Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, and if there were charges I think he would most likely have prevailed, but not necessarily without great personal expense. I think that would be true in many other states, also.

I am not completely confident that trying to do so would not have resulted in his death.
 
Its a waste of time and probably not in my best interests to describe my version of "woulda,shoulda,coulda"

The beating,IMO,would put ME in mortal fear for my life.I think the vid was great evidence.

The problem is,after about the second punch,or victim was not real capable of drawing,retaining,and using a firearm.

Before the second punch and subsequent beating was the time opportunity our victim had to shoot.And all the video would show is an unarmed man who slapped a wallet being shot.
As sympathetic to the victim as I am,I don't see a lot more to work with.
A good point might be,carry and self defense ? Yes.
But its not a magic talisman that wards off evil.

Example: Eventually,being armed may have saved Zimmerman's life,and IN THE MOMENT he fired,he,per the verdict,acted in self defense.
HOWEVER!!IMO,Zimmerman being armed contributed to him putting himself in the confrontation..

If we have our eyes open and our brain locked and loaded SOMETIMES,not always,but sometimes,we avoid the situation.

Regardless the fate we may wish on the attacker,The person who must shoot in self defense ...might stay alive,but I'd seldom call them "Winner"...they just lose less than their life.
 
Regardless the fate we may wish on the attacker,The person who must shoot in self defense ...might stay alive,but I'd seldom call them "Winner"...they just lose less than their life.
Click to expand...
Something to reflect upon, and to remember.....
 
Holy crap.

I would have let that big, hard looking thug take my soon to be cancelled cards, I don't carry cash, and I'm going to stand back and not draw attention to myself. I'm not going to stand in that guys way and argue. If I'm beaten like that I will almost certainly die, but the first couple punches made that moot.

As a bystander, I was almost certain that he was going to die and without extreme emergency measures, I am 100%certain that he would have died from those head blows.

As a bystander, if I was in that situation, I wouldn't have hesitated or given warning, I would have given this person who seemed crazed and unstoppable no quarter. I would have backshot him as many times as I thought I would have to to absolutely stop him, Christ only knows what sort of weapon he might have, and whether he would cut the victim's throat. I'd make sure that I didn't shoot the victim, as I will have sole ownership for killing the victim.

So, as the victim? I'm pretty certain that I would have died without getting a blow in. As myself, it would not have happened that way, I treat c stores as hostile territory and never let my guard down.

As an armed bystander filling a coke, I'll see it from the first sign of argument and will be on point. I would have seen the first punch all the way to the end. Somewhere, I would have pulled out my .380 and fired everything I had.

Then, I would have burned in hell for the rest of my life. Some dumb cracker from Missouri stuck his nose in where it didn't belong and shot an unarmed black man because a white guy started a fight. Video? Since when has video been accepted as truth?

God almighty, that scene made my hair stand up.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Two squabbling kids have precluded me from reading the whole thread but the above post sort of encapsulates everything that is wrong.

I've often been quite vocal in my dislike of turning to a weapon too swiftly but at the same time, it makes my blood boil that a guy who stood up to a blatant anti-social act then gets the proverbial beaten out of him and we have to discuss how a firearm before the act would have been illegal. I can see why, but it also seems unjust.

Yes, he should have been more focussed and yes he should have put distance between him and the robber and yes it was only $35, but it still infuriates me that as long as they have the audacity to take $35 from your hand, they can essentially keep it.

It also infuriates me when people say that a gun against an unarmed person is a disparity in force. Anyone saying that should be made to watch that video again and also imagine it was themselves on the floor or a woman or elderly person of less strength than a grown man. Then tell me a gun would be "unfair and unjustified".
A fist or a boot can inflict just as much damage on the human body and sadly there are people in the world who are more than willing to. For $35.
 
Last edited:
It also infuriates me when people say that a gun against an unarmed person is a disparity in force.
Click to expand...
I don't think that anyone who is knowledgeable would say that.

But the are at least three things that are true:

  1. Using deadly force (a) when the actor does not have a reason to believe that he is in immediate jeopardy of serious bodily harm, (b) without also having a reason to believe that the other person possessed the ability and oppportunity to cause harm, and (c) when there existed any other means of avoiding such harm (such as staying out of the way) is not lawful, anywhere in the country.
  2. Displaying a weapon when force would be justified can be lawful in some jurisdictions, but one had better know how to do so without losing it.
  3. Had the actor used deadly force against an unarmed person, regardless of his reasons for believing that it had been justified at the time, he would likely find it most difficult to persuade others that he had not used excessive force. That is a reality in the world in which we live.
 
Sent the video link to a relative who is a Texas prosecutor. Asked if they would prosecute a bystander who stopped this assault with lethal force.

Reply: 'No. But they might a citizens commendation'.
 
