I gave this some more thought b/c of all the viral internet chatter it’s getting.
Unfortunately for this kid, the self-defense standard changed for him when he wielded the weapon and the girls suffered serious injury. Based on the felony assault charge against him, they are treating his use of force as potentially deadly, which under the law has a higher standard under self defense. In short, he’s going to have to prove that be believed the threat he faced was potentially deadly. They will also employ what is usually referred to as a “reasonable person” standard which means what a “reasonable person” would have done in his shoes. He’s going to have a “long row to hoe” convincing a jury that two smaller presumably unarmed (more on this presumption below) women were a deadly threat to him. He would have been better off striking, shoving, kicking, retreating. When he picked up a weapon, it was a legal game changer in terms of the legal standard applied to cases like this.
Our initial outrage aside, the BEST information we have based on the video is that the “ladies” were unarmed and once down they did not pose a threat. How do I make such an assumption? In short, the actions of his coworkers, which speaks loud and clear to any alleged “threat”. If the coworkers perceived some deadly threat, they themselves would have retreated and/or help subdue, in fear for their own safety. This pretty much rules out a weapon or any representation of a weapon. Had the aggressor uttered gun or knife or some such threat, you can bet your ass his coworkers are running for cover. They barely move. His coworkers do not retreat in any fashion. They will likely all testify consistent with my assumption.
Finally, even if you give the kid the benefit of the doubt regarding his welding and using a weapon to subdue them, it’s pretty tough to defend his continuing to strike them when they are down due to the coworker attempting to stop the attack. The coworker’s actions clearly speak loudly that there is no threat - why else would he try to stop it? If there was a serious threat, the coworker is unlikely to attempt to break it up. He’s more likely to help or, retreat himself. And the bottom line is that this coworker will likely testify to that effect.
If they had no weapon, and did not represent a weapon (and I believe based on the footage and actions of his coworkers that they neither represented nor possessed a weapon), he’s going to be convicted. If he had just punched, kicked, pushed, etc. to subdue them or escape, he would have been good. Picking up the weapon was the game changer in the eyes of the law. Continuing to use it after they were down probably not defensible.
Now, most of you will piss and moan and play the “what if” game. And you can play “what if” all you want. It will be very fact specific as all these cases are and maybe he does convince a jury he thought they had a weapon…but that’s what it will boil down to and the footage depicting the actions and postures of his coworkers do not support such a belief.
Now, do you guys want to hear the real sickening, maddening part of this whole affair?
The “victims” will likely sue McDonald’s and the franchise. They will allege, among other things, “negligent hiring” for their hiring of an employee with a violent criminal past. Some of you will reason that someone has to hire him and everyone deserves a second chance and you’d be right. However, the civil/legal issue here is that he is a past violent offender, and the conduct he’s accused of is violent and the plaintiff’s will argue the conduct was “foreseeable” based upon his prior conviction.
Criminal conduct by itself, like trespass is usually not a bar to a claim. Criminal conduct by itself is also not always a bar to a claim.
I haven’t thought it thru thoroughly but my initial reaction is that these ladies can sue and recover. Does a jury shower them with money? No. But a compromised settlement is likely, if nothing more than to avoid further publicity and legal expense.
