Beating at a NY McDonalds (*NSFW)

[FArchivist]

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.

Since a knife is considered to be a 'deadly weapon', it's usually acceptable to return fire, yes. There's plenty of caselaw supporting that.

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

Castle doctrine is also very prevalent here in GA. I can't say I'm fond of it, but that's simply because of how it's structured here. It disturbs me that I can hear a knock, open the door, see the two Mormon boys witnessing, and shoot them in face immediately. I would prefer to see the law tightened significantly.

However, this took place in NYC and New York's law on the matter states only specific situations in which one is allowed to use deadly force...and this isn't one of them. In fact, the cashier is required to retreat in such a case. That's part of why he's in trouble now. And the force he used? Deadly. Also a problem, as his situation is not when in which the law in that jurisdiction justifies deadly force.

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.

Except that excuse doesn't fly in a court-martial. Or in a courtroom. It's been used several times and each time it gets slapped down. One of the basic rules on self-defense is that you are supposed to have control over your own actions and losing control and 'just reacting' is no excuse.

Besides that, he didn't immobilize them. He knocked them to the ground and then he pretty damn savagely went over them with the rod. I was reminded of the scenes from the Batman comic when the Joker killed a tied-up Jason Todd with a crowbar. Those weren't frenzied swings or panicked swings; they were deliberate strokes designed to punish.

This is why he is getting charged; he went BEYOND reasonable self-defense and into vengeance.

[Gravekeeper]

Besides that, he didn't immobilize them. He knocked them to the ground and then he pretty damn savagely went over them with the rod.

Not really, watch the video. He only delivers two swings to the most aggressive of the two ( Counter hopper ) after she goes down and in fairness, we can't see behind the counter to see if she's after his legs/balls or some such. But she was the bigger threat regardless, she's the aggressor. She started it. She went after him. He doesn't know what she's going to do, or if she might be armed or anything. But after that he backs off and only swings again after the other one gets back up, at which point he whacks her twice and yells at her to stay down again.

In fact, the entire time he was yelling at both of them to stay down.

Neither moron has been charged with assault either. Despite clearly assaulting him in the video. Gender is probably the only thing keeping the headline from being "McDonalds Cashier Heroically Fends Off Assailants" to be honest.

[Racket_Man]

GK,

thanks for posting a link with enhanced video. iin the video I linked to I could not see some of the action in the corner when the guy starts hitting the assaliants

I finally figured out what the guy is swinging. it is a (do not know the proper name) fryer "poker". it is a crooked shaped aluminum or steel "wire" (about 3/8 inch in diameter) with a handle that is used to poke into a deep fryer and to unclog the pipe used to empty the fryer into the filtering machine. this particular piece of "equipment" is very light in weight but somewhat strudy

this object was not a pipe or anything like that.

[Rageaholic]

God that blonde woman is annoying "STOP! STOP! STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!!!!".

[Gravekeeper]

I finally figured out what the guy is swinging. it is a (do not know the proper name) fryer "poker". it is a crooked shaped aluminum or steel "wire" (about 3/8 inch in diameter) with a handle that is used to poke into a deep fryer and to unclog the pipe used to empty the fryer into the filtering machine. this particular piece of "equipment" is very light in weight but somewhat strudy

Been wondering what that was. It certainly wasn't a huge pipe or rod like the news is going on about. It was way too thin and had a bit of a whip too it, which is probably why it managed to cause any real damage at all.

This thing?

[Sleepwalker]

Those things vary in thickness and flexibility. The one at my store is a good quarter inch thick. Get a strong arm behind it, and you can maim and kill. I'm very lacking in upper body strength, and I'm pretty sure I could take down someone with it if I caught them by surprise.

[KitterCat]

To go on a tangent here, I have to admit I sort of find it funny that on various threads here almost everybody agrees that sometimes force is needed in dealing with bullies. If a kid who’s being bullied finally snaps and beats the bully up we’re all for it. The bully got what they deserved and hopefully will learn from their lesson. Often times its even after people in authority sided with the bully and punish the victim.

In my mind we’ve got the same thing going on here. This guy is being abused, he’s been verbally and physically attacked and the bullies are going after him. Is it any wonder that he decides to defend himself? This idea that people who are being victimized are suppose to figure out in a matter of milliseconds what their attacker is actually going to do and respond based on that is ludicrous. You don’t tell a victim “you didn’t read your assailants mind and know that they weren’t out for blood, just wanted to give you a beating, so we’re going to jail you since you acted on the actions they displayed hitting you and coming after you instead of laying in the corner and letting them beat you up.”

Am I the only one who’s left shaking their heads when someone gets arrested simply because they were picked on a fight and won? This idea that some states have implemented where you cant defend your self unless your using like for like (fists/fists knife/knife gun/gun) is pretty dumb. They seem to have forgotten that just because the victim won the fight doesn’t mean that they started it.

[Gravekeeper]

Those things vary in thickness and flexibility. The one at my store is a good quarter inch thick. Get a strong arm behind it, and you can maim and kill. I'm very lacking in upper body strength, and I'm pretty sure I could take down someone with it if I caught them by surprise.

I would say the reason it can deal damage is because its flexible. So it has a bit of a whip crack too it on the swing. You'd really need to work someone's skull over to kill though. Unless you got in a few lucky shots with that curled bit on the end.

