Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

[JoeSixpack]

Ok there was already a thread on this, It got shut down for being a drive by..
Apparently that's a weak first post or a thread with low quality replies.

I still think it has merit for discussion so Im gonna attempt to write a decent first post and you guys/gals follow up with some good feedback and lets see if we can keep this one open.

Instead of poisting the link to the video I'll just post to the closed thread which has the link.. there's a few good posts over there IMO also.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=588887

So go watch that, read the posts, come on back and lets talk.

Ok first off clearly this is a SAVAGE, and I mean SAVAGE beating this guy took.
Now I'd like to hit this scenario from a dual prong approach.
1. You're the victim.. obviously.
2. You're a bystander.

Now I think we can all agree and call out this guys first mistake.. it's obvious.. he's focused in on his wallet and nothing else.
So let's not dwell on that mistake to much, let's move on.

So let's just say the guy has your wallet and refuses to give it back.. maybe you dropped it? Ok I think that's a perfectly human mistake we can all relate.

Picking up from that the victim here had to feel the threat of a emmenant physical assault.. he might not have known exactly when or how it would come but he had to of felt the building probability of it.

But what do you do? This guy might not have been armed but nearly everyone here carries so put your self in his shoes.. what would YOU do?

Now this was briefly touched on in the other thread.
We've got a BG who appears unarmed, It's a 1on1 situation, The victim might a have been outmatched but does not particularly look disabled.. he was 39.

So my thought is he's probably not in that area of fearing for his life just yet, He probably can't draw from a legal standpoint... So far the BG just has property (wallet) so im sure in most states you're within your rights to use.. some force to try to recover your property.. and this is where it gets tricky.

I've only been in a few fights, nothing serious no one got knocked out.
And I've seen a some of fights in real life as well as a LOT on the internet.
1 thing I've noticed.

Fights where they're both ready for a fight tend to go a little longer.
But fights that start with one party sucker punching the other is usually over very quickly.. sometimes with just 1 punch.

Most fights don't stop when someones knocked down.. VERY high probability once you're on the ground the attacker is either going to rain punches on you or move over to even more dangerous stomps and kicks.

Im sure we've all heard the advice.. do not pull a gun over a punch.
The sentiment of that advice makes sense at face value as we don't often consider a punch to be fatal, and yet it sometimes is.

Every once in a while someone will get punched, fall down, crack their head and die.. then it's a homicide.
Even if you don't go down on the 1st punch it's always followed by a 2nd, 3rd, 4th.. people are really bad about constraint in a first fight.
That 1st punch might not do you in but that just sets you up stunned for the rain behind it.

So the way I see it is sometimes ya 1 punch is fatal or at least sets you up to be incapacitated.
Now another piece of advice that im fond of is.
"When you're armed, ALL confrontations are deadly."
Think about this.. You are armed, You've lost the fight and are now no longer able to bring your gun to bear.. At best they leave you be, worse case they take the gun and kill you with it.

Given that thought can you afford to fight and loose a physical confrontation while carrying? In my mind NO.

But if we wait till we are beatin half senseless to where we could make a legal argument.. hey this guy is gonna kill me.. you're probably not in any situation to do anything about it.
So I find situations like this very paradoxical.

Ok so I explained my mind set on it a very long winded way.. I asked you what you would do now I should tell you what I'd do?
I dunno.. and that's the problem, And this is not the first time I've ran this thru my head either.. quite on the contrary.

In this particular case I suppose he could just let the guy walk he just wants his money not HIM.

So would pulling your phone out and taking a snapshot of his face be a good idea? hmm.. a close up picture would be good but who's to say this guy is going to sit there long enough for that? and if he does, Maybe he's not to happy about it, and now you're back to square 1.. guy still seemly unarmed you have 3 choices, attack, submit, draw weapon.

Im wondering if Door# 3.. non lethal weapon would have been a good choice.
I don't have much stock in stun guns (contact kind), tasers are kinda expensive but maybe thats something we should look at?

pepper spray I know is effective, I've had a taste when I was a kid by mistake (leaky spray can), But I also know that it's not 100% some are immune to it, the victim usually gets a taste as well, and it's not immediate.. it takes a little time to take effect.. it's quick but not instant.

It is however reasonably cheap and easy to carry.. so im gonna seriously give that some thought.

So you're saying Joe Sixpack you're not answering the question.
Ok so here it is guys.

I only carry a gun.. I also carry a knife but not as a weapon. (Knives are lethal anyway)
So basically as far as weapons go I have my body and my gun.. nothing in between.. given that situation.....