Sent the video link to a relative who is a Texas prosecutor. Asked if they would prosecute a bystander who stopped this assault with lethal force.

Reply: 'No. But they might a citizens commendation'.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that one would likely get the same repose from a prosecutor in any state in which the use of deadly force to defend someone other than a family member in such a situation would be excusable.

There are two problems with the idea:
  1. unless the third party had been closley observing the situation as it developed from the beginning, he would have to make some guesses about the innocence of the victim, and the wrong guess could be disastrous; and
  2. as I watch the video, I really do not see where an opporunity for safely firing a gun existed until the criminal atack was over--and at that point, the use of deadly force would no longer be justifiable.
 
I don't think that anyone who is knowledgeable would say that.
Click to expand...

Yet many do.

Even the OP referred to an apparent mantra that is bandied about:

don't pull a gun over a punch
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning the legalities of it, none of which apply to me as I live outisde the US, but I'm sure it's even less forgiving of firearms use here, even if self defence is defined as one reason for legit firearms ownership but it has been said here before and sadly jurors, prosecutors and even judges are not always, as you say it, knowledgeable...
 
Even the OP referred to an apparent mantra that is bandied about:


don't pull a gun over a punch
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is not an "apparent mantra", and it has nothing to do with some opinion that a firearm might represent a "disparity of force".

It relates to two things:
  1. the fundamental principle that in excusable self defense, the actor may use no more force than is nescessary, and
  2. the requirement that the actor have a basis for a reasonable belief that the assailant posesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm.

Regarding the latter, yes, a punch can kill, but absent a clear and demonstrable disparity of force, the fact that an assailant is unarmed will call into serious question any basis for a reasonable belief concerning ability.

These precepts are fundamental, and they date back to the age of sail and to the age of bladed weapons.
 
OldMarksman said:
There are two problems with the idea:
  1. unless the third party had been closley observing the situation as it developed from the beginning, he would have to make some guesses about the innocence of the victim, and the wrong guess could be disastrous; and
  2. as I watch the video, I really do not see where an opporunity for safely firing a gun existed until the criminal atack was over--and at that point, the use of deadly force would no longer be justifiable.
Click to expand...
Do you really need to see every last second of that interaction to known who's right and who's wrong?
Listen when someones on the ground getting pounded on no matter who started the fight the guy beating on the half limp person on the ground is wrong.

If you punch me, and I punch you, and you're on the ground how long can I stomp on you and still be within my rights? how about half way thru when he stop being able to even bring his hands up to his face?
What If after the beating I pull out a snub noise 38 and put it to his skull.. Im still in the right cause he thru the first punch right?

How far is too far?

As for his ability to deploy a gun, you're right he couldn't not after that 2nd punch, Most of us agree on that, Kinda the point of the thread but not a whole lotta solutions being offered up other then just get out of the way and don't confront the thief.
 
So many times people see something like this and want to spin it into a scenario where 'if it were me' something would have been different. There's no magic wisdom that if you were there, that you'd know how savage the guy would instantly turn.

Some criminals walk around ready to fight to the death, it's how they were raised or how they live day to day. I'm not that kind of person that could take or give such a beating. Also, killing someone in self defense is a life changing, expensive long drawn out nightmare for so many. I'd just give up my wallet and get a lot of space from the guy and call 911.
 
There are two problems with the idea:

1. unless the third party had been closley observing the situation as it developed from the beginning, he would have to make some guesses about the innocence of the victim, and the wrong guess could be disastrous; and
2. as I watch the video, I really do not see where an opporunity for safely firing a gun existed until the criminal atack was over--and at that point, the use of deadly force would no longer be justifiable.
Click to expand...

1. Actually if you see someone with his arms covered while being stomped repeatedly I doubt you need to wait anymore. I mean it takes an idiot not to see it's a unjustified attack. The guy was not fighting back at all.

2. By the frame 00:37 you can shoot 'em. Easy shot. By frame 00:48 you can bean him in the head. Plenty of opportunity to use lethal force. Guy would not even be 3 yards.

Come on folks, this is no grey area thing. I've sent this video to several well known trainers and they agree, lethal force was the indicated response.

Deaf
 
Deaf, you nailed it.

Texas is not Maryland or even Ohio. And certainly not CA or NYC.
There's a reason Texas courts throws lots of bad guys in jail for long times. We tend to suffer fools more harshly than other states.

When I caught 2 robbers breaking in, and the cops arrived, the first robber told the cop he wanted me arrested because I held a shotgun on him.
The cop laughed and told him he should have thanked me because "he could have legally killed both of you."
That's Texas reality.

I'm guessing most commenting on this thread haven't lived in Texas and very few have been to Lufkin / Angelina County, and fewer understand the Texas or Angelina County ethos. Trying to apply California or NYC laws or logic doesn't work here.
 
