Excessive or Well Deserved?

Off Topic
497

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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]

Good analysis, but you’re missing the actions of the coworker that speaks VOLUMES about the relative threat of the women while they were down. This too is very problematic for the defense.

498

[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]

Anything you wield that can cause serious bodily injury or death. The metal rod certainly qualifies. It broke her arm and fractured her skull.

499

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

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. [/quote]

Well lets put it this way. Most people think that once the trigger is pulled death is high probability but seem to think that a club/pipe/2x4 swung at the skull will only knock someone out. ITs a myth.
Its TV truth. They both with one action can cause death.

If I point a gun at your head it can kill or depending on the caliber and the placement of the shot get lodged in your skull. Would I want to take that chance NO but I would also not want to have someone swing a club of anykind at my skull.

500

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

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. [/quote]

Well lets put it this way. Most people think that once the trigger is pulled death is high probability but seem to think that a club/pipe/2x4 swung at the skull will only knock someone out. ITs a myth.
Its TV truth. They both with one action can cause death.

If I point a gun at your head it can kill or depending on the caliber and the placement of the shot get lodged in your skull. Would I want to take that chance NO but I would also not want to have someone swing a club of anykind at my skull. [/quote]

What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is.

501

I’m going to state that I think the guy went a little nuts. But If I had to defend the guy the things I would want to HEAR from him is

“He was at his place of business, he was working in what he thought was a safe area. He knows the area he was in and KNEW that he was not in a position to flee (meaning when he turned to the fry section even though in the vid you could see more room it was a dead end. His intent was not to do anything but to stop the attack coming at him and that out of fear for his safety them not submitting to his request to stay down felt like the attack was still going on”.

He needs to put the jury, judge in his shoes and I will say it will not be easy from the tape. But acting cool and saying that his head was 100% on everything around him would not be his best option.

502

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

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. [/quote]

Well lets put it this way. Most people think that once the trigger is pulled death is high probability but seem to think that a club/pipe/2x4 swung at the skull will only knock someone out. ITs a myth.
Its TV truth. They both with one action can cause death.

If I point a gun at your head it can kill or depending on the caliber and the placement of the shot get lodged in your skull. Would I want to take that chance NO but I would also not want to have someone swing a club of anykind at my skull. [/quote]

What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is. [/quote]

What if that 70lb kid plays minor league baseball. If someone is coming at me with a visual intent on hurting me at what time should I stop hesitate to determine there abiltiy to cause me harm. Some states have a flee clause many states have a stand your ground in home, near home and places of business because of this.

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?

503

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

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. [/quote]

Well lets put it this way. Most people think that once the trigger is pulled death is high probability but seem to think that a club/pipe/2x4 swung at the skull will only knock someone out. ITs a myth.
Its TV truth. They both with one action can cause death.

If I point a gun at your head it can kill or depending on the caliber and the placement of the shot get lodged in your skull. Would I want to take that chance NO but I would also not want to have someone swing a club of anykind at my skull. [/quote]

What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is. [/quote]

What if that 70lb kid plays minor league baseball. If someone is coming at me with a visual intent on hurting me at what time should I stop hesitate to determine there abiltiy to cause me harm. Some states have a flee clause many states have a stand your ground in home, near home and places of business because of this.

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?[/quote]

No no, Im not making the distinction to create a risk analysis. Strictly talking about what causes more harm. Your baby is irrelevant to how much harm can potentially be caused by a particular weapon. (Some bullets will pass through bodies if you turn your back to protect the baby, a pipe wont).

Minor league baseball? Really? 70lbs is average weight for a 10-11 year old boy. Anyway. I think my point is clear. A gun is lethal more often than a pipe is.

504

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

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. [/quote]

Well lets put it this way. Most people think that once the trigger is pulled death is high probability but seem to think that a club/pipe/2x4 swung at the skull will only knock someone out. ITs a myth.
Its TV truth. They both with one action can cause death.

