Parking lot attendant uses lethal force to defend himself.

[FourteenMiles]

Two men (father and son) attacked two parking lot attendants after an item went missing from their car. One of the parking lot attendants used a knife to defend himself and his attacker (the son) succumbed to the injuries.

Link to a local news piece with a clip of the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbecPWH-6cI

A few things I noticed:

The parking lot attendant in red was smart to call 911, I think he correctly anticipated an escalation of the situation.

The same parking lot attendant grabbed a machete but he did not seem ready or able to use it, he probably just had it as a "talisman" we speak of, thinking he could wave it around and it would solve his problems.

The camera proved invaluable for the victims of the attack, without it they could be in jail right now.

The clip mentions the two victims have received threats over this incident, even if the threats are empty I am sure it is costing them a lot (more) to adjust their daily lives and have on their minds.

 

[Six]

Scary stuff, it was probably not the first the time father son pair had settled their problems that way.

 

[heeler]

Ugghh...First I must say the father with his hot head temper totally escalated this situation beyond anything that was even remotely reasonable.
The employee wisely called the proper authorities.
The young man who is now deceased followed in Pop's footsteps and is now unfortunately moldering in the grave.
Who can blame the attacked for fighting back??
A deadly weapon was used against the employees.
What they sure better hope is that they were not responsible for the alledged theft.
But with the bad actors past criminal background the lawyers guild will have a field day.
Case closed.

 

[zxcvbob]

Charge Dad with "felony murder" of his son. Offer to drop that if he pleads guilty to aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon. Then throw the 3-time loser in prison for the rest of his life. (does New York have a "3 strikes" law?)

Maybe he'll do the honorable thing and off himself to save the taxpayers some money.

Not sure why this is in ST&T other than the "call 911" part.

 

[heeler]

I have noticed a recent trend in a few states lately that I absolutely disagree with and that is charging the involved parties such as the dad here with the son's murder.
As much an a$$ as he has presented himself as HE DID NOT murder his son.
His son was killed in a violent attack that HE(the son) decided to involve himself in.
The father is an idiot but he did not kill his son.
Not even close.

 

[FourteenMiles]

I feel like in legal regards the only thing we can comment on is the fact that the camera was there. Well...and it might be worth considering that the victim who used lethal force in his defense did so with a "home made knife" according to this news piece, does that say anything about our tacticool weapons or modified triggers?

...well I guess when you have video evidence there is not much to argue.

 

[BENBRU]

Wow... just wow. The girl at the end of the video saying she wants justice for her cousin. I wish someone could tell her that justice was already done and he got killed because he violently, maliciously, and mistakenly attacked someone.

I would love to know what kind of time frame it took for the son to succumb to the injuries. Something tells me they didn't go straight to the hospital or wait for the cops/EMTs to show up and they(father and son) took off. Call it a hunch but I think that son's wounds were not by definition fatal.

I'm not sure about this world anymore. This is the father's fault as much as it is the son's fault for getting involved.

 

[Steel Talon]

Good self-defence.. Attendents survived..

If "Dad" would of been smart instead of a thug his son would still be alive today...He should of called the cops and reported a theft.

 

[FourteenMiles]

...and mistakenly attacked someone.

Here's another question, hypothetically if the attendants had taken an item from the car, would the men who were victims of that crime be legally justified in attacking the suspects with their fists, a bicycle, and a shovel?

 

[.338-06]

No. If the lot attendants stole something, they would be guilty of theft. If you attack someone with a weapon or without, you are guilty of assault. Quess which crime carries the tougher time?

Your parents should have told you this when you were younger.

 

[Sam1911]

I have noticed a recent trend in a few states lately that I absolutely disagree with and that is charging the involved parties such as the dad here with the son's murder.
As much an <deleted> as he has presented himself as HE DID NOT murder his son.
His son was killed in a violent attack that HE(the son) decided to involve himself in.
The father is an idiot but he did not kill his son.
Not even close.

