Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
As with most problems in the world, you can solve them with a good lawyer and/or tons of money. Most people don´t have that and that is why they go to jail for being heroes. (Like the pharmacist guy that was mentioned before)
What I find useful in nightclubs here in my country is that when someone tries to confront me I just start shouting like a pussy so everybody hears me “I AM NOT TOUCHING YOU, I DONT WANT ANY TROUBLE” y just keep yelling that, and in most cases they just go away. Two or three times I had to get rid of them, but there is no trouble with the police or anyone because everybody saw an heard that I didnt want any trouble and I didnt have any other choice.
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
[/quote]
Unless you can prove that person coming at you had the intent and capability to kill you, in most places no, you can’t just use lethal force.
If they have a knife or a gun or some kind of weapon, it will change what kind of force you can use. But empty-handed…
I’m not saying I like it. I’m just telling you how it is. This is why “streetfighting,” which people talk about so freely, really sucks - cause if you lose, you end up in the hospital or the morgue, and if you win, you end up in jail.
[/quote]
I see many “IF” and “MAYBE” in the above statement. This will all come down to a street wise cop or a good lawyer. “IF” the guy is drunk “IF” the guy is big “IF” the guy bragged about his fighting skills in front of people. “MAYBE” you were afraid for your life, “MAYBE” you seen violent rage in his eyes and movements and wanted to protect yourself or the person with you.
Don’t for second think that cops and others that defend people for a living don’t have some legal advice on how to explain the use of force. Not to get to far into this subject but using the words “KILL” “SHOOT” is a bad way to explain any action that put someone down.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Are you dense?
There is one answer. NO.
If the exact same action occured ( obviously sans the cash register counter), you absolutely would not be able to shoot someone, even in texas.
Multiple people are drilling the point that this guy’s reaction was blatantly excessive and youre asking if SHOOTING someone is appropriate? If beating someone with a rod is not appropriate how in the world is SHOOTING somoene appropriate.
To be clear, I am making the point that SHOOTING someone is in fact more drastic than beating someone with a metal rod.
You have the intuition and reasoning skills of a mentally handicapped person.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Are you dense?
There is one answer. NO.
If the exact same action occured ( obviously sans the cash register counter), you absolutely would not be able to shoot someone, even in texas.
Multiple people are drilling the point that this guy’s reaction was blatantly excessive and youre asking if SHOOTING someone is appropriate? If beating someone with a rod is not appropriate how in the world is SHOOTING somoene appropriate.
To be clear, I am making the point that SHOOTING someone is in fact more drastic than beating someone with a metal rod.
You have the intuition and reasoning skills of a mentally handicapped person. [/quote]
While I can not agree with you that Defending yourself with a gun is more drastic than Beating someone with a metal rod. I will say both actions will come down to how it is explained to The police, The Courts and the Jury if it goes that far.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
[/quote]
Unless you can prove that person coming at you had the intent and capability to kill you, in most places no, you can’t just use lethal force.
If they have a knife or a gun or some kind of weapon, it will change what kind of force you can use. But empty-handed…
I’m not saying I like it. I’m just telling you how it is. This is why “streetfighting,” which people talk about so freely, really sucks - cause if you lose, you end up in the hospital or the morgue, and if you win, you end up in jail.
[/quote]
Just as a point of fact, and I know the statement was “probably couldn’t”; Texas grants a lot of latitude to the defender for using lethal force. I am fairly certain lethal force is also deemed legal/allowable in defense of property in Texas. I am unsure of NJ’s laws on the same but I am guessing the political climate there has resulted in VERY different statutes and case law.
Either way the strikes delivered to the downed women are problamatic. I think his best argument is that they were trying to rise and thus attempting to continue there assualt. The counter obscures the video enough that I am not going to say they were not making moves consistant with drawing weapons/aggression. I AM going to say that this argument will probably not hold water do to gender bias, the fact no weapons are seen on the video, the assumption that well before the last strike the women were no longer a threat, and the likelyhood of the employee talking himself into charges instead of shutting up and lawyering up.
My OPINION is that I am going to shed no tears for the women, but that he bought himself charges with the last couple shots. Anchoring shots are frowned upon in law.
