Is this Just Self-Defence?

[fido123]

Video/Article (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/15/justice/new-york-fast-food-beating/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn)

If you found the video confusing or just didn't watch it, a man working at McDonalds was slapped by two female patrons who then jumped the counter and started walking towards him behind it after he ran off to the other side. The man grabbed a metal object as they approached and beat them to the ground rather violently. They tried to get back up several times so he beat them as the tried. The man is in jail on $40'000 bail and has a court date for Oct. 11th. The whole thing started after the man questioned the validity of a $50 they handed him to purchase their meal.

Question is does this man deserve to go to prison and have his job stripped from him? Personally I think he went to far but you can't expect people in a situation when they're being attacked by two people to act all that well since they're probably scared as hell. I also think if two men came at a man in this kind of situation and the women ended up beating them down she wouldn't even have been in police custody for a second. Anybody else believe this incredibly gender double standard exists in our justice systems?

[iironiic]

Wow... He definitely crossed the line there. The beating was much more unnecessary than the two women climbing over the counter.

[fido123]

Wow... He definitely crossed the line there. The beating was much more unnecessary than the two women climbing over the counter.

If two threatening looking men jumped a counter after slapping you and started walking towards you aggressively would you stand there in fear they were going to kick your ass or defend yourself?

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

Jail them both or neither of them.

In short: They're both wrong.

[iironiic]

If two threatening looking men jumped a counter after slapping you and started walking towards you aggressively would you stand there in fear they were going to kick your ass or defend yourself?

Well, personally, I believe that any situation can be resolved nonviolently. If someone slaps me and walk towards me aggressively, they are surely crossing the line because they are using violence to make themselves look intimidating. I think an ideal way to resolve any situation is to talk out and reason with each other, but that really depends on the situation. I don't know what the argument is about in this video, but the actions shown on both parts are highly unnecessary.

Of course I will take necessary actions to defend myself. That doesn't mean I have to hurt the aggressive ones physically to defend myself.

[fido123]

Jail them both or neither of them.

In short: They're both wrong.

If you're not going to give any sort of reasoning nobody wants to read your posts. Could you please explain why?


Well, personally, I believe that any situation can be resolved nonviolently.
Of course I will take necessary actions to defend myself. That doesn't mean I have to hurt the aggressive ones to defend myself.

I'm sorry but I think this is a bunch of garbage the school systems have been teaching everybody for the past few decades and is completely false. It would be nice if we didn't need to resort to violence to resolve a situation but sadly this isn't the case. If somebody has stabbed you with a knife in the leg and continues to attack you with that knife and it seems his intent is to kill you, would you not fight back or would you ask him to stop until he killed you?


If someone slaps me and walk towards me aggressively, they are surely crossing the line because they are using violence to make themselves look intimidating.


They are using violence to BE intimidating, not just look it.


EDIT: Also I think you need to take into account that the worker never wanted to be in any sort of situation like that were he was on the spot and left in a situation where he could get badly hurt. I find it hard to harshly judge somebody's actions in these sort of situations because of not only this but the adrenalin that gets released into you during something like this, all because of the two patrons.

[iironiic]

I'm sorry but I think this is a bunch of garbage the school systems have been teaching everybody for the past few decades and is completely false. It would be nice if we didn't need to resort to violence to resolve a situation but sadly this isn't the case. If somebody has stabbed you with a knife in the leg and continues to attack you with that knife and it seems his intent is to kill you, would you not fight back or would you ask him to stop until he killed you?

Well I never said any situation has to be resolved nonviolently, because that's not true. Sometimes violence is needed to defend yourself. In situations that involves stabbing, there are usually reasons behind why the aggressive one decides to attack you, so it's ideal to reason it out before the stabbing incident. Of course some people are more hard-headed than others. In this case or in the case of some random stranger threatening me, violence would only be the way out.

Moral of the story, I believe that violence should be the last resort of self defense.

EDIT:

EDIT: Also I think you need to take into account that the worker never wanted to be in any sort of situation like that were he was on the spot and left in a situation where he could get badly hurt. I find it hard to harshly judge somebody's actions in these sort of situations because of not only this but the adrenalin that gets released into you during something like this, all because of the two patrons.

No one wants to be in a situation similar to his. I agree it's difficult to analyze his actions due to the variables that come into play, but I'm sure that the situation can be handled in a better way.

[DarknessXoXLight]

Okay, he took it a bit far, but no, I don't enjoy the fact that you go to jail for self defense. I think his sentence is way too harsh. If it was me, I would have more than likely reacted the same way. (maybe not that violent but you know what i mean)

[remedy1502]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it self defence only up to the point of fighting back with the same force? Like, some dude breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife, you can fight back with a knife, but you can't go get a gun and shoot him and call it self defence.
It's the same thing here, they just used their hands and he used a metal blunt object. I would call it assault before calling it self defence.

[UserNameGoesHere]

He was completely justified, the woman was an aggressive idiot whom I would imagine either has been in prison for assault or robbery at some point or should have been, it is unreasonable that he should serve any amount of jail time or pay any fines, and, yes, in many ways the American justice system is a joke, though not a funny one. There is definitely bias and all sorts of underhanded things (have enough money or know the right people, be the right race, be the right gender, etc = different ruleset for you/etc...)

