Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

[briandg]

I can't go along with that. The guy was obviously a very bad guy but murder is murder wherever, whenever, lynching a thug or dissolving his body is every bit as evil as the crazed drug dealers in Mexico or the vicious drug gangs in st Louis.

 

[TXAZ]

Zinc with all due respect I want to distance my comments as far from your last sentence as possible.
The people of Angelina County and Texas don't need a 3rd party who speaks for virtually no one in the state.

 

[OldMarksman]

Do you really need to see every last second of that interaction to known who's right and who's wrong?

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.

That's the law in Texas and in almost all other states.

The video seems to show us enough to decide (though we do not know what may have taken place beforehand), but the question is one of whether our well-meaning third party would have seen enough.

A major problem with third party intervention is that what may seem to be the case may not.

Actually if you see someone with his arms covered while being stomped repeatedly I doubt you need to wait anymore.

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.

I mean it takes an idiot not to see it's a unjustified attack.

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?

The guy was not fighting back at all.

So it might appear. But was that really the case? Ever hear of the "rope-a-dope"?

We think that the video shows that the robber started the altercation without prior provocation, and we are most probably right.

But would someone else who happened to be in the gas station at the time have seen enough from the beginning to reasonably conclude the same thing?

I doubt that I would have, and I'm pretty observant, and I'm very attuned to happenings in such places.

As related on this forum before, I did stop a robbery in a store once. But the situation unfolded in a manner far less tumultuous than the one at hand here.

As others have noted the continuing the attack against a "defenseless" and unarmed combatant is likely enough for third party intervention.

If, and only if, all of the stars are in perfect alignment. "Likely enough" doesn't cut it.

 

[Deaf Smith]

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?

In Texas.. no sweat.

Deaf

 

[Rangerrich99]

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.

A foot stomp from a large adult man can generate in excess of 800 lbs./inch. It only takes 600-650 lbs./inch to crush an adult man's skull. The victim was very lucky he's not suffering from a severely cracked skull or dead.

It appears from the video that the attacker simply missed with most of his stomps, and he was wearing something like flipflops and not something with a hard heel/sole. Otherwise I would imagine the victim would be much more seriously hurt.

 

[briandg]

There is so much to still consider.

The universe hates me. It would just my luck to walk in for a cup of coffee, I'd walk into a hidden camera gag. That dude would be down there thumping on him, and I'd have the dilemma. I don't know ANYTHING at all about the situation. I might shoot a bad guy who was killing a good guy, I may kill an actor on an episode of cops.

Jeeze, there can't be anything harder than making the decision under easy and clear circumstances. Walking in on it with it almost over is double plus ungood.

 

[OldMarksman]

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?

In Texas.. no sweat.

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.

And there is nothing that I know of that would give an observer in Texas better knowledge of that had transpired before he had started to observe.

Be aware that comments such as "in Texas, such events are not prosecuted" could easily be used in a court, civil or criminal, to drive the proverbial nail into the legal coffin of the person who posted them, should the occasion ever arise.

 

[Pond James Pond]

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.

You don't think kicking someone, full-force in the head; repeatedly, is not life threatening? And leaving someone brain-damaged or paralysed is not reason enough for intervention?

I wager that of the fights you've witnessed of this kind where you've seen the victim alive and the end, you've never followed their progress and prognosis through the healthcare system to know which permanent sequelae he/she had.

It doesn't need to be fatal to be worthy of intervention.

A gunshot from a pistol is fatal in 1/7 of cases according to one ER trauma surgeon I saw give a talk on it. So, get shot and you'll probably survive, yet if someone pulls a gun, no one questions the validity of responding in kind.

 

[Pond James Pond]

So it seems, from the video.

If it's an attack, it's not defence and so is illegal.

If it was defence, it went way beyond the realms of "ending the threat" (whatever it might have been) and so it was not legal.

I don't see what extenuating circumstances might have occurred off-camera could make that justifiable behaviour by the assailant.

 

[OldMarksman]

If it's an attack, it's not defence and so is illegal.

