Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would have drawn as soon as any physical aggression began

With the benefit of calm hindsight when exactly was that?

Texas juries really don't like vicious beatings.

The problem here becomes that effective self defense also prevents the beating. With effective self defense you may have no evidence that said beating was going to occur. Further evidence of that beating may be ignored (we saw physical evidence of a beating having occurred basically ignored in an event not too long ago in Florida).
 
With the benefit of calm hindsight when exactly was that?
That's the problem isn't it?
He probably would have been justified after he's on the ground and being kicked and stomped but by then the fight was over.. it was now a beating.
But the problem is he was in no shape at that point to actually help him self let alone deploy a gun.

To me it looks like the fight was over on that 2nd punch.. even if he had tried to draw after the 1st I don't think he would have been able to under the rain of blows he was getting.

That's what's so bad about this situation.. by the time most of us would agree he's in the clear he's to far gone to do anything.

The problem here becomes that effective self defense also prevents the beating. With effective self defense you may have no evidence that said beating was going to occur.
Exactly, That's why I find situations like this so paradoxical.

If the situation plays out we know the man received an absolutely brutal beating, I mean I really don't think any jury would convict this guy for using deadly force against that sort of assault....
But if we go back in a time machine and he shoots the guy.. Then it just looks like an armed guy shooting an unarmed guy.


The only thing I can come up with is some less then lethal solution, If you're not absolutely sure you can win a physical contest.. and even if normally you can you might not get the chance if the attacker lands a sucker blow.

We may have to look at some pre-emptive non lethal force.
I mean I don't wanna walk around with a bat belt.. but at the same time cops don't go fist fighting suspects unless they're caught off guard.. they just taster you.

And if you ever see a cop fight 1on1 they always try to keep the gun away from the attacker.. so they know the stakes.
 
Last edited:
Tough question. I see after re-watching the video the victim did have time to retreat, and should have.

However once he was on the ground, he became mostly defenseless. Also once he was on the ground, given the severity of the beating and the thug showing no signs of stopping it is no longer about the wallet or money.

I do think at that point his life was in clear danger. Given the close proximity of the attacker, I think this victim was SOL
Reaching for a gun at that point seems difficult at best and could very well end up in the attackers hands.

Part of me suggests that a otf automatic knife would have been a lower profile option, as the victim could have opened it and used it with one hand, even under the stress of the beating. However then you have the use of potential deadly force road to go down even if you succeed in wounding him causing retreat.

Not sure what I would have done as a bystander. perhaps ask the clerk if they have a bat behind the counter and take the guy out, as he was pretty unaware of his surroundings as he beat that poor dude to a mess.

P.S. one thing I noticed is the victim did not make proper effort to , slide, crawl, stumble run, make a diversion or anything else offensive when he was down. Anything to put some distance between him and the attacker would have provided more options to fight or flee.
 
If things have progressed as far as a jury trial, a court has already judged that the claim of justification was not clear cut. The defendant may win, but he will not have enjoyed the ride.

Only if the prosecutor decides to do anything. I doubt it here in Texas where it happened. We are a conservative bunch and there are plenty of SD cases where the Texas system didn't do anything to the defender, especially with such graphic video of the attack backing them up ... just like this one.


But in NYC or California.. who knows.

Deaf
 
JoeSixpack: thanks for bringing the topic back to life as I thought the thread was closed prematurely as did you.

I can only say that I know what I would have done, and I will keep it between myself and the Lord.

Fact is, NONE of us know what we would have done unless it happened to us. It happened quick and with no warning. The victim made a huge mistake when he drew his wallet out like that in open country. That was the very first mistake he made. The second mistake he made was not diagnosing the threat the very second the perpetrator grabbed the wallet from the victim's hands.

The victim was cornered and had no place to retreat. The victim really was out gunned by being very undersized compared to the perp. The consequences are present in the video.
 
Bingo,
In the time frame when the victim was capable of self defense,IMO,deadly force was at least questionable. Unarmed man and a property crime.

Once the assault began,its hard for me to imagine the victim could effectively use a handgun.

Pre-empting the horrible beating pre-empts the justification.

Third party intervention? You cannot expect it. It did not happen.

I suppose the point is the time to take action is before you hold your wallet up to your nose while standing in line. La-la land can be a dangerous place.
 
The OP asked:
So tell me what you would do, Tell me what you think I should do different.

