What would you do??

[Edward429451]

Unless I was directly assaulted or a bystander was hurt or the subject(s) made a hostile move, I'd keep my concealed weapon(s) secured.

What's the difference between a bystander and the manager?

I'd have to try to help. You can't just stand there while someones being beaten. I wouldn't like it, and I'd expect to be arrested, but a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do. What kind of man would I be to not help?

 

[Pistolgripshotty]

If a guy is 350lbs.... 9 times outta 10 he is going to be slower than you! Me I'm 170lbs. Honestly I would have gone for a couple of hits no matter what he had. I used to BOX a few years ago and I have learned that people of that size move very slow. Just because someone is big doesn't mean they can hurt you. They have to catch you first!!!

 

[MLeake]

Confined spaces favor the big and slow guy a lot more than they do the small and quick guy. Most small and quick guys need some maneuvering room. Big guys can just use what a large friend of mine used to call the "Amoeba technique" and simply envelop the small person to the floor, after which speed and quick reflexes are much less helpful to the small guy.

Others have already noted the additional potential threat posed by the female who started the whole thing.

If armed, I'd suggest using the weapon in order to have some ability to maintain such distance as there is, and not to get physically tied up with a big dude while losing situational awareness of where the female is.

Females may have knives, guns, or improvised weapons, too.

 

[Woody55]

On the law.

In Texas, you can use force or deadly force to defend another under the same circumstances you could use force or deadly force to defend yourself. So basically, you are talking about a reasonable belief that the other is in imminant danger of losing his life or sustaining severe bodily injury.

With a little further reading, I figured out that the DA has to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that your fear was NOT reasonable. And in this case, if you say you thought the guy was trying to murder the victim, the DA would have to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that he wasn't. If the DA couldn't do that, the jury has to find that your fear was reasonable. (That's sort of an extended Castle Doctrine that Texas has).

So imagine that you are a member of the jury. And say all the evidence is that video. I'd conclude that he probably was trying to kill the guy. And I don't see how anyone could watch that and conclude any less than he might have been trying to kill the guy. Either way, that's a win for the Defendant.

And I don't claim any special knowledge of this law. I can just read and write. So talk to your Texas lawyer who does criminal law before you decide to get aggressive.

 

[Ben Towe]

Big guys can just use what a large friend of mine used to call the "Amoeba technique" and simply envelop the small person to the floor, after which speed and quick reflexes are much less helpful to the small guy.

Never heard it called that, but he's right, big guy gets on top of or a hold on the smaller man the fight is over. It's only a matter of how bad the big guy decides to hurt you. If said big guy also has an eight ball of cocaine flowing through his veins (don't know if this guy did, but it's very possible), then it's like picking a fist fight with a grizzly bear.

 

[dannyb]

My first instinct would be to leave, try to flag down a police car while dialing 911. However, the woman was blocking the door, and her boyfriend was also either in the doorway or near the doorway while hitting the victim. That leaves very few options.

As to my possibly interfering in the altercation, I am 60 with arthritis and a few other health problems. I am in no way ready or able to physically intervene; I'll keep my man card anyway. It's easy to imagine holding your ring to the green lantern and getting super powers, but the reality is that those guys see two people beating up on one victim (yes she tries to stop the beater, but she started the physical confrontation as well) and have no idea how to intervene or what the risks are (nobody has mentioned the possibility that the BG may have more friends outside) so they stay frozen. In a stress situation, you revert to your training; these guys likely had none.

I also find myself disturbed at the reactions of the news anchors. They are laughing. If they had been there in person, I'm pretty sure that they would have needed to change their underwear.

 

[Stressfire]

Big guys can just use what a large friend of mine used to call the "Amoeba technique" and simply envelop the small person to the floor, after which speed and quick reflexes are much less helpful to the small guy.

Learned that valuable lesson during my own wrestling days - 300lbs+ is waaaaay above my weight class, and I will take any advantage I can get.

As for the female participant - yes, she should be kept in view at all times. In this case, it is entirely likely that she would come to the aid of her boyfriend. Heck, there have been times that women who, having been beaten 5 minutes beforehand will turn on their "rescuer" in an attempt to back up their assailant/significant other

 

[dstryr]

To me the beating in the video wasn't about trying to kill the guy, it was about beating the hell out of him. If the guy would have dropped the big guy may not have kept striking, but he saw a weak guy and wanted to hurt him because he was still (sort of) standing.

So where is the line drawn between using deadly force if the victim has a fat lip and a broken nose versus the broken eye socket and pulverized face.

Making the right call on using deadly force in the defense of someone else is the clearest in hindsight. Hope to never be in that situation.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

So where is the line drawn between using deadly force if the victim has a fat lip and a broken nose versus the broken eye socket and pulverized face.

There isn't a line when it's happening. That's why the law says that a person must have a "reasonable belief" of "grievous bodily harm or death".

The actual future end-result is not relevent. You can't know if the person is going to throw one punch and walk away (which could actually be fatal by itself) or if he's going to flatten your head and kill your wife.

If a reasonable person would have cause to fear grievous injury or death, deadly force is generally authorized in defense of self or others.

There are other qualifiers also but in context of your question and this scenario, that would be the standard in almost all places in the US.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....In Texas, you can use force or deadly force to defend another under the same circumstances you could use force or deadly force to defend yourself. So basically, you are talking about a reasonable belief that the other is in imminant danger of losing his life or sustaining severe bodily injury.

...I figured out that the DA has to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that your fear was NOT reasonable....

A little too superficial an analysis.

You will need to present evidence that all requirements for justified use of lethal force were satisfied. But even if you don't have to "prove" it, you must be convincing. The less convincing you are, the easier it will be for the DA to meet his burden of proof and overcome your claim of justification.

But in any case, this thread has been beaten to death. Interesting discussion, but no conclusion is possible.

So we'll call it a day.