McDonalds Attack - Justification or Not

[peter nap]

Seriously, Peter? "She may have deserved that beating?" Blaming the victim?

Was she a victim though?
I have no idea what started it.

The loser isn't always a victim.

 

[JamesCanby]

Was she a victim though?
I have no idea what started it.

The loser isn't always a victim.

Does it really matter what "started it?" Are YOU "what if-ing" now, i.e., "what if the "loser" started it?"

In my mind, nothing justifies the kind of beat-down this woman experienced...

 

[MR Redenck]

Who gets to determine if someone " DESERVES" something like that?
GEEZE people??!! Walk away if someone is ******* you off to the point you start turning green!!
People piss me off all the time. I have a very short fuse and the massive brute force to do whatever I want. I still done go around beating people just because they say something offensive, or piss me off!
Walk away. Let stupid people live and keep being stupid.

Nothing that girl could have done would have justified that beating and attempted kidnapping! " Other than a offense against a child", but I didnt see a child around.
Like I said, if I had walked in on that, two pieces of trash would be dead!

 

[kimbercarrier]

Exactly. Now you have to worry about brandishing. I can't draw my gun that fast, and I have no hand to hand combat skills other than those provided by nature. I'm also not that strong, or at least not strong enough to keep back 3 raging women at once.

Yea TJ they definitely out weighed you by about 400 1/4 pounders each. I think I would have to agree with Ed's position.

Every time the manager got in between them they backed off. And when he left her they came back in to continue the attack.

 

[peter nap]

Who gets to determine if someone " DESERVES" something like that?
GEEZE people??!! Walk away if someone is ******* you off to the point you start turning green!!
People piss me off all the time. I have a very short fuse and the massive brute force to do whatever I want. I still done go around beating people just because they say something offensive, or piss me off!
Walk away. Let stupid people live and keep being stupid.

Nothing that girl could have done would have justified that beating and attempted kidnapping! " Other than a offense against a child", but I didnt see a child around.
Like I said, if I had walked in on that, two pieces of trash would be dead!

GIRL?

Thursday’s Youtube video sensation of a white woman being brutally beaten by two black female teens in a Baltimore-area McDonald’s restroom, causing her to go into a seizure, may have more details than have so far been released. Expose news website “The Smoking Gun” is reporting that the woman in question may be a cross-dresser, based on a Facebook posting by Vernon Hackett, the man who shot the video. The Smoking Gun website has posted a screen shot of Hackett’s Facebook page, in which he asserts that the man was dressed as a woman and insisted on using the ladies’ bathroom. Hackett also alleged in the post that the seizure was faked, as the victim recovered as soon as the police arrived

And James, it's not the first time we disagree and it won't be the last I'm sure.

 

[Fenris]

GIRL?

Thursday’s Youtube video sensation of a white woman being brutally beaten by two black female teens in a Baltimore-area McDonald’s restroom, causing her to go into a seizure, may have more details than have so far been released. Expose news website “The Smoking Gun” is reporting that the woman in question may be a cross-dresser, based on a Facebook posting by Vernon Hackett, the man who shot the video. The Smoking Gun website has posted a screen shot of Hackett’s Facebook page, in which he asserts that the man was dressed as a woman and insisted on using the ladies’ bathroom. Hackett also alleged in the post that the seizure was faked, as the victim recovered as soon as the police arrived

And James, it's not the first time we disagree and it won't be the last I'm sure.

I also do not think the gender identity (or lack of identity) of the victim makes any difference. Nor do I care whether the seizure was faked. If it was a fake out, it may have saved this person's life. Good thinking.

It was still a deadly assault.

 

[peter nap]

I also do not think the gender identity (or lack of identity) of the victim makes any difference. Nor do I care whether the seizure was faked. If it was a fake out, it may have saved this person's life. Good thinking.

It was still a deadly assault.

I guess that's what you'd call irreconcilable differences then.
You answered your own question.

 

[All American Nightmare]

I also do not think the gender identity (or lack of identity) of the victim makes any difference. Nor do I care whether the seizure was faked. If it was a fake out, it may have saved this person's life. Good thinking.

It was still a deadly assault.

Take a good hard look at the deadly force laws in VA. We have no clue how it started. When you are armed you have to be alert to what is going on. There is no sign of deadly force in the video. Draw down on them and you will get a free ride and 18.2-282 charge.

 

[Fenris]

I guess that's what you'd call irreconcilable differences then.
You answered your own question.

Perhaps. Though I was surprised that so many didn't think that the attack rose to the level of being a threat of death or grave bodily injury. Or thought it wise or necessary to engage physically.