If I point a gun at your head it can kill or depending on the caliber and the placement of the shot get lodged in your skull. Would I want to take that chance NO but I would also not want to have someone swing a club of anykind at my skull. [/quote]

What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is. [/quote]

What if that 70lb kid plays minor league baseball. If someone is coming at me with a visual intent on hurting me at what time should I stop hesitate to determine there abiltiy to cause me harm. Some states have a flee clause many states have a stand your ground in home, near home and places of business because of this.

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?[/quote]

No no, Im not making the distinction to create a risk analysis. Strictly talking about what causes more harm. Your baby is irrelevant to how much harm can potentially be caused by a particular weapon. (Some bullets will pass through bodies if you turn your back to protect the baby, a pipe wont).

Minor league baseball? Really? 70lbs is average weight for a 10-11 year old boy. Anyway. I think my point is clear. A gun is lethal more often than a pipe is. [/quote]

I want to say you didn’t. I will say a gun can do more damage over a long distance. But your gun can miss and run out of ammo. My pipe wont. You are defending your child so eve a little Leaguer that hits homers or the 2nd coming of bruce lee can kill with a bat. So one bop on your head and you are dead. And the kid is defenseless.

Like I said this will come down to who can explain the STORY best to the average Joe. Things that already work against the guy is His size, He is a HE male and god forbid if he is foreign. He is doomed.

505

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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.
[/quote]

RIGHT, and sad but the truth is he will come off better to a cop stating he was not aware after the first couple of blows. That all he knows is that he was telling them to stop and they kept atempting to come for him. Its a reach but its better than stating he knew they were helpless and kept swinging.

We went thru somthing called judgemental before we could carry. Mostly to give us a idea of what a shocked response felt like. Many times when even aware of danger in the heat of the moment one shot was 4 shots. The problem is explaining this to a cop is one thing to a public who seen that vid hahaha yeah he needs a great lawyer.

506

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

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. [/quote]

Well lets put it this way. Most people think that once the trigger is pulled death is high probability but seem to think that a club/pipe/2x4 swung at the skull will only knock someone out. ITs a myth.
Its TV truth. They both with one action can cause death.

If I point a gun at your head it can kill or depending on the caliber and the placement of the shot get lodged in your skull. Would I want to take that chance NO but I would also not want to have someone swing a club of anykind at my skull. [/quote]

What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is. [/quote]

What if that 70lb kid plays minor league baseball. If someone is coming at me with a visual intent on hurting me at what time should I stop hesitate to determine there abiltiy to cause me harm. Some states have a flee clause many states have a stand your ground in home, near home and places of business because of this.

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?[/quote]

No no, Im not making the distinction to create a risk analysis. Strictly talking about what causes more harm. Your baby is irrelevant to how much harm can potentially be caused by a particular weapon. (Some bullets will pass through bodies if you turn your back to protect the baby, a pipe wont).

Minor league baseball? Really? 70lbs is average weight for a 10-11 year old boy. Anyway. I think my point is clear. A gun is lethal more often than a pipe is. [/quote]

I want to say you didn’t. I will say a gun can do more damage over a long distance. But your gun can miss and run out of ammo. My pipe wont. You are defending your child so eve a little Leaguer that hits homers or the 2nd coming of bruce lee can kill with a bat. So one bop on your head and you are dead. And the kid is defenseless.

Like I said this will come down to who can explain the STORY best to the average Joe. Things that already work against the guy is His size, He is a HE male and god forbid if he is foreign. He is doomed.[/quote]

actually I fear a gun more than a pipe. I can cut the distance on your pipe and be inside your swing. did it more than once for real. I’ll retreat briefly and charge…you’re coming and I close the distance…you just helped me without realizing it.

509

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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.
[/quote]

RIGHT, and sad but the truth is he will come off better to a cop stating he was not aware after the first couple of blows. That all he knows is that he was telling them to stop and they kept atempting to come for him. Its a reach but its better than stating he knew they were helpless and kept swinging.

