Excessive or Well Deserved?

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 1:47pm

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

First, in any given situation, my response is measured. I’m trained.

Next, your argument is weak. We live in a polite society of laws. You do not get a pass b/c you had a tough childhood or you were exposed to more violence than the next guy. You’re expected and required to abide by our laws. You don’t have to like it, but it’s reality.

There are drug dealers on the corner that respond to their poverty and to violence, “the only way they know how”. Do we excuse them? There are child abusers, that were abused themselves; when they touch your child’s pee pee, do we excuse them?

Do you want me to continue using your ridiculous logic?

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 1:56pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…That decision was not “made in seconds or fractions”. At that point, he was in COMPLETE control of the situation.

[/quote]

No, you are dead wrong. It WAS made in seconds. I watched the video. He didn’t come back minutes or hours or days later and smack 'em again. He did it in seconds. A very, very few seconds.

I like to think I’m a reasonable person and like I said earlier - if I’m on the jury - based on what I saw in the video and regardless what kind of instructions I may be given by the judge and/or prosecutor I will vote not guilty on a felony assault or attempted murder charge.

Now you may be sitting on the same jury with me, think you too are a reasonable person and vote to convict. So be it. However, in that scenario he goes free thanks to the way our justice system works.[/quote]

Big sigh.

I’m not “dead wrong”.

Let’s try this a different way. The kid used deadly force. There is simply no legitimate argument against that. He picked up a weapon and caused serious bodily injury. There can be no legitimate disagreement there.

So let’s substitute a weapon you’re familiar with for the one he actually used. The legal standard would be pretty much the same.

You shoot someone that you reasonably believed posed a threat and that had a gun. You put one in them, they go down. As they are down, you (and a bystander) become aware that the person no longer poses a threat and in fact does not have a weapon. But they are trying to get up (a natural reaction after having been injured). But you pump another few in their ass anyway, because it “all is happening in seconds”.

First, your decision to shoot an unarmed man is going to be under a microscope. You’re going to have to prove that either you had a reasonable basis to believe he had a weapon or, that absent a weapon, he could have caused you grievous harm or even death. Let’s say you pass that hurdle (as does the cashier - giving him EVER benefit of the doubt).

Now that you unarmed guy is down and no longer poses a threat, where do you think you end up legally?

I’ll answer it for you. In jail, with this cashier.

And believe it or not, I still disagree with you if we were on a jury together. I’d have a hard time convicting him. I’m not crazy about the law here but again, there needs to be a line somewhere. I’d be reluctant to convict him too. Unfortunately, I’m not sure other New York County residents will feel the same. He’d be better off being tried in the Bronx or Brooklyn.

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 1:59pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

If you think he legitimately feared for his life while these two animals were down, I have some real estate to sell you. It’s a bridge. In Brooklyn. I can sell it to you relatively cheap.

Dude is from NY. Did jail time. Shot someone a decade ago.

If he was some frail white dude from Podunk, TX, I might be inclined to agree with you, but you’re stretching it here.

And finally, my admitted imperfect analogy aside, I’ll clean it up for you. If someone slaps me in the face, I cannot respond by pummeling them unconscious or to the point I fracture their skull. I’d be in jail with the cashier.

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 2:04pm

[quote]Chushin 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]

You will likely disagree with my opinion, but let me at least flesh it out:

What concerns me is that a group of 12 jurors will look at the tape, and – as you do – say, “that’s unreasonable*.”

The problem with that is that they will be sitting in an air-conditioned courthouse, will never have been in that situation, will not be adrenalized, and will be THINKING about what should have been done. To them, sure, it looks horrid. “I would have stopped” they think.

But this guy (or any guy in such a situation) may have been just REACTING. He got attacked, and reacted. I don’t know if he had calmed enough to realize the threat was neutralized or not. He may have still been running on the adrenaline, emotion and panic of the moment.

