Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sc1: let him have the wallet and back away out of grabbing/punching distance.

Many, many moons ago I assisted my sensei as one of his instructors in both Judo and Tae Kwon Do. He also taught a street self-defense class, and the first thing he'd say to new students was, if a BG wants your wallet or your keys or even your shoes, just say, "ok," and give them whatever they wanted. His rationale was no piece of personal property is worth your life. Of course, in the classroom/dojo is one thing, in real life things can get a little stickier quick.

So it's probably no surprise that as a younger man I sometimes forgot that guideline and got into an altercation with some idjit over my keys or wallet. Now I'm getting too old for that sort of thing, but miraculously I haven't had a real confrontation in some time either. So I'd like to think I'd simply say, "ok, have it," and step back away from said idiot.

If not . . . At :24 seconds into the video, the BG's body language goes from he wants to leave, to he is going to attack the victim. He takes a small step back with his right foot, right shoulder goes back, head tips forward slightly, etc. This was the victim's last chance to back away from the assault, most likely.

If I were standing there and saw all those tells, hopefully my hands would've come up in a defensive posture, hands still open about chin high, step quickly to my right away from the BG's line of escape, chin down, knees flexed slightly, feet a bit more than shoulder-width apart. About one second later, the guy throws a decent right cross, which appears to make good contact; victim's head twists pretty quickly to his right. And, in my opinion, it looks like a very well-executed cross. Elbow stays high, shoulders and hips snap into the punch, right heel comes completely off the ground, pretty close to properly timed. The punch had good velocity and a lot of the attacker's body weight was behind that punch.

Chances are the victim's pretty hurt right there. Like seeing stars hurt. The victim takes a swing, but there's almost no speed on it and the next punch drops him fast. The victim is done at that point, but the BG keeps after him.

If I somehow got myself in that position, I'd roll onto my back, keep my hands up near my head, elbows locked to my sides, and kick out at the BG's knees, twisting(crawfishing) myself at all times to keep my head as far away from the guy as possible. Assuming I wasn't totally out of it. But even at this point, unless my kicks caused the BG to back off a step or two, he's really too close, in my opinion, to draw my weapon without risking him just jumping on top of me and wrestling him for it. Of course, if he started in with the big jumping stomps, I'd likely have to risk it.

Sc2: As a bystander, such as the guy with the case of beer, who left about one second before that first punch, I'd probably have done something stupid and tried to intervene. Would I have used my gun? Since I'm staring 50 in the face now, probably yes, I'd draw my weapon and order the idiot to stop and leave fast. My main concern at that point would be how badly was the victim hurt. If the attacker showed me all of those tells at that point? I'd like to think I could find a way out of that situation without having to shoot the idiot. But considering the attacker's size, strength and speed, if he took a step in my direction wanting to do to me what he did to the victim, I'd probably press the trigger.

Or smash that case of beer down on that guy's head just as hard as I could manage.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Ung came out of a bar... where he had been drinking. Now if you intend to go drinking and then end up in a SD situation, fine with me. But in the case we are taking about, he didn't. Plus this ain't Philadelphia. This is Texas.

Show me a case where in Texas someone savagely beaten, defended themselves, AND a video of the incident was in evidence and were sued.

You guys keep worrying about what you 'think' might/maybe happen and your horrors of being maybe sued... I won't. I live in Texas and don't sweat it.

Deaf
 
Show me a case where in Texas someone savagely beaten, defended themselves, AND a video of the incident was in evidence and were sued.
Click to expand...
When I was in a prior life, "show me case where..." was on a list of "famous last words". The fact that we might not know the existence of an identical previous case, or that the defendant might have faired well in such a case, is not a good basis on which to build legal strategy or to make business decisions.

Circumstances, juries, and other things vary far too much to predict with any certainly the outcome of the legal process on the basis of similar incidents.

The victim in this case is certainly not going to be sued. He did not use excessive force.

Of course, he was injured, and that video shows that he could most likely have avoided that very readily.

