Teen drawn on/approached by gangbanger- disarms and punches to submission

[csmsss]

Haven't watched the video, but this statement is badly in error.

Threat assessment is far more complicated than this. The idea that you can keep shooting or beating someone as long as they keep "moving and struggling" is absolutely incorrect. You can keep shooting or beating someone as long as they still pose a credible threat to you but the idea that they have to be completely disabled (not "moving or struggling") for the threat to be over is not based in fact.

I couldn't disagree more, John. As long as the bad guy is continuing to make exertions toward getting to his feet and to an offensive position, he constitutes a threat. And, if I may, your approach could very well get you killed. Nope. As long as my adversary continues to mount a defense and isn't simply submitting, he's a threat and I'm well within my rights to take any actions necessary to induce submission.

And...let us not forget that in this case we're talking about a situation where the good guy does not possess a weapon. He doesn't have any means of keeping the bad guy at arms' length should the bad guy get up into a position of equivalency or better. Nope. He's got every right to beat the hell out of the bad guy until the bad guy has fully and obviously stopped posing any sort of threat.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'm with MLeake on this one. I'm going with fake. Might be real but if I had to guess, I'd say fake.

 

[JohnKSa]

As long as the bad guy is continuing to make exertions toward getting to his feet and to an offensive position, he constitutes a threat.

The problem is that any sane/normal person will struggle and attempt to escape if he's being beaten.

If you take the position that you will continue to beat a person until they stop struggling then what you're saying is that unless you beat a person into unconsciousness they still pose a threat. You won't sell that one to a jury because that's not what the law allows.

You're confusing the difference between a potential threat and an immediate threat of serious injury or death. The former is NOT grounds for use of deadly force (such as beating a person with a skateboard) while the latter IS grounds for use of deadly force.

YES, if the person is still struggling they constitute a potential threat, but that doesn't mean you can automatically keep beating them until they're unconscious or dead. Once the person no longer poses an immediate threat to you your legal grounds for use of deadly force evaporate.

He's got every right to beat the hell out of the bad guy until the bad guy has fully and obviously stopped posing any sort of threat.

Again, you don't get to keep using deadly force until "any sort of threat" is gone. The deadly force laws are very specific about exactly what sort of threat justifies the use of deadly force.

For example, if someone points a gun at me, that gives me the right to use deadly force to stop the attack. But if my friends and I outnumber him and have impact weapons, once he's been disarmed his ability to cause me serious injury or death is virtually eliminated. If I keep beating him once he can't really pose a serious threat then I've overstepped the law. The law takes into account such things as disparity of force.

 

[hogdogs]

If it is a faked setup vid, I find the butt whoopin dealt out to be a bit severe for a stunt/prank.

Brent

 

[jon_in_wv]

You're confusing the difference between a potential threat and an immediate threat. The former is NOT grounds for use of deadly force (such as beating a person with a skateboard) while the latter IS grounds for use of deadly force.

I think it would be tough to argue that small guy like the skate boarder, hitting a much bigger guy in the back with a skate board is deadly force. Thats not something that is likely to result in serious injury or death. If he was striking him in the head, perhaps.

Secondly, the GB did bring in a firearm and the kids fought back. I don't think your going to find to mny prosecutors or too many juries that are going to consider what these kids did the same thing as what the GB did.

Standing up to a POS GB like that is resky but these kids are heroes in my book. If good people stood up to evil like that all the time, we would be in a better world.

 

[csmsss]

John, you go on creating these imaginary distinctions if you like, but if someone wants to stop getting pummeled in a fistfight, all he has to do is give up and cover up. Getting up or even struggling to resist or get to one's feet tells me that person still constitutes an immediate threat. Since we know he started the confrontation, a prudent person would continue to pound on him until he submits. If someone has attacked you and subsequently attempts to get to his feet, or to fight back, HE IS A THREAT!!! I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

 

[hogdogs]

BTW, I feel the need to point out that the SB's were not tactically approaching this as a law abiding citizen would. These are "deviant youth" just like the GB's are. They go around destroying property on a routine basis (pulling a grind on freshly painted curbs is the minimum.) and were just looking at this as the teenage posturing needed not to look like a punk. It went from posturing to a flat out beat down to punk the GB.
Don't get me wrong I feel they did the right thing up to but not including walking off with the pistol in their pocket... real gun or not...
Brent

 

[JohnKSa]

John, you go on creating these imaginary distinctions if you like, but if someone wants to stop getting pummeled in a fistfight, all he has to do is give up.