I've held 2 robbers at gunpoint, waiting for the police. I was a lot younger and stronger way back when, my point mention this is it depends on the person and circumstances as to what's right for them.

So at this much older age, if I decided to hang around and get involved:

I would get out of 'reach range' of the bad guy, preferably with something physical between us like the waist-high iced beer cooler

I'd call 911 (I use earbuds / voice command, & not holding phone)

I'd draw my weapon and suggest he lay off the guy and lay on the ground, in terms he'd understand, with limited time to comply

Having spent a fair amount of time in Lufkin, I'd have no problem stopping the guy and not worry about PD, the DA or a jury.


But all of this is based on a very narrow camera view of an incident, there's a lot more that would need to be processed before deciding the above, like if there were 10 armed thugs just outside the door.

As for what you should do, YOU have to determine that. You might be a Navy SEAL that can stop the attack with one kick to his knee /groin / wherever.
Or you might be older like many here and prefer a standoff shot(s) from the back aisle.
 
I think a lot of us are armchair quarterbacking this way too optimistically. Armed or not, whenever there is physical conflict you should always make space. I thought he reacted like most people would react. (Not saying us, just the general population) Without creating that distance, honestly I dont think that there was anything the victim could do at all.

Honestly, I am not sure if any of you have been in a fight, but I have been in many. I know that sounds bad, but between working as a bouncer for years, security, armed security and even my years in college, I would say that I am familiar with the subject. In control tactics courses we were always taught to make space between you and your aggressor first and foremost. I can say from experience that fights can start up out of no where. I have been randomly and I mean completely out of the blue randomly been sucker punched. I have been laughing or joking with my assailant before being struck, in fact I have been shaking my assailants hand, who was someone I was acquaintances with, pull a beer bottle out of his back pocket, break it over my head, slice across my face on swing two, and come at me to stab me in the stomach where I had gained enough consciousness to shove him back before he stopped. I was 6'0" and 185 lbs and in great shape and he was maybe 5'5" and 110 lbs. I have been rocked several times as well as seen dozens of people knocked unconscious. Things happen in the blink of an eye faster than you can bring your hands up to block it much less draw. When people are knocked silly like that, I can promise you they have literally no idea whats going on. I have had a kid who was knocked out while I was in uniform, gun, badge, A.S.P., OC, vest, I helped him up and asked if he was ok while police were right next to the entire ordeal and that kid swung on me while the officer and I were holding him up. As soon as you are hit like that, your motor function skills barely work and your brain isnt at normal operation either. You are almost 100% defenseless. That is why they teach in school and the academy, an officer can never ever lose a fight again. I will never be the victim again. If you ever get into a situation like that guy did, you are completely at the mercy of those around you period. If you don't believe me, put a dummy gun in your holster, have your buddy knock you unconscious and have a timer and see if after you get knocked out you can even remember to draw in 10 seconds.

I am not trying to say anyone is wrong here with their tactics. I am just trying to provide some clarity to the situation. Once it hits that point, there is zero discussion to be had in regards to the victim, there is probably nothing they can do, and that's without any additional blows being landed.

With that in mind, as a bystander, I am 100% positive I would intervene. I would draw at a distance and shout at him as loud as I could that if he did not stop his attack I would shoot him. If he continued or came at me, I would shoot him. I do not at all want to shoot him and rather he run but in my mind if he is being fatally threatened by me and continues to act aggressively, then the attacker believes that he has matched my level of threat and I would feel justification. I would gladly deal with the legal and financial repercussions because I feel obligated to protect that persons life. Please advise, this is my honest answer and is not my advise morally or legally.
 
How does such exist with effective self defense?

You presume such a defense would start at the FIRST of the attack. One can be blindsided and still put forth an effective defense. Simple example. The guy in the video, once on the ground and being beaten, pulls a small J .38 and smokes him.

See that was one of the big faults with the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident. No video of the attack. If there had been such a tape, showing Trayvon using Zimmerman's head to smash into the concrete walkway, I doubt anyone would have filed any charges... nor would any lawsuit have gone forth.

Deaf
 
JoeSixpack said:
The only thing I can come up with is some less then lethal solution, If you're not absolutely sure you can win a physical contest.. and even if normally you can you might not get the chance if the attacker lands a sucker blow.

To be honest, I cannot think of too many less lethal options that would have improved that situation for the victim. Considering the beat down he received just for blocking the exit, I'd hate to see what happens if he pepper-sprayed that guy. I just don't see that going well.

