Deaf Smith
Member
Robbers can be VERY VICIOUS.
http://www.easttexasmatters.com/new...man-at-east-texas-convenience-store/786160626
Deaf
http://www.easttexasmatters.com/new...man-at-east-texas-convenience-store/786160626
Deaf
Pack heat folks... and be aware of your surroundings.
- Thread starter Deaf Smith
- Start date
- Status
Coyote3855
Member
And situational awareness. Get your face out of your phone and pay attention to what's going on around you.
.455_Hunter
Member
But wait...
According to many people, being attacked by only hands and feet does not justify a lethal response.
I wonder in how many jurisdictions across the country, given the nature of the attack and even the racial aspect, would the victim be in trouble if he made the perp eat a Gold Dot.
According to many people, being attacked by only hands and feet does not justify a lethal response.
I wonder in how many jurisdictions across the country, given the nature of the attack and even the racial aspect, would the victim be in trouble if he made the perp eat a Gold Dot.
Disparity of force. If you are an out of shape 39-er and you are getting the ka-ka beat out of you by a heavier, fit 20-odd year old, it is a justifiable use of deadly force. Many, many POs have walked under the same circumstances. Good enough for a PO, good enough for everyone else.
Personally, when he knocked the stuff out of my hand I would have peppered him in a split second. It probably would have ended it right there.
Last edited:
Perhaps not choosing to engage in a fight for his $35 might have been the best option. At 20 seconds into the video the robber grabs the money from the victim. Words are exchanged and at 28 seconds the victim steps in front of the robber to block his exit. At 30 seconds the robber punches the victim, the victim swings back ineffectively and is beaten for his trouble.
I'm not blaming the victim, he is the victim of a robbery. But he chose to fight. Now he is living with the consequences of that decision. He obviously completely misjudged his ability to go HTH and the intent of the robber who looks to be a few inches taller and in much better physical condition.
Chances are if he had simply let the robber leave he would only have been out $35 and the suspect still probably would have been captured 10 minutes later as they had good video of him committing the robbery.
The victim was unarmed and obviously unprepared to engage in a hand to hand fight with the robber who was bigger then he was.
It's always better to pick your fights. The victim picked the wrong fight.
I'm not blaming the victim, he is the victim of a robbery. But he chose to fight. Now he is living with the consequences of that decision. He obviously completely misjudged his ability to go HTH and the intent of the robber who looks to be a few inches taller and in much better physical condition.
Chances are if he had simply let the robber leave he would only have been out $35 and the suspect still probably would have been captured 10 minutes later as they had good video of him committing the robbery.
The victim was unarmed and obviously unprepared to engage in a hand to hand fight with the robber who was bigger then he was.
It's always better to pick your fights. The victim picked the wrong fight.
a_canadian
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 189
I'm fairly comfortable blaming the victim. Not for the beating he took, as that was completely the fault of the perpetrator. But for thinking his flabby 39 year old self was ready for a fist fight with man plainly his physical superior, that's just damned foolish. Pick your rights. Know your capabilities. As that twit with the active self protection channel says, know some verbal judo to de-escalate when things don't favour a violent response. He tried to block a criminal with his pudgy self, basically demanding a violent response. How could he have been so completely unprepared for the inevitable outcome? Was he asleep? Gas money is not worth a beating like that. The clerk's would have known that. Hand over the cash, be polite, and trust the security video to nail this loser.
Do not assume that, because a disparity of force can give a defender a reason to believe that an unarmed assailant may have the ability to cause death or great bodily harm, the use of deafly force would automatically be justified.
Think necessity and innocence first, and then consider possible justification.
It is not automatic. But once you are losing a fight, and taking the example here you are on the ground, and the subject is still landing blows it would apply. Many a PO "has been losing the fight" while still standing, used deadly force - and walked.
I have already stated that a dose of pepper right off would have probably ended it. But had I (now 59, about 145) been this guy, carrying a handgun, as soon as I was down I would have stitched this guy from his crotch on up.
VoodooMountain
Member
He chose to defend himself, he didn't pick a fight. The fact that it was $35 is also irrelevant. Men don't give into bullies. We used to know this in this country. You can play the long game and outsmart them, but you don't give into them.
In a world of manbuns, tinder, rompers, and safe spaces I commend him for being a man. He got his butt handed to him and yes he is dealingnwith the consequences. I deal with people like that thief in my job a couple times a week and have 0 respect for them. People like that need to be removed from the general population permanently. Any further comments would likely get me reprimanded.
Arguably I would have avoided it with a dose of pepper. I am about certain. Others might disagree.