The law creates the distinctions.

I agree that the attacker giving up ends the confrontation and the justification for the use of deadly force, but that's not the ONLY thing that ends it. Once a person no longer poses an immediate threat of serious injury or death then the law says you no longer get to use deadly force.

If someone has attacked you and subsequently attempts to get to his feet, or to fight back, HE IS A THREAT!!!

Getting to one's feet is absolutely not the same as "fighting back", and "moving or struggling" is not evidence, in and of itself, of posing a threat that justifies the use of deadly force.

I think it would be tough to argue that small guy like the skate boarder, hitting a much bigger guy in the back with a skate board is deadly force.

I was responding to a particular statement made and I attempted to make it clear that my comments were general, not specifically related to the video.

Furthermore, even if you could make the case that beating someone with an impact weapon doesn't constitute deadly force it's important to remember that even the use of force (not deadly force) is also restricted by law to situations where it is "immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." Once the attacker stops trying to use unlawful force against the defender then even non-lethal force is unjustified.

The point is that "moving or struggling", in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds for continuing to beat someone with an impact weapon. It takes more justification than that.

Some reading material.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.31

 

[csmsss]

John, I'm at my wit's end. You continue to persist in asserting the belief that gaining the upper hand in a fistfight, however momentary it may be, constitutes ending a threat. IT DOESN'T. That bad guy gets up to his feet, he's heading straight for the firearm he earlier lost possession of. The threat isn't over until the threat is obviously over. If you wish to give the bad guy every opportunity to get the advantage over on you, by all means have at it. But your approach could very easily get you killed.

 

[JohnKSa]

You continue to persist in asserting the belief that gaining the upper hand in a fistfight, however momentary it may be, constitutes ending a threat.

That is incorrect. I have absolutely NOT said that momentarily gaining the upper hand ends the threat.

What I have said is that "moving or struggling" is not in and of itself justification for continuing to beat a person with an impact weapon.

That bad guy gets up to his feet, he's heading straight for the firearm he earlier lost possession of.

You have every right to do whatever is required (including using deadly force) to keep him from arming/rearming himself with a deadly weapon as long as it is reasonable to believe he would use it against you.

"Arming/rearming himself with a deadly weapon" is NOT the same thing as "getting to his feet" or "moving or struggling".

The threat isn't over until the threat is obviously over.

Again, there are different levels of "threat" and the law makes a distinction as to the level and immediacy of the threat in granting justification for use of deadly force.

You have made comments indicating that "moving or struggling" or "getting to his feet" is justification for continuing to beat someone with an impact weapon. It isn't legal justification. Read the laws in the link I provided.

 

[Thursday]

In something like this, I wouldn't stop until he stopped struggling or submitted to me by following my orders. In something like this I would hope my adrenaline and emotions of just facing a life and death situation would not take me to the point of no return.(anybody seen the ending of Greenstreet Hooligans) but if someone pulled a gun on me and I was able to disarm and pin him giving him the beating of a lifetime I would not want to stop until he was compliant. I would no doubt want to detain him until the authorities arrive, and he is not going to be detained by getting to his feet(which could easily allow him to A. run, B. mount an offensive, C. recover his lost weapon) He is going to be detained on the ground doing as I say.

 

[JohnKSa]

...I would not want to stop until he was compliant.

I HIGHLY recommend that people learn what is legal when it comes to using deadly force in their particular states.

The first step in a self-defense encounter is saving your life and preventing injury, but you don't want to overstep the law once things swing your way or you'll end up a criminal.

by getting to his feet(which could easily allow him to A. run, B. mount an offensive, C. recover his lost weapon)

The concern about the person rearming himself is real and as a defender one would have the right to prevent that, but it's unrealistic to pretend that continuing to beat him or detaining him are the only two options available. Grand juries/prosecutors are not going to be that easily duped.

