Beating at a NY McDonalds (*NSFW)

[FArchivist]

I think the cashier was justified at what he did.

One of these women physically assaulted him. The cashier gets mad, but he is moving away from the situation. The two women come after him, one by jumping over the counter (who I believe slapped dude and got the worst of it) with her friend going around the counter possibly seeking an enterance to the kitchen.

He was under threat..

Ah, but it's not enough to be under threat.
If you are attacked, you are allowed to defend yourself with equal force. If I punch you, you are not allowed to pull a gun and empty the clip in me. That negates your self-defense.

In this case, he went way beyond 'equal force'. The beating he delivered was not equivalent to the harm he received, or even close to it.

[Rapscallion]

In this case, he went way beyond 'equal force'. The beating he delivered was not equivalent to the harm he received, or even close to it.

How about what he was likely to receive? We're talking about two drunk and angry people who seemed to think a suitable response to having their note being checked for forgery is to go over the counter and physically assault the worker.

That's not rational. That's not proportionate. They were out for blood and looking for any excuse.

Yes, his actions were against the law on self defence, and I'll say again it's quite likely in the heat of the moment that I'd have taken the same path.

How much of castle doctrine can be said to apply here? More curious than anything, but can that extend to the workplace as well as home? It's an area where you should feel safe from intruders.

Rapscallion

[Canarr]

I agree that there's a serious double-standard at work, here. If the cashier'd been female, and the two customers male, nobody would be even considering locking her up.

Also, the charges against him? Felony assault, okay; somewhat understandable, if his actions went beyond the boundaries of self-defense. But "criminal possession of a weapon"? He didn't pull a baton from his apron, he picked up some tool that was lying around his workplace; how is that criminal possession of a weapon? That seems kinda strange to me.

Personally, I find men hitting women as disgusting as the next decent person. But two drunk(?), aggressive women attacking me? I'd be looking to defend myself, as well. They might be physically weaker, individually; but if they manage to get you on the ground between them, they can still do a shitload of damage. Can't say I wouldn't have done the same he did.

[Boozy]

Ah, but it's not enough to be under threat.
If you are attacked, you are allowed to defend yourself with equal force. If I punch you, you are not allowed to pull a gun and empty the clip in me. That negates your self-defense.\

I have a question about this. I hope not to derail the thread too badly, but I've always wondered: How is equal force applied when the assailant and victim are of unequal strength?

I think any reasonable person would agree that shooting someone who has thrown a punch at you is overkill, but simply throwing a punch back may not be feasible as self-defence. To use domestic violence as an example: If my husband were to punch me with his full strength, I'd possibly get knocked out. If I were to throw a punch back, I might chip one of his teeth. And that's if I landed the punch to begin with, which based on playful wrestling with him over the years, is terribly unlikely. He's much stronger and faster than me.

So if I were married to an abuser, I'd need a weapon to defend myself. The problem is that using a knife or gun or even a baseball bat could inflict much greater damage than a punch, just by the nature of the weapon. Shooting someone couldn't be considered equal force to a punch in the face, even if it was someone's only option.

I'm curious as to how the law handles this sort of thing. Anyone know?

[bara]

I have a question about this. I hope not to derail the thread too badly, but I've always wondered: How is equal force applied when the assailant and victim are of unequal strength?

I'm curious as to how the law handles this sort of thing. Anyone know?

Ive heard of several cases you are describing. Women have in the past been legally justified in court when a male assailant is being threatening/attacking of using a weapon of some sort. In a few of these cases the assailint was wounded or killed.

The legal reasoning is the man's size of being the determining factor. I dont think it derails the thread at all. In this case the assaulted man was out numbered two to one. The threat is obvious. Two people beating on one can do massive damage if they manage to get him down/cornered. He was in a small area with little room to manuever, they instigated and chased him when he backed away. I feel he was justified in using a weapon to defend himself.

I cannot see what happened behind the counter. That he was hitting them was obvious. But that he was not blindly pounding them was as well. I think he was hitting them in an effort to keep them down only when they attempted to get up/assault him again. Did he go to far? Maybe. But is it understandable. Maybe to that as well. Based on what I can see, I cannot say that I feel he should be charged with a felony. Misdeamor maybe.