The problem with recognizing a wolf in sheep's clothing is that if you wait for the wolf to drop the disguise, you're behind the eight ball. If you don't wait, you look like a sheep killer. The robber let the sheepskin slip with that robbery; but it would look pretty bad for the victim if he immediately applied the force he'd need to apply to come out of that victorious. Even if he doesn't get injured, the death threats, the protests, the viral video...etc.
 
See that was one of the big faults with the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident. No video of the attack. If there had been such a tape, showing Trayvon using Zimmerman's head to smash into the concrete walkway, I doubt anyone would have filed any charges... nor would any lawsuit have gone forth.

Gerald Ung. Attacked by four people with the whole thing on video, then still prosecuted by the DA and sued in a civil court after being acquitted of criminal charges.
 
Only if the prosecutor decides to do anything. I doubt it here in Texas where it happened. We are a conservative bunch and there are plenty of SD cases where the Texas system didn't do anything to the defender, especially with such graphic video of the attack backing them up ... just like this one.
Did you forget that we were speaking of civil liability?

Yes, the defender would probably have the law in his side, but not before he had been taken to court.
 
I live in the free state of Oklahoma and yes I have a carry permit. I don't know where you guys that are telling me I need more learning are from but here we have laws that allow you to use deadly force when being physically attacked in such a violent manner.

I didn't say I would fire at the first sign of physical aggression but I would draw and then fire if the attack continued.

I would much rather go to court than end up dead or seriously injured by a POS thug.

Self defence in life threatening situations is the whole point in carrying a firearm in the first place.
 
O4L the question is when? please by all means walk us thru the scenario with you as the victim that's the whole point of the thread I'd love to get more perspectives on how it plays out.
 
I don't know where you guys that are telling me I need more learning are from but here []OKwe have laws that allow you to use deadly force when being physically attacked in such a violent manner.

Yes, under some circumstances. But--the use of such force must be necessary and commensurate with the danger one faces.

Was the attack life threatening? Well, the assailant departed without trying to kill anyone.

Would the use of deadly force have been necessary? Well, the victim's having tried to block the door was not necessary, and it may well have eliminated any justification for the use of deadly force for self defense.

I would much rather go to court than end up dead or seriously injured by a POS thug.
Sure, but going to court could bankrupt you, even if you prevail.

And the victim here would easily have avoided whatever injuries he suffered by simply staying out of the way.
 
What did we do before we had Google to easily research in less than 5 minutes?

According to: http://http://www.lawfirmofoklahoma.com/practice-areas/justifiable-homicide
we have this paragraph:
However, in order for deadly force to be justified in self-defense, the use of such force must be necessary and commensurate with the danger one faces. If a person kills someone unnecessarily in resisting a misdemeanor, or if such force is unnecessary to deter the crime, he or she may be charged with manslaughter, a felony.
So go ahead, draw down, and start shooting. Your state has both Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. Just dont get too surprised when a prosecutor, and a jury of your peers, fails to agree with you on what a 'life threatening situation' is.

I agree with you that we carry as a means to protect ourselves. I am not opposed at all to using deadly force when it is necessary. But someone comes at me with fists, no weapons, I highly doubt I will draw my gun. If they are close enough to strike me, they are close enough for me to wrap my arms around them and go to the ground. For that matter, they are also close enough I can give them a good hard shove away from me so I can get distance.

Just because the laws where you live say you can 'stand your ground' doesnt mean you have to do such. Sometimes retreat is more prudent.
 
Did you forget that we were speaking of civil liability?

Yes, the defender would probably have the law in his side, but not before he had been taken to court.

Like I said, here in Texas... I doubt it. But if he did, it's called a frivolous lawsuit. Counter sue not only the thief but his lawyer for filing one. Ought to be fun.

Lawyers know if there is no money in it... they say no.

Deaf
 
Like I said, here in Texas... I doubt it. But if he did, it's called a frivolous lawsuit.
But without such a suit, the immunity provision of the law cannot come into effect.

Lawyers know if there is no money in it... they say no.
That is usually the case. But some attorneys are motivated by other things.

Frivolous? Lessee. We would have an unarmed person who has been shot by an armed citizen.

Would the defendant prevail on a preponderance of the evidence basis, without needing a unanimous verdict?

Probably, but he might no enjoy the ride, or the risk.

Why is it that you seem to think that what would happen in Texas would differ very much for what might happen in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma.... ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top