Had the victim been armed and had he tried to resort to deadly force , things would likely taken a different course. One possible outcome might be the exoneration of the actor under the provisions of Code Section 9.42, unique to Texas. But the victim would not have enjoyed the ride or the aftermath.

Another possible outcome might involve the victim having his own gun used on him.

He had great opportunities to avoid either outcome, based on the video.

And had the thing gone father in the legal process, the video could have been what proved to be the victim's undoing.

It doesn't matter who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. What matters is the little matter of what was necessary.

Me? I surely would not have been so imprudent as to stand around displaying my money in a public place. And I would certainly not have tried to block the door to prevent the departure of a fleeing felon.
 
Deaf Smith said:
Show me a case where in Texas someone savagely beaten, defended themselves, AND a video of the incident was in evidence and were sued.
Click to expand...

I'd guess there at least a half dozen of those cases every year in Texas involving police officers being attacked by suspects.
<snip>
And as in this case, if you wait until you are being savagely beaten to pull the gun, then even drawing the gun is an iffy proposition. So the point where it would be tactically wisest to draw a gun is also often the point where it is on less solid ground legally and the optics are going to be very bad.

Getting back to the tactics discussion, at what point would you draw your gun if you were the guy in the video and armed? How would you create the space for that to happen? How far would you have to let it go in order to avoid drawing the ire of groups looking to make more money off your misfortune?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How you would behave in a situation on a internet forum may be very different from that in real life. I remember a situation I had at a gas station about 6 months ago. I won't bore you with the details but tactically, the best decision for me was to retreat. Humble and alive beats macho and dead...
 
That would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what might transpire in a future incident.
Click to expand...

Past behavior bears on what may transpire in a future incident. It's called, uh, a track record.

Deaf
 
Past behavior bears on what may transpire in a future incident. It's called, uh, a track record.
Click to expand...
We are not speaking of "behavior" here. The discussion has to do with the history and possible applicability of prior events.

"Track record"? Nope. Anyone with any understanding whatsoever of the subject of making projections from prior data knows that....
  1. There must have been sufficient exposure to possible occurrences to provide the likelihood of an adequate sample size
  2. The sample size must be sufficient
  3. There must be a way to dustinguish among the effects of the different variables.
  4. The data must be recorded

None of these conditions exist here.

Let's look for a moment at number four.

Anyone with any experience at all in the civil court system knows that, for reasons having to do with time and expense and risk, the attorneys for the defendants will very often advise settling out of court, and the clients will often do so. AND when that happens, the outcome is not made public.

That also impinges on numbers one, too, and three.

As I said before, "when I was in a prior life, 'show me case where...' was on a list of "famous last words". The fact that we might not know the existence of an identical previous case, or that the defendant might have faired well in such a case, is not a good basis on which to build legal strategy or to make business decisions."

That's not untested theory. That is the fact of sad experience, sometimes most unpleasant indeed for those who relied upon that unsound idea.

Now, the civil immunity laws have no doubt reduced the frequency of civil suits.

Provisions in the law that call for failed plaintiffs to be responsible for the legal expenses of defendants sound helpful, but does anyone here really think that the perp in the video would have the wherewithal to pay the bill? If not, just who would be left holding the bag?
 
Remember anything you type on the internet can be used in a court of law.
As such it is ill advised to remark on what your conduct would actually be. For instance if I said "empty the mag into the back of his head" that could be used against me in a court of law.
 
B,

In Texas the 'track record' of DAs is known, just as it is in NYC.

One knows that in NYC, or California, or New Jersey, etc... it's bad news for Self Defense.

But in TEXAS, it's the opposite. I am completely confident with a surveillance film like on the one this thread is about there will be NO charges for the victim, nor lawsuit, if they use lethal force to defend against such a vicious beating.

You can cry about possibility of lawsuits, criminal charges, etc... but it just don't happen in Texas like that.

