[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yea they came at him, but once that threat is no longer a threat, the second you keep coming at them, you are now the aggressor.
In this case, once those girls (or whoever the fuck that was) goes down, you have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to stop the assault.
[/quote]
He told them to stay down. They kept getting back up (that much we can see until it falls behind the counter completely). You can’t see shit from that angle so what are you talking about?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yea they came at him, but once that threat is no longer a threat, the second you keep coming at them, you are now the aggressor.
In this case, once those girls (or whoever the fuck that was) goes down, you have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to stop the assault.
[/quote]
He told them to stay down. They kept getting back up (that much we can see until it falls behind the counter completely). You can’t see shit from that angle so what are you talking about?[/quote]
He’s got no authority to tell them to stay down.
All they have to say is that they were trying to get away - which they may or may not have been doing - and it justifies them getting up.
You cannot keep striking once they’re down. One of these girls had a fractured skull - she may not have had any idea what she was doing when she tried to get up.
It’s excessive force no matter how you cut it and he’s going to pay for it. Rightly so.
Nice ass whipping and VERY well deserved.
One of the comments on the article posted above:
“I am sorry but those two “women” had shaved heads and this was the west village where he could have clearly mistakened them for males or transgendered when they still can pose a threat of danger to him. Furthermore, they kept screaming “do something, do something” to provoke he, yet, he remaided calm and didn’t act out in any agressive manner, physically nor verbally. However, she smacked him in the face extremely hard which he could have mistaken for a punch or even a weapon. He only pushed her away. After he pushed her, he didn’t hit her with the stick until he felt his life may have been in jeopardy being she leaped over the counter and ran after him. It was until then when he grabbed the stick and hit her to keep her down until the cops arrive to make sure he didn’t risk getting shot or stabbed. After all, this animal attacked him because he had to scan a fifty dollar bill (store policy) and she became irrate. I bet my life on it he walks on his charges after he gets a public defender or pro bono attorney. Being he has a past criminal record, they will still make him take several years probation.”
According to this comment the whole thing arose because two ghetto girls wanted to rip off McDonalds with a fake $50 bill.
I hope this kid’s life isn’t ruined over this anymore than it already was. I mean, seriously, if people want to push you just to see how far it is until you blow up, maybe they shouldn’t be so shocked when you hit the breaking point.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Link to the article.
In the interest of journalistic accuracy, I corrected the following portion of the article:
"The video, which has audio, is peppered with AN HYSTERICAL WHITE WOMAN screaming and wailing in horror and the chilling sound of the metal rod repeatedly whipping through the air and hitting Darbeau and Edwards.
"Stop it! Stop! Stop! Oh my God!? THE HYSTERICAL WHITE WOMAN is heard screaming. ?Someone call police!?
Hysterical White Woman (HWW); because every crime scene needs at least one. 
On a more serious note, the article does mention that he continued to strike them when they attempted to get up and he told them to stay down. Pretty much the SAME THING THE POLICE WOULD DO if they were neutralizing a threat. So, the kid has a defense. I just don’t know if a jury will buy it. His actions will be weighed against a “reasonable” or some similar legal standard.[/quote]
Yea, but you and me both know that this dude ain’t the police, and people have no reason, and no legal obligation, to be expected to obey your order to “Stay down,” especially when you have a metal pipe in your hand.
Again, this article doesn’t address the two cunts who started the assault and jumped the desk, and that’s fucked up. They’re more at fault than him, and should have gotten assault charges as well.
BUT AGAIN, this is what I’ve been saying - get all self-fucking-righteous about it, but your opinion on whether what you’re doing is right is always different in the eyes of The Man.
Every jerkoff who the cops arrest was doing it in “self defense.” Of course.[/quote]
Well, an arrest doesn’t amount to much as you should know. They ARE going to charge someone when there is serious injury like this and they will let the system run its course.
Now, of course he’s not giving a “legal order” in the way a LEO might, but what I was getting at was that he felt it necessary that they stay down. If his lawyer is smart, the story will follow the following track; he was in fear for his safety b/c a smaller woman who was speaking very aggressively jumped the counter after hitting him. where he’s from, the only people that act in that manner (attacking a larger person) are ARMED. and, there were TWO of them pursuing him. He went to RETREAT, they PURSUED and ONLY AFTER striking them with the only object he could find, did the ATTACK cease. Even after striking them, they still tried to get up and he thought they had a weapon.
That would be my story. And it’s a good story. And it might even be true. Now the part where he’s going to have a problem is that once they are down like that, he could have retreated a bit or retreated altogether and escaped. I’m not sure the law in NY requires this, but like I said, it will be some variation of a “reasonable” standard. To determine “reasonable” they will have to weigh, among other things, the attackers, any verbalized threats (like representation they had a weapon) or HIS state of mind (level of fear).
