If this video had ended in deadly force... would it be justified?

[rogerjames]

OK. Several declarations need to be made here.

The video is a verbal/physical conflict with foul language.

I encountered this video on a local gun forum in the "lounge" area. The video itself is NOT RKBA related, however... the series of events that transpire could have very easily escalated to a "deadly force" situation and I am conflicted whether deadly force could have been justified.

I feel the "beat down" that was delivered was deserved without question.

Although the victim moved away from the instigator, he verbally engaged and escalated the situation both before and after changing seats, so my question is... if the victim was legally carrying and this ended with deadly force... would this be a justified shooting?

Here goes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjMPT6ZT03k

 

[pikid89]

i would have to say no, but im no expert,

btw, did anyone else see the camera person lift the dudes bag throw it on the seat and say "hey go through that s***"

 

[kingpin008]

Even though he was verbally instigating, he did move away to get away from the guy. And yeah, he was still talking smack from the other seat, but the "victim" chose to continue to advance and continue the altercation "up close and personal", as it were.

 

[cskny]

I couldn't tell, who actually hit first. I couldn't see with the camera angle.

Amazing what can happen when stupid people can't shut up.

 

[eight433]

No. He did a fine job with his hands anyways.

This guy seems quite unstable. Since this has happened, many interviews are starting to pop up of this guy, as well as the woman who recorded it. The older gentleman is a 'Nam vet, as well as an ex drug user/dealer who did I believe 16 years in prison. He also claims to carry a shiv, which he apparently did not feel the need to brandish on this occasion.
Search for "Tom Slick" or "Epic Beard Man"

 

[cbrgator]

I would say no use of deadly force was authorized. There was no imminent death or great bodily harm.

 

[devildog32713]

Im going to refer to them as Mr. Black and Mr. White, not for racial differences, but for simplicity, as it is hard to tell who instigated, both were verbally escalating, however, Mr. White DID move away, yes he continued to use profanity, but he DID move away, Mr. Black pride got hurt, he went up to him, and HE started the fight, HE threw the first punch, Mr. White defended himself, a little bit of overkill, but he defended himself, I doubt it could have been justified if deadly force had been used, as Mr. Black hadn't produced a weapon, Mr. Black needs to learn to control his temper, Mr. White too, but considering he is a vet, a lot of vets go through stuff that sticks with ya, but then again he has been involved wih drugs. Mr. Black is lucky that he wasn't seriously injured.
The honorable devildog32713 sides with Mr. White, BANG, adjurned

 

[cskny]

I think these are 2 idiots that probably deserve to have this ridiculous video on YouTube. There's no good or bad guy in that to me, they both instigate and obviously have anger issues. In Mr. White's credit, he did move, he just should have shut up.

But as other's said, I don't think deadly force was justifiable by either one.

 

[shockwave]

Ah the good ol' AC Transit line! Used to ride that to work. There are a lot of passengers from Oakland CA on those, going back and forth across the bay, and I witnessed several fights similar to the one shown. As the risk of armed assailants is very high, neither passengers nor driver can be counted on for assistance. If something breaks out and you're in it, you'll probably have to handle it on your own.

As to the content of the video, it speaks for itself. But there's a very important point to notice at the 2:45 mark: The woman shooting the video says to the punk, "we can press charges, I got it on video tape." It would behoove the vet to file a police report and get his version in first.

 

[230therapy]

Mr. Ambulamps* punched Mr. White. Mr. White then punched Mr. Ambulamps to the floor.

Producing a weapon would have escalated the situation to lethal force. In this case, Mr. Ambulamps produced a weapon, lethal force would have been justified on the part of Mr. White. Mr. Ambulamps had no justification since he started the fight by bringing it to Mr. White. While Mr. White could have de-escalated the situation by saying something like "Sorry, but I'm 67 years old and hard of hearing. I misunderstood you." he is not obligated in the law to do so (at least I've never heard of anything like that in state law).

If one of Mr. Ambulamps' friends attempted to attack Mr. White, then it would have become a two on one situation. Lethal force would have been justified on Mr. White's part, depending upon state law.

* Check out the various posters around the net. Search on "ambulamps".

