Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

[briandg]

Under this law, it is plainly spoken that if one party was the first aggressor, but clearly breaks off the attack, and the second party continues the attack, a third party may intervene to prevent injury on the first party by continued aggression by the second party.

By the provisions of this law, I would be justified in using deadly force if I believe that it is necessary, to protect myself or another.

being on the ground in a fetal position while another person savagely beats on the first party is pretty clearly covered here.

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

Again. Read and understand the laws.

 

[FireForged]

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?

Repeatedly can mean twice and it can mean 50 times. I will say that the specific attack method and duration that is shown in the video is [not] what I would call life threatening. Other people in other places might say it is..but I wouldn't. As I said earlier each blow is a new calculus and I might have felt differently had it continued. But it didn't.

Is he brain damaged? or Paralyzed?

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.

You would be incorrect, the majority of attacks that I have witnessed were under circumstances where I did know exactly what the extent of the injuries were to the victim and how they progresses or worsened during treatment.

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

That depends on the type of intervention. If you mean pull the guy off the other.. I don't disagree.

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.

I think that would be considered by some to be a precedent that could potentially be set by existing case law. If one form of attack is generally accepted as deadly force (without question) and the other required substantial qualification... that's your pickle.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Repeatedly can mean twice and it can mean 50 times. I will say that the specific attack method and duration that is shown in the video is [not] what I would call life threatening. Other people in other places might say it is..but I wouldn't. As I said earlier each blow is a new calculus and I might have felt differently had it continued. But it didn't.

Then you and I have very different views on how resilient the human CNS is....

You think none of that could have broken bones?
Ribs? Ribs can puncture lungs.
Vertebrae? They can sever the cord...

How limp did the guy have to be before you'd think maybe it had gone too far?

Is he brain damaged? or Paralyzed?

No. He is extraordinarily lucky. The outcome has nothing in common with the risk that existed at the time of the attack.

And saying that he is OK so the attack wasn't all that bad is like saying:
"The bullet missed all your vital organs, and you pulled a gun in response?! Whaddaya?? Nuts?!"

But at least you recognise that, given the nature of the attack, those two possible outcomes you offered were well within the realms of possibility.

You would be incorrect, the majority of attacks that I have witnessed were under circumstances where I did know exactly what the extent of the injuries were to the victim and how they progresses or worsened during treatment.

Great, so you can tell me: of those that suffered a similar assault, or even a lesser one, did none of them need surgery or other significant medical intervention? That kind of medical attention necessitated by serious injuries?

And if so, would those injuries not have been reason for self defence?
If the case for self defence exists, I understand that 3rd party intervention is also permissible.

That depends on the type of intervention. If you mean pull the guy off the other.. I don't disagree.

Given the ferocity of the attack, do you really think laying hands on that assailant to "pull him off" would be the best way to a) end the attack and b) not become the next victim yourself?

And again we're drawing a line between acting to preserve life and acting to preserve healthy life as if it's a huge leap from one to the other.
It's not. It's a bunny hop. It's not only about if something is a threat to life itself. Gouging someone's eyes out is not life-threatening, so let them get on with it...

If the guy had died, loved ones would have wished someone had helped.
If the guy was brain-dead, loved ones would have wished someone had helped.
If the guy was paralysed, he and loved ones would have wished someone had helped.
Just because he's none of those, doesn't mean he didn't deserve help.

Anyway, that's my view....

 

[FireForged]

You think none of that could have broken bones?
Ribs? Ribs can puncture lungs.
Vertebrae? They can sever the cord...

what is possible and what is probable are not the same things. What "could have" happened is speculative and in my estimation, is somewhere below the evidence that I would accept as being "probable". You and I are simply different. Maybe people who have a responsibility to evaluate these things are like me and maybe they are like you.

Great, so you can tell me: of those that suffered a similar assault, or even a lesser one, did none of them need surgery or other significant medical intervention? That kind of medical attention necessitated by serious injuries?

In my mind.. serious injury would mean that which is commonly accepted to be life threatening or permanently maiming. If that is the context then I would say that I can recall 1 out of an enormous number.

Given the ferocity of the attack, do you really think laying hands on that assailant to "pull him off" would be the best way to a) end the attack and b) not become the next victim yourself

I would say that if a person is not capable of dealing with that level of violence, they should probably stay out of it. Just because they may not be able to rise to the occasion without the aid of a firearm is not really a good excuse in all circumstances. I am not all that keen on getting into the middle of someone elses problems and probably would not have but [if] I had intervened in this one, it would not have been with a gun.

 

[Pond James Pond]

what is possible and what is probable are not the same things.

No they are not.

Are you saying that those blows would only have meant possible broken bones, and not probable?

For the record, a quick search online showed he was air-lifted to hospital, not driven, so the paramedics certainly thought he was in danger.

He had serious injuries to head, face and eyes and was in and out of consciousness. So no broken ribs, but perhaps partial blindness, a bleed on the brain or epilepsy were on the cards...

In my mind.. serious injury would mean that which is commonly accepted to be life threatening or permanently maiming.

So if it takes 6mths or so of physio and surgery to fully recover it's not serious?

I would say that if a person is not capable of dealing with that level of violence, they should probably stay out of it. Just because they may not be able to rise to the occasion without the aid of a firearm is not really a good excuse in all circumstances.

The whole point of firearms ownership, in the context of self defence is that, at the very least, it levels the playing field. Yet, we shouldn't apply that to help others such as Mr Archer...

Well, to each their own.

 

[FireForged]

Brother.. I have offered honest and thoughtful remarks that are absent all the drama and emotional play. Again, your comments are full of "purhaps".. I already stated that I don't deal in such speculative nuances, I deal in what I deem to be reasonable probabilities.

I understand where you are coming from, I just don't see it your way.

 

[K_Mac]

briandg, the key phrase in your posted law is:

use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person,

What you or I reasonably believe is not necessarily the same, or what a jury of your peers would believe. Coming to the conclusion that lethal force is necessary and justified is not as clear as some would like to believe, especially when all the facts are not known.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Im not really sure what the exact probability is on broken bones from that sort of attack.

But I don't think it's required to have a statistical figure in your head in the heat of the moment, and no one would have been able to tell if bones was being broken during the attack.. which is when action is required not after.

Someone pointed out majority of people shot do not die if they get medical attention.
We still consider a gun to be deadly no matter what make model type or caliber because we know IT CAN inflect death.

The victim just has to have a genuine fear of serious bodily harm OR death is imminent.
Even if he did not fear death I'd be really surprised if he did not fear serious bodily harm.

This ain't a court of law, We need not actually wait for the inflection of death to occur to defend our self's or by extension someone else defend us.
Self Defense is an affirmative defense (ya I did it but am justified), Self Defense is rendered preemptively to avoid death or serious bodily harm, Not something dolled out after the fact as tit-4-tat punishment.

James is right, He was helicoptered to the hospital.. They usually don't waste that resource if there is road access and the victim is stable.

We see him kinda moving a little at the end but several articles say he was beaten unconscious.
http://abc13.com/video-shows-brutal-beating-at-lufkin-convenience-store/2292327/

Richard Lee Archer, 39, was beaten unconscious while he was waiting in line at the store.

http://lufkindailynews.com/news/community/article_872dbf50-7ae1-11e7-b8c0-7becfcc65b74.html

The victim was flown to an out-of-town hospital with serious injuries to his head, face and eyes, but as of noon Sunday, was expected to recover

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...tal-beating-robbery-at-east-texas-gas-station

The victim, who called the incident "life-changing," was hospitalized and later released. He also requested that the surveillance video be released.

http://www.cbs19.tv/news/victim-spe...beating-at-lufkin-convenience-store/463185462

"My wife will disagree, but I'm glad it was me," he said. "If it hadn't, I think something really bad was about to happen to those store clerks."

Interesting thought.. I take it to mean he thinks his attacker would have robbed the 2 girls working the counter if he had not robbed him instead.

http://www.ktre.com/story/36101347/...-video-of-brutal-robbery-at-convenience-store
*Mug shot on this article*

“Instead, he was met a barrage of punches, kicks, and stomps that left him lying on the floor, in and out of consciousness,” Pebsworth said.

Sounds like a concision (swelling of the brain), Anyone who's ever had one will know how bad they are and how series they can be, can't walk or talk, world spins, very little motor control.

 

[briandg]

Forged.

You start at "possible" and go to "probable" dismissing the element of uncertainty and acting on judgment

A drawn gun, finger on the trigger,threat of death, when and where does this go from possible to probable,and then to the supposed certainty that is being demanded in many of these posts?

"I think that this guy is about to be seriously injured, maybe killed during this attack. I'd better wait until I'm a hell of a lot more certain that his head is going to pop off."

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person,

Keywords:

Reasonable belief (no mention of probable,certainty)
force to be necessary to defend a third person from what he or she reasonably believes (a unlawful attack or injury. (Doesnt restrict the definition.)


the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, (there doesn't even have to be an attack in progress, as long as the "reasonable person" has "reasonable belief" that someone is about to criminally attack another.

"the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person "
Now, this law doesn't even address disparity of force. "Oh, my God, he has a broken bottle and he's gouging at the other guys carotid artery, but all I have is my pistol, I should probably not do anything yet." Use necessary force.

This information was copied from the statute. I am reasonably interpreting them, they're pretty simple and clear.

So, once more, get a copy of these laws for your state and understand them.

If you would prefer to not do so, not get involved,let someone else get a serious beating while you debate with yourself that is your choice and a choice that only you own.

Understand the laws of your jurisdiction, and simply put, this has become unnecessary now. Everyone here should just spend their time reading and carefully considering applicable laws and leave it at that.

 

[FireForged]

Well said K_Mac

which is why I have always leaned heavily toward a mindset of doing only what I MUST do (what I have no choice but to do) and not what I think I can or may do. No matter if I am right, wrong or sideways... there will likely be a very long line of people who will closely examine everything action that I took and weigh it against the their own filter or reasonableness.

