Excessive or Well Deserved?

[BONEZ217]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

The woman easily could have been killed. 1, 2, 3 more blows and shes dead. [/quote]

You asked if his life was in danger. The answer is “potentially yes”.

The guy basically got lucky that he’s not facing his SECOND manslaughter charge/conviction.

Not what you commented on and what I responded to.

[quote]
If you really think a beating to the brink of death is required to defend one’s self after getting smacked in the face then youre a bigger pussy then you let on. [/quote]

The question was whether his life was at risk. The answer is, “potentially yes”. This is NOT about arm chair quarterbacking an event long after it took place.

It is great to be that self righteous though…seeing as how all of the instances this has happened to you can be watched via youtube for critique.

Link?

[quote]
But Im glad that you informed us that getting slapped by a woman is now a life threatening situation. You dont have to be psychic to know that somoene who needed to be taken out of the place in an ambulance is no threat to your life. [/quote]

?

How would you know AHEAD OF TIME that she is unarmed and is no threat to life?

Please answer this.

The only reason you can make this argument is because it happened behind the counter. If this happened in front of the camera you’d actually see how heinous this was. You’d see the woman just laying there, not moving at all, taking shot after shot to her head and body. There’s simply no justification for beating someone to the brink of death as self defense for getting bitch slapped.

Uh, gee, the fact that it DOES NOT HAPPEN ON CAMERA is the whole issue. That makes every comment about what happened back there an ASSUMPTION. It may be a valid assumption, but an assumption none the less.[/quote]

Reposted because I messed up the quote and it was hard to read

Obviously it’s an assumption. Guess who’s is more likely to be true though. Yeah…

“please answer this”

It doesnt matter if the guy initially feared that the woman was carrying a flame thrower or a machete or whatever else.

As soon as she was subdued, he should have stopped. It’s quite safe to say that the threat was nullified some time prior to HER SKULL BEING FRACTURED BY A METAL ROD.

If she jumped that counter and reached into her pants to grab a knife or even something that LOOKED like a weapon I could understand the guy grabbing a weapon of his own.

Striking a person a half dozen times AFTER they hit the floor is a heinous act of violence. Did he deserved to be slapped? Absolutely not. Did she deserve to be almost killed for what she did? I guess you would say ‘yes’.

Dont become a legislator, please.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…But YOU CAN file a complaint and prosecute it yourself. Happens ALL THE TIME.[/quote]

I’m guessing you are wrong here, i.e., that it “happens all the time.” I simply do not believe it is even remotely common for private prosecutions to occur in violent criminal felony cases.

Correct me if I’m wrong.
[/quote]

Well, you’re qualifying it by “violent criminal felony” case which be definition demands some type of formal prosecution. Misdemeanor complaints are fairly common.

When there is an alleged “felony” the State is taking a position one way or the other.

So we agree on technicality but I’m not “wrong”.

[Professor_X]

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

It doesnt matter if the guy initially feared that the woman was carrying a flame thrower or a machete or whatever else. [/quote]

But…it kinda does. There is a huge difference between striking a woman walking towards you smiling and one walking towards you hitting you. Why would anyone in their right mind think that there is no risk of carrying a weapon when someone attacks?

[quote]

As soon as she was subdued, he should have stopped. It’s quite safe to say that the threat was nullified some time prior to HER SKULL BEING FRACTURED BY A METAL ROD. [/quote]

Wow, that was like…3 pages ago. I think we all agree that if they were TRULY out for the count and no more of a threat then yes, striking more is overboard…BUT WE CAN’T SEE WHAT HAPPENED BEHIND THE COUNTER.

If she jumped that counter and reached into her pants to grab a knife or even something that LOOKED like a weapon I could understand the guy grabbing a weapon of his own.

?

First, there were two of them. How was ANYONE, including you, great Mordrid the Magician, going to be aware of even how many comprised the group?

You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions and seem to be damned sure that you can tell ahead of time who is carrying a weapon and who isn’t in their pocket.

How did you gain this ability?

[quote]
Striking a person a half dozen times AFTER they hit the floor is a heinous act of violence. Did he deserved to be slapped? Absolutely not. Did she deserve to be almost killed for what she did? I guess you would say ‘yes’.

