like you can simply protect your property in Texas with deadly force so long as you aren’t committing a crime and are at work home or car so long as you have any kind of fact pattern. I am sure its a bit more nuanced but the law is here:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

I know for certain that the Texas law is criticized in New York and other places by defense lawyers because the legal standard that gets used though it may be more defacto is “did the people killed need killing” which is way off from almost any other state.

There is a case that brought this up where a Texas guy shot two guys leaving his neighbor’s house after a burglary with no one in danger simply so the guys wouldn’t get away.

This would be a blog bitching about Texas and that case.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/07/02/when-the-castle-doctrine-goes-nuts.aspx

228

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Out of curiosity, who is responsible for laying charges in a case like this? If it’s the victim, then you might look at the cashier as to why there isn’t an assault and battery charge on the women. If it’s the police or the DA then that changes things.

I think for sure the women should be facing assault & battery (there really is no controversy here–we all seem to agree) but I really need more info to judge whether they are being adequately charged because for all I know they made some plea bargains.[/quote]
Lets take Ohio but I assume its fairly similar everywhere. If police respond and there is sufficient evidence to bring charges they generally will, but if they like one of the parties, are getting off work and don’t want to waste a lot of time or a host of other reasons they might not bring any charges they might just take a report from everyone. After that a citizen can contact a prosecutor with the situation and bring their evidence and attempt to get the prosecutor to bring charges on their own. There is a lot more art than science here in most cases.

Most fights are a lot less clear even than this one, but lets hypothetically say some random gentleman enters a place of business and shoves someone’s girlfriend and this hypothetical gentleman gets an ass beating then he calls the cops then these cops show up to this business where they might know the guys that allegedly did the ass whooping. And there are no charges brought but the police report stresses the guy who’s showed up being very intoxicated with injuries that didn’t require hospitalization and were consistent with being intoxicated and falling down a lot. This hypothetical guy would have a hard time bringing any charges. Especially if all the video cameras in this hypothetical somehow were broken that day.

Its very very difficult to bring charges after that fact if you don’t know anyone because generally if the police don’t bring them they will stack the deck against you.[/quote]

I ask because I recently pursued charges against someone but they were actually pressed by the crown but they only proceeded with the charges because I said that is what I wanted to do.

Basically after reports and all that stuff was filed, the police determined there was enough evidence for charges and asked me if I wished for them to go that route. When I said yes they proceeded with an arrest and the crown laid charges. If I had no interest in charges then they would not have proceeded. In this case, as BG said, the cashier has bigger problems, so I was wondering how similar it is.

229

Debra I just finished this and find it pretty compelling. Its 25 bucks or so if there are some people that are interested in it that have epub readers we can probably figure something out :).

230

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Guys and gals. There is ONE legal question here. Was he justified using DEADLY FORCE. The minute he wielded the metal object and struck his “assailants” repeatedly, this became an issue of DEADLY FORCE, not simple self-defense. Some of you are missing that point by a mile. It’s the law, agree with it or not.

If you think two apparently unarmed women coming at one man is potentially deadly, then argue that. I think it’s a losing argument under most circumstances. It’s certainly not “impossible” to imagine such a scenario, but I think you have to engage in some serious speculation that is contrary to this video evidence.

And, even if we conceded his picking up a weapon was reasonable, once those woman are down, and he’s still striking them (again, assuming they are unarmed and this is NOT an unreasonable assumption), you have to argue that they still constituted a deadly threat. I’m not sure how anyone can make that conclusion.

Ladies and gents, either way, that’s a tough position to take.

And X, IF the women had a weapon, they would certainly face weapons charges. They did not. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that based on the lack of a weapon charge AND the response of the coworkers, these women were unarmed. I’d even go further and say they did not threaten a weapon, as you’d likely see a “terroristic threat” charge on them as well.[/quote]

I dunno I think the justification for deadly force depends on the state. I am not particularly familiar with New York but it seems it has a very tight definition of the ability to use lethal force. Which also sucks for this guy. In a state with a more broad definition of the castle doctrine he’d probably be better off, [/quote]

They are small nuances.