I probably would not have drawn.. but I would have probably attacked first made it a good one and not let up, I would have fought dirty and made sure I won, I would have beat him like he beat this victim.. I would have been the BG.

Right or wrong you can critique that (and please do that's an invite)
I wanna hear what you would have done, What I could have done different.
This is something I've ran thru a few times as mental exercises and I usually come up with bad and worse options.. at least from a legal standpoint it would be real easy to just shoot them and eliminate the threat if there was no consequences, But we can't walk around in Charles Bronson mode.

Ok P.o.V #2, bystander.

This ones a little easier, less skin in the game.
I would have done nothing up until the point the BG has attacks the victim.. Once he's on the ground and being beaten, I'd have to step in man.. that beating was way to brutal for me to just stand there.

I'd have probably kicked the BG in the ribs as hard as possible to stun him which probably would roll him on his back..
Once I has his attention draw and tell him to stay down.

At that point it's not about money.. I think we can all agree the victim was in fear of his life at that point and the BG had plenty of opportunity & capability to finish him off had he not just got tired and left.

I know a lot do not agree with getting involved and I fully agree that should be done cautiously, But if im in line and see that go down how could I let him beat the man like a disobedient dog?
The victim lived but I think he could have easily been killed.

So tell me what you would do, Tell me what you think I should do different.
Im especially interested in view points on 1on1 attacks by an unarmed BG while you're carrying.. This nearly never comes up in conversation, But I think it's important to think about it.

P.S
Sorry about the long post, At least we can say this ain't a drive by
Brevity was never my strong suit and this is a situation that I've struggled to find a good solution for.

Im giving serious consideration to carrying pepper spray now though.


EDIT: For those having trouble viewing the video
https://streamable.com/xn92o

[flyboy015]

Just want to say beforehand, I have never been in a CCW confrontation. I, like most people I imagine, don't carry *everywhere* I go; and that is a bad habit. If I am out and about with my wife and daughter however, my pistol is always on me.

In scenario 1, if I'm the victim, and someone knocks my wallet out of my hand, I'd like to think the first thing that runs through my mind is "Woah!" but the reality we can all agree on, is none of us could say for sure. I work 3rd shift, 12 hour nights. I could be particularly fatigued, just stopping for gas on the way home. At that point, I'd be in no shape for a fight, and certainly not focused critically on my next actions.

If I was alert and focused, I'd like to think I would take a few steps back, try to put distance between myself and the guy as a primary maneuver. The victim in the video didn't appear to be thinking too quickly, but he simply may have been fatigued as I mentioned earlier, thinking "What's this a%%hole's deal?" Or, he may have been in disbelief, caught off-guard and on the spot. Frozen up. I think that's a common enough reaction for a lot of people.

Honestly, I've never considered getting into a fist fight when carrying, but you're certainly right in that it presents a danger, doesn't it? I do think it's safe to say I would have gotten my ass kicked, that was a hell of a nasty first punch.

If someone had me down, in this particular scenario, and was kicking me while down, I'd do everything I possibly could to try and draw and shoot them. That's a life or death situation, as you stated, and you're at the mercy of both luck and the punk beating on you.

In scenario 2, I would have drawn and taken aim, shouted "Get off him!" If the guy keeps kicking, he's getting shot.

In Pennsylvania, with the Castle Doctrine and the vast majority of information I've read, a few things need to happen for me to legally (read: justifiably) use deadly force- I have to be somewhere I legally have a right to be; I can't be able to escape with reasonable safety, I have to be in *immediate* danger of death, serious bodily injury (broken ribs, collapsed lung, etc ), rape or kidnapping...keeping that in mind, I wouldn't hesitate to fire on the perpetrator in this specific situation. Would I, personally, be unable to escape safely? Hell no! I could easily run and call the police. But seeing how violent that guy was, he could have easily killed his victim. There's just that set of morals that people live by. I hope that if you carry a gun, you have a strong sense of right and wrong, and what is justified and necessary. Not that even a single CCW holder should be running around like a U.S. Marshal, handing out justice as seen fit...but I would put my own liberty at risk for saving someone's life whom I believed to genuinely be in immediate danger.

This brings to memory a not-so-distant incident in which a driver who pulled over after seeing a Highway Patrol officer being beaten on the side of the road, drew his gun, told the offender to stop, and shot him. That citizen was deemed a hero for his actions, because he saved a life. Was he deemed a hero because the victim he saved was a cop and not an unarmed civilian? Possibly. But would that change anything for me, whether or not the victim before me was a law enforcement officer or simply a convenience store patron? Absolutely not.