It’s simple, but complex.
But at the end of the day, I do not disagree with you. I think it was excessive. I’m also glad that big mouth bitch go her ass beat. My rule is, you act like a lady, and I’ll give you the deference a lady deserves. You act like a man and come hit me, your ass better guard your fucking grill. Or, as we discussed ad nauseum in the other thread, bitch better “protect herself at all times”
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Link to the article.
In the interest of journalistic accuracy, I corrected the following portion of the article:
"The video, which has audio, is peppered with AN HYSTERICAL WHITE WOMAN screaming and wailing in horror and the chilling sound of the metal rod repeatedly whipping through the air and hitting Darbeau and Edwards.
"Stop it! Stop! Stop! Oh my God!? THE HYSTERICAL WHITE WOMAN is heard screaming. ?Someone call police!?
Hysterical White Woman (HWW); because every crime scene needs at least one.
On a more serious note, the article does mention that he continued to strike them when they attempted to get up and he told them to stay down. Pretty much the SAME THING THE POLICE WOULD DO if they were neutralizing a threat. So, the kid has a defense. I just don’t know if a jury will buy it. His actions will be weighed against a “reasonable” or some similar legal standard.[/quote]
Those chicks absolutely posed a credible threat to the cashier so the initial strikes were completely justified, IMO, regardless of gender. However the courts do consider factors like gender, age relative size and condition numbers etc when judging the level of threat posed to a person and therefore an appropriate, reasonable response. It’s called disparity of force and it’s why one person (i.e. 110 lb female ) may be justified in shooting an unarmed attacker and another (i.e. 230 lb male) may not be. This is not a free pass for crazy bitches to slap down random dudes without fear of any retaliation, it’s just part of the totality of circumstances that must be looked at before passing judgment. This is not unreasonable to me.
As others have said, where this starts to look bad is where the attackers go down behind the counter and the guy continues striking, despite his co-workers urging him to stop. It LOOKS bad, but we really don’t know what’s going on, based on the video. The camera angle makes it impossible to form an accurate impression of what’s going on behind the counter. IF they were continuing to try to get up despite loud, clear direction to stay down, the cashier may have a defence. As TBG mentions the police could be justified in doing the same thing, if they could show that a credible threat was still present. Also, I believe police would generally be striking in such a situation because they were moving to arrest (and this guy would have lawful authority to arrest these girls for their initial assault) the subjects as opposed simply to acting to protect themselves, but that’s kind of splitting hairs.
On that note, I wonder how many people on this board would be defending a uniformed cop if he videoed were in the same situation, same camera angles etc taking the same action with his baton? Just sayin’.
EDIT - Disregard my last comment regarding the cop. As Fightingirish was good enough to point out, it’s not really relevant to the situation and simply muddies the waters.
I would defend that cop completely if someone slapped him, he pushes them away, they continue atatcking and corner him as he beats them up.
I would cheer that on.
I would NOT cheer on shooting a guy because a cop says he saw a knife when the guy was just walking across the street casually.
Oh wait, that happened.
[i]The owner of the McDonald’s franchise, Carmen Paulino, said that McIntosh “no longer works for my organization.”
?I am extremely disturbed by the events captured on tape and am concerned for those injured. The actions of this individual are unacceptable and not characteristic of my employees. This individual no longer works for my organization," she said.[/i]
Guess he was just suppose to let two random women jump the counter, attack him, his fellow employees, and put the store property at risk.
I’m not surprised by this but it still sucks to see his boss demonize him for PR reasons.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yea they came at him, but once that threat is no longer a threat, the second you keep coming at them, you are now the aggressor.
In this case, once those girls (or whoever the fuck that was) goes down, you have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to stop the assault.
[/quote]
He told them to stay down. They kept getting back up (that much we can see until it falls behind the counter completely). You can’t see shit from that angle so what are you talking about?[/quote]
He’s got no authority to tell them to stay down.
All they have to say is that they were trying to get away - which they may or may not have been doing - and it justifies them getting up.
You cannot keep striking once they’re down. One of these girls had a fractured skull - she may not have had any idea what she was doing when she tried to get up.
It’s excessive force no matter how you cut it and he’s going to pay for it. Rightly so.[/quote]
And by the way, I’ve told people many times in similar situations “do not get up”. It’s a warning that if you get up, I’ll have to assume you want to continue to fight. It may not be a “legal” order, but it does represent my “state of mind” as it concerns my perception of the threat.
“Do not get up” is very reasonable under some circumstances.
“Do not get up” and hitting someone when they try, is very different from just striking someone when they are prone and making no attempt to get up.
Nuances. All very important to this guy’s defense. May not get him a free ride, but it could change the ultimate charge or disposition. As it stands now, they charged ALL parties…so what’s charged now is pretty meaningless.