I don’t see this as a castle doctrine issue. He or his employer wasn’t being robbed. His home wasn’t being invaded.

[/quote]
I looked up Texas’s last night after one of the guys questioned it and its super broad. It really looks like you can simply protect your property in Texas with deadly force so long as you aren’t committing a crime and are at work home or car so long as you have any kind of fact pattern. I am sure its a bit more nuanced but the law is here:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

I know for certain that the Texas law is criticized in New York and other places by defense lawyers because the legal standard that gets used though it may be more defacto is “did the people killed need killing” which is way off from almost any other state.

There is a case that brought this up where a Texas guy shot two guys leaving his neighbor’s house after a burglary with no one in danger simply so the guys wouldn’t get away.

This would be a blog bitching about Texas and that case.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/07/02/when-the-castle-doctrine-goes-nuts.aspx[/quote]

I know about TX law in this regard. But that has nothing to do with “self defense” and it has nothing to do with this particular matter. Wrong church, wrong pew.

231

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Guys and gals. There is ONE legal question here. Was he justified using DEADLY FORCE. The minute he wielded the metal object and struck his “assailants” repeatedly, this became an issue of DEADLY FORCE, not simple self-defense. Some of you are missing that point by a mile. It’s the law, agree with it or not.

If you think two apparently unarmed women coming at one man is potentially deadly, then argue that. I think it’s a losing argument under most circumstances. It’s certainly not “impossible” to imagine such a scenario, but I think you have to engage in some serious speculation that is contrary to this video evidence.

And, even if we conceded his picking up a weapon was reasonable, once those woman are down, and he’s still striking them (again, assuming they are unarmed and this is NOT an unreasonable assumption), you have to argue that they still constituted a deadly threat. I’m not sure how anyone can make that conclusion.

Ladies and gents, either way, that’s a tough position to take.

And X, IF the women had a weapon, they would certainly face weapons charges. They did not. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that based on the lack of a weapon charge AND the response of the coworkers, these women were unarmed. I’d even go further and say they did not threaten a weapon, as you’d likely see a “terroristic threat” charge on them as well.[/quote]

I dunno I think the justification for deadly force depends on the state. I am not particularly familiar with New York but it seems it has a very tight definition of the ability to use lethal force. Which also sucks for this guy. In a state with a more broad definition of the castle doctrine he’d probably be better off, [/quote]

They are small nuances.

I don’t see this as a castle doctrine issue. He or his employer wasn’t being robbed. His home wasn’t being invaded.

[/quote]
I looked up Texas’s last night after one of the guys questioned it and its super broad. It really looks like you can simply protect your property in Texas with deadly force so long as you aren’t committing a crime and are at work home or car so long as you have any kind of fact pattern. I am sure its a bit more nuanced but the law is here:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

I know for certain that the Texas law is criticized in New York and other places by defense lawyers because the legal standard that gets used though it may be more defacto is “did the people killed need killing” which is way off from almost any other state.

There is a case that brought this up where a Texas guy shot two guys leaving his neighbor’s house after a burglary with no one in danger simply so the guys wouldn’t get away.

This would be a blog bitching about Texas and that case.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/07/02/when-the-castle-doctrine-goes-nuts.aspx[/quote]

There was a case a long long time ago where a Texas resident shot a repo man legally repossessing his car. He was not convicted. The country was outraged. It was on 60 minutes even. The homeowner apparently reasonably believed his car was being stolen.

Still not a “self defense” scenario.

This guy still gets charged in Texas.

232

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
Go to japan, and lets see if you ever find a japanese woman doing that to a man. they wouldn’t dare, they have respect. they are raised to have respect(as they should) for men.[/quote]

Dude, I once pissed off a Japanese woman so much (simply by not calling her back after a date) that she broke into my apartment, hid in a kitchen cupboard - presumably for several hours - and started hurling my own dishes at me after I arrived home from work.[/quote]
x2

233

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048

This is the video of the transgendered person being beaten. A little more disturbing since they keep coming back and its not in the heat of the moment. And little old lady I admire you more balls than anyone else in the whole damn place.