 

[cskny]

While Mr. White could have de-escalated the situation by saying something like "Sorry, but I'm 67 years old and hard of hearing. I misunderstood you." he is not obligated in the law to do so


Given Mr. White's background and demeanor during, I think that he said exactly what he wanted, exactly how he wanted to...but that's just my interpretation.

 

[Webbj0219]

There is a saying to not bring a knife to a gunfight. I think you could also say not to bring a gun to a fistfight. Although the old man is sixtyseven years old he looks about twice the size of the black guy. The guy is head and shoulders above him. Disparity of force would probable not be on the older guys side. Its about the equivelant of a heavyweight taking on a cruiserweight.

This reminds me of something I read on the four levels of an argument. It was about a kindof downward spiral that every argument can take. The top level is intellectual debate. Once someone exhausts their intellectual resources, they go to the emotional level. They try to win by appealing to emotions. If this doesnt work the next level down would be verbal abuse, like name calling or swearing. Then the bottom level is physical violence. So someone resorting to violence in an argument is a good sign they are mentally bankrupt in the issue at hand. I could see this progression here to some extent.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Im going to refer to them as Mr. Black and Mr. White, not for racial differences, but for simplicity, as it is hard to tell who instigated, both were verbally escalating, however, Mr. White DID move away, yes he continued to use profanity, but he DID move away, Mr. Black pride got hurt, he went up to him, and HE started the fight, HE threw the first punch, Mr. White defended himself, a little bit of overkill, but he defended himself, I doubt it could have been justified if deadly force had been used, as Mr. Black hadn't produced a weapon, Mr. Black needs to learn to control his temper, Mr. White too, but considering he is a vet, a lot of vets go through stuff that sticks with ya, but then again he has been involved wih drugs. Mr. Black is lucky that he wasn't seriously injured.
The honorable devildog32713 sides with Mr. White, BANG, adjurned

Agreed.

Mr White moved away, and Mr. Black just could help him self but to follow him ... twice. Then -young- Mr Black took the first swing at -old- Mr White, and got his a$$ whopped for his trouble. Maybe now Mr Black will be a little less likely to run his mouth (although I suspect it will take a couple more whoopins for that lesson to fully sink in)

Deadly force needed? Naaa, Mr White did just fine on his own.

 

[sarduy]

http://www.spike.com/video/epic-beard-man/3345915

 

[devildog32713]

If one of Mr. Ambulamps' friends attempted to attack Mr. White, then it would have become a two on one situation. Lethal force would have been justified on Mr. White's part, depending upon state law.

If one of Mr. Black/Ambulamp's freinds had attacked Mr. White, honestly I think Mr. White would have whooped them both, he did a number on Black/Ambulamps to begin with, just look at the blood from Mr. Black/Ambulamp's face after he started swinging. I'm coming to the conclusion that Mr. Black/Ambulamps pride was at the least partially influenced by the girls (possibly in a realationship with him) on the bus, he wanted to prove how bad he was, but it didn't work out for him, honestly, I know 8 year olds around where I live that could take down Mr. Black....

 

[duns]

I found it very hard to make out the words in the video therefore precisely what happened is unclear to me.

I don't know to what extent the justification for using deadly force varies by state so I will comment only with respect to Texas law. In Texas, other than in your home, vehicle, or business, the only justification for using deadly force is to prevent the victim committing one of a range of offenses (none of which apply here), or to protect the actor against the victim's use of deadly force. It is also a condition that the actor did not provoke the victim.

Mr Black appeared to me to be provocative throughout especially when he followed Mr White to the front of the bus. So I'm sure Mr Black would NOT have been justified in using deadly force under Texas laws because of his provocation.

I'm not sure whether Mr White could also be held to have been provocative - he did try to withdraw from the situation by moving to the front of the bus, but he seemed to be engaging in verbal provocation from the front of the bus. However, Texas law says that force may not be used (let alone deadly force) in response to verbal provocation. This emphasizes that Mr Black would not have been justified in using force or deadly force under Texas law but leaves Mr White's position legally gray on the provocation issue, it seems to me.

If Mr Black had attempted to use deadly force, I think a court would probably regard Mr White as justified in using deadly force to protect himself (despite his verbal taunts).