We went thru somthing called judgemental before we could carry. Mostly to give us a idea of what a shocked response felt like. Many times when even aware of danger in the heat of the moment one shot was 4 shots. The problem is explaining this to a cop is one thing to a public who seen that vid hahaha yeah he needs a great lawyer.[/quote]

You could dig up Johnny Cochran, AC Green and find the missing glove and he aint getting off. He’ll plea to something. He’s going to do some time. Right now the best thing for him is a good medical recovery by the girl…it would make the DA lose some erection for the case. If she’s badly injured for real, they might have to be hard on him and if they’re hard, he’s just as good taking his chance at trial.

I’m not saying he CAN’T win by the way. I just wouldn’t want to be in his shoes. And he’s in New York County. If it were Kings or Bronx, he’d have a better shot.

511

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

different laws generally apply to a “mutual fight”.
[/quote]

True, but you could still get simple assault at the very least, which is court, probation, a lawyer… and man I been on probation, going to ghetto ass Paterson and checking in with my doucher PO every so often was an experience worth NEVER repeating all on its own.[/quote]

been there. done that. a minor inconvenience.

the part you’re missing is the other guy has to testify too. if he doesn’t, no case against either of you. i already had this happen to me after a fight at a bar. i walked into the courthouse, found the dickhead, told him i had nothing to say to anyone and that he didn’t either and we’d both be walking out of it. we paid court cost. dismissed.

512

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?[/quote]

27 ninjas with machine guns.

EVERY SITUATION CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES!

Stop trying to plug in variables here and there to change the situation that you’re dealing with RIGHT HERE.

You can change them infinitely, and everything else based off it changes accordingly, so there’s literally NO purpose to hypotheticals here.[/quote]

I agree., LIke how you left out the Question I was answering:

"What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is."

513

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well

514

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?[/quote]

27 ninjas with machine guns.

EVERY SITUATION CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES!

Stop trying to plug in variables here and there to change the situation that you’re dealing with RIGHT HERE.

You can change them infinitely, and everything else based off it changes accordingly, so there’s literally NO purpose to hypotheticals here.[/quote]

yup. every single case is different. what is “reasonable” in one instance can be entirely unreasonable in another. merely substitute two men for the two women, and the cashier’s defense is stronger. recover a weapon off one of them, you’re a free man and were probably acting reasonable to hit them while done. put X, I or any of our larger members as the cashier and picking up that metal rod is going to be hard to defend and even harder to defend if you swing it and connect.

in case anyone is wondering…what was the best response? retreat until you can’t and then knock her right on her ass. retreat again. if she gets back up and comes forward, knock her on her ass again, harder. you can’t swing that rod on a woman unless you’re pretty damn sure she has a weapon or she’s one large fucking woman.

case in point i raised earlier. few weeks back during a dispute a fat bitch told me she’d cut me. i informed her if she took one step toward me that I knock her the fuck out. I didn’t run pick up a stick, a rock, brick, etc. even though that would probably not be unreasonable assuming she had a knife. she ran her mouth. she did not step toward me.

i think dude should have just nailed her in her big fucking mouth. end of fight. end of legal woes.

515

I was making the point that ITS not cut and dry. We are looking at a video and playing god. I’m stating its going to come down to who tells the better story to 12 people.

516

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?[/quote]

27 ninjas with machine guns.

EVERY SITUATION CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES!

Stop trying to plug in variables here and there to change the situation that you’re dealing with RIGHT HERE.

You can change them infinitely, and everything else based off it changes accordingly, so there’s literally NO purpose to hypotheticals here.[/quote]

I agree., LIke how you left out the Question I was answering:

"What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is."

[/quote]

you can likely disarm the 70lb kid. and you better well fucking try or just run or you’re going to jail like this guy.

517

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.

518

[quote]four60 wrote:
I was making the point that ITS not cut and dry. We are looking at a video and playing god. I’m stating its going to come down to who tells the better story to 12 people.[/quote]

Except his story is not a great one.

Two unarmed women.
Striking repeatedly while down.

It’s a losing story no matter how you dress it up and no matter who tells it.

And the biggest thing? Might not be over. I know plenty of people where this shit wouldn’t end here. And he’s going to jail…the easiest place to exact some payback.

519

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

Because the 5 LA LEO were not likely beating two unarmed women. :slight_smile: