Teen drawn on/approached by gangbanger- disarms and punches to submission

[MLeake]

look at the fight from around 1:40 to 1:55

If this isn't staged, then the skater does a great job of accidentally missing almost every punch he throws. Out of all those shots, two connect; the first one looked like it surprised him, and the second is only a grazing backhand. Everything else just barely misses.

So he either knows some grappling but can't punch for crap, or else he's just trying to make it look good but accidentally hits his partner with only one real shot.

The security guard isn't terribly concerned with it, either.

The whole thing just screams staged fight in order to make a viral video.

[Re4mer]

If you watch the first part of the video its clear the kid tries several times to walk away and the BG doesn't let him. Its only then that he goes for the gun. What happens next is the normal reaction you would get from any group of people faced with that situation. Personally I think the kids did well.

[skydiver3346]

Have looked at this numerous times and those punches and knee to his face are real. Don't think it is staged and if it is, the bad guy is more stupid than I thouht for takings a butt whippin like that (just for the camera).

My only comment, is that they should have let the teen keep on kicking the bad guy's butt instead of pulling him off. Then, he really would have learned his lesson.

[jman841]

I think it is real and i would not be surprised to know if the skater has had some sort of martial art training, His first instinct after getting to the ground was to achieve the mount position on his larger attacker. I have trained in martial arts since i was very young and currently train in a few varieties including Brazilian Jujitsu, If there is one thing i have learned from it is that looks are deceiving, I know many people who look very non threatening and would not intimidate a fly but could easily take on people twice as strong and heavy as they are.

I think this is a great example of the effectiveness of BJJ in a real situation, The skaters instinct was to get the fight to the ground and take dominant position, granted his technique could have been better, however, He clearly won and that is all that counts.

[GojuBrian]

The skateboarder did good all things considered. He did miss alot of punches, but the ones that count landed. Wish the bg would have been ko'd.

I wonder what happened to lead up to the gb pulling a gun?

[MLeake]

and the only one that hits with any power doesn't look like it meant to, from the angle the kid's fist made with his own wrist. This, despite the fact that the skater is in full mount, and the gangsta isn't really doing much blocking.

The skateboard strikes have no real effect, and look like they are also pulled both in intensity and somewhat off to the side.

The skater's friends don't react with anything like the intensity one would expect against somebody who had pulled a gun; it's treated more like a joke.

The guard approaches in a calm and quiet manner, by himself. He's obviously not taking it seriously.

Not only that, but in googling every combination I can think of that would pull up an actual news article about this incident, guess what? There are none. This thing shows up on a bunch of skater sites, and some fight sites, but it's also on digg and youtube.

If the media aren't all over this, that's only one more reason to say STAGED.

Oh, btw, in a case like this, where the gangstas have fewer people than the skaters, BJJ is great. If the gangstas had the numbers, then BJJ would be problematic. Skater would have been vulnerable the whole time he was tied up with gansta 1.

But it doesn't matter, because this is FAKE. If it were real, you can bet you'd have already read news articles from reputable sources about a police investigation looking for the kid with the gun, the kid who posted the video, etc.

[GojuBrian]

I don't believe it was staged, but so what if it was? Still makes for good tactical response conversation.

Want to go back and forth on whether or not it was staged,which it wasn't imo, or talk about the actual sitation,etc...?

[JohnKSa]

As long as he keeps moving and struggling, he's a threat and they had every right to keep pummeling him.

Haven't watched the video, but this statement is badly in error.

Threat assessment is far more complicated than this. The idea that you can keep shooting or beating someone as long as they keep "moving and struggling" is absolutely incorrect. You can keep shooting or beating someone as long as they still pose a credible threat to you but the idea that they have to be completely disabled (not "moving or struggling") for the threat to be over is not based in fact.

[MLeake]

... kid initially goes for both keeping the gun directed away from himself, and for taking the fat gangsta's balance. This is good. Kid doesn't really seem to focus on directing the gun in any particular direction, but then again there are people in most directions and that would have taken a whole different level of awareness and capability. This is not good or bad, it just is. Kid's focus seems to go away from gun almost immediately after takedown. This is bad, if he doesn't KNOW the gun is currently out of play and out of reach.

Not sure where gun ends up. Other skaters may grab it. Otherwise, there's an unsecured firearm that everybody is ignoring, despite the yells of "he's got a gun."