Dont become a legislator, please. [/quote]

?

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore?

You asked if his life was in danger.

The answer again is “potentially YES”.

Want that on a t-shirt?

[lewhitehurst]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

…As soon as she was subdued, he should have stopped… [/quote]

Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest.
[/quote]

And on. Sunday, no less.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And by the way X, you get no argument from me on principal. I’m defending myself. I’m just not causing serious injury doing it.

I was involved in an altercation a few weeks back when a van full of drunks almost ran my son’s mother and son off the road. I caught them at the end of my road (deadend). Long story short, one of the “women” in the van started mouthing off like this and very clear said she would “cut” me.

At that point, I told her if she took one step forward, I’d knock her the fuck out. Put my hand on the guy’s chest closest to me and shoved him away and told HIM if he came within my reach, HE was going down.

Then the police arrived. She told her story in all her glory…“he said he was going to knock me out…he THREATENED me”. 8 police cars there, 10 officers. I repeated exactly what happened. And I was happily on my way back home while they were getting arrested for DUI and underage drinking.

Bottom line: I would have knocked her the fuck out. But she made a specific, deadly threat. I would not have KNOCKED either of these two “women” out. I would have dialed it down. [/quote]

I don’t deny your point, but I wonder how reasonable it is to expect such self-control from most people, who have NO experience with being threatened in such a way.

Responding proportionately seems a pretty high standard to me for Joe Blow. [/quote]

It’s not an issue of responding “proportionately”; it’s an issue of (generally) responding as a “reasonable person” in similar circumstances would.

You can (as X has, and I have already conceded) quite intelligently make the point that these women were a potential serious threat to the cashier’s safety. Whether it was a “deadly” threat, is a beauty contest and will come down to his state of mind, whether a jury would buy it, and what a reasonable person might believe under similar circumstances. I’d go so far as to say that he was probably justified to fear for his safety.

However, once they are on the ground and he continues striking, he lost. Now, you, X and whoever else can sit there and say “but we can’t see”. But the MOST LIKELY scenario based on our best information and the actions of the coworkers is that these ladies were not armed and no longer posed a specific threat once down.

There is no weapon charge against the women.
There is apparently no threat to stab or shoot (or coworkers would have been running too) and there is no charge or terroristic threats.
No other coworker is sufficiently alarmed to take cover.
At least one coworker tries to break the attack after the women are down.

This is STRONG evidence that what may have started out as self-defense degenerated into a felony assault.

The law does not require you to be “perfect” in this situation, only reasonable.

There is no denying he’s in a tough spot. But there is also no denying that whatever the level of threat is or perceived was extinguished when they are down, unless you are just stubborn and refuse to concede what the obvious. You can “but we can’t see” all day long but the coworker is clear. And his testimony would likely be consistent with that. He doesn’t run. He doesn’t take cover. No other employee is taking cover. It speaks volumes.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I don’t deny your point, but I wonder how reasonable it is to expect such self-control from most people, who have NO experience with being threatened in such a way.

Responding proportionately seems a pretty high standard to me for Joe Blow. [/quote]

This has been my argument all along. It’s too damn easy (on Monday morning) to tell (untrained) Joe Blow how he ideally SHOULD have responded when significant decisions had to be made in seconds or fractions thereof.[/quote]

I already debunked the argument. It’s not required. Defend his picking up a weapon. That’s probably easy. You can probably even defend him striking them. What you will not be able to defend is his striking them repeatedly while down. That decision was not “made in seconds or fractions”. At that point, he was in COMPLETE control of the situation.

They have already started a defense fund for him. You and X and others should put your wallet where your emotions lie and donate.

By the way, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

And by the way, when they apply a “reasonable person” standard, they will apply what a normal person would be expected to do in similar circumstances - not what a trained perfect person would do.

[B_L_U_Ninja]

But there are waaaay too many factors to consider on what is “reasonable”. The biggest could be who the person doing it is, his background and the shit he went through in life.

A person who lived in suburbia his whole life will respond differently compared to a person who grew up “in the streets”. So what is reasonable and what is not? We are, after all creatures of habit and instinct. Contradictory as that may sound, I think we can all agree on that point.