To paraphrase Push, most people do not have the ability to “turn it off and on” at will. Not realizing that, the jurors see the behavior as “unreasonable,” when in fact many of them would do the same thing in the same situation.

FWIW, BTW, Grossman in his seminal text “On Combat” talks about how we are hardwired to, once we start pounding on a threatening animal / person, not stop until we have beat the shit out of it / them. (Interestingly, he goes on to connect this to soldiers &LEOs who empty a whole clip before they even realize it.) Anyway, according to him, evolution has hardwired us to “overkill” because those who stopped too soon became victims.

*You and they reach the same conclusion for different reasons: You have enough experience to engage in the violence somewhat dispassionately. They only know what they see, and have no idea what the experience is like.[/quote]

Well, the system is set up so that his lawyers can make the above argument, among others. Like I said, a plea is likely here but I see him going back to jail for some time. But the part you and others are missing is that he did what he did with a weapon. The weapon is a game changer. If he had been defending with his fists, feet, etc., then those extra couple blows might go unpunished. But he wielded a deadly weapon and that’s the part some of you can’t wrap your minds around.

Pick up a weapon, and your margin for error is narrower - AS IT SHOULD BE.

The woman could have died. Surely she didn’t deserve to die for acting like the little dyke animal she is and slapping someone does she?

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 3:06pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

…And I’m not arguing whether or not he would be spared by the Jury or not. I know he won’t be…
[/quote]

All they need on the jury is ONE guy like me and he gets spared.[/quote]

By the way my friend, you made a brilliant post in PWI, the salient (to this thread part of which was:

“The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.”

This kid was not using his brain. With great power (a weapon, the “supplement”) comes great responsibility. It’s the law, and frankly it’s a good one.

No. He did not brandish a gun. But he brandished a weapon all the same. A deadly weapon. And it carried with it the same responsibilities.

Now, surely a reasonable intelligent man such as yourself can find it within his vast and reasonable intellect to meet me halfway here. I’ve already conceded to you that this leaves a bad taste in my mouth and that I too would find it difficult to convict him (I’d likely do it, but I wouldn’t like it).

And by the way:

“The Supreme Court has also held that a guilty verdict from a twelve-person jury need not be unanimous (nine votes is constitutionally permissible), although if the jury consists of only six persons, unanimity is required.”

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 3:11pm

I’ll keep preaching it until you armchair internet knuckleheads get it: AVOIDANCE is your best weapon. And too many people don’t exercise it. When you don’t, you can either be a victim of an assailant or, a “victim” of the State. But either way, a victim. If you don’t use the very best risk management tool of all time (avoidance) don’t fucking whine and cry when you find your ass on youtube taking a beating or, find yourself entangled with the justice system spending thousands of dollars with your freedom in the balance.

This is a general message, not necessarily specific to this situation.

Professor_X · October 17, 2011, 3:13pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, the system is set up so that his lawyers can make the above argument, among others. Like I said, a plea is likely here but I see him going back to jail for some time. But the part you and others are missing is that he did what he did with a weapon. The weapon is a game changer. If he had been defending with his fists, feet, etc., then those extra couple blows might go unpunished. But he wielded a deadly weapon and that’s the part some of you can’t wrap your minds around.

Pick up a weapon, and your margin for error is narrower - AS IT SHOULD BE.

The woman could have died. Surely she didn’t deserve to die for acting like the little dyke animal she is and slapping someone does she? [/quote]

Depends who you ask around here, apparently.

People cannot understand that whether you think it’s right or not, these are the laws. And those laws, like you said, become a lot tighter when you brandish a weapon.

This is why so many fucking people who get arrested say, “BUT IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE!” Bullshit son, you lost your head and overreacted and now you’re up for manslaughter or murder.

“The heat of battle” doesn’t apply here. Keep your head or your ass ends up in jail. Deal with it.
[/quote]

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.

overstand · October 17, 2011, 3:21pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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. [/quote]

Good post. I get the point X and others are trying to make about women, I see it all the time at bars. Women slapping guys, throwing drinks etc. I think those two hoodrats got what was coming to them, and that this wasn’t the first time they’ve pulled something like that.