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.

That has been the case since the earliest days of The Common Law.

I don't see what extenuating circumstances might have occurred off-camera could make that justifiable behaviour by the assailant.

That's not the point, and "extenuating" is not the operative word.

I was not referring to something that might have happened "off camera", through that could conceivably have become an issue.

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.

He would not have been watching the video. More importantly, he would surely have been doing something else until something attracted his attention.

The question is whether the person on the ground would have been lawfully justified to use deadly force in his own defense. If so, in most jurisdictions, a third party would also have been so justified.

Review the prerequisites for justification, and the circumstances that might have made intervention unlawful.

They are about the same in Texas as in most other states, except that a few states severely limit the persons whom a third party may defend with deadly force.

 

[Dufus]

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.

3rd party judgements.....isn't that what is occurring here?

They are about the same in Texas as in most other states

"About" the same doesn't hold water.

 

[OldMarksman]

3rd party judgements.....isn't that what is occurring here?

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.

And then we can cogitate about it and do it again and again after careful reflection.

Not so for a person at the scene in the real world.

Add to that the extremely high likelihood that someone at the scene would not have even recognized that an altercation had begun until it had been under way, and in the real world, it is unlikely that a potential third party would be able to articulate a basis for a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force had been justified.

We have been over the question time and again on this board, and the best advice has always been to act only when you know the whole story, including that of what led up to the incident.

[Texas laws being] "About" the same doesn't hold water.

There are two substantive differences:

1. Texas alone provides for the use of deadly force to recover porperty, if necessary, after a burglary. That would not apply to a third party who had not been requested to do so.
2. Texas is among a handful of states in which it would be permissible to display a firearm under certain circumstances when the use of deadly force might not be justified. One might be able to draw without being justified in shooting.

 

[Pond James Pond]

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.

Take any 10 seconds of recording after the initial blow and there is ample evidence of excessive force.

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.

If you stopped that video before the end of the assault and asked the viewer: "So....do you think the guy on the floor survived?" and they would not be able to say with any confidence that he had. That is how vicious that attack was.

Whether or not the law agrees with intervention, whether or not someone decides to get involved, I can't fathom how someone could watch that unfold, even if only the latter half, and not think that a life was in danger.

I'm also amazed that, as he lay in what seems to even have been a seizure, the only thing anyone did was lean over him and presumably tell him 911 was on the way once the thug had left.

 

[OldMarksman]

Take any 10 seconds of recording after the initial blow and there is ample evidence of excessive force.

That, taken alone, would not begin to justify the use of deafly force by anyone there.

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?

 

[Pond James Pond]

And?

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?

If so, why is this thread even open?

That, taken alone, would not begin to justify the use of deafly force by anyone there.

Deadly force is not the only method of intervening: another poster recounted hold thieves at gun point until the police arrived. Deadly force was not applied nor needed, even if a gun was used.

A gun is not a katana. It is not obliged to draw blood for honour to be met.

We all recognise that, those of us that are firearms carriers, drawing a weapon may be enough to end the threat.
Isn't ending the threat the object here rather than using deadly force?

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?!

 

[OldMarksman]

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?

I referred specifically to the use of deadly force.

We cannot see who else was in the store, but we do note that no one attempted to intervene.

Deadly force is not the only method of intervening: another poster recounted hold thieves at gun point until the police arrived.

That opens another can of worms.

What right would one citizen have to detain another citizen who had been kicking someone? What would the person with the gun do if the other chose to depart? This is very, very rarely a good idea.

And in this case it would have been entirely unnecessary. The man was apprehended shortly after the incident.

We all recognise that, those of us that are firearms carriers, drawing a weapon may be enough to end the threat.

Yes, and in many circumstances, it may not only be sufficient, it may be lawful.

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?

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.

And it would be an option, provided that (1) the would-be intervener had reason to believe that the man he was trying to protect had not provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force; or (2) the person on the ground had abandoned the encounter, or had clearly communicated to the other his intent to do so, reasonably believing he could not safely abandon the encounter;  and[/I (3) the other nevertheless continued or attempted to use unlawful force.