Was it excessive? For suburban Bob, sure it is. But ask someone who went through and seen violence on a regular basis, which I’m assuming is where this guy falls under, the answer would be no.

You can’t dictate Human Behaviour and base things solely on what you believe in. You have to look at so many different factors, that this argument would never end. But in the end, laws are put in place. I don’t, and I assume most of you, agree with some of them and the people who blindly enforce them.

You can’t predict what even YOURSELF will do if you wound up in his shoes.

You can tell yourself today that you WILL stop an armed robbery if the situation presented itself, but you won’t know for sure until it happens. You might actually piss your pants and run like a little bitch.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
But there are waaaay too many factors to consider on what is “reasonable”. The biggest could be who the person doing it is, his background and the shit he went through in life.

A person who lived in suburbia his whole life will respond differently compared to a person who grew up “in the streets”. So what is reasonable and what is not? We are, after all creatures of habit and instinct. Contradictory as that may sound, I think we can all agree on that point.

Was it excessive? For suburban Bob, sure it is. But ask someone who went through and seen violence on a regular basis, which I’m assuming is where this guy falls under, the answer would be no.

You can’t dictate Human Behaviour and base things solely on what you believe in. You have to look at so many different factors, that this argument would never end. But in the end, laws are put in place. I don’t, and I assume most of you, agree with some of them and the people who blindly enforce them.

You can’t predict what even YOURSELF will do if you wound up in his shoes.

You can tell yourself today that you WILL stop an armed robbery if the situation presented itself, but you won’t know for sure until it happens. You might actually piss your pants and run like a little bitch.[/quote]

I know EXACTLY what I would have done. I am no stranger to violence.

As for your dissertation on suburbia and such, the “reasonable person” are those on the jury. They will get the jury charge, and they will decide. Therefore, your argument about suburbia is out the window. Next, AFTER you are found guilty, your life and experiences may mitigate a sentence (or it may not), but just b/c your auntie touched your pee pee when you were 5, is not a defense to future crimes.

Since it happened in Manhattan (NYC) I believe, it would be a Manhattan jury that decides, if the case goes to trial.

[TheBodyGuard]

And don’t confuse my dispassionate analysis of the potential and likely legal issues with my personal feelings. I think these two bitches are fucking animals. And I believe there are too many of these manly acting animals (among the male animals too) roaming our streets, believing their actions have no consequences.

I’d vote these bitches, and everyone like them, off the fucking island.

But I’d vote his ass off too. If you do not have enough common fucking sense to cease an attack once your UNARMED FEMALE opponent is down, you do not deserve to live among us either.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…It’s not an issue of responding “proportionately”; it’s an issue of (generally) responding as a “reasonable person” in similar circumstances would…

[/quote]

My point is it’s not reasonable to expect a reasonable man to turn it on and off like a well trained, well oiled machine.[/quote]

C’mon Push. You’re reaching.

If you have to “turn it off”, you have lost control. And if you have lost control, you have likely committed a crime. Losing control is not a defense to a crime. This isn’t “temporary insanity”. I “lost it” in anger is not a defense. He was angry. Not fearful.

Think. And take your position to it’s logical and ultimately untenable conclusion. You’re damn well smart enough to know where it goes and why it’s untenable.

My lady friend slaps me in the face and I “lose it” and punch her in the fucking mouth, breaking her jaw and dislodging some chicklets. Do you think my inability to “turn it off” is a defense to my punching her in her big fucking mouth?

[B_L_U_Ninja]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
But there are waaaay too many factors to consider on what is “reasonable”. The biggest could be who the person doing it is, his background and the shit he went through in life.

A person who lived in suburbia his whole life will respond differently compared to a person who grew up “in the streets”. So what is reasonable and what is not? We are, after all creatures of habit and instinct. Contradictory as that may sound, I think we can all agree on that point.

Was it excessive? For suburban Bob, sure it is. But ask someone who went through and seen violence on a regular basis, which I’m assuming is where this guy falls under, the answer would be no.