He was acting in self defense and, not only that, but from a logical standpoint if this woman is crazy enough to hop that counter and then proceed to slap him, she most likely would have more seriously attacked him if he didn't do something and could even be carrying a knife or gun. Once she was first hit and down, he couldn't risk her getting up because of the possibility of her carrying a concealed weapon. So it not only was the correct instinctual move but the correct logical one as well.

Violence always should be a last resort but you cannot always nor should you avoid it if it is needed. I guess the question here is "Is it needed?" and I would say that it was.

Also, you don't mess with people is a pretty good general rule of life. This woman deserved that beating for her insane actions. Unfortunately the "justice" system is teaching the wrong lesson here since she is the one who should serve time, not him.

Note: iironiic, your two posts contradict themselves. First you say violence should never be used. Then you backpedal and say it should only be used as a last resort. Well of course any reasonable person isn't going to use violence as anything but a last resort. That should be obvious.

[iironiic]

Note: iironiic, your two posts contradict themselves. First you say violence should never be used. Then you backpedal and say it should only be used as a last resort. Well of course any reasonable person isn't going to use violence as anything but a last resort. That should be obvious.

When I made my first point, I think what I meant to say was, violence isn't necessarily needed to resolve a conflict. In other words, I don't necessarily need to use violence on the aggressive one to defend myself. Poor choice of words at my part.

And I agree with your post. Violence should be the last resort but there are instances when you have to use violence over your other options.

[bmah]

The question in this case is obviously a matter of "reasonable force". In law, reasonable force is generally defined as the minimum amount of physicality/force required to avoid harm or some other bad scenario. It's up to the jury to decide what's "reasonable force" depending on each case and the amount of evidence gathered to come to a conclusion.

But from the video, clearly this guy was doing far more than reasonable force. A slap in the face is not life-threatening; repeatedly getting beaten with a metal object is. Not only that, but the women requested the man to stop. The man continued to beat them, even as the women tried to get back up. So in my eyes, it's pretty good to conclude excessive force was being used.

Does the man deserve to go to prison and have his job stripped of him? Once again, the strength of the punishment goes back to the jury deciding on how excessive the force was. I doubt it has anything to do with gender discrimination. Give me an actual example fido, as opposed to getting some sort of hunch that you'd bet the law would bend in a male's favor.
IMO, the man definitely should have his job stripped. Heavy fine? Most likely. Prison time? I'm not quite sure how reasonable that is.

Also, that's just how the law is. It's only flexible up to a certain point. Try to see if you can convince the jury that "it was the adrenaline that made you do it". In summary though, it's not always easy to determine what's "reasonable force" or what degree of punishment should be handed out, so you shouldn't immediately find another reason to blame (e.g. gender discrimination) unless you can clearly show otherwise. This part of the law is grey for the most part.

[Superfreak04]

I actually learned about the boundaries of "self Defense" last week in my criminal law class. Yes he was defending himself, but he made the situation worse than it already was. If you watch the video, after he has to two pinned down on the ground, he CONTINUES to beat them. By doing that alone, it's no longer self defense, but it is counted as Battery. And as some of you have said, you have to be reasonable in self defense. When you're a police officer and you're taking someone down, you better not use a pistol if the person is not holding any form of weapon that can be held as a lethal weapon. In this case, the cashier was holding a lethal weapon, and using it against people that were using only their hands. Although, you have to realize that every state is different in self defense laws.

tl;dr The reason why the man was charged is because he turned a self defense situation, into a battery.

[xXAll-ProXx]

Yea it's self defense, the man just grabbed a golf club and beat the shit out of her what's wrong with that?I mean she ****ing slapped him in the face, I'd definitely beat the shit out of her the way that dude did../sarcasm

seriously though, that's obviously not self-defence. He turned it into an unecessary brawl.

[midnghtraver]

I'm not reading all that ^.

But he totally went way too far. First strike was self defense, but the fact that he continued made it unjustified.

[reuben_tate]

I have to agree with the large majority of people saying that it's not really self-defense. Sure it was self-defense up to some point, but it turned into something else completely. The reason we use self-defense is to prevent harm from being done to us, and when the man had the two women pinned down to the floor, what harm could those two women possibly do in a position like that? None, therefore when the man continued to beat the women, it wasn't an act of self defense anymore.

[Calcium Deposit]

People tend to have some sort of in-grained sympathy when it comes to women.
I definitely think people would be saying things like "justified" or "kick ass!" had this been two dudes assaulting the cashier, especially if the cashier in question was female.

If somebody assaults me physically with intent to harm me or kill me, I don't care who it is, I will rip their head off and poop down their neck. Regardless of what some pussy thinks about non-violence. You only get one life, and anyone endangering mine will reap the consequences.

[Emithith]

I believe that it is a far more serious case when it is a Male vs. two Females-- Females definitely have less strength, and pose less of a problem-- than two Males vs. one Female. It is Sexist, for sure, but it isn't without reason.

I do agree that the male went way too far by bludgeoning them. That's coldhearted.
Besides, you could probably just threaten them off and they wouldn't stay for very long.

[ELRayford]

If the sexes of the two parties were reversed the woman(employee) would most likely have been hailed a hero.

If somebody assaults me physically with intent to harm me or kill me, I don't care who it is, I will rip their head off and poop down their neck. Regardless of what some pussy thinks about non-violence. You only get one life, and anyone endangering mine will reap the consequences.

QFT 100%


Besides, you could probably just threaten them off and they wouldn't stay for very long.