At the same time, you can’t tell me you watched that video and thought every single one of those blows was necessary. It went from self defense to revenge pretty quick, and he kept smacking them well after that.

You have the right to defend yourself, you don’t have the right to murder somebody because they disrespected you.

gregron · October 17, 2011, 3:29pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Don’t you think the outcome should be different regarding the two difference scenarios? One person has a history of criminal activity and has already killed someone in the past while the otter is an honor roll student who has never been in trouble before.

EDIT: I’ve read your post 3 times and can’t figure out if you’re trying to say the outcome should be the same or that it should be different, given the two different circumstances you’re talking about?

Professor_X · October 17, 2011, 3:29pm

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Don’t you think the outcome should be different regarding the two difference scenarios? One person has a history of criminal activity and has already killed someone in the past while the otter is an honor roll student who has never been in trouble before.

They should have different outcomes.[/quote]

I wasn’t debating that. I was making the statement that rulings in courts are not black and white as far as what is overboard and what isn’t.

With a different man in that position and all factors the same, the outcome can change drastically which goes against the line in the sand thinking some seem to be presenting here.

I’m not a lawyer, but I grew up with that as a goal and sat in many court rooms.

Winning a case has more to do with appearance to a jury than the facts of a case.

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 3:29pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, the system is set up so that his lawyers can make the above argument, among others. Like I said, a plea is likely here but I see him going back to jail for some time. But the part you and others are missing is that he did what he did with a weapon. The weapon is a game changer. If he had been defending with his fists, feet, etc., then those extra couple blows might go unpunished. But he wielded a deadly weapon and that’s the part some of you can’t wrap your minds around.

Pick up a weapon, and your margin for error is narrower - AS IT SHOULD BE.

The woman could have died. Surely she didn’t deserve to die for acting like the little dyke animal she is and slapping someone does she? [/quote]

Depends who you ask around here, apparently.

People cannot understand that whether you think it’s right or not, these are the laws. And those laws, like you said, become a lot tighter when you brandish a weapon.

This is why so many fucking people who get arrested say, “BUT IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE!” Bullshit son, you lost your head and overreacted and now you’re up for manslaughter or murder.

“The heat of battle” doesn’t apply here. Keep your head or your ass ends up in jail. Deal with it.
[/quote]

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

the instructions to the jury for this felony assault would not include his prior acts. those would be considered by the judge during sentencing.

gregron · October 17, 2011, 3:31pm

^^ok I see now. See my added “EDIT” to my post.

I kinda thought we were saying the same thing but I was asking in order to clarify.

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 3:33pm

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Don’t you think the outcome should be different regarding the two difference scenarios? One person has a history of criminal activity and has already killed someone in the past while the otter is an honor roll student who has never been in trouble before.

EDIT: I’ve read your post 3 times and can’t figure out if you’re trying to say the outcome should be the same or that it should be different, given the two different circumstances you’re talking about?[/quote]

This is wrong. We had a case in philly here that was posted in the forums. Kid shot bully-jock honor roll student whose father was VERY prominent around here. Everyone predicted the shooter would be steamrolled (and in fairness, I thought the shooting was bad too but the jury said I was wrong) but he was found not-guilty.

If your honor roll student with a prominent dad administers this same beating to two females, his ass is getting locked up and charged too. Now, he might get some back room deal the other kid wouldn’t - that’s life, that’s politics. Life is who you know. But he aint walking. Not happening.

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 3:37pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Don’t you think the outcome should be different regarding the two difference scenarios? One person has a history of criminal activity and has already killed someone in the past while the otter is an honor roll student who has never been in trouble before.

They should have different outcomes.[/quote]

I wasn’t debating that. I was making the statement that rulings in courts are not black and white as far as what is overboard and what isn’t.