 

[TraumaRN]

recent story from UK

"DAD-of-four who split up a fight in a McDonald’s was shot dead moments after being told he wouldn’t see the morning.

Raymond Mitchell, 34, had only popped into the restaurant to buy a hot chocolate.

But he apparently caused offence after splitting up two men fighting in the queue.

One of them, who had several gold teeth, shouted at Raymond: “You are gonna die tonight, you are not gonna see the morning..............”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...ight-in-mcdonald-s-shot-dead-115875-23075797/

 

[Neplusultra]

Again, Curtis was just addressing the what if mentality.

As to the hands and feet assault...Yeah, the girl got a whippin. Sure didn't look life threatening to me though. Those weren't seizures she was having, it was squirming from having some large chunks of hair pulled out.

I don't think so Peter. If that was the case it would seem the victim would have been holding their head instead of flopping around. That looks like a real live seizure to me. The videographer stated the victim did get right up after the cops showed up as reported on The Smoking Gun, link below. Not sure I believe him since he's laughing at the fight and telling the perps to leave before the cops show up. And I'm not sure how quickly one can come out of a seizure and be back to normal, or as normal as you might be after a beating like that.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster...128?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Neplusultra]

Was she a victim though?
I have no idea what started it.

The loser isn't always a victim.

The two girls came back REPEATEDLY to get some more licks in. I guess they went outside to see if the cops were showing up yet and after determining there were no sirens went back in.

This is a bad indication. They were not defending themselves and revealed they knew what they were doing was at least illegal as the videographer also revealed when he suggested they leave before the cops show up.

I like Ed's response best so far. I don't like the idea of getting into a fist fight with irrational people while wearing a gun. My fear would be the girls would immediately challenge and approach once a gun is produced, necessitating IMO shooting them. I cannot imagine allowing someone like that near me, especially when there is two, giving them a chance to grab my gun. Does that justify deadly force as Ed put it?

 

[Neplusultra]

Take a good hard look at the deadly force laws in VA. We have no clue how it started. When you are armed you have to be alert to what is going on. There is no sign of deadly force in the video. Draw down on them and you will get a free ride and 18.2-282 charge.

Not so;

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony

 

[Blk97F150]

Not so;

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony

Is "self-defense" defined as stopping an attack on another person.... or just yourself?

 

[45acpForMe]

...guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony

It would just be my luck that if I ever intervened it would be in a McDonalds with a school across the street. :-( So you had better be right about intervening which makes any case like this difficult for those wanting to do the right thing. :-(

 

[user]

I thought SouthernBoy's answer was the best one so far.

Here's the legalese translation of what he said: "If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, that you or another innocent person is faced with an imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then the use of necessary force, including deadly force, is excusable."

So:
Was the "victim" an "innocent person" (i.e., not a pickpocket, didn't start the fight, etc.)?
Are we certain that at the time we came upon the altercation, we knew that the "victim" was innocent and that the "assailants" were not undercover cops attempting to effect an arrest?

There's no question that there was a threat of an immediate and serious bodily injury - it doesn't have to be potentially lethal. The differential physical potential between the attacker and the victim may justify the use of deadly force, even in the absence of a weapon.

And, a minor technical point relating to the OP: "justification" is when the use of deadly force is "justified"; i.e., just, right, and proper, such as when an agent of the state (military or police) use deadly force appropriately in the line of duty. When you do it because it's a self-defense / defense of others situation, that's "excusable" homicide.

Think back to the days of the monarchy, when the peasants were the property of the king. If I'm the Lord of East Saxony (now, "Essex"), and I kill a peasant belonging to the Lord of West Saxony ("Wessex"), then I owe damages just as if I'd killed my neighbor's horse. But I can kill my own peasant, or horse, if I want to. They're mine, and I can do as I wish with them, and not have to answer to anyone. If the king's Sheriff or Knight kills a "subject" in the course of implementing the king's rule and dominion, that's "good, just, right, and proper" ("it is meet and right so to do"). That's a "justified" killing. When one of the peasants kills another for a good and legally recognized reason, that peasant may be "excused".

So the simple answer is, "yes", but you'd dam'well better know what you're doing and who all these people are.

 

[buster81]

All I know is what I've seen in the Liveleak video, which is that I have no idea who any of these people are, nor do I know who started what. I do feel that whatever was taking place, was out of hand. I feel the best course of action would be to call 911, and place myself between the person in the blue top (man or women) and the animals doing the beating. When the manager put himself in their way, the animals backed off.