The first of these is what would have required a third party to understand what had transpired from the beginning.

The second is a judgement call.

Regarding the third, the robber did leave; the question becomes one of when the third party tried to step in.

Note that the aforementioned applies to the justification of the use of non-deadly physical force.

...which, in Texas, would justify drawing a firearm. Not so in most jurisdictions.

 

[briandg]

Here are a couple items to kick around, some meant for James.

Was he conscious, as far as you could tell, at the end? You refer to probable brain damage, and you are correct. I've read and heard that any violent knockout results from violent strike to the nerve ganglion or by violent impact of brain and skull. A brain related knockout causes a concussion, it is a foregone conclusion. So, with no doubt, the guy had a concussion from the attack. No concussion goes unnoticed by the brain., yes, having your head stomped and kicked causes damage, whether it is immediate or delayed or if it never manifests.

For the group, something to consider. According to a number of defense laws, it doesn't matter who struck the first blow, when one person is being injured by another to the extent of risk for life or serious injury, justified defense is present.

Whether the victim of that attack shoved or hit first, he was being beaten brutally enough to be killed o seriously injured.

Read and study the laws of the jurisdiction that you live in or visit. Use discretion.

Without any other context, this may even apply if you see a uniformed person deliberately pounding on an obviously subdued person, posing a threat to life or serious injury, that is probably grounds for intervention of some sort.

Read and understand the laws of every jurisdiction that applies.

THIS ISN'T ADVICE. ACT ON YOUR OWN INFORMED JUDGMENT AND BE PREPARED FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES THAT WILL OCCUR IF YOU VIOLATE THOSE LAWS, OR IF YOU ACT IN A LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE WAY.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think this discussion has wondered off the fairway and one of the reasons it is floundering is we are attempting to discuss a lot of complex topics at once. Defense of property in Texas is practically a law review article in its own right even before you discuss third party aspects. Third party defense of others is also a complex topic. Where in the video use of force is initiated and where in the video use of deadly force is initiated changes the outcome dramatically.

It would be difficult enough to have a productive conversation on one of those topics in this format, and now we are trying to discuss all of them simultaneously. And it is pretty clear at least some of the active participants in the discussion don't understand parts of those concepts or how/if they are relevant here (or might hypothetically be relevant in some of the alternative scenarios proposed which makes it even more complex).

I'd suggest that for productive discussion, you'd need to break this down into three or four separate threads - tactics for victim, defense of property legal, and tactics/defense of third party legal.

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.

 

[TXAZ]

Bartholomew Roberts raised the level of this discussion to "Stark Reality" when he wrote:

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.

Tough choices. Unfortunately to paraphrase Rodney King, it's a shame we can't get along i.e. Beating another human for a few $'s.

 

[briandg]

Marksman, I'm having a hard time understanding something. You appear to be clearly saying that a third party , seeing a man on a floor, in fetal position, being beaten and kicked isn't in a serious risk of death, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for possible lethal intervention? Repeatedly Kicking a man in the head would even qualify as attempted homicide.

On the surface, if I walked into a store and found a man LITERALLY POUNDING A DEFENSELESS MAN'S HEAD ON THE GROUND, there would, in many jurisdiction, be sufficient grounds to intervene with whatever means was necessary to prevent that guy from murdering the guy on the floor.

Okay, seriously, I understand that you believe that the guy who is on top may have been justified to beat a man to the point of possible death or permanent injury. Legally, you can allow that attacker to beat the other guy to death.

You don't have to intervene,fine, walk away and let him possibly be murdered. Don't use an excuse that doesn't hold water. If the jurisdiction allows intervention at obvious signs of imminent death, that's where it stands,and that's the end.

That video clearly shows an attack so violent and unjustified that a person who shot in good faith and conviction that he would be protected in many jurisdictions, even if he was a third party who wasn't fully knowledgeable of the entire situation that led to the brutal attack

This isn't legal advice. Read and fully understand the laws of any place in which you will be present.