Also, this is no where near the most discussion worthy beating of a woman in the news. I submit this:
Beaten with a FROZEN ARMADILLO. Prior to this story I didn’t even realize that was a possibility. Just makes it worth showing up to life day after day to read shit like that.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
[/quote]
Unless you can prove that person coming at you had the intent and capability to kill you, in most places no, you can’t just use lethal force.
If they have a knife or a gun or some kind of weapon, it will change what kind of force you can use. But empty-handed…
I’m not saying I like it. I’m just telling you how it is. This is why “streetfighting,” which people talk about so freely, really sucks - cause if you lose, you end up in the hospital or the morgue, and if you win, you end up in jail.
[/quote]
Just as a point of fact, and I know the statement was “probably couldn’t”; Texas grants a lot of latitude to the defender for using lethal force. I am fairly certain lethal force is also deemed legal/allowable in defense of property in Texas. I am unsure of NJ’s laws on the same but I am guessing the political climate there has resulted in VERY different statutes and case law.
Either way the strikes delivered to the downed women are problamatic. I think his best argument is that they were trying to rise and thus attempting to continue there assualt. The counter obscures the video enough that I am not going to say they were not making moves consistant with drawing weapons/aggression. I AM going to say that this argument will probably not hold water do to gender bias, the fact no weapons are seen on the video, the assumption that well before the last strike the women were no longer a threat, and the likelyhood of the employee talking himself into charges instead of shutting up and lawyering up.
My OPINION is that I am going to shed no tears for the women, but that he bought himself charges with the last couple shots. Anchoring shots are frowned upon in law.
Also, this is no where near the most discussion worthy beating of a woman in the news. I submit this:
Beaten with a FROZEN ARMADILLO. Prior to this story I didn’t even realize that was a possibility. Just makes it worth showing up to life day after day to read shit like that.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Texas has a “Stand your Ground” clause like many states. But just like the Castle Doctrine the law is set up to side with the DEFENDER and not the Assailant but in court with videos and crazy lady witnesses screaming stop stop stop the Person DEFENDING themselves can be made to look like the attacker…No matter what side you fall on it always helps to know the law before you leave the house and still get a good lawyer.
Either way the strikes delivered to the downed women are problamatic. I think his best argument is that they were trying to rise and thus attempting to continue there assualt. The counter obscures the video enough that I am not going to say they were not making moves consistant with drawing weapons/aggression. I AM going to say that this argument will probably not hold water do to gender bias, the fact no weapons are seen on the video, the assumption that well before the last strike the women were no longer a threat, and the likelyhood of the employee talking himself into charges instead of shutting up and lawyering up.[/quote]
I’m late to this argument, but even if they were trying to rise only to flee I would continue the assault. Yes that looks bad, yes I would go to jail. But with scum like that it’s very possible that they would “flee” to the car just to get a weapon, or call in friends who had weapons. The guy is yelling at them to stay down, which is what I would do, and if they didn’t comply the ass whipping would continue until the police got there.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m a bit intrigued by this claim that a metal rod is “a deadly weapon, just like a gun.”
Are they really viewed more or less equally in the eyes of the law? I find that very hard to believe.
And what object is NOT a deadly weapon, then? A flashlight? A glass ashtray? Hell, how about a pencil?[/quote]
I find it odd that someone in Japan can not see how a Long Hard piece of STEEL is a deadly weapon. In court it will come down to who can explain that the best.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m a bit intrigued by this claim that a metal rod is “a deadly weapon, just like a gun.”
Are they really viewed more or less equally in the eyes of the law? I find that very hard to believe.
And what object is NOT a deadly weapon, then? A flashlight? A glass ashtray? Hell, how about a pencil?[/quote]
I find it odd that someone in Japan can not see how a Long Hard piece of STEEL is a deadly weapon. In court it will come down to who can explain that the best.[/quote]
Ha! Thanks alot 460!
My point though is the claim that it’s on par with a gun.
That piece of steel is much more forgiving than a bullet.
And really, couldn’t a pencil be pretty damned deadly, too?
I get your derison of my question, believe me. I’m just trying to understand what the law thinks about objects in a fight.[/quote]
And that is the comedy of all this. It will come down to (if it goes to court) the jury’s Interpretation
of the LAW. If I can explain better than the other guy how a ROD at that distance while you are in a prone state on the floor Is just as deadly as a pistol then I have one hell of an argument.