 

[JoeSixpack]

@Fire
You're not going to render aid to anyone under any circumstances.
That's fine.. Then just state that and move on. It's honest and to the point.

But the last few pages seems like people are trying to find ways to avoid stating that bluntly, instead making it seem like the whole thing is too hazy to make a determination if deadly force is even justified and that's why they can't/won't help.

 

[FireForged]

Reasonable belief (no mention of probable,certainty)

I wont proclaim what the law means .. I will simply say that I construct a reasonable belief based on evidence that at least rises to what is probable. In my mind, I cannot construct or develop a reasonable belief based on supposition or speculation. That's called a hunch in my mind and that is somewhere less than a reasonable belief and more like having a suspicion that something is likely to happen. Everyone has a standard and that's mine.

I don't think the statute says.. a belief based on reasonable suspicion, if it does I will gladly supplement my narrative with a retraction. If you have a matrix to offer which details how "reasonable" is going to be qualified by this court , that court, this DA or that DA.. I will gladly accept that as educational but until then, I will stick with my own standard which is obviously higher than many in this thread.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Fire if that was you would you want help?
(I know no one one this board would ever be in that situation because we're all 100% alert 100% of the time and never make mistakes, but lets just pretend)

If that was your loved one.. Would you want someone to help them?

If that was your loved one and no one helped and you get to the scene and find out I was there armed and could have helped but instead just watched would you be angry with me?

If you answered yes to any of those 3 questions I'd say it a reasonable person would find it reasonable to use force.

 

[FireForged]

@Fire
You're not going to render aid to anyone under any circumstances.
That's fine.. Then just state that and move on. It's honest and to the point

Its not likely that I would get in the middle of someone elses fight, you are right. I do not carry a gun to act as a public sentinel. That said, I would likely help a LEO since we all expect them to do the same for us.. I think it only fair that I would do the same for them.

If that was your loved one.. Would you want someone to help them?

emotion and sentiment does not change the way I make my decision to get involved or not, I can live with my decisions. If someone did not want to help my family during a crisis, that's on them.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Technically police officers have no duty to protect the individual.
The fact that they do is purely out of a sense of duty and love for life.

I would defend you FireFroged.. but you don't know me so If I needed help you'd just watch me die.

You know what? I'd help you if I saw you in a bad way.. Even if I did know you.

I appreciate the Honestly though, I know a lot of people on this board share that philosophy.

emotion and sentiment does not change the way I make my decision to get involved or not, I can live with my decisions. If someone did not want to help my family during a crisis, that's on them.

Then why are you going to aid a LEO? Is there some reward waiting for you in the end? Seems like Sentiment to me.

 

[K_Mac]

Joe, I have already said I would probably have intervened here, but not with a firearm.

What I won't do is beat my chest and say that using a firearm to defend a guy that causes a fight and won't defend himself is the right course of action. He could have let the thug have the wallet. He could have fought to keep it. What he did was passively step in front of the thug to stop him. Ray Charles could see that wasn't going to end well.

briandg, I wish I was as confident as you are that my assessment of any situation is as righteous as yours. Understanding the law, and making split second, life and death decisions are two very different things

 

[HiBC]

I think most of us are viscerally outraged by this video.It takes us to primal fight or flight. I'm sure if medical instruments were hooked up to us as we viewed it,we would show physical responses to the video.
To make a bad analogy,"It builds us up and leaves us hanging"
It sticks in our craw.

We really NEED to see Clint Eastwood suggest "Now if you boys will just apologise to my mule,like I know you will...." Pew...pew....pew...pew
All the bad guys fall down. Yeah!!! Pry the top off a cold Lone Star.

I think there is a primal force inside of us ,clear back to caves,stone knives,and bear skins,that says that bully attacker needs to be put down...whether he is a thug or a cave bear or sabre tooth tiger.
Howmany of us mentally did a Mozambique drill on the bad guy?

The question becomes "Do we want our honest,real,natural EMOTIONS pressing the trigger?"

I'm with the folks who would write the movie with Dirty Harry in the store buying a roller dog ,the S+W 29 comes out and Callahan has to explain another dead thug to the Chief.

Maybe that's the way we would like things to be.

But this forum has a responsibility.We do carry real guns,we may see this situation,its not a movie,and,for myself,I want to know my LEGAL exposure.

Deaf,if you are in Texas,and all you believe in is true,shoot the SOB,and you are my hero!!

I appreciate Old Marksman pointing out the very real possibilities of what MAY happen next.

IMO,its good this was broken down to the timeline,the facts,the options,and potential outcomes.

With all respect to the Republic of Texas,there are some places in Texas where you can be prosecuted in Texas for running your BBQ in your back yard because your neighbors don't like the smell of ribs and briskets.IN TEXAS!!!

 

[JohnKSa]

That's a nice closing post. And on that note, let's put this one to bed.