As somebody else noted, during all the time kicking and punching, nobody really disables gangsta's hands or ties up his arms. If he had any other weapons, this could have bitten them all really badly.

Kid recording video would have been smarter to take a moment to secure the weapon, but didn't seem too worried about that. Kid recording video didn't yell, "GUN!" when he saw it, and his actions seemed more like those of somebody thinking, "cool, check this out!" than "oh sh**!!" (IE filming, maneuvering for better angles, not helping his buddy, not warning others)

As somebody else noted, skateboards make more effective weapons if turned like a blade, to increase surface pressure. Same would be true for an oar or paddle, or any hard, flat object.

As I noted, I wouldn't recommend posting a vid that is guaranteed to rile up a gang. I wouldn't recommend posting a vid of a bunch of my buddies kicking a guy or hitting him with objects, as that might rile up cops and DAs. I would recommend reporting any incident of having been threatened with a firearm to the police.

Guard should not have walked up into the middle of a crowd so casually, and by himself. Guard should definitely have called for backup, right after he called 911 or Canadian equivalent (guy who posted video had Canadian flag by his handle; hard to tell from accents and buildings where this was).

So, there's my discussion of the tactics in this event that for any number of reasons seems staged.

[MLeake]

... I suppose I should also mention that the fat gangbanger is stupid, (although since I think the whole thing is fake, he's probably just assisting with the setup) for several reasons.

1) He assumes that 2 bangers plus one gun will intimidate a large group; it might, but it might not;

2) It's possible that he's posturing with a fake gun, as somebody else suggested;

3) He gets close to the skater with a weapon drawn but held in such a way that he can't really maintain control of his weapon or the situation (IE held up sideways, gangsta style - this has to be fake, seriously - under his own jaw). Normally, if close up and not shooting yet, better to keep the non-gun hand and hip forward, and the pistol back by the shelter of the gunside hip. Can fend or strike with the left, and hip-shoot or raise the gun to low ready from a guarded position.

4) Gangsta dudes separate, while dealing with a group, instead of being in position to watch each other's backs.

Tactically, bunch of bozos.

Still think it's fake.

[csmsss]

Haven't watched the video, but this statement is badly in error.

Threat assessment is far more complicated than this. The idea that you can keep shooting or beating someone as long as they keep "moving and struggling" is absolutely incorrect. You can keep shooting or beating someone as long as they still pose a credible threat to you but the idea that they have to be completely disabled (not "moving or struggling") for the threat to be over is not based in fact.

I couldn't disagree more, John. As long as the bad guy is continuing to make exertions toward getting to his feet and to an offensive position, he constitutes a threat. And, if I may, your approach could very well get you killed. Nope. As long as my adversary continues to mount a defense and isn't simply submitting, he's a threat and I'm well within my rights to take any actions necessary to induce submission.

And...let us not forget that in this case we're talking about a situation where the good guy does not possess a weapon. He doesn't have any means of keeping the bad guy at arms' length should the bad guy get up into a position of equivalency or better. Nope. He's got every right to beat the hell out of the bad guy until the bad guy has fully and obviously stopped posing any sort of threat.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'm with MLeake on this one. I'm going with fake. Might be real but if I had to guess, I'd say fake.

[JohnKSa]

As long as the bad guy is continuing to make exertions toward getting to his feet and to an offensive position, he constitutes a threat.

The problem is that any sane/normal person will struggle and attempt to escape if he's being beaten.

If you take the position that you will continue to beat a person until they stop struggling then what you're saying is that unless you beat a person into unconsciousness they still pose a threat. You won't sell that one to a jury because that's not what the law allows.

You're confusing the difference between a potential threat and an immediate threat of serious injury or death. The former is NOT grounds for use of deadly force (such as beating a person with a skateboard) while the latter IS grounds for use of deadly force.

YES, if the person is still struggling they constitute a potential threat, but that doesn't mean you can automatically keep beating them until they're unconscious or dead. Once the person no longer poses an immediate threat to you your legal grounds for use of deadly force evaporate.

He's got every right to beat the hell out of the bad guy until the bad guy has fully and obviously stopped posing any sort of threat.

Again, you don't get to keep using deadly force until "any sort of threat" is gone. The deadly force laws are very specific about exactly what sort of threat justifies the use of deadly force.