The problem is people like to talk about the law but remember the jury are not lawyers they are average and in some cases more than average Joes so it comes down to who do you beleive or who tells the better story.
Yes a Judge can instruct but most times the jury will go with who they FEEL for more. More people have been attacked than the attacker so a jury can see how a guy can freak out in a situation like the vid. But lets be honest the chick screaming does not help his case.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m a bit intrigued by this claim that a metal rod is “a deadly weapon, just like a gun.”
Are they really viewed more or less equally in the eyes of the law? I find that very hard to believe.
And what object is NOT a deadly weapon, then? A flashlight? A glass ashtray? Hell, how about a pencil?[/quote]
Then you’ll also find this interesting.
SOme jurisdictions have found that boxing gloves are a deadly weapon. Try this on. A skilled boxer starts a non consensual fist fight (barehanded). He breaks the other man’s jaw and orbit, causes massive internal bleeding etc. He is charged/convicted with ‘regular’ assault (and whatever else, not relevant). In a different scenario, the same man is leaving his boxing gym, still has his gloves on for whatever reason and picks the same fight. Same injury occurs. He gets charged/convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
Clearly we know that a boxing glove will soften the blows, making the strikes less dangerous all else equal. But that’s how the law works. Any OBJECT can be a deadly weapon depending on how it is used. However, a body part, teeth for example, will not be deemed a deadly weapon. Manually sharpened teeth? Who knows.
If any actual lawyer needs to correct this, please do.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m a bit intrigued by this claim that a metal rod is “a deadly weapon, just like a gun.”
Are they really viewed more or less equally in the eyes of the law? I find that very hard to believe.
And what object is NOT a deadly weapon, then? A flashlight? A glass ashtray? Hell, how about a pencil?[/quote]
Where I live lethal force is defined as any action that is intended or likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death. So if you say, stab someone in the throat with a pencil it is “lethal force”, and as such legally requires the same justification as shooting someone.
The same is true of striking someone with a metal rod in the head, neck, spine, throat (to name a few). If a reasonable person could anticipate that the action would cause grievous bodily harm or death, it is considered lethal force regardless of the weapon (or even in the absence of a weapon). For this to be justified you must be able to credibly articulate that you believed the person intended and was capable of visiting grievous bodily harm or death upon yourself or somebody under your care.
It is the action and the resultant injury that is at issue, not the implement.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, where do you see anything about surgery?
I don’t really care if this ATTACKING WOMAN got her head cracked. She’s still alive and breathing.[/quote]
It’s mentioned in several of the articles. Here’s one.
“One of his victims required surgery after suffering a fractured skull and a broken arm and the other suffered cuts.”
Whether that is surgery for the skull or the arm can be left open to interpretation.
Anyway, I’m surprised that you see two ATTACKING WOMEN as that much of a threat requiring that level of violence. I know the world is scary but c’mon. lol[/quote]
She had a broken arm. You are speculating big time. I am sure the doctor in the first link I responded to about this would have mentioned BRAIN FUCK SURGERY.
That requires specialists and would have given this even more media hype.
[/quote]
Again, you seem to have a problem with READING. I clearly stated what type of surgery is not clear.
We do know that thus far your reading comprehensions has lead you to believe;
that they were committed THEFT (they were not)
that the $50 was COUNTERFEIT (it was not)
that the cashier was “cornered” in the kitchen (he was not).
Did I miss anything?
And by the way, there is NO hype in the mainstream media. This is all internet viral shit and blogs. The mainstream media has barely reported this. Search NY Daily News, NY Post and NY Times. They barely mention this story. [/quote]
I wouldn’t know. I rarely watch tv anymore.
And yes, they freaking cornered him. Even if this was some brawl that started because she got pissed because he checked if it were real, it shows some SERIOUS lack of impulse control that she went wild like this for it.
Bottom line, this woman is far from innocent…and I will not be rejoicing if she becomes a freaking millionaire from it.[/quote]
Well we must be looking at a different video or you have a different definition of “cornered”. Cornered is generally accepted to mean put in a position of no escape. He had the entire back of the store to flee to if he chose.