Not intended to single you out so please do not take it in that way. This comment sounds like you haven't had too much confrontation in life. As soon as those females jumped the counter they had already decided to assault him. They were set on puttin some boots to his ass. The only reason they didn't assault him was the fact that they were KTFO.


As far as self defense goes...

Who is to say what is too far? If a hoodlum waves a gun and cops fire 100 shots into his car killing him because they felt threatened, who is to say that this guys reaction was justified or not? Our society is a giant double standard. Whats good for one isn't always for the next. Kinda shitty, but hey, we made it this way :D Enjoy further decline kiddos!

In Closing, We all should be glad we were not in any of their positions. Don't put yourselves into places that can get you into these positions. Make you decisions wisely.

Ya think they would teach people this shit in school...

[Emithith]

Not intended to single you out so please do not take it in that way. This comment sounds like you haven't had too much confrontation in life. As soon as those females jumped the counter they had already decided to assault him. They were set on puttin some boots to his ass. The only reason they didn't assault him was the fact that they were KTFO.

I didn't watch the video. The last thing I want to watch is someone be assaulted. So, I didn't know anything other than the description.

[ELRayford]

The only bad part is the dumb white bitch screaming for the cops. Other than that you can't see any good stuff.

[fido123]

iironic

I'm sure that the situation can be handled in a better way.

Hindsight is always 20/20. When aggravated customers assault you THEN proceed to jump the counter and come at you, that in itself is threatening and probably terrifying. I've been in similar situations and you just act out of instinct.



remedy

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it self defence only up to the point of fighting back with the same force? Like, some dude breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife, you can fight back with a knife, but you can't go get a gun and shoot him and call it self defence.
It's the same thing here, they just used their hands and he used a metal blunt object. I would call it assault before calling it self defence.

That's a law I'm pretty sure only exists in Canada and personally sickens me. I'm sorry but if somebody comes at me with a knife and I have a gun I'm shooting them. If somebody is going to threaten me with physical damaging assault you should be able to stop them using the most reasonable force you have access to, and take into consideration that THEY'RE putting you in a situation you aren't trained to react to, and don't know how to react to. If you react to it poorly it's their fault and should be all on them IMO. I think it's personally totally justified to sue lets say a McDonalds if on the job one of their employees physically threatened your life, and you killed them and now have mental anguish because of it.



bmah

A slap in the face is not life-threatening

It wasn't just the slap in the face or else that man totally deserves to go to jail. He was slapped in the face, walked down the counter AWAY from them, then they BOTH jumped the counter and walked towards him to confront him. Those actions alone aren't life threatening but just like how you can assume somebody with boozed up breath is drunk, you can assume these women were going to assault the man further.


Not only that, but the women requested the man to stop. The man continued to beat them, even as the women tried to get back up. So in my eyes, it's pretty good to conclude excessive force was being used.

If you're getting attacked by two women you don't want them to get back up. He only continued to hit them when they tried to get back up. You don't know if they're trying to get back up to beat the crap out of you and that's usually what happens in those kinds of situations. If those girls didn't want to get beaten they shouldn't have attacked that man, and if they didn't want to get beaten more they should have just stayed down. What would you say if they got back up, grabbed that rod from him and beat him to death? They already showed they were probably going to hurt him and after getting beat like that chances are you're going to be a lot more pissed off.


I doubt it has anything to do with gender discrimination. Give me an actual example fido, as opposed to getting some sort of hunch that you'd bet the law would bend in a male's favor.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search?q=murder&restrict_sr=on

I can't verify anything there, nor do I browse that board but I've gotten a few links from there that are ridiculous. It happens, and I'm not saying it's happening in this case, the cops don't definitely know what happened and those women must have been beaten pretty bad so it's understandable why he's in jail while he awaits trial. I also listen to a lot of talk radio and there's a lot of bias such as the way people were viewing the incident this show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryTYt9jl-4A) was talking about, and how men get stimped often in child custody battles.



Superfreak

I actually learned about the boundaries of "self Defense" last week in my criminal law class. Yes he was defending himself, but he made the situation worse than it already was.

How do you know if he didn't do that those two women wouldn't have beaten him to death? That would have been worse.


If you watch the video, after he has to two pinned down on the ground, he CONTINUES to beat them. By doing that alone, it's no longer self defense, but it is counted as Battery.

The women were trying to get back up and he only hit them when they tried to. If they got back up there's a good chance I bet he doesn't want to take that they're both going to grab something and go apeshit on him.


And as some of you have said, you have to be reasonable in self defense. When you're a police officer and you're taking someone down, you better not use a pistol if the person is not holding any form of weapon that can be held as a lethal weapon. In this case, the cashier was holding a lethal weapon, and using it against people that were using only their hands.

If people are putting you in a dangerous situation and you want out, I'm not going to put myself even on their grounds. I'm going to grab something to give me an edge to make sure those women aren't going to possibly beat me to death, break my bones, or get me so injured I can't work for a while any more.



xXAll-ProXx

Yea it's self defense, the man just grabbed a golf club and beat the shit out of her what's wrong with that?I mean she ****ing slapped him in the face, I'd definitely beat the shit out of her the way that dude did../sarcasm

seriously though, that's obviously not self-defence. He turned it into an unecessary brawl.