You can’t dictate Human Behaviour and base things solely on what you believe in. You have to look at so many different factors, that this argument would never end. But in the end, laws are put in place. I don’t, and I assume most of you, agree with some of them and the people who blindly enforce them.

You can’t predict what even YOURSELF will do if you wound up in his shoes.

You can tell yourself today that you WILL stop an armed robbery if the situation presented itself, but you won’t know for sure until it happens. You might actually piss your pants and run like a little bitch.[/quote]

I know EXACTLY what I would have done. I am no stranger to violence.

As for your dissertation on suburbia and such, the “reasonable person” are those on the jury. They will get the jury charge, and they will decide. Therefore, your argument about suburbia is out the window. Next, AFTER you are found guilty, your life and experiences may mitigate a sentence (or it may not), but just b/c your auntie touched your pee pee when you were 5, is not a defense to future crimes.

Since it happened in Manhattan (NYC) I believe, it would be a Manhattan jury that decides, if the case goes to trial.
[/quote]

Really? So, in any given situation, you would know what you would do? Interesting, but bullshit.

And I’m not arguing whether or not he would be spared by the Jury or not. I know he won’t be.

What I’m saying is, and you can’t possibly argue with this, is that what you went through in life and what you’ve seen on a regular basis will affect your decisions.

That’s what I see in his actions. More than his fair share of violence in his life so he responded the only way he knew how.

You can’t possibly say that personal experience, ie. childhood won’t affect decisions in life.

[Professor_X]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…It’s not an issue of responding “proportionately”; it’s an issue of (generally) responding as a “reasonable person” in similar circumstances would…

[/quote]

My point is it’s not reasonable to expect a reasonable man to turn it on and off like a well trained, well oiled machine.[/quote]

C’mon Push. You’re reaching.

If you have to “turn it off”, you have lost control. And if you have lost control, you have likely committed a crime. Losing control is not a defense to a crime. This isn’t “temporary insanity”. I “lost it” in anger is not a defense. He was angry. Not fearful.

Think. And take your position to it’s logical and ultimately untenable conclusion. You’re damn well smart enough to know where it goes and why it’s untenable.

My lady friend slaps me in the face and I “lose it” and punch her in the fucking mouth, breaking her jaw and dislodging some chicklets. Do you think my inability to “turn it off” is a defense to my punching her in her big fucking mouth?

:)[/quote]

Bad analogy. We can assume you KNOW your girl. You would NOT know a stranger, therefore you would NOT know when they would stop attacking or even what they were capable of…so defending your life does not have a cut off until your life is no longer at risk.

He had already traded blows with these women. they in turn chased him down to attack him further.

Relating that to a punch in the face after one hit with a woman you have known for long periods time is nothing the same.

Push has a point…you don’t just cut off protecting your life. You only do that once you feel safe after being attacked. These women gave no impression that they would stop until they were knocked out. None.

[Blackaggar]

deserved

[DeterminedNate]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…It’s not an issue of responding “proportionately”; it’s an issue of (generally) responding as a “reasonable person” in similar circumstances would…

[/quote]

My point is it’s not reasonable to expect a reasonable man to turn it on and off like a well trained, well oiled machine.[/quote]

C’mon Push. You’re reaching.

If you have to “turn it off”, you have lost control. And if you have lost control, you have likely committed a crime. Losing control is not a defense to a crime. This isn’t “temporary insanity”. I “lost it” in anger is not a defense. He was angry. Not fearful.

Think. And take your position to it’s logical and ultimately untenable conclusion. You’re damn well smart enough to know where it goes and why it’s untenable.

My lady friend slaps me in the face and I “lose it” and punch her in the fucking mouth, breaking her jaw and dislodging some chicklets. Do you think my inability to “turn it off” is a defense to my punching her in her big fucking mouth?

:)[/quote]

It is my understanding (but I could be wrong), that perpetrators of “crimes of passion” receive more lenient sentencing than those who commit “premeditated” crime. Which, to me, suggests that acting without reason in the heat of the moment is a very viable defense, at the least, for lighter sentencing. I don’t know if its grounds for acquittal, but there’s certainly grounds for a cogent argument, that, when provoked, all sense of reasonable judgement goes out the window. Psychologically speaking, people have breaking points.