In Texas, the first action of this assailant is an actual assault. So an instant defensive reaction by the victim would be reasonable, and legal, even if had been a spontaneous kick in the balls. The assailant instigated this, unprovoked, against someone who was not only minding their own business, but was not even looking at him.
Once a physical assault has taken place, whether someone has simply grabbed you, shoved their finger hard in your chest, shoved you etc, a physical response is not unreasonable or unwarranted. One blow to the head by a person of the physical stature of this assailant could cause brain damage - immediate or later on, or death. Cases to this end are not uncommon at all. Had the victim been of equal size, age and physical ability the outcome may have been different, and if not the defender would have more difficulty justifying escalated or deadly force.
Whether it is the wisest thing to do is another matter. In this case, the only thing that saved the assailant was that the victim was not observant, prepared, nor capable of adequately neutralizing him.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Well, I bet the $35 was a heck of a lot cheaper than his medical bills are going to be.
Yup, real men take an arse whoopin! Be a man, get the ever living hell kicked out of you!
OP
OP
Deaf Smith
Member
Folks, the attacker first STOLE money right out of his hand. That is theft. When committed right in front of you here in Texas can legally confront them. It is a Class C misdemeanor EXCEPT when force is used to take the money (he snatched it from his hand and then when not allowed to leave he physically attacked him) then it becomes strong armed robbery, a felony. If the thief had killed him it would then have been capital murder (murder in commission of a felony.)
In actually, the Lufkin police charged him, Andrea Franks-Vanzandt, with aggravated robbery. They considered his hands and feet deadly weapons. Why? The severity of the beating (to me he almost killed him!)
But as the attack grew in force, and with the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Texas, the victim could have shot him.
But as in the title of this thread, keep your eyes pealed and aware of what is going on. And yes get some H2H skills just in case you have to stop them from BEATING YOU TO DEATH.
Anytime you confront someone you might get killed. Everyone knows that. One just has to decide if they are going to stop them or not. And for us folks here decided if we will train ourselves to be able to handle that kind of situation.
Deaf
In actually, the Lufkin police charged him, Andrea Franks-Vanzandt, with aggravated robbery. They considered his hands and feet deadly weapons. Why? The severity of the beating (to me he almost killed him!)
But as the attack grew in force, and with the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Texas, the victim could have shot him.
But as in the title of this thread, keep your eyes pealed and aware of what is going on. And yes get some H2H skills just in case you have to stop them from BEATING YOU TO DEATH.
Anytime you confront someone you might get killed. Everyone knows that. One just has to decide if they are going to stop them or not. And for us folks here decided if we will train ourselves to be able to handle that kind of situation.
Deaf
Then he has no right to complain about the beating he took. I suppose he can take comfort in the fact that that he didn't give into the bully and his wife and child would be comforted that he met someone's standard of manhood at his funeral had the kick in the head killed him. After all, everyone knows it's better to pick a fight you have no chance of winning then to have someone think you are less then a man.
If you are going to fight you need to have a chance of winning. This guy was overmatched. There are plenty of dead "men" who picked a fight they had no chance of winning.
In this case winning was most likely tied to being a good witness. If charging into a fight you have no chance of winning is how we judge a man then we have some real heroes who wouldn't meet that standard.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
This is what happens when you give criminals more rights than their victims, along with token sentences for crimes that should warrant severe and long lasting punishments. They act with complete impunity.
VoodooMountain
Member
Then he has no right to complain about the beating he took. I suppose he can take comfort in the fact that that he didn't give into the bully and his wife and child would be comforted that he met someone's standard of manhood at his funeral had the kick in the head killed him. After all, everyone knows it's better to pick a fight you have no chance of winning then to have someone think you are less then a man.
If you are going to fight you need to have a chance of winning. This guy was overmatched. There are plenty of dead "men" who picked a fight they had no chance of winning.
In this case winning was most likely tied to being a good witness. If charging into a fight you have no chance of winning is how we judge a man then we have some real heroes who wouldn't meet that standard.
It isn't about bravado and we as a species would never have accomplished anything if we only tried to defeat things we know we could win. You'd be speaking German right now if we all thought that way.
The victim also didn't pick a fight. He defended himself and his property.
What I inter from your line of thinking is it is ok to say , "I'm bigger, meaner, tougher so give me your stuff."
I know that isn't what you are advocating and this is also why Samuel Colt made all men equal.
I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
Your post was all about bravado.
"In a world of man buns, tinder, rompers and safe spaces I commend him for being a man"
If that isn't bravado, I don't know what is.
The victim may have chosen to protect himself and his property but he failed miserably at it.
1. He was completely unaware of the threat until he was faced with it.
2. He was unarmed, unskilled and out of shape yet he chose to engage a younger, stronger man.
As the OP pointed out, he very easily could have been killed by the kick to the head.