234

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Guys and gals. There is ONE legal question here. Was he justified using DEADLY FORCE. The minute he wielded the metal object and struck his “assailants” repeatedly, this became an issue of DEADLY FORCE, not simple self-defense. Some of you are missing that point by a mile. It’s the law, agree with it or not.

If you think two apparently unarmed women coming at one man is potentially deadly, then argue that. I think it’s a losing argument under most circumstances. It’s certainly not “impossible” to imagine such a scenario, but I think you have to engage in some serious speculation that is contrary to this video evidence.

And, even if we conceded his picking up a weapon was reasonable, once those woman are down, and he’s still striking them (again, assuming they are unarmed and this is NOT an unreasonable assumption), you have to argue that they still constituted a deadly threat. I’m not sure how anyone can make that conclusion.

Ladies and gents, either way, that’s a tough position to take.

And X, IF the women had a weapon, they would certainly face weapons charges. They did not. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that based on the lack of a weapon charge AND the response of the coworkers, these women were unarmed. I’d even go further and say they did not threaten a weapon, as you’d likely see a “terroristic threat” charge on them as well.[/quote]

I dunno I think the justification for deadly force depends on the state. I am not particularly familiar with New York but it seems it has a very tight definition of the ability to use lethal force. Which also sucks for this guy. In a state with a more broad definition of the castle doctrine he’d probably be better off, [/quote]

They are small nuances.

I don’t see this as a castle doctrine issue. He or his employer wasn’t being robbed. His home wasn’t being invaded.

[/quote]
I looked up Texas’s last night after one of the guys questioned it and its super broad. It really looks like you can simply protect your property in Texas with deadly force so long as you aren’t committing a crime and are at work home or car so long as you have any kind of fact pattern. I am sure its a bit more nuanced but the law is here:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

I know for certain that the Texas law is criticized in New York and other places by defense lawyers because the legal standard that gets used though it may be more defacto is “did the people killed need killing” which is way off from almost any other state.

There is a case that brought this up where a Texas guy shot two guys leaving his neighbor’s house after a burglary with no one in danger simply so the guys wouldn’t get away.

This would be a blog bitching about Texas and that case.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/07/02/when-the-castle-doctrine-goes-nuts.aspx[/quote]

There was a case a long long time ago where a Texas resident shot a repo man legally repossessing his car. He was not convicted. The country was outraged. It was on 60 minutes even. The homeowner apparently reasonably believed his car was being stolen.

Still not a “self defense” scenario.

This guy still gets charged in Texas. [/quote]

Yah I think this guy is legally screwed. I think what will result is an unjust outcome. I think his choice of weapon was unfortunate if he’d have shot them he’d have more of a chance of getting off for self defense since it wouldn’t be so extended and he could really argue the point that he had no idea if they had a gun or not. When he starts teeing off on them when they are out for the count is where he gets into trouble. If he had a more deadly weapon I think he’d have been better off strangely.

235

[quote]groo wrote:

This is the video of the transgendered person being beaten. A little more disturbing since they keep coming back and its not in the heat of the moment. And little old lady I admire you more balls than anyone else in the whole damn place.[/quote]

This was posted before.

They are dirty fucking animals.

The bystanders, except for the old lady, are dirty fucking animals.

That said, this happened in Baltimore, and those employees likely live in Baltimore. Although I would have intervened, it’s not that simple for all. I’m stupid, and I’m willing to be stupid with stupid people. You come looking for me later, and you don’t get me, I’ll burn your fucking house down. But that’s me. The algebra in the city is a bit more complicated. Not minding our own business can have repercussions beyond the moment and lethal consequences. I’m not advocating minding your own business in this situation, but I certainly understand it in our cities.

It’s important that decent people stand together against the animals among us. That can be your mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, family as a victim.

Those dirty bitches belong in jail.

