It is essential to know enough to be able to identify which participant instigated the fight. The instigator would not be justified in the use of deadly force unless he had clearly communicated his desire to break off the altercation or had actually stopped fighting, and a third party would therefore not be lawfully ustified in the use of deadly force to protect the instigator.Do you really need to see every last second of that interaction to known who's right and who's wrong?
Unless you knew what had transpired before that moment, that might not be sufficient. Had the person covering himself with his arms actually ceased to attempt to fight the other person? That would be a judgment call. you won't find mae risking my entire future on that judgment.Actually if you see someone with his arms covered while being stomped repeatedly I doubt you need to wait anymore.
So it seems, from the video. Would the third party have seen enough to so judge? Would he know enough to be able to justify the lawful use of deadly force?I mean it takes an idiot not to see it's a unjustified attack.
So it might appear. But was that really the case? Ever hear of the "rope-a-dope"?The guy was not fighting back at all.
If, and only if, all of the stars are in perfect alignment. "Likely enough" doesn't cut it.As others have noted the continuing the attack against a "defenseless" and unarmed combatant is likely enough for third party intervention.
So it seems, from the video. Would the third party have seen enough to so judge? Would he know enough to be able to justify the lawful use of deadly force?
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.
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.
Well, the law defining the justification for the use of deadly force in the defense of a third party in Texas is about the same as in most other states.In Texas.. no sweat.So it seems, from the video. Would the third party have seen enough to so judge? Would he know enough to be able to justify the lawful use of deadly force?
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.
So it seems, from the video.
Consensual combat is also illegal, but that would not justify the use of deadly force by either of the participants--or by a third party.If it's an attack, it's not defence and so is illegal.
That's not the point, and "extenuating" is not the operative word.I don't see what extenuating circumstances might have occurred off-camera could make that justifiable behaviour by the assailant.
I referred to the question of whether a third party have seen enough to judge, and whether he would know enough to be able to justify the lawful use of deadly force.
They are about the same in Texas as in most other states
Yes---with a video recording that shows the entire event, that can be played repeatedly so that we can assess and reassess what happened, from the comfort of our homes when we are not under stress.3rd party judgements.....isn't that what is occurring here?
There are two substantive differences:[Texas laws being] "About" the same doesn't hold water.
whether a third party have seen enough to judge, and whether he would know enough to be able to justify the lawful use of deadly force.
That, taken alone, would not begin to justify the use of deafly force by anyone there.Take any 10 seconds of recording after the initial blow and there is ample evidence of excessive force.
And?Repeated punches and kicks to the head of someone curled up on the floor is unacceptable behaviour and any grown adult with all their faculties will understand that the risk of grievous harm is very real, regardless of whether they'd seen the beginnings of the altercation.
And?
That, taken alone, would not begin to justify the use of deafly force by anyone there.
I referred specifically to the use of deadly force.And... so you're saying that believing that the risk to health or life of a defenceless individual is not enough for someone to intervene in that attack?
That opens another can of worms.Deadly force is not the only method of intervening: another poster recounted hold thieves at gun point until the police arrived.
Yes, and in many circumstances, it may not only be sufficient, it may be lawful.We all recognise that, those of us that are firearms carriers, drawing a weapon may be enough to end the threat.
Well, it would be, in Texas and in a few other states, if what was known at the time gave the intervener reason to believe that force would be an option.Are we saying that drawing a weapon and bellowing "stop kicking that man in the head and step away immediately or I'll fire!!" is not an option?
I'm an attorney. I'm licensed in Texas and I've now seen these types of cases from the inside as opposed to an outside interested party. My rule of thumb is that the only time a gun comes out is when living the rest of my life in a cell or a wheelchair is preferable to not acting.