We are talking about justification and an ongoing attack. As others have noted the continuing the attack against a "defenseless" and unarmed combatant is likely enough for third party intervention. If the fight would have been stopped in the octagon it likely has no place on the streets. This is not randomly shooting one of two guys engaged in s "boxing" match. Nor are those advocating intervention seeming to do so in a manner that precludes verbal commands first. No one is suggesting that intervention must start with a hail of gunfire
 
I read threads like this and I cant help but think that some well intending people are likely going to end up on trial the very first time someone actually takes a poke at them.

The law is different everywhere and I wont comment about the specifics of any "law" or jurisdiction. What I will say is that the idea of one armed person shooting a lone and seemingly unarmed person during a "fight" is generally very hazardous ground in my estimation.

I don't know what kinds of gentlemanly fights you guys are accustomed to but what I see in that video is a mirror image of any fight I have ever had the occasion to witness. Sure, there is usually some criminality involved in just about any fight outside a ring and there certainly seems to be elements of an aggravated crime seen on the video. That being said, I would not have pulled a gun. I don't think that every "fight" is a life threatening event and I didn't get that sense of things in watching this one. The guy got beat up.. its a terrible thing but it happen all the time in the hood and its rarely fatal. Could it be?.. sure but a person is going to have to make be believe its imminent, not just a remote possibility. This guy didn't perish and the offender got arrested.. There are plenty of life lessons to learn from this but I sure wouldn't not have turned it into gunplay.

Pulling a gun has never been about what I think I "can do" but rather a consideration what I "must do". Usually when you decide to do something because you think you can, it generally requires that other people down the line, agree with you. If they don't, you might just find yourself in a real jam. I would much rather take action based on what I viewed as no other option. I can life with that
 
Last edited:
Mike, I'm not entirely certain what point you were trying to make, but every armed citizen has to "fantasize and imagine" scenarios don't cops? There's a reason that this area is referred to as Hogan alley.

Now, why doesn't everyone here have a printed copy of applicable state laws that they have studied? You can walk into hostile territory, a c store, examine your surroundings, and know what your level of risk might be.

If a crime is committed, you will know whether it is covered by stAtute. You can choose to take any appropriate action, anything from Chuck Norris to Rambo, but those actions may be scrutinized and the legal nuances my fall against the shooter.

The things I find important

Understand the situation you put yourself into and remain diligent until you leave.
Understand the situation if something happens.
Consider the need for using deadly force carefully.
DON'T BE STUPID.
Act on your best judgment, be certain in your mind that you are right.

WHATEVER YOU DO, BE PREPARED TO SUFFER TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES.

Just a few years ago I went into a rather seedy store. As I was in there, a guy walked in, wandered around, stood and looked at scarves for a minute or so...

I was alone. The hair stood up. I dawdle, fixed a cup of coffee that I didn't even want. The guy left without doing anything but "case" the place.

I pulled my car around and waited for about ten minutes with my phone ready. Right, sure, I'm just stupid enough to dial 911 just because of a suspicious character.

I placed myself there as a witness with camera ready, and prepared to act within the limitations of my state law. I could have just run like hell and hoped that nothing would happen.
 
I'm guessing most commenting on this thread haven't lived in Texas and very few have been to Lufkin / Angelina County, and fewer understand the Texas or Angelina County ethos. Trying to apply California or NYC laws or logic doesn't work here.
Click to expand...

Exactly TXAZ! They would give anyone a medal that stopped that guy beating the other guy in the video. Didn't matter if he used lethal or non-lethal force.

The one guy I held at gunpoint back in about '78 told the Deputy Sheriff that I pulled a gun on him. He laughed as he drove him to jail! Yes the Deputy told us about that later.

To paraphrase King Leonidas (The 300), "THIS IS TEX... I MEAN SPARTA!"

Deaf
 
Deaf, you nailed it.

Texas is not Maryland or even Ohio. And certainly not CA or NYC.
There's a reason Texas courts throws lots of bad guys in jail for long times. We tend to suffer fools more harshly than other states.

When I caught 2 robbers breaking in, and the cops arrived, the first robber told the cop he wanted me arrested because I held a shotgun on him.
The cop laughed and told him he should have thanked me because "he could have legally killed both of you."
That's Texas reality.

I'm guessing most commenting on this thread haven't lived in Texas and very few have been to Lufkin / Angelina County, and fewer understand the Texas or Angelina County ethos. Trying to apply California or NYC laws or logic doesn't work here.
Click to expand...

Lets also be even more specific. This is East Texas. The odds the victim or a bystander would be tried, much less convicted of shooting the BG are nonexistent. There are still many areas in East Texas where the BG, after making bail, might disappear or be found having mysteriously hung himself. The Klan is still a thing there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top