For example, if someone points a gun at me, that gives me the right to use deadly force to stop the attack. But if my friends and I outnumber him and have impact weapons, once he's been disarmed his ability to cause me serious injury or death is virtually eliminated. If I keep beating him once he can't really pose a serious threat then I've overstepped the law. The law takes into account such things as disparity of force.

[hogdogs]

If it is a faked setup vid, I find the butt whoopin dealt out to be a bit severe for a stunt/prank.

Brent

[jon_in_wv]

You're confusing the difference between a potential threat and an immediate threat. The former is NOT grounds for use of deadly force (such as beating a person with a skateboard) while the latter IS grounds for use of deadly force.

I think it would be tough to argue that small guy like the skate boarder, hitting a much bigger guy in the back with a skate board is deadly force. Thats not something that is likely to result in serious injury or death. If he was striking him in the head, perhaps.

Secondly, the GB did bring in a firearm and the kids fought back. I don't think your going to find to mny prosecutors or too many juries that are going to consider what these kids did the same thing as what the GB did.

Standing up to a POS GB like that is resky but these kids are heroes in my book. If good people stood up to evil like that all the time, we would be in a better world.

[csmsss]

John, you go on creating these imaginary distinctions if you like, but if someone wants to stop getting pummeled in a fistfight, all he has to do is give up and cover up. Getting up or even struggling to resist or get to one's feet tells me that person still constitutes an immediate threat. Since we know he started the confrontation, a prudent person would continue to pound on him until he submits. If someone has attacked you and subsequently attempts to get to his feet, or to fight back, HE IS A THREAT!!! I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

[hogdogs]

BTW, I feel the need to point out that the SB's were not tactically approaching this as a law abiding citizen would. These are "deviant youth" just like the GB's are. They go around destroying property on a routine basis (pulling a grind on freshly painted curbs is the minimum.) and were just looking at this as the teenage posturing needed not to look like a punk. It went from posturing to a flat out beat down to punk the GB.
Don't get me wrong I feel they did the right thing up to but not including walking off with the pistol in their pocket... real gun or not...
Brent

[JohnKSa]

John, you go on creating these imaginary distinctions if you like, but if someone wants to stop getting pummeled in a fistfight, all he has to do is give up.

The law creates the distinctions.

I agree that the attacker giving up ends the confrontation and the justification for the use of deadly force, but that's not the ONLY thing that ends it. Once a person no longer poses an immediate threat of serious injury or death then the law says you no longer get to use deadly force.

If someone has attacked you and subsequently attempts to get to his feet, or to fight back, HE IS A THREAT!!!

Getting to one's feet is absolutely not the same as "fighting back", and "moving or struggling" is not evidence, in and of itself, of posing a threat that justifies the use of deadly force.

I think it would be tough to argue that small guy like the skate boarder, hitting a much bigger guy in the back with a skate board is deadly force.

I was responding to a particular statement made and I attempted to make it clear that my comments were general, not specifically related to the video.

Furthermore, even if you could make the case that beating someone with an impact weapon doesn't constitute deadly force it's important to remember that even the use of force (not deadly force) is also restricted by law to situations where it is "immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." Once the attacker stops trying to use unlawful force against the defender then even non-lethal force is unjustified.

The point is that "moving or struggling", in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds for continuing to beat someone with an impact weapon. It takes more justification than that.

Some reading material.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../PE.9.htm#9.31

[csmsss]

John, I'm at my wit's end. You continue to persist in asserting the belief that gaining the upper hand in a fistfight, however momentary it may be, constitutes ending a threat. IT DOESN'T. That bad guy gets up to his feet, he's heading straight for the firearm he earlier lost possession of. The threat isn't over until the threat is obviously over. If you wish to give the bad guy every opportunity to get the advantage over on you, by all means have at it. But your approach could very easily get you killed.

[JohnKSa]

You continue to persist in asserting the belief that gaining the upper hand in a fistfight, however momentary it may be, constitutes ending a threat.

That is incorrect. I have absolutely NOT said that momentarily gaining the upper hand ends the threat.

What I have said is that "moving or struggling" is not in and of itself justification for continuing to beat a person with an impact weapon.

That bad guy gets up to his feet, he's heading straight for the firearm he earlier lost possession of.