Sometimes it's better to back away and come back later when you are equipped to handle the situation. Working patrol in a rural area I handled most situations alone. But there were things that I backed away from until backup arrived. There were plenty of arrests that weren't worth my life or the life of the offender. So you simply wait until you have enough force to end it without a fight.
All I'm saying is that sometimes it's smarter not to engage if you don't stand a chance of prevailing. You could tell by watching the video that the robber was not going to be stopped from leaving without a fight. It was all over his body language. When the victim chose to fight he should have made sure he had the means to prevail. He didn't, and it cost him. Fortunately, it didn't cost him his life.
If you look at the video you can see that the victim had no HTH skills. He looked like a kid on the playground in junior high school.
I suppose that he was shocked, outraged and angry, but emotions weren't enough to win the fight.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
It was actually a Robbery under the applicable laws. Which yes, is a lethal force applicable offense... but then we come back to the real crux of all these discussions: Can You vs Should You.
I mean, yeah, sure... you can kill the guy for stealing $35 from you, and you might even beat the rap for it. Which story is better to tell your grandkids though:
1) Hey remember that time grandpa when some idiot stole $35 from you and went to jail
-or-
2) Hey Grandpa, remember that time you killed a guy?... and all the attendant baggage that goes with that little life adventure.
As a person who is interested in living a full and long life then having a sudden death in a tragic biplane vs barn accident.. I strongly advise limiting how many "confrontations" you have unless you are paid to do so... and if you are paid to do so, either start the tactfully or end them decisively.
For those of us really trained to "handle that kind of situation" shooting people generally is not the first go to idea... nor is fisticuffs. I'm getting too old and have gone to that watering hole too many times to want another rodeo.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
The perp in this case is up for 5 to 99... so uh... I'm missing the "token sentence" part of Felony 1...
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I would be amazed if he spends more than ten years in prison. Besides, prison in and of itself is a token sentence for these wastes of space, regardless of how long the sentence is. It's become a right of passage for thugs to do hard time. The threat of prison isn't a deterrent anymore, and in many cases it's almost a bonus.
fastbolt
Member
Another example of a suspect who apparently has little compunction against acting in an outright violent, feral manner when victimizing someone he has seemingly identified as a weaker individual who could be victimized.
A couple questions, though ... and without blaming the victim.
Is it a wise action to display an opened wallet within easy reach of strangers? How many here would leave a large pile of money sitting on a table next to an open front window, without curtains, overnight, or while gone for the day? Or on the seat of your car/truck?
Is it prudent, even if justified and lawful, to engage in a fight over personal property if you know you're not capable of fighting? Does having the moral, and hopefully legal, high ground justify the increased risk of personal injury added to loss of personal property.
I think Deaf distilled it simply. It's a risk/benefit assessment involving "Can I?" v. "Should I?"
It's also being a little more aware of any potential heightened risks, including someone obviously paying too much attention to you and your wallet when you're holding your open wallet right up in front of them.
Hopefully, the criminal justice system and the local court will push to keep this person incarcerated for the maximum time allowable, instead of going for the "easy" win by offering a reduced sentence to which the suspect will plead.
A couple questions, though ... and without blaming the victim.
Is it a wise action to display an opened wallet within easy reach of strangers? How many here would leave a large pile of money sitting on a table next to an open front window, without curtains, overnight, or while gone for the day? Or on the seat of your car/truck?
Is it prudent, even if justified and lawful, to engage in a fight over personal property if you know you're not capable of fighting? Does having the moral, and hopefully legal, high ground justify the increased risk of personal injury added to loss of personal property.
I think Deaf distilled it simply. It's a risk/benefit assessment involving "Can I?" v. "Should I?"
It's also being a little more aware of any potential heightened risks, including someone obviously paying too much attention to you and your wallet when you're holding your open wallet right up in front of them.
Hopefully, the criminal justice system and the local court will push to keep this person incarcerated for the maximum time allowable, instead of going for the "easy" win by offering a reduced sentence to which the suspect will plead.
Last edited:
wally
Member
Sad fact of reality, without personal injury or 5+ figure loss the police will do absolutely nothing about it, if not immediately on the scene.
Would you recommend a different policy? What would be?
I would disagree here. In many jurisdictions.
Had this goon just punched him and grabbed his wallet etc and run, or pushed him over, some departments might not assign much resource and time. In this case the victim probably received serious injuries. Apart from the number and severity of blows, if you watch closely the victim is down, at best semi conscious, and breathing is labored. He may be lucky and make a good recovery, or he may die days or weeks later.
I think in this case there is going to be a pretty good effort to nail the goon.
- Status
Similar threads