They women turned it into an unnecessary brawl. Like I said I'm sure he wouldn't beat the shit out of them if they just slapped him, but they slapped him, he ran, and they came after him. I bet he didn't want to find out what they were going to do to him.



midnghtraver


But he totally went way too far. First strike was self defense, but the fact that he continued made it unjustified.

Again they were trying to get back up. If they laid down and posed no threat then it would be ridiculous to keep beating them.



reuben_tate

The reason we use self-defense is to prevent harm from being done to us, and when the man had the two women pinned down to the floor, what harm could those two women possibly do in a position like that? None, therefore when the man continued to beat the women, it wasn't an act of self defense anymore.

Again I don't know if you read my OP but the women were trying to get back up. If you come at somebody attacking them, and they beat you to the ground, it should be assumed if you're trying to get back up there's a good chance you're going to attack him again.



Emithith

I believe that it is a far more serious case when it is a Male vs. two Females-- Females definitely have less strength, and pose less of a problem-- than two Males vs. one Female. It is Sexist, for sure, but it isn't without reason.

This is the kind of thinking I can't stand. Two females are capable of killing a man so why is he not allowed to defend himself? Why do they deserve extra sympathy? I think this kind of thinking belongs in the 1950's and is plain ignorant. Women should be held to the same social standards as men, and I think it's plain ignorance to think anything else. Any women who argues me on this I usually respond with telling them if they don't want true equality they should get back to the kitchen.

[Superfreak04]

Quote:

How do you know if he didn't do that those two women wouldn't have beaten him to death? That would have been worse.

The odds of 2 women beating the man to death a very slim, especially if he has co-workers around him. I would assume that if they literally started beating him to death, someone would have stopped the two in some fashion. Although some will just sit and watch, there are those who man up and try and help.



The women were trying to get back up and he only hit them when they tried to. If they got back up there's a good chance I bet he doesn't want to take that they're both going to grab something and go apeshit on him.

I don't believe so. I was reading some of the comments, but the two girls who were getting beaten begged him to stop? And no, I'm not talking about the other woman that came and was all "OMFG STOP OMG!". I'm pretty sure those two women wouldn't have tried anything after getting up since they just got beaten with a metal object. That would be like saying "Damn, I just got my ass kicked, I'm gonna try and get up and beat him up, even though I just got my ass handed to me, and I'm wounded." The man could have easily just said, "Stay the **** down", or something along those lines. I mean think about it. If YOU were one of those women, and you just got the shit beat out of you, and the person has a club, and points it at you and tells you to stay down, are you dumb enough to get back up, only to be knocked back down, and possibly killed? I understand this is an extreme example, but the same principle applies that the man could have easily just stepped back after getting them on the ground. Now lets say he actually did that, and just stepped back instead of continuously beating them. If they were to chase him, THEY would get charged because the threat is no longer an imminent threat. He would still get charged most likely, but they were get a serious charge as well.

You have to realize that self defense only applies to something that is imminent. Example: If a guy is to rob your house, and runs out the front door, you can't chase him with a bat and beat him to get your belongings back. If you do, you just committed battery, and could be put in jail for it, EVEN THOUGH your intentions were to get your belongings back. Yeah, the law is ****ed up lol.


Quote:

If people are putting you in a dangerous situation and you want out, I'm not going to put myself even on their grounds. I'm going to grab something to give me an edge to make sure those women aren't going to possibly beat me to death, break my bones, or get me so injured I can't work for a while any more.

Although I do agree with you that I myself would do anything to keep myself from harm, even if it is involving weapons, but that's not how the law works. But as I said, it has to be IMMINENT DANGER. If you have the people on the ground hurting, you've done all you're allowed to do. Granted the people kept getting up, but you don't know what there next intentions were. What if the couple was going to get up and possibly try and leave the store? Therefore, you can't keep beating the person just because they are trying to get up. It is stupid, but that's how it works unfortunately.

ALSO: "That's a law I'm pretty sure only exists in Canada and personally sickens me. I'm sorry but if somebody comes at me with a knife and I have a gun I'm shooting them. If somebody is going to threaten me with physical damaging assault you should be able to stop them using the most reasonable force you have access to, and take into consideration that THEY'RE putting you in a situation you aren't trained to react to, and don't know how to react to. If you react to it poorly it's their fault and should be all on them IMO. I think it's personally totally justified to sue lets say a McDonalds if on the job one of their employees physically threatened your life, and you killed them and now have mental anguish because of it."

To answer this, YES you can use a gun if someone is coming at you with a knife. Why is that? Because if the persons intention is to kill you, you have the right to use deadly force. Hence why I've seen a cop video where a teenage guy was walking towards a cop car with a bat in his hand. The cop aimed his gun at him and ordered him to stop and pout the weapon down, and hands up. The boy kept walking towards the car, so the cop shot him. It's justified because the cop clearly stated for him to put the weapon down, but it was still an imminent threat because the boy was getting closer and closer.

[fido123]

I don't believe so. I was reading some of the comments, but the two girls who were getting beaten begged him to stop? And no, I'm not talking about the other woman that came and was all "OMFG STOP OMG!". I'm pretty sure those two women wouldn't have tried anything after getting up since they just got beaten with a metal object.

The cashier would pause and begin again every time the women tried to get up.


That would be like saying "Damn, I just got my ass kicked, I'm gonna try and get up and beat him up, even though I just got my ass handed to me, and I'm wounded." The man could have easily just said, "Stay the **** down", or something along those lines. I mean think about it. If YOU were one of those women, and you just got the shit beat out of you, and the person has a club, and points it at you and tells you to stay down, are you dumb enough to get back up

Again, civilians aren't trained how to handle these situations. If you're in a fight of flight situation and you hit a somebody on the ground and they keep trying to get back up you're going to start freaking out. I would be disgusted if a cop were to commit these actions because this is not the best way at handling the situation, but it's the best you can expect out of a McDonald's employee who's possibly scared for his life.


You have to realize that self defense only applies to something that is imminent. Example: If a guy is to rob your house, and runs out the front door, you can't chase him with a bat and beat him to get your belongings back. If you do, you just committed battery, and could be put in jail for it, EVEN THOUGH your intentions were to get your belongings back. Yeah, the law is ****ed up lol.

The situation was an imminent threat. The women were attacking him so he defended himself. After they were on the ground they kept trying to get back up making them a threat. If they ran out the McDonald's and he chased them I'd see your point.


Although I do agree with you that I myself would do anything to keep myself from harm, even if it is involving weapons, but that's not how the law works. But as I said, it has to be IMMINENT DANGER. If you have the people on the ground hurting, you've done all you're allowed to do. Granted the people kept getting up, but you don't know what there next intentions were. What if the couple was going to get up and possibly try and leave the store? Therefore, you can't keep beating the person just because they are trying to get up. It is stupid, but that's how it works unfortunately.

I'm not talking about the law I'm talking about something being "Just". You equally don't know if those women are going to get up, run half way across the store and pull out a gun.

[Superfreak04]

Again, civilians aren't trained how to handle these situations. If you're in a fight of flight situation and you hit a somebody on the ground and they keep trying to get back up you're going to start freaking out. I would be disgusted if a cop were to commit these actions because this is not the best way at handling the situation, but it's the best you can expect out of a McDonald's employee who's possibly scared for his life.

A cop would have gotten them on the ground and cuffed them. Of course a civilian can't do that, but I'm just saying. The Mc Donalds employee simply just over did it, and could have handled the situation, without putting these two in a hospital.

"The situation was an imminent threat. The women were attacking him so he defended himself. After they were on the ground they kept trying to get back up making them a threat. If they ran out the McDonald's and he chased them I'd see your point."

But, they are just getting up from the ground? As I've said. He should have stepped far back to see what they were going to do. Lets say you're in a fight, and you beat the guy down. And you start walking backwards, but still keeping an eye on the guy to see if he's getting up. If he starts to get up, are you going to run back over to him and kick him back down? You better not, because he is no longer a threat because you had him pinned down.

"I'm not talking about the law I'm talking about something being "Just". You equally don't know if those women are going to get up, run half way across the store and pull out a gun."

And that's why I say the law isn't totally fair. As I've said, I would beat the person so that they would never do something like that again. But this isn't a total free country. That's why cops are trained the way the are. If you're gonna be in law enforcement, you have to know how to play the game, and live by the rules.

[fido123]

A cop would have gotten them on the ground and cuffed them. Of course a civilian can't do that, but I'm just saying. The Mc Donalds employee simply just over did it, and could have handled the situation, without putting these two in a hospital.

It's easy to see that in hindsight but the man was obviously scared, possibly for his life cause you have no idea what those women were concealing or would do. I'm not saying he couldn't have handled it better, but like I've been saying, if you've ever been in one of these situations you panic.


But, they are just getting up from the ground? As I've said. He should have stepped far back to see what they were going to do. Lets say you're in a fight, and you beat the guy down. And you start walking backwards, but still keeping an eye on the guy to see if he's getting up. If he starts to get up, are you going to run back over to him and kick him back down? You better not, because he is no longer a threat because you had him pinned down.

Last thing you want to do is let somebody back up after you just beat them. They are unbelievably pissed and will do unbelievable things. They could just have just been getting up to flee, but they could have also gotten up, walked halfway across the store and shot him. If you previously pinned somebody to the ground they are STILL a threat cause they can get back up and further attack you, however if you keep them pinned they are not a threat and this is all the guy was doing.

[xXAll-ProXx]

One thing I don't get is how can a slap in the face make you guys that indimidated to actually go as far as beating them that bad.

I've actually been in the same situation, someone slapped me in the face and was about to punch me in the face but I punched him back before he did, in the face. He fell on the ground, then I kicked him a few times in the stomach and walked away. He came back to school the day after with no bruises or anything, and hasn't made a single eye contact with me since.


My point is, there is no merit in using a metal object to repeatedly beat someone just because you feel endangered. She's ****ing beat up, you think when she's trying to get up she's gonna beat the hell out of you? have some common sense...

[bmah]

In the video you can hear the girls screaming "Stop it!" louder and louder each time. That sounds like pleading to me, not "I'm going to get back up and hit you again". I think the guy should've taken some cues.

Yeah the girls followed the guy before he beat them up and tried to get up after that, but their cries are a pretty apparent reason the employee should've stopped.

[Superfreak04]

"It's easy to see that in hindsight but the man was obviously scared, possibly for his life cause you have no idea what those women were concealing or would do. I'm not saying he couldn't have handled it better, but like I've been saying, if you've ever been in one of these situations you panic."

Keyword "panic". That will NOT hold up in court at all. Just because you panic, doesn't give you the right to do what you did. So this is why I said what he should have done.




"Last thing you want to do is let somebody back up after you just beat them. They are unbelievably pissed and will do unbelievable things. They could just have just been getting up to flee, but they could have also gotten up, walked halfway across the store and shot him. If you previously pinned somebody to the ground they are STILL a threat cause they can get back up and further attack you, however if you keep them pinned they are not a threat and this is all the guy was doing."

Of course there is no way to know what the person is going to do, but that's what sucks about the law.

"If you previously pinned somebody to the ground they are STILL a threat cause they can get back up and further attack you, however if you keep them pinned they are not a threat and this is all the guy was doing."

Actually this is an EXACT situation we talked about in class. Actually, he is NOT a threat if you pinned him down and you're walking away. He is not a threat because he isn't attacking you or anything of that sort, he's simply getting up from the ground. Once he starts chasing you, then it's an imminent threat.

[fido123]

One thing I don't get is how can a slap in the face make you guys that indimidated to actually go as far as beating them that bad.

Like I have said multiple times before after the guy was slapped he backed off, right thing to do. After he backed off the two women jumped the counter and confronted him in an aggressive manner. He only continued to beat them because they were attempted to get back up and I have already. Please read the thread or don't post.


I've actually been in the same situation, someone slapped me in the face and was about to punch me in the face but I punched him back before he did, in the face. He fell on the ground, then I kicked him a few times in the stomach and walked away. He came back to school the day after with no bruises or anything, and hasn't made a single eye contact with me since.

My point is, there is no merit in using a metal object to repeatedly beat someone just because you feel endangered. She's ****ing beat up, you think when she's trying to get up she's gonna beat the hell out of you? have some common sense...

It's not that hard when you're beat up to pull out a knife and fall over onto you stabbing you. Even easier would be she pulled out a gun and shot him. Point is she attacked him and he wants to make sure she isn't going to do it again to save his own life. Plus it's two on one and far more threatening than just one person coming at you. Have some common sense...


In the video you can hear the girls screaming "Stop it!" louder and louder each time. That sounds like pleading to me, not "I'm going to get back up and hit you again". I think the guy should've taken some cues.

Yeah the girls followed the guy before he beat them up and tried to get up after that, but their cries are a pretty apparent reason the employee should've stopped.

The girl screaming it I believe was a bystander. Also people lie, even if she was saying that she should have just laid on the ground. I wouldn't trust anybody group of people who tried to jump me, I'd make sure they are not going to be on their feet or in any position to endanger me again. To me it seems obvious that if he's only hitting you when you try to get back up, if you don't want to get beat more don't try to get up. Who should have made that clearer but again he was probably in shock.


Keyword "panic". That will NOT hold up in court at all. Just because you panic, doesn't give you the right to do what you did. So this is why I said what he should have done.

When somebody FORCES you into a state of panic through their actions which endanger you I think it's more than understandable for that person not to do the ideal thing. If I attacked you and you were put in this state and couldn't respond properly (Biological Fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response)) isn't it my fault you're in that state in the first place? I attacked you so you must either fight or flight and he was cornered. He tried to get away but they followed him.


Of course there is no way to know what the person is going to do, but that's what sucks about the law.

We're not talking about what's the law, we're talking about what's just.


Actually this is an EXACT situation we talked about in class. Actually, he is NOT a threat if you pinned him down and you're walking away. He is not a threat because he isn't attacking you or anything of that sort, he's simply getting up from the ground. Once he starts chasing you, then it's an imminent threat.

Is an unexploded yet armed bomb a threat? So is somebody who's attacking you who just so happens to be beaten the ground. If they get back up there's a good chance they're going to attack you and therefore a threat. Minimize the threat by keeping them down. The police don't pin people then walk around cause they're not ****ing retarded.

[Superfreak04]

fido123:"When somebody FORCES you into a state of panic through their actions which endanger you I think it's more than understandable for that person not to do the ideal thing. If I attacked you and you were put in this state and couldn't respond properly (Biological Fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response)) isn't it my fault you're in that state in the first place? I attacked you so you must either fight or flight and he was cornered. He tried to get away but they followed him."

Superfreak04:Sure it's your fault, but you have to understand on HOW HE HANDLED THE SITUATION. He overdid it. He took a metal object (WHICH IS A LETHAL WEAPON) and started to beat them. That's like saying, "Since they jumped over the counter, I'm in panic mode. My instinct is to grab a knife and stab them because I'm in danger." Yeah, just because you're in panic mode, doesn't mean shit in a court. Let me repeat that, IT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT IN COURT. If it comes down to that, they will put you down for medical help + a prison sentence.

fido123: "We're not talking about what's the law, we're talking about what's just."

Superfreak04: Okay, then simply put, yeah he was defending himself. But, it's not that simple. I thought this was a debate on if it was right that he got charged with what he did. Which is what I'm trying to explain.

fido123: "Is an unexploded yet armed bomb a threat? So is somebody who's attacking you who just so happens to be beaten the ground. If they get back up there's a good chance they're going to attack you and therefore a threat. Minimize the threat by keeping them down. The police don't pin people then walk around cause they're not ****ing retarded."

Superfreak04: You're comparing a bomb to a person, lol..........

I'll put this in a step by step form to clarify everything based on your post.

1.)"So is somebody who's attacking you who just so happens to be beaten the ground." - BAM YOU'RE DONE, JUST WALK AWAY.

2.) "Minimize the threat by keeping them down." - Yes, which is what HANDCUFFS ARE FOR. Why do you think cops aren't supposed to just repeatedly beat the shit out of people to "minimize the threat"?