Am I the only one who’s left shaking their heads when someone gets arrested simply because they were picked on a fight and won?

Interesting point. I'd be willing to be there would be much less of a deal made about this if he had been injured by one of the two of them before he injured them. If they had broken his nose or something, this would be less of a big deal. In fact if he had been even slightly less proactive and they got another few swings in before he got to the rod, I bet it wouldn't be as big a deal.

But this guys been in prison, and I imagine after a few years in prison you learn that if you're attacked, you've *got* to go all out and end it fast. Or you're gonna get seriously hurt.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I
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.

I'm a woman, and I'm strong. I also know how to fight; I'm sure I could beat on some guy, especially if I had a friend to help me.

To my mind, this guy did all he could to defend himself against two crazy bitches who were intent on beating him up. There wasn't anything else he could do; one of those women actually vaulted the damn counter in order to hit him. Fight or flight response kicking in; he tries to get away from Crazy Bitch #1 but then her friend runs round to cut him off. So there's really nothing else to do apart from fight them off, or stand there and get his head kicked in.

The guy could have died; let's say he just stood there and tried to fend them off with his hands. One of the women could have knocked him down, he could have smashed his head on the counter and died. Therefore, seeing as he was in risk of losing his life, he had every right to defend himself and make sure they no longer posed a risk.

[Racket_Man]

Been wondering what that was. It certainly wasn't a huge pipe or rod like the news is going on about. It was way too thin and had a bit of a whip too it, which is probably why it managed to cause any real damage at all.

This thing?

this is exactly what it is except most that I have seen/used are more square than flat.

[aurelemsrealm]

Based on what I've seen in the videos, I think the women brought it on themselves. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. I think the cashier was justified in defending himself as he did. I probably would have done what I thought was necessary to defend myself, too.

I also agree with whoever said the blonde woman screaming to stop was just annoying. I realize it's hard to witness such a violent act, and not have a horrified reaction. I'm sure I would have been stunned to say the least. However, I can't help but think she was grating on my nerves.

[insertNameHere]

Am I the only one who’s left shaking their heads when someone gets arrested simply because they were picked on a fight and won? This idea that some states have implemented where you cant defend your self unless your using like for like (fists/fists knife/knife gun/gun) is pretty dumb. They seem to have forgotten that just because the victim won the fight doesn’t mean that they started it.

Nope, im with you. And actually they seem to think unless you lay their and take it you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself a victim. I intend to never have to look for work in a non-castle doctrine state because I think it is bullshit that if I'm sitting in my kitchen eating and someone decides to kick my front door in, that i'm supposed to go running out the back door. NOT gonna happen! Granted Castle doesn't apply at work (would be nice if it did) but I can't imagine how bad the laws for "defending" yourself in public are if you can't even stand ground in your own home.

[PepperElf]

i saw this on another message board. one of the things people pointed out there was that the man acted somewhat similar to the police...

IIRC when he was defending himself she kept going at him.

now among the gun-communities i am in the phrase used most for self-defense is "Neutralize the target". It doesn't specifically mean you shoot, kill or beat the person up but... you take what steps you need to protect yourself and once the person is no longer a threat you stop.

it's hard to see from that camera angle but... it seemed a bit like he was ensuring she didn't get back up to go at him again.

I can see where his thought were going... "she jumped the counter to go at me, i protected myself with this metal bar... and seconds later she's trying to get back up"

i can see where he may think she was not a neutralized target.


if anything it's a little like when the police try to subdue someone who keeps trying to get back up. well except that he's not a cop.


in a way though i feel bad for him too.
if is was store policy to check bills over a certain amount he was doing what he was suppose to do.
and when she jumped the counter... he had the right to protect himself.

but it's cheaper to fire him vs supporting him and entertaining a court case.

of course there will be differences in opinion on whether or not he used enough or too much in defending himself but.... well then again if someone is angry enough to jump the counter, and angry enough to come at you even after you try beating them off... then it may be that he had the right of it.

[lordlundar]

Nope, im with you. And actually they seem to think unless you lay their and take it you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself a victim. I intend to never have to look for work in a non-castle doctrine state because I think it is bullshit that if I'm sitting in my kitchen eating and someone decides to kick my front door in, that i'm supposed to go running out the back door. NOT gonna happen! Granted Castle doesn't apply at work (would be nice if it did) but I can't imagine how bad the laws for "defending" yourself in public are if you can't even stand ground in your own home.

Umm, that's a misunderstanding of castle doctrine, or more appropriately a lack of castle doctrine.

Castle doctrine dictates that you can use lethal force on someone for the relatively minor crime of break and entering. So if a thief breaks into your house unarmed you can shoot or otherwise kill him without any further provocation. That's the separation, the actual use of lethal force without further provocation.. If given the above example you greet someone with a rifle pointed at them, unless they make a threatening move towards you, you cannot respond with lethal force. So if that person runs away, you cannot pursue and kill him.

A lack of castle doctrine does not prohibit self defense, it just requires that a threat be applied on the person for equal force to be applied.

[Beckpatton]

Like another poster said, hard to have sympathy for anyone involved.. yes they asked for trouble when they got violent after being questioned over the validity of their $50, but he seems to have gone a little far in his reaction.. sure they were coming for him, and he had every right to defend himself.. but those extra whacks were a but much...

I just hope they dont hold his criminal history against him.. he served his time, was again possibly a self defence case.... has nothing to do with this case..