He was attacked by two women. He used a weapon to defend himself and then made damn sure they no longer could threaten them. I cant say I would do any differently.

[SkullKing]

If I punch you, you are not allowed to pull a gun and empty the clip in me. That negates your self-defense.

I am if I can reasonably believe that you wont stop after a single puch. And may cause greivous harm or death.

It does not negates self-defense. He wasnt beating two helpless people, he put them in a situation where they weren´t a threat(floor) and attcking when they tried to go be a threat again(get up)

Perfectly justified, and I might well have done worse in his place.

[DrFaroohk]

Let's take a trip down hypothetical lane...


Pretend the cops come in, see this situation, and say "Everything's ok here." Because the law of the land is that if you go up to someone and start violent shit like that, then anything that happens to you is your own fault. Whether they got beaten, murdered, raped, doused is frying oil.

What would be so terrible about that? I mean really....I am of the opinion the world would be a much, much better place. There would be a lot less of this happening, because you'd know that if you throw your soda at the cashier, he might kill you and be justified in doing so. Wouldn't that make everyone happier? Customers wouldn't be so stupid and employees wouldn't be so homicidal and crazy.

[bara]

Let's take a trip down hypothetical lane...


Pretend the cops come in, see this situation, and say "Everything's ok here." Because the law of the land is that if you go up to someone and start violent shit like that, then anything that happens to you is your own fault. Whether they got beaten, murdered, raped, doused is frying oil.

We can dream cant we? Though I have to exclude the rape part. That is never justified under any extent. Beaten, killed, maimed beyond recogntion Im okay with that. Personally Id like 'thrown into a pit of hungry honey badgers' to be added to the list.

But cleaning up frying oil would be a pain in the ass.

[Panacea]

QFT! And may I use this as a signature line? It's absolutely spot on!

Absolutely! Help yourself

. But he wasn't there, I would of hurt that bitch. I hate violence against women by men, but if she hits first, let's go.

As well you should. I hate the double standard that says it's "OK" for a girl to hit a guy but not for a guy to hit a girl. It's NOT ok for a girl to hit a guy and not expect him to hit back! Not OK at all.

Both women were intoxicated per news update. ( Surprise suprise ). Also, I didn't notice the first time around, but turns out he's yelling "Stay down" at them and only smacking them when they get back up to keep fighting.

That changes things a bit in my mind in favor of the cashier. If they were trying to get up, then they were continuing to be a threat and he has a right to continue defending himself.

How much of castle doctrine can be said to apply here? More curious than anything, but can that extend to the workplace as well as home? It's an area where you should feel safe from intruders.

Rapscallion

The castle doctrine does not apply at all here. It only applies to the inside of ones own home. You can't chase a burglar down the street with a gun, for example, even if the altercation started in your home. You have to stop at your doorstep.

You have the right to defend yourself anywhere, though. The castle doctrine lets you use extreme force to defend yourself; here in North Carolina I could kill a burglar even if he were unarmed, and the law would assume I believed I was in danger and had a right to use lethal force.

I agree that there's a serious double-standard at work, here. If the cashier'd been female, and the two customers male, nobody would be even considering locking her up.

The double standard did get applied here. The two bitches were charged with several crimes, but NOT with Battery, which they should have been.

[lordlundar]

I have a question about this. I hope not to derail the thread too badly, but I've always wondered: How is equal force applied when the assailant and victim are of unequal strength?

There's a term for that called force multiplication. Basically it's an addition outside of training or knowledge that increases ones effectiveness in the role they're performing. A wooden stick for example gives extra length, damage potential, and endurance (by not directly injuring the one swinging) to someone, and a steel pipe is an even greater force multiplier due to it's density (aka it does more damage).

Military forces use them almost consistently to give them as much of an advantage as possible, but in your example, it can be utilized to even the odds so to speak.

[insertNameHere]

Ah, but it's not enough to be under threat.
If you are attacked, you are allowed to defend yourself with equal force. If I punch you, you are not allowed to pull a gun and empty the clip in me. That negates your self-defense.

In this case, he went way beyond 'equal force'. The beating he delivered was not equivalent to the harm he received, or even close to it.