3.) "The police don't pin people then walk around cause they're not ****ing retarded." - Yeah, that's why they put them in handcuffs instead of beating them. Ever hear about the "Rodney King Incident"? PRIME EXAMPLE, why you can't do that.

"Rodney Glen King (born April 2, 1965) is an American best known for his involvement in a police brutality case involving the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on March 3, 1991. A bystander, George Holliday, videotaped much of the incident from a distance.

The footage showed LAPD officers repeatedly striking King with their batons while other officers stood by watching, without taking any action to stop the beating".

Now, compare the Mc Donalds employee to the officers. Same thing because they aren't a threat, they are just trying to get up from the ground.

[fido123]

Sure it's your fault, but you have to understand on HOW HE HANDLED THE SITUATION. He overdid it. He took a metal object (WHICH IS A LETHAL WEAPON) and started to beat them.

How did he over do it? It was two on one. If he tried to take them on with his hands he would have gotten his ass handed to him. He grabbed the nearest thing he could find and beat them so they couldn't attack him. It would be more ideal if he had a stun gun or wooden pole around him but in a panic cornered in McDonald's he's just going to grab what's available to him that he notices. Plus if you're getting attacked wouldn't you grab something that you know is going to give you the upper hand? They're actively attacking you, you never asked to be in any sort of equal grounds duel, you just want to get out of the situation.


That's like saying, "Since they jumped over the counter, I'm in panic mode. My instinct is to grab a knife and stab them because I'm in danger." Yeah, just because you're in panic mode, doesn't mean shit in a court. Let me repeat that, IT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT IN COURT. If it comes down to that, they will put you down for medical help + a prison sentence.

I hate the justice system so yeah, it makes sense in the justice system but IMO doesn't make it just. They were attacking him, that's why he was panicking.


Okay, then simply put, yeah he was defending himself. But, it's not that simple. I thought this was a debate on if it was right that he got charged with what he did. Which is what I'm trying to explain.

What's right and what's in the law aren't the same thing. I think it's understandable why he got charged cause the cops don't really know what happened, but if he gets sentenced I'm going to be pissed.


You're comparing a bomb to a person, lol..........

I did, it's called an analogy.


1.)"So is somebody who's attacking you who just so happens to be beaten the ground." - BAM YOU'RE DONE, JUST WALK AWAY.

BAM bitch shoots you in the back you're dead. Stay on the ground and don't move so I KNOW you're not going to attack me like you appear you are TRYING to do.


2.) "Minimize the threat by keeping them down." - Yes, which is what HANDCUFFS ARE FOR. Why do you think cops aren't supposed to just repeatedly beat the shit out of people to "minimize the threat"?

Yup, too bad that guy didn't have any.


3.) "The police don't pin people then walk around cause they're not ****ing retarded." - Yeah, that's why they put them in handcuffs instead of beating them. Ever hear about the "Rodney King Incident"? PRIME EXAMPLE, why you can't do that.

See above. Also a McDonalds employee has never been trained how to handle attackers. The police in that situation should have handcuffed him. Since the worker had none he had no other option.


Also could you please use the built in quote function? It makes quoting you far easier. You can simply copy paste the same quote header (QUOTE=Superfreak04;3552146) above each quote ending them with a [/quote]. Even just stuff would be good for example:

I AM A QUOTE

[Superfreak04]

Okay, I'm going to stop this debate since you want it all "In just" form.

In Just form: Yes he was defending himself. But "just form" doesn't mean anything in a court of law.

You'd have to take a criminal law class to understand where I'm coming from. If you did, you will understand why he got charged with what he did.

If you want to talk about this on AIM or something, I gladly will. All contact info is on my profile.

[fido123]

Feel free to talk about what the courts will do, I already know why he's currently charged and I'm unclear if he'll get away scott free although I hope so. I'd contact you on AIM but it seems we agree. Contact me at "pretentiousbeard" on AIM if you think we don't.

[Emithith]

This is the kind of thinking I can't stand. Two females are capable of killing a man so why is he not allowed to defend himself? Why do they deserve extra sympathy? I think this kind of thinking belongs in the 1950's and is plain ignorant. Women should be held to the same social standards as men, and I think it's plain ignorance to think anything else. Any women who argues me on this I usually respond with telling them if they don't want true equality they should get back to the kitchen.

I said bludgeon.
He already defended himself with a show of strength. But when they were on the ground and he continued it became assault.
Any other thinking is morally wrong.

Furthermore, it is scientifically proven that Women are physically weaker than Men. While they should be allowed the same rights, e.g. Jobs, voting, etcetera, it is bigoted to think that they can only have 2 shades of rights (black and white is to "kitchen" and full rights) when there are many shades in between.
I am in no way a women's activist, or a feminist, but that way of thinking pisses me off.

edit: I also give them extra "sympathy" because it became assault after he had them on the ground. I do not give them extra points for being women, or even if the situation was turned around I wouldn't give extra points to the males.

[fido123]

I said bludgeon.
He already defended himself with a show of strength. But when they were on the ground and he continued it became assault.
Any other thinking is morally wrong.

I agree with you but they continued to get back up. If you want to know more about what I think about them getting back up read my previous posts.