Deaf
 
Once again, the lack of a duty to retreat does not mean that retreating is no longer prudent.

Or does merely contemplating the option to run away offend ones masculinity perhaps?
 
Well, I agree with Deaf Smith on his exact point. If you let a guy beat you like this guy in the video, you'll be OK legally if you produce a gun and shoot him before you sink into unconsciousness. It is the shooting him before he is stomping your skull as you lay on the ground where it starts to get touchy.
 
The "bystanders", including the clerk, have not been given even rudimentary instructions (or they failed to follow them). You notice when the perp leaves, at least in the video, they fail to even lock the doors.

With the aggressor between the easiest path of retreat and myself the best I could have done is taken some form of cover (behind the counter) and issues a command to the aggressor. Even a statement given in a firm voice "that's enough, leave" might have made a difference. I would have had cover of some type before issuing it though.

I'm still not 100% certain lethal force would have been valid in much of that video that lethal force would have been entirely justifiable. Aside from a couple stomps towards the head (and maybe the kicks to the mid-section) the brutality of that attack may not be as evident as the discussion would have one believe.

Edit (after below response): I do get that there is danger to any punch or kick thrown. And I do get that there are examples of "one hit" kills. There is a reason I do not advocate engaging in such violence. I have also watched people survive very brutal hits from well trained people (though in fairness the worse injury I witnessed involved broken ribs on multiple occasions from poorly controlled or stepped into attacks so the targeting is not the same). I think it is easy to overstate the danger. Of course when the risk is severe injury or death it a severe risk.
 
Last edited:
I watched the video again twice. From my perspective the victim was completely distracted, cased, and then took a challenging posture once his wallet was smacked away. He held his arms to his sides in a typical but worthless challenging manner, and he blocked the exit.

If he had maintained situational awareness while in line I doubt he'd have taken that beating. If backed down in the face of the assault I think he may have escaped as well. Those are my lessons, and I've been guilty of being distracted in that situation many times, with my wallet or my phone.

All due respect to the different climate in Texas, but I've spent plenty of time there and I've seen freaky stuff in Austin that would make jaws drop in NYC. More importantly the Texas approach to stand your ground and self-defense didn't deter this criminal slightly. Seems to me the lessons are in how to avoid this, not so much in how to react to it.
 
Once he is on the ground it gets pretty grey area. Any one of those blows to the head could have killed him. Brain swelling and concussion are scary, deadly. I would hope a sensible group of peers would appreciate that, had he been able to use deadly force. A lot of "what if's" I guess.
 
While discussing "how does one avoid this": My credit card lives outside of my wallet (in front of it in the same pocket). My wallet very seldom comes out in public and when it does things in there are organized in such a way that they do not require much attention.
 
Lohman446 said:
I'm still not 100% certain lethal force would have been valid in much of that video that lethal force would have been entirely justifiable. Aside from a couple stomps towards the head (and maybe the kicks to the mid-section) the brutality of that attack may not be as evident as the discussion would have one believe.
Click to expand...
Im not a lawyer but Im fairly certain once he was on the ground and the BG kept attacking him a case for lethal force could easily be made.. the problem is he wasn't in much condition after that 2nd punch to actually do anything about it.

The reason I say this is it is my understanding that once someone is on the ground to continue attacking them is assault..
And to be clear it was assault from punch #1, but when the victim is on the ground more or less helpless I'd say it enters into a whole new territory.

EX: guy comes up and sucker punches me, I get the better of him and put him on the ground.. that's self defense.

Now if I continue to attack him with stomps, kicks, and punches while he's on the ground im no longer defending my self, Im assaulting him.

Now depending on the severity that would probably be overlooked by the cops since I initially was the victim.

The problem with this video is the victim by the time we (or at least most of us) agree he's within his right to lethal force it's beyond the ability to apply it.
That's the conundrum, Justification comes too late to be of any use.

I mean I think we can all agree at the least, that once the fight started it was over.

So then we're left with the sticky pre-fight situation to deal with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top