You have every right to do whatever is required (including using deadly force) to keep him from arming/rearming himself with a deadly weapon as long as it is reasonable to believe he would use it against you.

"Arming/rearming himself with a deadly weapon" is NOT the same thing as "getting to his feet" or "moving or struggling".

The threat isn't over until the threat is obviously over.

Again, there are different levels of "threat" and the law makes a distinction as to the level and immediacy of the threat in granting justification for use of deadly force.

You have made comments indicating that "moving or struggling" or "getting to his feet" is justification for continuing to beat someone with an impact weapon. It isn't legal justification. Read the laws in the link I provided.

[Thursday]

In something like this, I wouldn't stop until he stopped struggling or submitted to me by following my orders. In something like this I would hope my adrenaline and emotions of just facing a life and death situation would not take me to the point of no return.(anybody seen the ending of Greenstreet Hooligans) but if someone pulled a gun on me and I was able to disarm and pin him giving him the beating of a lifetime I would not want to stop until he was compliant. I would no doubt want to detain him until the authorities arrive, and he is not going to be detained by getting to his feet(which could easily allow him to A. run, B. mount an offensive, C. recover his lost weapon) He is going to be detained on the ground doing as I say.

[JohnKSa]

...I would not want to stop until he was compliant.

I HIGHLY recommend that people learn what is legal when it comes to using deadly force in their particular states.

The first step in a self-defense encounter is saving your life and preventing injury, but you don't want to overstep the law once things swing your way or you'll end up a criminal.

by getting to his feet(which could easily allow him to A. run, B. mount an offensive, C. recover his lost weapon)

The concern about the person rearming himself is real and as a defender one would have the right to prevent that, but it's unrealistic to pretend that continuing to beat him or detaining him are the only two options available. Grand juries/prosecutors are not going to be that easily duped.

The bottom line is that the law does not give one the right to beat a person into complete compliance or until they stop moving or stop trying to get to their feet. It only gives a person the right to use deadly force until it is no longer IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to prevent the attacker from injuring or killing the defender.

I don't claim to be an expert on the laws of all states so I would invite anyone who can post a link to a state law indicating that a defender has the legal right to use deadly force until the attacker is compliant (vs. simply not posing an immediate threat) to please do so.

I would no doubt want to detain him until the authorities arrive, and he is not going to be detained by getting to his feet(which could easily allow him to A. run, B. mount an offensive, C. recover his lost weapon) He is going to be detained on the ground doing as I say.

Detaining people by force carries with it some serious legal concerns that a person should be cognizant of if he plans to make it part of his strategy. There has been a good deal of general information written on this topic, but it wouldn't hurt to consult an attorney in your area for a specific read.

[MLeake]

I guarantee you, if I hit you multiple times in the head with my fist, you'd be bleeding from a few places.

I further guarantee you, if a bunch of people hit you with skateboards, even with bad technique, you'd be bleeding.

The fat gangsta isn't bleeding. He barely has a grass stain on his shirt. His hands seem to work just fine - which they would not if he had been blocking skateboards with them.

Almost none of the punches connected, and it looked like the skateboarder was throwing stage punches for the vast majority. The skateboards looked like they were aimed to miss as well.

Was not much of a beatdown. Just lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Fake. Staged. Bogus.

[hogdogs]

MLeake, I have split a few eye brows... But I have had many more wins with little to ZERO blood from my opponent. One guy took 15 or 20 hits that were good connects (several poorly laid hits not counted) before I pushed his sleep button. Many guys are very good at intentionally opening up a guy on the eye brow or cheek bone as they realize the advantage of blood in the eye or just the psychological effect blood loss has on many people. I never really learned to try for that tactic. I just swing for the fences
Brent

[TailGator]

I HIGHLY recommend that people learn what is legal when it comes to using deadly force in their particular states.

Certainly good advice, but . . .

In the video, the guy who was losing the fight (the guy who started out with the gun), responded to attempts by the winner of the fight (the guy who initially had a gun pointed AT him) to get up and disengage by pulling him back down.

Is there any jurisdiction in the US where that would not be considered an aggressive move, an effort by the BG to continue the engagement, and therefore justify further defensive action by the victim? It would seem to me that in the situation where the BG continues the engagement, even though he has been wounded to whatever degree large or small, your right to self defense continues until BG consents in some way to giving up his efforts to hurt you.