I would guess that in the eyes of a court Mr Black attacking Mr White with fists did not amount to an attempt to use deadly force (even though a beating CAN kill). So Mr White was also not entitled to use deadly force.

If there had been a disparity of force, Mr White might have been justified in using deadly force but that does not appear to have been the case here. Although older (67 vs 50?), Mr White was the larger man and as it turned out knew a thing or two about fist fighting.

I'm not a lawyer so just my $0.02.

 

[cskny]

You know, I've watched that video a few times because I've been trying to see who hit who first. I know that a few folks have said that Mr. Black hits Mr. White first, and I certainly hear Mr. White make that claim.

However, when I watch the video, it seems like Mr. Black goes up to Mr. White and leans toward him or does one of those "intimidation" lunges. Then, it seems like I see Mr. Black's shirt almost get "pulled" in the initial moments before contact, almost as if Mr. White is pulling him towards him. Then I see Mr. White beat down Mr. Black.

From that video I don't think that I could honestly say that I even see Mr. Black hit Mr. White, much less first.

I know it has nothing to do with the conclusion of no deadly force.

 

[ChaoSS]

I think I understand what you are asking. You are not asking if he could have used lethal force here, but rather, if the situation had escalated to where deadly force was justified, would the fact that he antagonized the guy have left him without legal recourse?

The fact is that it would depend on a jury. Lethal force is justified where it is reasonably necessary. However, self defense laws can be affected by the lead up.

For example, I remember reading in the laws of one state, I believe it was CO, awhile back, that if person one antagonizes person two until a fight breaks out (not talking about lethal force) then person two can still be prosecuted, but person one loses the self defense defense for the violence that he commits. I doubt this applies to lethal force, however, you could be in legal trouble for things like harassment, depending on what exactly was said.

 

[chibiker]

WARNING: FOUL LANGUAGE IN THIS RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION but I couldn't have said it better myself....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMKlk7fXAuE

 

[cskny]

chibiker - That is a GREAT video. Highly entertaining.

 

[shockwave]

In case you're interested, here's what finally came to light:

1. Mr White said to Mr Black, "You could shine my shoes."
2. Mr Black took offense and a verbal altercation began.
3. Video starts.
4. When police arrived, they ordered both men taken to hospital. Mr Black for injuries, Mr White for psychiatric evaluation.
5. Mr White has been arrested multiple times, has drug convictions, and a store owner says that almost every day White comes by and shakes a loaf of bread at him, shouting obscenities about the 49ers.
6. The woman who shot the video has no relationship with either man.

This case has generated a lot of coverage locally in the Bay Area because it underscores the danger of taking public transit, and because of the racial tensions it provokes - it's almost a real life version of "Do the Right Thing."

 

[cskny]

1. Mr White said to Mr Black, "You could shine my shoes."
2. Mr Black took offense and a verbal altercation began.
3. Video starts.
4. When police arrived, they ordered both men taken to hospital. Mr Black for injuries, Mr White for psychiatric evaluation.
5. Mr White has been arrested multiple times, has drug convictions, and a store owner says that almost every day White comes by and shakes a loaf of bread at him, shouting obscenities about the 49ers.
6. The woman who shot the video has no relationship with either man.



So I'm glad that neither one of this brain trust had a weapon and the ability to quickly reach a "deadly force" decision. Somehow I doubt they would be doing this assessment first.

Well, I guess Mr. White could still have choked Mr. Black with bread.

 

[kingpin008]

and a store owner says that almost every day White comes by and shakes a loaf of bread at him.

I'm suprised he hasn't been charged with Assault with a Breadly Weapon.

*rimshot*

Thank you folks, I'm here all week.

 

[Bubba613]

I think these are 2 idiots that probably deserve to have this ridiculous video on YouTube. There's no good or bad guy in that to me, they both instigate and obviously have anger issues. In Mr. White's credit, he did move, he just should have shut up.

But as other's said, I don't think deadly force was justifiable by either one.

Yup
Throw both their butts in jail. The lady who screams out "it aint worth it" is the only one making sense here. Either one of them should have walked away from it. Had one been armed it probably would have ended like that.

 

[SOUTHPAW]

This is the typical clientele of public transportation.