At least in ohio if you fear great bodily harm it is acceptable to opt for deadly/"excessive" force. For instance if you come at me with a knife and are intending to harm me should I WAIT to get stabbed or put a few rounds center mass in an effort to subdue the attack.

And the castle doctrine was mentioned, fun Ohio Fact, it applies to your car as well.

Back to the topic, I am not a fan of equal force, you come and punch me, I return a punch, your obviously going to punch me back and the attacker most likely has the objective in beating me to the point I can't move. WHY should I let it come to that. If the aggressor gets put in their place by getting hit with a metal rod oh well.

From what I remember from that video I didn't see him with his arms out saying "Hey bitches come back here and we will sort this out prison style". When those women rushed the cashier, they were no longer women but attackers who needed to be immobilized. Also, if this guy had been in prison I hear it is common that unless you can defend yourself your fucked. He just did what anyone from a prison would do, make sure the attacker doesn't get a chance to fuck you up and that anyone else who would want to harm you thinks twice.

Same go with former soldiers who get into a bar fight and react without thinking because a lot of the training was how to react and not really consider what you needed to do. then end up seriously fucking a group of people up. They were put into a situation where unless you could react quickly with little thought to afterwards you wouldn't survive and that became part of them.

[Gravekeeper]

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8kHB_1_gfk

Turn on HD, turn it up and full screen it. Not only can you hear the diatribe being thrown at him ( "Do something! Do something! Pussy! Get the fuck out of here!" ) and you know that must have been going on for a while to begin with. Which is what prompted someone to start filming.

You can clearly see her first swing ( it looks like she might have gotten a second shot in there too). Its out of no where and he was completely calm before it. Then Idiot #2 vaults the counter almost immediately ( and she clearly means business ), he goes running, Idiot #1 goes around the counter, he comes back with a rod of some sort he grabs in the kitchen and starts whacking till they go down. You can hear him yell "Stay down" at them several times, and he only resumes the whacks at the 45 second mark when Idiot #1 gets back up. You can see her pop up if you full screen it.

So two people come after him, with obvious intentions to attack, he runs and grabs something to defend himself, smacks em both till they go down, yells at them to stay down and then he stops and you can see him back off and relax until Idiot #1 gets back up at the 45 second mark. Which earns her a couple more whacks and he yells at them to stay down again.

So I would surmise that we're correct in assuming if the genders had been reversed, or if even one of the assailants had been male, there wouldn't be near as much bruhaha over this.

[Nyoibo]

So I would surmise that we're correct in assuming if the genders had been reversed, or if even one of the assailants had been male, there wouldn't be near as much bruhaha over this.

If it was a woman and the attackers were male She'd have been made into a hero and would be doing the talk/morning show circuit right now.

The inequality pisses me off no end, I know a fair few women who are very strong a punch from one of them could knock you the fuck out, most of them are aerialists, their upper body strength is amazing, their whole career relies on them being able to support and lift their whole body weight by their arms for several minutes at a time, I've known several women when I was training in Ninjutsu who knew more ways to kill you than you have fingers, I've seen them bring guys 2-3 times their size to their knees in pain, don't tell me any one of them, let alone more than one couldn't seriously damage someone if they wanted to.

[Rageaholic]

Is he still facing charges for this? I don't think he should be charged for self defense.

[Eisa]

If it was a woman and the attackers were male She'd have been made into a hero and would be doing the talk/morning show circuit right now.

The inequality pisses me off no end, I know a fair few women who are very strong a punch from one of them could knock you the fuck out, most of them are aerialists, their upper body strength is amazing, their whole career relies on them being able to support and lift their whole body weight by their arms for several minutes at a time, I've known several women when I was training in Ninjutsu who knew more ways to kill you than you have fingers, I've seen them bring guys 2-3 times their size to their knees in pain, don't tell me any one of them, let alone more than one couldn't seriously damage someone if they wanted to.

This. The women should have been charged with battery. It was self-defense for him. His prior criminal history sucks, but I don't think it has any bearing on this at all. He could have been a Boy Scout troop leader, never been in trouble in his life, and been justified. And I probably would have done the same thing. Two crazy bitches coming over the counter to try and beat me up? They are going down by any means necessary...I'm not gonna just stand there and let them beat the shit out of me, sorry.