With a different man in that position and all factors the same, the outcome can change drastically which goes against the line in the sand thinking some seem to be presenting here.

I’m not a lawyer, but I grew up with that as a goal and sat in many court rooms.

Winning a case has more to do with appearance to a jury than the facts of a case.[/quote]

No one said or implied there was a line in the sand. There isn’t. It’s a reasonable person standard (generally) and reasonable person is going to be determined (largely) by those community standards. It’s a “beauty contest”. It’s obscenity (“I can’t define it but know it when I see it”). What a reasonable person might do in Idaho is not the same as someone in the Bronx or even Houston. He’ll be judged (if there is a trial) by the standard of his community (jurors where the crime was committed). But at the end of the day X, this kid gets locked up and charged ANYWHERE in this country, regardless of race or background, in my opinion.

I honestly believe he gets acquitted in the bronx or kings (brooklyn) county. Unfortunately for him, he’ll be tried (if a trial, but still will influence pleas as it includes the risk of trial analysis for both parties) in New York County.

gregron · October 17, 2011, 3:59pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Don’t you think the outcome should be different?[/quote]

This is wrong. [/quote]

I said the outcome would be different. You said “this is wrong.” and then you say this below in the same post…

isn’t that a different outcome? I never said the kid would walk but I did say they are different circumstances and would have different outcomes. I’m not sure what you’re trying to disagree with.

HeavyTriple · October 17, 2011, 4:01pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Don’t you think the outcome should be different regarding the two difference scenarios? One person has a history of criminal activity and has already killed someone in the past while the otter is an honor roll student who has never been in trouble before.

EDIT: I’ve read your post 3 times and can’t figure out if you’re trying to say the outcome should be the same or that it should be different, given the two different circumstances you’re talking about?[/quote]

This is wrong. We had a case in philly here that was posted in the forums. Kid shot bully-jock honor roll student whose father was VERY prominent around here. Everyone predicted the shooter would be steamrolled (and in fairness, I thought the shooting was bad too but the jury said I was wrong) but he was found not-guilty.

If your honor roll student with a prominent dad administers this same beating to two females, his ass is getting locked up and charged too. Now, he might get some back room deal the other kid wouldn’t - that’s life, that’s politics. Life is who you know. But he aint walking. Not happening. [/quote]

In that case, I think the huge amount of support from the public saved that kid. Publicity and public opinion can very well sway a jury, even though that’s not supposed to be the case. That is one reason I’m upset about the way the article was written, i.e. in a tone that absolved the two cunts from their obvious wrongdoing.

If a jury comes together and decides that this guy acted unreasonably, fine. I’m biased and admittedly letting that affect how I would view this as a juror. But if you don’t steamroll those two women for such animalistic behavior, it sends a pretty clear message that it’s OK.

I think the provocateur(s) should be held more accountable than they are, and they shouldn’t get a pass on legal charges, namely assault, just because their idiotic behavior got their asses beat.

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 4:49pm

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Don’t you think the outcome should be different?[/quote]

This is wrong. [/quote]

I said the outcome would be different. You said “this is wrong.” and then you say this below in the same post…

isn’t that a different outcome? I never said the kid would walk but I did say they are different circumstances and would have different outcomes. I’m not sure what you’re trying to disagree with.[/quote]

My apologies, I was really responding to X’s post that you quoted. Sorry for the confusion.

To even raise the issue of different outcomes as X did, in my opinion, is a weak attempt to imply that this kid is getting a raw deal. He is not.

ANYONE that did this would be charged, regardless of background. To raise the issue of a prominent parent is a real reach b/c that alone is EXTRAORDINARY and has nothing to really do with the issues here.

This kid gets charged with his manslaughter background or not. His background, like EVERY criminal defendant about to be sentenced, IS considered upon sentencing and even during a plea process.

You and I have no disagreement I see.

TheBodyGuard · October 17, 2011, 4:55pm

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote: