The law requires you to actually be confronted with an imminent deadly threat before using lethal force. Just because the attacker is a race you don't like, doesn't mean that this isn't going to come across as potentially murder in every single US state.
IF Simon was threatening to kill him, then there's a case. If not, it really is murder.
He got assaulted by an aggressive shithead, and did a public service by removing an aggressive shithead from existence.
This right here, that's considered murder. Someone just being aggressive and bullying you isn't enough to kill them over. Ordinary force can't be met with lethal force, without some additional circumstances or evidence that indicates lethal intent.
If some random dude punches you in the face in the street, and you pull a gun, and he yells, 'shoot me bitch', and you shoot him, you still get charged with murder. You'll also be justly convicted.
Waiting to defend yourself until a goon with no impulse control beats you into semi-consciousness seems like a recipe for getting dead.
Yeah, honestly, he should have maced both of them, and pulled the knife sooner and used it in a defensive display. He could have actually gotten them to back off.
Had he used ordinary force to counter ordinary force he would have been fine.
Something like that happened last year in Phoenix, AZ
I know which one you're talking about, and there's a major difference.
That guy kept pursuing after the defensive display of a firearm. That's the reasonable belief that someone's going to kill you. You showed that you had a weapon, that you are prepared to use lethal force, and they won't stop attacking.
I'm saying, if you pull the gun, and he stops and says shoot me, and you shoot him, that's still gonna be murder.
And in a similar way, the only thing that can save Alba right now is that Simon grabbed him to keep him from leaving. If he hadn't done that, this would be an open-and-shut case.
It's like a gun. You don't pull it until the situation dictates you use lethal force. Otherwise it's just brandishing
Plenty of states allow for defensive displays of firearms.
Easy. He should walk.
I reversed my position on this once I heard more information. I couldn't be sure originally that he would have had a reason to argue that he feared for his life. BUT, then I found out that the girlfriend had already stabbed an employee.
There is no reason to assume the assaulter would come to his senses.
It's actually NOT about making the dude come to his senses. First, it generally does work to stop mentally ill, and even dedicated attackers. Second, it blinds and incapacitates your attacker to a degree allowing you to escape, or even further attack them, equalizing the playing field on a stronger opponent. Third, again: it blinds and partially incapacitates them, meaning that their attacks on YOU are going to be weakend. Fourth, it actually helps in your justification to switching to lethal force because "He was so fucking crazy that after I maced him he still attacked me! I reasonably feared for my life since he was so aggressive."
Also, given the confined space, the clerk would have just as likely been macing himself
Depends on the mace. You want mace that goes out in a stream, not a fogger. You're gonna feel some spice, but it won't be nearly as bad as what they are getting.
Maybe from the legal perspective in a fundamentally broken jurisdiction, but in reality, when it comes down to violent conflict, you do not want to meet force with equal force. You want overwhelming force to stop an attacker and end the conflict. Anything less risks prolonging the fight and injuring innocent parties.
If you're a cop that makes sense, because we task the police with being a giant blunt-force object that everyone is required to obey, at least initially.
You don't want to use overwhelming force most of the time. It makes you look like the bad guy to other people who might intervene, and disproportional violence is not an appropriate solution in any just society. If you keep poking me, it is wrong for me to wheel around and hit you in the skull with a shovel, causing you permanent brain-damage and destroying your life... because you were annoying.
That's not a good society to live in, that's a horrible and terrible society where no one can be trusted not to fly off the handle. Most ghettos work like that because it's a kind of Honor Culture that is enforced through social violence. All minor slights have overwhelming and nearly lethal consequences, and the world is worse for it.
Proportional force doesn't mean equal. It just means within reason.
This is the line in a civilized society, and individual citizens have the moral right to hold that line.
Look, I think we live in a society that has made all social violence unacceptable, when it should be acceptable.
I would much rather prefer a cop taze me for 3 seconds for doing 15 mph over the speed limit, taze me for 10 for going 40 over, and macing me for other general infractions. A lot of people need to get their ass beat. Hell, I'd go so far that women need to get their ass beat for being so entitled they decide to maul a fucking restaurant because extra sauce was too expensive.
And yes, there should be the underlying concern that "I don't know this person, and if i act badly, or take things too far, I could get shot". That's a good thing.
Hell, I think it's downright unacceptable that we can't buy stingball grenades. That's how you stop these stupid flash mobs.
But proportionality still plays a part in all of that. We need a society that is:
A) prepared to use force to stop innocent people's lives and property from being harmed
B) prepared to be stoic in the face of some provocation. Because some shit isn't worth getting violent over.
Old man shoved into a corner in his store by attack dawg (literally only there to attack). Was not going to be let out (actually grabbed as he looks to have gotten the knife), another customer couldn't convince dawg to leave it be.
I get it. A gun or knife needs to be presented in the letter of the law. But what, realistically, could he do to stop further violence/harassment against him, even if it could be understood that he wasn't in danger for his life?
But what, realistically, could he do to stop further violence/harassment against him, even if it could be understood that he wasn't in danger for his life
Honestly, he should have had mace. Frankly, he should have used it as soon as both of them came back in the store. He would have been fine had he seen them walk in with an attitude and just maced them.
The problem is that he got himself stuck:
He didn't have a less lethal option on him
He didn't have a defensive structure to keep someone from crossing the counter
He didn't have a lethal weapon on him to display as a threat.
But because he didn't have anything really prepared except for a knife, the only real option, especially with state law, that he had was to do nothing.
The lesson here is to not put yourself in such a situation, especially when mace is pretty cheap and available.
He was battered in his own store by some jackass he'd never seen before, in a city that spent the last 2 years releasing CONVICTED violent offenders because covid, and was smaller and older than his assailant. Get your head checked.
Being smaller and older doesn't justify lethal force on the face of it. You need something to articulate. Check your own head so you stop seeing what you want to see, and look at what's in front of you.
If some random dude punches you in the face in the street, and you pull a gun, and he yells, 'shoot me bitch', and you shoot him, you still get charged with murder. You'll also be justly convicted.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't pull a gun. Rosenbaum literally charged at him like a screaming psychopath, pursued him as Kyle fled, continued charging when Kyle pointed the gun at him, still pursued him, and tried to take his gun.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't do anything wrong. This guy absolutely did.
The law requires you to actually be confronted with an imminent deadly threat before using lethal force. Just because the attacker is a race you don't like, doesn't mean that this isn't going to come across as potentially murder in every single US state.
IF Simon was threatening to kill him, then there's a case. If not, it really is murder.
This right here, that's considered murder. Someone just being aggressive and bullying you isn't enough to kill them over. Ordinary force can't be met with lethal force, without some additional circumstances or evidence that indicates lethal intent.
If some random dude punches you in the face in the street, and you pull a gun, and he yells, 'shoot me bitch', and you shoot him, you still get charged with murder. You'll also be justly convicted.
Yeah, honestly, he should have maced both of them, and pulled the knife sooner and used it in a defensive display. He could have actually gotten them to back off.
Had he used ordinary force to counter ordinary force he would have been fine.
I know which one you're talking about, and there's a major difference.
That guy kept pursuing after the defensive display of a firearm. That's the reasonable belief that someone's going to kill you. You showed that you had a weapon, that you are prepared to use lethal force, and they won't stop attacking.
I'm saying, if you pull the gun, and he stops and says shoot me, and you shoot him, that's still gonna be murder.
And in a similar way, the only thing that can save Alba right now is that Simon grabbed him to keep him from leaving. If he hadn't done that, this would be an open-and-shut case.
Plenty of states allow for defensive displays of firearms.
I reversed my position on this once I heard more information. I couldn't be sure originally that he would have had a reason to argue that he feared for his life. BUT, then I found out that the girlfriend had already stabbed an employee.