Furthermore, it is scientifically proven that Women are physically weaker than Men. While they should be allowed the same rights, e.g. Jobs, voting, etcetera, it is bigoted to think that they can only have 2 shades of rights (black and white is to "kitchen" and full rights) when there are many shades in between.
I am in no way a women's activist, or a feminist, but that way of thinking pisses me off.

edit: I also give them extra "sympathy" because it became assault after he had them on the ground. I do not give them extra points for being women, or even if the situation was turned around I wouldn't give extra points to the males.

I understand you and agree with you. It seemed to me you were giving them extra sympathy because they were women. Regardless those two women combined were a threat and gender shouldn't really be taken into account here. Often people use the "don't hurt women" rule with stuff like this. Don't hurt ANYBODY in ANYWAY like this, UNLESS you are defending yourself man or women. I think it's crazy though for that rule to only apply to women or apply especially to women, it's just social conditioning from the 50's IMO. Men and women should have entirely 100% equal rights while understanding we're both different.

[Emithith]

Okay, I see your point. I thought you were saying that patriarchy is okay. Totally wrong. lol

[xXAll-ProXx]

It's not that hard when you're beat up to pull out a knife and fall over onto you stabbing you. Even easier would be she pulled out a gun and shot him. Point is she attacked him and he wants to make sure she isn't going to do it again to save his own life. Plus it's two on one and far more threatening than just one person coming at you. Have some common sense...


I guess it's a little bit different in New York then. Cause that sort of stuff doesn't happen that often in Canada, which is why I wouldn't beat someone with a lethal object if they jumped over the counter and slapped me. With that being said, I still don't see the point in beating them that bad after they're trying to get up, but then again, maybe it's common to see people pull out knives when they are trying to get up in the U.S ?_?

I'd probably do the same if I was at a McDonald's in Texas. js

[~kitty~]

I think that this act was too aggressive, regardless of gender. I do feel like if the cashier used something else, less lethal I would think it would be all right.

[Emithith]

I think that this act was too aggressive, regardless of gender. I do feel like if the cashier used something else, less lethal I would think it would be all right.

Sort of a general rule of thumb, alright sort of deal?

[reuben_tate]

Fido: You say that the man kept beating the women because of the fact that he was afraid that the women might get back up and attack him. Isn't there also the possibility that the man was beating the women just for sweet revenge? Why is it that you seem to rule this possibility out?

[devonin]

The sexes of the people involved in this incident should be completely irellevent.

The whole thing was caught on camera which makes it -very- easy to simply look at what happened and say "Given the people involved, was the amount of force used in self-defense excessive under the circumstances"

The women both assaulted someone. They should be charged accordingly. The man defended himself from assault, which is fine, but then arguably -also- committed assault by using excessive force.

The fact that it was women attacking a man makes no difference. The only important thing is "Having put them to the ground in self-defense, was he then able to get away from the situation/get to safety/get to where additional witnesses would result in the assault ending" if the answer is yes (And I'd say it is a yes in those circumstances) then continuing to hit them was also assault.

Everyone goes to jail, everyone loses, because everyone's a loser, case closed.

[fido123]

Fido: You say that the man kept beating the women because of the fact that he was afraid that the women might get back up and attack him. Isn't there also the possibility that the man was beating the women just for sweet revenge? Why is it that you seem to rule this possibility out?

Yeah but if what he's doing seems logical you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't assume somebodies motives like that.

[bmah]

Yeah but if what he's doing seems logical you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't assume somebodies motives like that.

Well then, I guess you should rethink what you said earlier about the women. To me, it seems logical to give the women the benefit of the doubt after beating down on them repeatedly. Whether or not it was those women that requested the man to stop beating on them, you can't assume the motives of the women either.

You can argue that making that assumption for the women as opposed to the employee isn't "logical" but I can't see your arguments going any further than the reasoning of "adrenaline".

Maybe devonin said it best. The women aren't going to get away from this by far, but the man certainly isn't going to get the deal you're rooting him for.

[fido123]

I don't think he needs a deal, I just don't think what he did was assault. You can't give the benefit of the doubt to the women because they were in the process of attacking him. Just cause they're on the ground doesn't mean they're not trying to attack him.

@Devonin: If you're implying I think the genders of anybody in that situation should be taken into account I don't think that at all. I'm trying to say that society often does. As for the rest of your posts I've already posted my arguments in previous pages so I guess we amongst others in this thread disagree on what kind of force should be punishable. Excessive, no doubt but I think given his situation it's simply understandable and shouldn't be punishable.

[Izzy]

I don't think the guy ever felt like he was in danger, he just seems pissed off at the women and is taking advantage of the situation.

It was self defense up until the first strike and she was on the ground defending herself.

[reuben_tate]

From the video it doesn't seem like the man orders the women to stay on the ground. If I was being brutally attacked like that, I would try to run away. I wouldn't want to be beaten to death. I think every person has the right to get off the ground. Now if the man had told the women, "stay on the ground or else I'll beat the **** out of you!" then of course I would stay on the ground seeing that getting up would result in me being beaten some more. However, when the women first got up for the first time, they had no idea or warning that doing so would result in their physical harm.

If you want someone to do something (in this case, stay on the ground) you have to tell that person, you can't just assume that the other person knows what you want from them.

[UserNameGoesHere]

In hindsight he probably should have yelled at them to stay on the ground, but I don't know if the result would have been any different.

Also this appears to really boil down to a personal judgment call. It depends whether you think this amount of force was justified or excessive, in this particular case, as to which side of the fence you'll be.