By the way, the kid did 10 years prior for killing someone. That almost certainly is a manslaughter rap which means once again, the kid encountered some type of threat that mitigated his actions from murder.
^“SHE said”.
'nuff said.
no offense.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hope this kid’s life isn’t ruined over this anymore than it already was. I mean, seriously, if people want to push you just to see how far it is until you blow up, maybe they shouldn’t be so shocked when you hit the breaking point.[/quote]
I “get” the above. The problem is the law allows you to act reasonably, not go “postal”. And it’s a fine, nuanced line between the two. You don’t have to be “perfect”, but damn if I ever want a jury of strangers deciding that on my behalf.
Take home lesson, err on the side of reason if it’s within your control. Once those bitches are done, he’s definitely in “control” and anything he does after that will be judged more harshly.
If he had simply put these bitches down, and then retreated to safety, it’s an entirely different and simpler legal analysis.
I want to ask…
To those of you who feel his actions are justified, at what point would they not have been justified? What if he had permanently paralyzed one of the women or worse killed them? Would your stance change?
This story reminds me of the case of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who executed one of the robbers/attackers after they were down. He received life in prison.
McDonald’s and the franchise are going to do nothing but sell you “vanilla” shake on this one guys. That’s business reality. You’re in business to make money selling burgers, not to make political statements and take legal positions.
That’s just reality. This kid is a sacrificial lamb in that regard.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, this article doesn’t address the two cunts who started the assault and jumped the desk, and that’s fucked up. They’re more at fault than him, and should have gotten assault charges as well.
[/quote]
I really, really can’t understand how neither is being charged with assault. It’s right there in black and white, no question about it. I think the guy’s actions are at least debatable in terms of grey area.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to ask…
To those of you who feel his actions are justified, at what point would they not have been justified? What if he had permanently paralyzed one of the women or worse killed them? Would your stance change?
This story reminds me of the case of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who executed one of the robbers/attackers after they were down. He received life in prison.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html[/quote]
The point from some of us is that we do not have COMPLETE INFORMATION. We know from the article that it is alleged he struck them when they attempted to get back up. What we do not know is what his state of mind was (his level of fear and what that fear was based upon and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances) and we do not know if she ever represented a weapon, express or implied.
If someone substantially smaller than you does not fear you, I’m not sure where you’re from (canada right? you’re the dude that think he can call black women “negress” right? well, you’re from Kansas my man, home of Oz, you might not understand), but where I’m from, when someone acts brazen like this in the face of seeming common sense, it means they are armed.
She was definitely a man-acting hood bitch, not some lilly white girl waving her finger coming around the counter to give him a piece of her mind.
society is becoming fucked up.
They deserve the beating and that man an award for defending his own life.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, this article doesn’t address the two cunts who started the assault and jumped the desk, and that’s fucked up. They’re more at fault than him, and should have gotten assault charges as well.
[/quote]
I really, really can’t understand how neither is being charged with assault. It’s right there in black and white, no question about it. I think the guy’s actions are at least debatable in terms of grey area.[/quote]
Simple
They’re women (well they both had vaginas)
They got their ass whooped
Everyone knows that if you’re a man and you hurt a woman no matter if she was clearly the aggressor in a altercation you go to jail, directly to jail. You do not pass go and you do not collect $200.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
On that note, I wonder how many people on this board would be defending a uniformed cop if he videoed were in the same situation, same camera angles etc taking the same action with his baton? Just sayin’.[/quote]
Interesting point, but cops know full well the responsibilities that come with their jobs and I am less sympathetic to their cause. Part of their job entails entering and performing in potentially dangerous situations which they receive training for. They also have tasers, pepper spray, and other less-lethal devices to use in these types of situations.
This guy was minding his own business, doing his job which should not entail ever having to deal with violent situations. He was complying with store policy, which offended these too women to the point that they thought physical violence was the answer. He defended himself, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt whether or not he went overboard intentionally or in the heat of the moment.
Hopefully these women learned their lesson, but too bad it was at the expense of this guy’s life.
Listen, enough with the “Well what if they were COPS!” or “What if they were TRANSGENDER MUTANTS WITH GUNS FOR ARMS!”
This, in the self-defense world, is similar to the “27 Ninjas with machine guns” thing that people train for - as in “But, but, what if I’m attacked by a superhuman bodybuilder with metal arms!” or “What if I’m ambushed by 27 ninjas with machine guns!”
Deal with the situation at hand. He clearly knew they were women. He took the necessary steps to defend himself, but then he took it way too far and clearly used excessive force on them after they were no longer a threat.
Again, it’s not black and white. He wasn’t all right, and he wasn’t all wrong. He was good to a certain point, and then he became the attacker.