100% justified.
I've 100% reversed my position on this because I got new information, so I have to preface my response with that.
It's actually NOT about making the dude come to his senses. First, it generally does work to stop mentally ill, and even dedicated attackers. Second, it blinds and incapacitates your attacker to a degree allowing you to escape, or even further attack them, equalizing the playing field on a stronger opponent. Third, again: it blinds and partially incapacitates them, meaning that their attacks on YOU are going to be weakend. Fourth, it actually helps in your justification to switching to lethal force because "He was so fucking crazy that after I maced him he still attacked me! I reasonably feared for my life since he was so aggressive."
Depends on the mace. You want mace that goes out in a stream, not a fogger. You're gonna feel some spice, but it won't be nearly as bad as what they are getting.
If you're a cop that makes sense, because we task the police with being a giant blunt-force object that everyone is required to obey, at least initially.
You don't want to use overwhelming force most of the time. It makes you look like the bad guy to other people who might intervene, and disproportional violence is not an appropriate solution in any just society. If you keep poking me, it is wrong for me to wheel around and hit you in the skull with a shovel, causing you permanent brain-damage and destroying your life... because you were annoying.
That's not a good society to live in, that's a horrible and terrible society where no one can be trusted not to fly off the handle. Most ghettos work like that because it's a kind of Honor Culture that is enforced through social violence. All minor slights have overwhelming and nearly lethal consequences, and the world is worse for it.
Proportional force doesn't mean equal. It just means within reason.
Look, I think we live in a society that has made all social violence unacceptable, when it should be acceptable.
I would much rather prefer a cop taze me for 3 seconds for doing 15 mph over the speed limit, taze me for 10 for going 40 over, and macing me for other general infractions. A lot of people need to get their ass beat. Hell, I'd go so far that women need to get their ass beat for being so entitled they decide to maul a fucking restaurant because extra sauce was too expensive.
And yes, there should be the underlying concern that "I don't know this person, and if i act badly, or take things too far, I could get shot". That's a good thing.
Hell, I think it's downright unacceptable that we can't buy stingball grenades. That's how you stop these stupid flash mobs.
But proportionality still plays a part in all of that. We need a society that is:
Old man shoved into a corner in his store by attack dawg (literally only there to attack). Was not going to be let out (actually grabbed as he looks to have gotten the knife), another customer couldn't convince dawg to leave it be.
I get it. A gun or knife needs to be presented in the letter of the law. But what, realistically, could he do to stop further violence/harassment against him, even if it could be understood that he wasn't in danger for his life?
Honestly, he should have had mace. Frankly, he should have used it as soon as both of them came back in the store. He would have been fine had he seen them walk in with an attitude and just maced them.
The problem is that he got himself stuck:
But because he didn't have anything really prepared except for a knife, the only real option, especially with state law, that he had was to do nothing.
The lesson here is to not put yourself in such a situation, especially when mace is pretty cheap and available.
He was battered in his own store by some jackass he'd never seen before, in a city that spent the last 2 years releasing CONVICTED violent offenders because covid, and was smaller and older than his assailant. Get your head checked.
Being smaller and older doesn't justify lethal force on the face of it. You need something to articulate. Check your own head so you stop seeing what you want to see, and look at what's in front of you.
in a democrat run area probably, in a human run area no prosecutor would go anywhere near this case after seeing the tape
Entirely wrong. Most prosecutors would go after this because of the tape, because it's damning.
Most prosecutors are happy to convict innocent people as it is. Alba happens to look genuinely guilty of murder here.
*Laughs in Kyle Rittenhouse*
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't pull a gun. Rosenbaum literally charged at him like a screaming psychopath, pursued him as Kyle fled, continued charging when Kyle pointed the gun at him, still pursued him, and tried to take his gun.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't do anything wrong. This guy absolutely did.
I know there were differences, I was mainly joking, since Rosenbaum did yell "shoot me, nigga!"