The concept that zxcvbob was getting at is known as the "Felony Murder Rule." It's been around for a LONG time in many jurisdictions (like maybe since about the 12th century?).

It is in place in quite a few of our states as well.

The idea is, if you are committing a violent felonious act, and you accidentally kill someone during the course of that inherently dangerous and unlawful activity, you will be charged with murder, even though you'd had no plans to kill anyone.

It ALSO says, all deaths which spring from that act, by you, your accomplices, or even accidentally in the course of the event, are laid on you as well.

Instances may be things like the violent taking of a motor vehicle wherein an accident kills a passenger or passer-by. Or a bank hold-up that ends in a shoot-out wherein a stray bullet (from you, or maybe even from someone else) kills a bystander. Etc.

Whether it would apply here would be up for the prosecutors and court to decide, but I could see how it might.

IF Dad's felonious assault with a deadly weapon ended in the death of his son (whether or not the son was also an accomplice), he could be charged with murder.

 

[FourteenMiles]

No...If you attack someone with a weapon or without, you are guilty of assault.

Your parents should have told you this when you were younger.

No, I understand that simple as day, it just seems as though that would be a question a casual observer may have. Not necessarily if it was legal but it seems as though a lot of people have the mindset that "no ones steals from me and gets away with it".

Hasn't there been instances where someone has used force to detain a thief? Is there a defined line of what is acceptable?

There was that recent incident of a women damaging an alleged thieves property in an attempt to detain them, and as far as I understand no charges were brought against her.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/bizarre&id=8207179

Or maybe that's irrelevant, either way it's knee slapping funny.

 

[Shadow 7D]

There is a justification of 'necessity' which means that you can do what is 'necessary' to stop a crime IN PROGRESS. Such that you may shoot a carjacker driving off with your baby. He may no longer be a deadly threat to YOU, but to stop the kidnapping of your child...

And remember that Cops tend to get more leeway with breaking things and people than Joe from the street does.
Also some to most states have a 'citizens arrest' statue on the books. But those can be tricky esp. with the lawyer guild.

 

[alsaqr]

I have noticed a recent trend in a few states lately that I absolutely disagree with and that is charging the involved parties such as the dad here with the son's murder.

Oklahoma is one of those states amd i don't have a problem with it. The father in the video pulled 15 years in prison for armed robbery: He learned nothing from his incarceration. The father started the fight with the parking lot employees. He is responsible for his sons death.

 

[bikerdoc]

A lot of case law on justifiable use the phases;

unprovoked by you.

While going about you lawfull business

and some states say having met your duty to retreat and/or make peace

I would say they did all three. Best thing was calling 911. Only other thing I see is locking the door after the actors backed off the first time. dont know if that was possible.

Thank god for the video.

Take away lesson; call 911

 

[heeler]

Not trying to intentionally get this thread off course but I would like to state that if they had to come there to rob in a conspiracy together and one of the attendants were killed then yes I could see murder charges being filed on all involved in the criminal act.
But what happened here is the father started a fight and then took it up several notches by coming back in with a deadly weapon.
Prior to that the son stood there seemingly in awe of what was unfolding.
He then involved himself in the fight and got himself killed by one of the attendents.
The father,although guilty of aggravated assault,flat out did not kill his son and it seems a stretch beyond belief that some states would charge him with the murder.
His son got himself killed by his own foolish actions.
And even as law and order aggressive the state of Texas is I do not believe even here that this type of law is on the books.
In my first example I gave it absolutely is though.
And actually as far as Oklahoma goes I just happened to read a few weeks ago about a gal that was with a guy that killed I think a police officer and they eventually killed the killer and they charged her with the killers death.
Just seems mighty peculiar too me.

 

[Sam1911]

In this case, you are probably right. (Though I am not a not a lawyer, or course.) This was not (as far as we can tell) a premeditated act in which an accomplice was killed. But I don't know enough about the state laws and prosecutors involved to say how it will be played.

