Me personally, as soon as he pushed me ( I think thats what I saw happen ) I'd be throwing hands... a few thugs who puss out when caught don't scare me. Now if a weapon comes into play. Thats another story... However, I personally would have let him steal my bike as I was on the phone following his ass.. ( I did exactly that when I saw someone stealing my little brother go ped. )
Doesn't the statement "I'm going to beat you up" constitute assault or at least the threat of grave bodily harm? I would think if someone was faced with that threat and felt for their safety they would be legally able to defend themselves with force.
I would have had one hand on my gun in case anything escalated and the other calling police to report that I'd been assaulted.
I would have had one hand on my gun in case anything escalated and the other calling police to report that I'd been assaulted.
As soon as the kid with the grille offers to beat him up... that's a simple assault. When he takes the step forward... that's time to show the little freind.
Thugs run in packs ... that turned 3 on 1. As soon as the others arrive from the close station and make a fuss... that's "fear for my life" territory.
About the only "legal" choice is to cut and run...or better yet... just let those guys steal the bike and never say a word.
I see Palm trees? California? If was in South Florida the thugs run a high chance of hitting a CCW "victim" ...only the dumb ones would stick around to find out if there is a gun in your pocket.
For those of you who are saying "no gun play"... would night, in an ally, or parking garage change your mind?
If this is real (who vids all the time?) The Mall Cops would be looking for a job.
It sounds like there is a valid defense for "fear for my life." The main guy is threatening violence, and he has two other people with him. Those odds mean the victim could be "in fear for his life." If I am in fear of my losing my life, then my gun could definitely come in play. However, there was never a punch thrown and at least one other person was attempting to diffuse the situation, so from the video, I did not see enough to pull a firearm.
Also, I am an armed security guard, and at a minimum, I would have run off the thug, while also calling police, but most likely I would have arrested him for attempted theft. There is the issue of actually witnessing a misdemeaner, if I did not witness the act, then I would have protected the property until the owner could be sorted out. On duty, I could not stand by and let someone make threats against another individual, I would have been in the middle of them, and been ready to use force if necessary. (Pepper spray, baton, etc.)
Also, I am an armed security guard, and at a minimum, I would have run off the thug, while also calling police, but most likely I would have arrested him for attempted theft. There is the issue of actually witnessing a misdemeaner, if I did not witness the act, then I would have protected the property until the owner could be sorted out. On duty, I could not stand by and let someone make threats against another individual, I would have been in the middle of them, and been ready to use force if necessary. (Pepper spray, baton, etc.)
Looks like this was in Long Beach California, based on the Community College shirt and the mall sign had what appeared to be Long Beach city code cited on it.
To me it looks like the camera man touched the other guy (white shirt) first, and the other guys (red and black shirt) actually got between them to stop a fight.
No one handled it well. You cannot tell some security person to detain a person for stealing a lock they cut off a bike. You cannot tell someone they cannot leave even if you see them with your property. I wouldn't say that there was a disparity of force, as only one person threatened great bodily harm; I would argue the other two were actually pretty mellow. I suspect a one-on-one fist fight and they are both adult males (guessing on cameraman by his voice and being healthy enough to putt around on his bike, since he was not visible) would likely not pass the litmus test for use of deadly force.
If it were my bike? I'd take it and leave, and buy a new lock.
From what I understand, not necessarily. If there is not a disparity of force, i.e. two similarly sized men with no other weapons, it is not likely he could cause more grave physical harm to you as you could him, since you may very well kick his ass with your fists. There is no disparity of force, you have no reason to escalate the violence from a fist right to a gun fight at that point.
Now, if he threatened gun, or had a knife, or a doorknob in a sock, then that changes the scenario. Or if the victim is elderly or disabled, that changes the scenario. If this is on your own property and someone is breaking and entering... that changes the scenario,
But all other things equal, the threat of just an butt-whoopin' from someone with whom you are equally matched is not always considered grave bodily harm.
"like this was in Long Beach California, based on the Community College shirt and the mall sign had what appeared to be Long Beach city code cited on it."
And no one (except some celebrities) goes armed in California? Oh... and gremlins, too.
In those "other states" that adopted CCW laws the last few years the bad guys are pretty aware of the fact that they run good odds of finding a mark who can "defend" themselfs with a gun.
The whole attitude we see in that vid... I've seen it in "non gun" Chicago... and the inverse across the State line in the Indiana suburbs. I lived in Florida when we got CCW... and things changed there too.
That hood rat and the "bystanders" reeked of "you can't touch me". In those areas I mentioned 'you shouldnt touch me-- but I won't stick around to see if you will" is the correct response.
And no one (except some celebrities) goes armed in California? Oh... and gremlins, too.
In those "other states" that adopted CCW laws the last few years the bad guys are pretty aware of the fact that they run good odds of finding a mark who can "defend" themselfs with a gun.
The whole attitude we see in that vid... I've seen it in "non gun" Chicago... and the inverse across the State line in the Indiana suburbs. I lived in Florida when we got CCW... and things changed there too.
That hood rat and the "bystanders" reeked of "you can't touch me". In those areas I mentioned 'you shouldnt touch me-- but I won't stick around to see if you will" is the correct response.
Words alone do not constitute assault.
Words + Imminent danger (ie: a means to carry out said threat or menacing) constitutes the legal definition of assault.
The justified use of force, deadly or non-deadly, is governed by the "reasonable man doctrine".
Under "SYG" protection ,one can only meet force with an equal level of force. One cannot use deadly force unless encompassed with DF or a reasonable FOD/SBH.
Whomever feels the need to jump to deadly force too quickly may be relying too much on their deadly force tool. People need to stock their personal defense cadre with ample non-deadly force tools or else it may be better for them (criminally or civil-wise) if they never leave their house
Means...
Method...
Opportunity...
You get to Choose ...How much of an Ask Whoppin, your gonna Take
Method...
Opportunity...
You get to Choose ...How much of an Ask Whoppin, your gonna Take
Similar threads