236

[quote]groo wrote:

Yah I think this guy is legally screwed. I think what will result is an unjust outcome. I think his choice of weapon was unfortunate if he’d have shot them he’d have more of a chance of getting off for self defense since it wouldn’t be so extended and he could really argue the point that he had no idea if they had a gun or not. When he starts teeing off on them when they are out for the count is where he gets into trouble. If he had a more deadly weapon I think he’d have been better off strangely.
[/quote]

I understand your logic but disagree. At the end of the day, no weapon was brandished, recovered and as far as we know, threatened. And at the end of the day, it’s two women. The legal complications for him START the moment he brandished and used a deadly weapon. A gun is a deadly weapon obviously. The analysis wouldn’t change. You’re focusing obviously on the blows AFTER they are down, and this is obviously problematic, but in reality, the analysis starts the moment he makes the choice to brandish and use a deadly weapon. Matters not what kind in my opinion.

237

[quote]groo wrote:
Debra I just finished this and find it pretty compelling. Its 25 bucks or so if there are some people that are interested in it that have epub readers we can probably figure something out :).

Thanks! It’s interesting that it’s usually the opposite being asserted and we’re becoming more violent but having spent some time with my mom and my aunt to hear how things used to be that does not seem to be the case for me on an individual level, at least.

238

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048

This is the video of the transgendered person being beaten. A little more disturbing since they keep coming back and its not in the heat of the moment. And little old lady I admire you more balls than anyone else in the whole damn place.[/quote]

This was posted before.

They are dirty fucking animals.

The bystanders, except for the old lady, are dirty fucking animals.

That said, this happened in Baltimore, and those employees likely live in Baltimore. Although I would have intervened, it’s not that simple for all. I’m stupid, and I’m willing to be stupid with stupid people. You come looking for me later, and you don’t get me, I’ll burn your fucking house down. But that’s me. The algebra in the city is a bit more complicated. Not minding our own business can have repercussions beyond the moment and lethal consequences. I’m not advocating minding your own business in this situation, but I certainly understand it in our cities.

It’s important that decent people stand together against the animals among us. That can be your mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, family as a victim.

Those dirty bitches belong in jail. [/quote]

Oh absolutely we have a young guy working with us. His apartment was shot up the other day for some stupid thing. It happened on one side of Columbus and something like that would rarely happen in another part of town where I live a few miles away. Some cities and some parts of some cities are different worlds. I still think we are less violent than in the past though its just the more atavistic of us are more readily apparent.

240

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Yah I think this guy is legally screwed. I think what will result is an unjust outcome. I think his choice of weapon was unfortunate if he’d have shot them he’d have more of a chance of getting off for self defense since it wouldn’t be so extended and he could really argue the point that he had no idea if they had a gun or not. When he starts teeing off on them when they are out for the count is where he gets into trouble. If he had a more deadly weapon I think he’d have been better off strangely.
[/quote]

I understand your logic but disagree. At the end of the day, no weapon was brandished, recovered and as far as we know, threatened. And at the end of the day, it’s two women. The legal complications for him START the moment he brandished and used a deadly weapon. A gun is a deadly weapon obviously. The analysis wouldn’t change. You’re focusing obviously on the blows AFTER they are down, and this is obviously problematic, but in reality, the analysis starts the moment he makes the choice to brandish and use a deadly weapon. Matters not what kind in my opinion. [/quote]

I think he’s got too many things going against him. I agree the facts are largely as your present them. But he also get the bonus facts that they were women, he is black and a felon and notorious in that area for his crime in the past. If any of these things were different it would be a much easier case to defend since I am sure you could pick up a few more jury members that wouldn’t be willing to convict more easily…regardless of how one feels about a trial strategy like that undermining the justice system. I am fairly certain he will plea out to something lesser and avoid a trial.

241

[quote]groo wrote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048

This is the video of the transgendered person being beaten. A little more disturbing since they keep coming back and its not in the heat of the moment. And little old lady I admire you more balls than anyone else in the whole damn place.[/quote]

Completely agree about the older lady, utmost respect for stepping in to help like that despite the risk to herself, if only there were more people like that and less like those two scumbags!