TX actually does recognize this principle. Wiki rolleyes says: "Codified in Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02, the law states that a person can be criminally responsible for the actions of another if he or she aids and abets, or conspires with the principal. However, all common law jurisdictions find that an accessory to murder will be criminally responsible. This liability can arise through solicitation, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, or any other doctrine of complicity."

 

[pikid89]

the two girls they interview are both clearly delusional as to the realities of life (and death)

 

[wh!plash]

I take offense to the word "murder" being applied in this case (by the attendant, i mean). That word implies that he was somehow a victim with no choice in the matter. The father/son obviously started it, and they both burst in the door weapons in hand. After watching that tape, my only regret is that the father wasn't put down also.

If you act like animals, you ought to be put down like animals. In short, nothing of value was lost in my opinion.

 

[Mike J]

This probably will come across horrible but I would not have a problem with any punishment the state chose to mete out to the Father. I generally believe that a boy needs a man to help bring him up but from what was written about the Fathers past record & the time he had spent away. That boy would have probably been better off if he had never known his Father.

As for the women interviewed. They are beyond stupid.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by heeler: The father, although guilty of aggravated assault, flat out did not kill his son and it seems a stretch beyond belief that some states would charge him with the murder.

Not really; as Sam pointed out, there is the felony murder rule, which probably applies here. The father was engaged in the commission of a dangerous felony; that act led to the death of his son. The death was a foreseeable result of the felony.

Neither the fact that the father had not planned to kill anyone nor the fact that the son acted unwisely has anything to do with whether the father is guilty.

Consider this: had the father attacked the attendant with a deadly weapon, and had the attendant necessarily fired at him in self defense and killed a third person, the father would no doubt face criminal charges for that death, also.

And even as law and order aggressive the state of Texas is I do not believe even here that this type of law is on the books.

Not everything is "on the books"--there's common law, or legal precedent; as Sam pointed out, the legal principle goes back quite a ways. In NYS, however, the rule has been codified, and the crime is defined as second degree murder.

In Oklahoma recently, pharmacist Jerome Ersland was found guilty of first degree murder in the shooting death of an injured unarmed man who posed no danger to him. Also found guilty of first degree murder for the same death were an armed robber and two men who had planned the robbery and recruited the participants; none of them shot the decedent, but the death would not have occurred but for the robbery.

From the ST&T point of view, I think the takeaway points are that the attendants did everything they could to deescalate the situation ad avoid the use of fore, and that having a video record can be extremely helpful in a defense of justification.

 

[merlinfire]

Here's another question, hypothetically if the attendants had taken an item from the car, would the men who were victims of that crime be legally justified in attacking the suspects with their fists, a bicycle, and a shovel?

A lot of states don't allow deadly force to protect property

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[Dnaltrop]

This is one of those situations where allowing the police to do their job in investigating the "missing" cologne should have been the end of the story.

Sad... you can even see the reluctance to strike by the Lot attendants even when under attack.

 

[Rail Driver]

I have noticed a recent trend in a few states lately that I absolutely disagree with and that is charging the involved parties such as the dad here with the son's murder.

I absolutely agree with that practice. I think that the father SHOULD be charged with the wrongful death of his son. If the idiots hadn't been assaulting the parking attendants to begin with, they would have had no reason to resort to deadly force in self defense... The father is the one that instigated the incident, and obviously hadn't taught his son any better. Stupid should be either painful or fatal depending on the severity of the stupidity. This man's stupidity has resulted not only in the loss of his son, but the loss of his freedom as well.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Sad the Dad got his "Star" Son killed. Reminds me of the warnings of the Bible I preach.

A wise man fears the Lord and shuns evil, but a fool is hotheaded and reckless (Proverbs 14:16

A quick-tempered man does foolish things, and a crafty man is hated (Proverbs 14:17).

A patient man has great understanding, but a quick-tempered man displays folly (Proverbs 14:29).

A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11).

An angry man stirs up dissension, and a hot-tempered one commits many sins (Proverbs 29:22).