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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
If you are in a "fight" that you could reasonably have avoided, losing the fight may not work in a defense of justification.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.
Arguably I would have avoided it with a dose of pepper. I am about certain. Others might disagree.If you are in a "fight" that you could reasonably have avoided, losing the fight may not work in a defense of justification.
I don't think that would describe the situation here, but that is something that we must understand.
The fact that it was $35 is also irrelevant.
Men don't give into bullies.
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!
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.
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.
Folks, the attacker first STOLE money right out of his hand. That is theft.
Anytime you confront someone you might get killed.
And for us folks here decided if we will train ourselves to be able to handle that kind of situation.
token sentences for crimes that should warrant severe and long lasting punishments.
The perp in this case is up for 5 to 99... so uh... I'm missing the "token sentence" part of Felony 1...
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.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.
Would you recommend a different policy? What would be?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.
I would disagree here. In many jurisdictions.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.