I challenge you to find one post where I defended the two “women” and/or their “impulse control” or even implied in the slightest that they were innocent.
By the way, people “start shit” and “attack” all the time in bars and nightclubs. Do they deserve to get the living shit kicked out of them? Following your logic, they do. The law disagrees - repeatedly and consistently.[/quote]
It is a risk they tale every time they act that way. Starting shit is far different from CHASING SOMEONE BEHIND A COUNTER IN AN EFFORT TO HURT THEM. They clearly were NOt rushing him to give him a hand shake…and if you do that to the wrong person at the wrong time, you can get shot.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Again, and we’re going in circles here now; you apparently have no sense of scale or justice. Either that or you’re sharing supplements and posting tips with RV.
To answer your question (and I cannot even believe you post it seriously) - NO, you cannot shoot them, unless you can make a solid case that lethal force was required. All the nuances of the situation need be evaluated; size of attacker relative to your size, one or multiple attackers, armed or unarmed, presence of security or police, disparity of force, can you retreat, etc etc etc
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
[/quote]
The law does not require you take a beating. The law requires that you act reasonably relative to the threat. In the spirit of the OP - Excessive or Well Deserved, this is a clear case of “excessive”. Unless of course you’re fighting zombies that just keep getting back up and keep coming no matter what like in the movies.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
[/quote]
Unless you can prove that person coming at you had the intent and capability to kill you, in most places no, you can’t just use lethal force.
If they have a knife or a gun or some kind of weapon, it will change what kind of force you can use. But empty-handed…
I’m not saying I like it. I’m just telling you how it is. This is why “streetfighting,” which people talk about so freely, really sucks - cause if you lose, you end up in the hospital or the morgue, and if you win, you end up in jail.
[/quote]
different laws generally apply to a “mutual fight”.
While I can not agree with you that Defending yourself with a gun is more drastic than Beating someone with a metal rod. [/quote]
Really?
What’s your rationale?
To be clear, Im talking specifically about firing the gun and hitting the person, not simply brandishing it or pistol whipping.
Unless we’re talking about a proficient shooter and a stationary target I think the gunman has far less control over the damage he can/will do compared to swinging a pipe or whatever.
Let’s use your nightclub example. If someone rushes me like that…JUST LIKE THAT…outside a club, you are saying I can’t shoot them?[/quote]
Ah, no, you probably couldn’t.
You realllyyyyy need to look up what self-defense laws are and what they mean - badly - before you keep participating in this argument.[/quote]
I would guess so because you are basically telling me I can’t protect myself any longer if someone attacks me. All i can do lightly shove them away…but then I have to immediately make sure they have no injuries or head trauma after the light push or I can also be sent to jail.
[/quote]
Unless you can prove that person coming at you had the intent and capability to kill you, in most places no, you can’t just use lethal force.
If they have a knife or a gun or some kind of weapon, it will change what kind of force you can use. But empty-handed…
I’m not saying I like it. I’m just telling you how it is. This is why “streetfighting,” which people talk about so freely, really sucks - cause if you lose, you end up in the hospital or the morgue, and if you win, you end up in jail.
[/quote]
I see many “IF” and “MAYBE” in the above statement. This will all come down to a street wise cop or a good lawyer. “IF” the guy is drunk “IF” the guy is big “IF” the guy bragged about his fighting skills in front of people. “MAYBE” you were afraid for your life, “MAYBE” you seen violent rage in his eyes and movements and wanted to protect yourself or the person with you.
Don’t for second think that cops and others that defend people for a living don’t have some legal advice on how to explain the use of force. Not to get to far into this subject but using the words “KILL” “SHOOT” is a bad way to explain any action that put someone down.[/quote]
I have that experience. And the cashier’s lawyer is already selling that defense (attacked, feared for life, don’t know if armed, etc.). That’s the only hand they can play. Where their defense is vulnerable, and where the prosecution is strong, is when the two women are on the ground and even his coworker is trying to break him off. And, like it or not, they were women (this matters in the threat analysis and the main instigator was 5.1) and this doesn’t help his defense.
“I’m afraid” can only take you so far. “I was afraid” probably could have justified his wielding a weapon and maybe hitting them a time or two. “I was afraid or feared for my life/safety” is not a get out of jail free and go bat shit crazy card in this case.