The bottom line is that the law does not give one the right to beat a person into complete compliance or until they stop moving or stop trying to get to their feet. It only gives a person the right to use deadly force until it is no longer IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to prevent the attacker from injuring or killing the defender.

I don't claim to be an expert on the laws of all states so I would invite anyone who can post a link to a state law indicating that a defender has the legal right to use deadly force until the attacker is compliant (vs. simply not posing an immediate threat) to please do so.

I would no doubt want to detain him until the authorities arrive, and he is not going to be detained by getting to his feet(which could easily allow him to A. run, B. mount an offensive, C. recover his lost weapon) He is going to be detained on the ground doing as I say.

Detaining people by force carries with it some serious legal concerns that a person should be cognizant of if he plans to make it part of his strategy. There has been a good deal of general information written on this topic, but it wouldn't hurt to consult an attorney in your area for a specific read.

 

[MLeake]

What beat down did the guy take?

I guarantee you, if I hit you multiple times in the head with my fist, you'd be bleeding from a few places.

I further guarantee you, if a bunch of people hit you with skateboards, even with bad technique, you'd be bleeding.

The fat gangsta isn't bleeding. He barely has a grass stain on his shirt. His hands seem to work just fine - which they would not if he had been blocking skateboards with them.

Almost none of the punches connected, and it looked like the skateboarder was throwing stage punches for the vast majority. The skateboards looked like they were aimed to miss as well.

Was not much of a beatdown. Just lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Fake. Staged. Bogus.

 

[hogdogs]

MLeake, I have split a few eye brows... But I have had many more wins with little to ZERO blood from my opponent. One guy took 15 or 20 hits that were good connects (several poorly laid hits not counted) before I pushed his sleep button. Many guys are very good at intentionally opening up a guy on the eye brow or cheek bone as they realize the advantage of blood in the eye or just the psychological effect blood loss has on many people. I never really learned to try for that tactic. I just swing for the fences
Brent

 

[TailGator]

I HIGHLY recommend that people learn what is legal when it comes to using deadly force in their particular states.

Certainly good advice, but . . .

In the video, the guy who was losing the fight (the guy who started out with the gun), responded to attempts by the winner of the fight (the guy who initially had a gun pointed AT him) to get up and disengage by pulling him back down.

Is there any jurisdiction in the US where that would not be considered an aggressive move, an effort by the BG to continue the engagement, and therefore justify further defensive action by the victim? It would seem to me that in the situation where the BG continues the engagement, even though he has been wounded to whatever degree large or small, your right to self defense continues until BG consents in some way to giving up his efforts to hurt you.

 

[MLeake]

Brent, in my experience, on the occasions I did any serious punching, lips were split and noses were bloodied. (Not counting kempo sparring, with gloves, 20 years ago - those punches weren't serious, and we were padded)

I've never seen anybody take multiple shots from a hard object and not show obvious signs of damage afterward, though. Those skateboards weren't connecting in a serious manner.

As I noted earlier, look at the punches the skater throws from mount. He's throwing a lot of quick, back and forth pendulum punches, and only one connects going forward. It connects awkwardly for both the skater and the gangsta, and probably hurt the skater's wrist more than the gangsta's head.

The only one that connects on the backswing is on the back of his wrist and hand, not on the knuckles. That's how I throw a backfist when practicing drills with a partner, when I want to connect but NOT hurt him.

If the skater wasn't just putting on a show, then he seriously needs to work on his punching.

 

[JohnKSa]

...your right to self defense continues until BG consents in some way to giving up his efforts to hurt you.

That's part of it, but even if he hasn't given up, when he no longer has the reasonable means to hurt you your right to use deadly force ends.

You can't automatically continue using deadly force until he gives up/consents to stop trying to hurt you/stops moving/stops trying to get to his feet/is compliant. You have to stop when he no longer poses a reasonable and immediate threat of serious injury or death.

For example, if a person A pulls a gun on person B who is armed with a makeshift impact weapon, person B has the right to use his impact weapon in self-defense against person A. Once person A is disarmed, now (barring other issues such as a large difference in size, strength or skill), person B (with his impact weapon) enjoys a disparity of force over person A and probably can't legally continue beating him with his impact weapon unless there is no other way for him to disengage to safety or unless that's his only reasonable option for preventing person A from getting his gun back.