I can also understand those that may not feel comfortable with putting themselves in this position because they are not equipped either physically or mentally to take this action. You have to make your own decisions in these issues on what and how to respond. Having been involved in a situation where I foolishly put myself between two people who were in a physical disagreement, and where neither of them wanted my assistance, I have learned that other people are unpredictable, and that I must take caution when/where I offer my assistance to them.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP So the simple answer is, "yes", but you'd dam'well better know what you're doing and who all these people are.

Great post, User. Thanks for the info.

I love this forum. Just reading this thread, I've shifted my thinking three times: the benefits of the educational process from talking it through. And, getting learned input from experienced legal professionals.

Now, I'm more in the camp of the earlier poster who mentioned getting between the victim and the attackers.

Let me pose a question/invite comment. First let me say the situation below assumes the OCer wants to help/just cannot stand idly by and let a victim be badly injured or killed. It is a deliberate assumption that also recognizes any actual situation may sway someone into just being a good witness without further involvement.

Lets say I see such an assault as in the video, in a very similar setting. What if:

I command, "Stop!" a number of times as I advance to the victim's assistance, gun holstered. Then, the assault continuing, my command ignored, I rush and shove one attacker out of the way--hard. I am momentarily down to one attacker. A few body or jaw punches gives the other attacker pause (maybe). Now, I've created a lull in the assault. At this point, I command, "This fight is over!" placing myself between the victim and the attackers, hand on holstered gun. "What the hell is all this about!?!" "You! Answer me! NOW!" (ethics presence) (also, hand comes off the holstered gun if no physical counter- attack.)

Now what? (comments please)

I've committed to defending the victim. Now, the attackers either back down, or attack me. But, either way, I'm now in it. If counter-attacked, I could always retreat and leave the victim to further injury. Assuming the victim doesn't just get up and leave during the lull. But, lets assume for the moment, I'm committed to preventing further attack on the victim.

I guess what I'm really trying to do is figure out the possibilities so I can evaluate more precisely whether helping is too dangerous.

 

[skidmark]

Citizen -

You have moved about half-way through the use-of-force continuum, going from physical presence (getting between the two [supposed] assailants and the [supposed] victim, used command voice to order everybody to cease and desist, and gone to soft hands by pushing folks apart/away. Presuming that you do not have OC spray, taser, and a baton on your bat belt you may now be limited to lethal force as your next step up the continuum. (Old, decrepit geezers like me may in fact have our AARP cane with us, giving us that intermediate tool between empty hands and lethal force. Not that I'm suggesting that folks accelerate their physical deterioration just so they can also carry an AARP cane.)

What you have not discussed yet is further separating the [supposed] assailtants and the [supposed] victim by such tactics as getting the manager to lock the [supposed] victim in their office until the police arrive and/or having the exterior doors locked once the [supposed] assailants are moved outside. You also have not indicated that you either called 9-1-1 before intervening or commanded someone else to call 9-1-1 and summon the police and medical assistance, or that you were aware that someone has already called for the police and medical assistance.

The gun is mere hardware. It is the software that decides when/if and how the hardware is used.

Hope you are now even more conflexed and perfused than you were at 3:03 PM.

stay safe.

 

[Citizen]

Citizen -Hope you are now even more conflexed and perfused than you were at 3:03 PM. stay safe.

No, no, no! Great points.

It happens to me that as I write a post I see or think of new angles, new considerations. You know, as you work your way through the problem analytically, new things pop to mind. I deliberately left out three that occurred to me--left them out rather than keep writing what might end up being a full-page post. You touched on two of those in your post.

1. It dawned on me that I was working my way through a force continuum. Then I asked myself, why didn't I think of that earlier? Well, because:

2. The thread question was whether lethal force was justified, which took a side-step towards whether to get involved. If the thread had started with the question, "I want to help the victim, what is the smart force continuum?", the thread discussion would have already arrived here. So, I was being a bit of a dummy and just following along on the already established discussion.

3. I realized the situation could go in any number of directions. You touched on this when you mentioned separating the victim into the manager's offfice. I had realized that in any given situation the attackers could just run. Or, just start making angry argumentative accusations agains the victim--meaning they actually answer the question I demanded, "What is all this about!?!" It occurred to me that one can only plan so much. Otherwise, you gotta wing it while trying to take enough control to prevent the victim being injured worse.

Which I guess is a big point. Take control. Take control. If that fails, create a negotiating position where the attackers don't care to try to injure the victim further. Which reminds me. One can't really take control unless he takes responsibility. Seizes the initiative.

Good point on needing to call police and ambulance, too. I guess at some point it would occur to me to ask another to call. Don't know that it would occur to me at inception; I suspect that on any given Thurs I might be tired or something, and it might not occur to me until the immediate threat to the victim's life was abated.