In a similar situation you may still be able to use force at that point but as soon as the attacker does not pose a credible and immediate threat of serious injury or death to you the justification for deadly force ends.

The point is that you can't keep beating someone with an impact weapon simply because they are still moving/struggling/trying to get to their feet. Legally you must stop when they no longer pose an immediate and credible threat of serious injury or death. EVEN if they're still moving/struggling/trying to get up.

...therefore justify further defensive action by the victim?

Well, further defensive action would be called for-- but that could include retreating and confiscating the pistol which wouldn't involve any force at all. If a Grand Jury/prosecutor/jury feels that a reasonable person (whose concern was personal safety and not revenge) would have disengaged rather than continue beating the person then the situation is no longer about self-defense at all. You absolutely don't have the right to punish someone for committing a crime against you, you only have the right to stop them from hurting or killing you.

Furthermore, even if further defensive action is justified under the law it's a HUGE mistake to believe that just because "further defensive action" is justified that deadly force is automatically justified. If it is reasonable (and sufficient) to use force (not deadly force) or the threat of force/deadly force would reasonably be expected to end the threat to the defender and the use of such means didn't expose the defender to the threat of serious injury or death then deadly force would be illegal.

 

[TailGator]

Furthermore, even if further defensive action is justified under the law it's a HUGE mistake to believe that just becuse "further defensive action" is justified that deadly force is automatically justified.

I agree with everything you said, but I'm not sure you and I are looking at the same video, or at least the same things in the same video.

Here is what I am referring to: The skateboarder, towards the end of the fight, tried to get up and end the fight, such as it is. The gunman, even though he has been relieved of the gun (at least it no longer shows upon the video), and taking some lumps from his intended victim, grabs the skateboarder and pulls him back down. Essentially, I am saying that the skateboarder attempted to retreat and that the gunman is the one who took the action that made the engagement continue. At least, that is my interpretation of what I see in the video.

The skateboarder then popped him a couple of more times, and tried again to get away. That does not seem to me to be either deadly force or unjustified. Are you really saying that if a BG continues to engage you as you retreat (or attempt to retreat) that further use of force is unjustified? In other words, do your rights to self defense end when you attempt to retreat? I wouldn't think so, but I will yield to those more versed in the law than I.

It would seem to me that an unintended consequence of such an interpretation of the law would be an escalation of defensive force; i.e., I would want to be sure that BG was completely incapacitated (as in dead or unconscious) before I retreated. If I cannot legally continue to defend myself if the BG continues to attack or engage during my retreat, then I have to maximize the damage to him before I attempt retreat in order to be more certain that my retreat is successful. That doesn't seem to be in line with good law or good tactics, unless we are going to start indulging those who look for excuses to plug people.

 

[Thursday]

John I see where your coming from. I would retract what I said before for the most part but I would do what I could to detain the GB until LEO arrived and I could turn him over to them. In NC we can not make a citizens arrest but we are allowed to citizen detention. I would try this route on the grounds that he just threatened my life with a deadly weapon, which I would think falls under aggravated assault. Which would give grounds to detain. Under NC law private citizen is under a duty to retreat unless in doing so he would be placed in greater danger. Which I would think in this situation would put oneself in greater danger.

Under G.S. 15A-404 in section C is the manner of detention.
(c) Manner of Detention. - The detention must be in a reasonable manner considering the offense involved and the circumstances of the detention.

While this is pretty broad I'm sure it would cover a greater force given the weapon invovled. I would do what the kid did initially until I was sure he was not a threat anymore. While continuous blows to the skull are probably not justified I'm sure the first few in the beginning of the scuffle were.

I am also not an attorney, I don't have a law background. I'm just throwing some things out there.

 

[JohnKSa]

TailGator,

I started out by responding to a specific comment made, not by analyzing the details of the encounter in the video. If what you say about the video is correct then your assessment of the legality of the skateboarder's response is probably correct as well.

Thursday,

Detaining people against their will is legally risky if you are not an LEO. I would recommend that you consult an attorney before incorporating it into your strategy/tactics.