The following is my own opinion, just part of the aforementioned morals I hold myself to, and certainly not a suggestion as to what you or anyone else should do:

If you would kill to prevent a rape or kidnapping, why wouldn't you kill to prevent a fellow man's or woman's death? I would consider myself a coward to walk away if I was the bystander in this situation.

[HiBC]

The link gets me a "blank page"...it does not work for me.

My opinion doesn't amount to much,but its my opinion this case does merit some "What to do? " discussion.
It just might be that criminal vs moral vs civil do not always line up.

And there may be very harsh realities involved.

I suggest first communicating with the Moderator who closed the thread for guidance about re-opening it.

[Lohman446]

Fights where they're both ready for a fight tend to go a little longer.
But fights that start with one party sucker punching the other is usually over very quickly.. sometimes with just 1 punch.

The victim in this case physically imposed himself between the aggressor and the aggressor's simplest path of retreat while effectively limiting his own retreat. He was also at contact distance.

There should have been no "sucker" punch involved. This was poor tactics and in this case being in the right did not overcome those tactics because it very seldom will.

No I am not excusing the acts of the aggressor in this case.

[Justice06RR]

The video won't load so I can only comment on the news article.

Situations like this are not easy to speculate on because any number of things can happen, and everyone's response to it is different.

If its money or your wallet the BG is after, its better to just give it up easily and let the perp go. Call 911 after and cancel all your cards. (easier said than done of course)

If you decide to defend yourself, well.. anything can happen. You have the right to defend as you may feel threatened and feel your life is in danger, if you think the bg has a weapon or can hurt you in some way.

Its good to see the that they caught the bg though.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The robber just spontaneously robbed a person in a public place in broad daylight that he had to know was under video surveillance. That's a very aggressive action that breaks many social norms. So, first problem (after the awareness one the OP wishes to skip over) was victim failed to recognize all the behavioral clues that would have helped him identify who he was facing.

Then as Lohman mentioned, blocking the robber's retreat was a bad choice. You have plenty of behavioral clues to tell you where that is going to go.

After thinking about it with considerably more time than the victim had, I think I'd just let him walk away with the wallet and be a good witness. The wallet reportedly had $35 and none of the solutions for immediately retrieving the wallet are going to be cheaper than that, even when you consider time and hassle.

Retrieving the wallet right now is going to require force. As the video so ably demonstrates, opening up with insufficient force will get you killed or seriously injured even if you are not armed. If you are armed, you're also signalling a bonus round in the gameshow "Thug Life." "Would you like to keep the $35 you just won or go to the bonus round and play for a shiny new pistol?"

However, Mr. Thug made some mistakes too. He robbed a guy and then turned his back to him and tried to walk away. If the victim shared Mr. Thug's psychology, he could have easily smashed him in the back of the skull and delievered a similarly brutal attack. Luckily for Mr. Thug, he is able to identify who he is facing better than his victim.

If for some reason I had a fit of temporary insanity and decided that the wallet was worth all the negative press and risks to life and limb involved, the first thing I'd do is let him leave. He has a contact weapon. I have a distance weapon. If he wants to turn his back to me and open up distance, let him do it. Use the time to find cover and a good rest and then restart negotiations over the $35.

[O4L]

I watched the video last night and it made me quite angry.

First of all, I doubt that I would be in the exact situation as the victim because I try to always be aware of my surroundings and be ready to act in case of a threat.

That being said, as the "victim" I would have drawn as soon as any physical aggression began and if he proceeded with the attack I would have fired as many times as it took to stop the attack.

In that situation I can honestly say that I would be in fear for my life or great bodily harm. You can't wait until someone punches you to begin to defend yourself.

As a bystander, I wouldn't have hesitated to draw from a safe distance, give a warning, and then fire if the attack continued.

This was a very violent attack and the victim could have been killed or very seriously injured.

[Lohman446]

However, Mr. Thug made some mistakes too. He robbed a guy and then turned his back to him and tried to walk away. If the victim shared Mr. Thug's psychology, he could have easily smashed him in the back of the skull and delievered a similarly brutal attack. Luckily for Mr. Thug, he is able to identify who he is facing better than his victim.

I have two rules in unarmed non-consensual combat:
1) If at all possible arm yourself - there is something to be used as weapon
2) Win at all costs

The problem it appears is the victim did not realize that he was initiating (not legally) combat by blocking that retreat.

I think this is why it is important to think these things through now, with calm minds, and knowing at least the potential outcomes. As you note that wallet was not worth entering combat for - one can argue about what physical possessions are worth entering combat for or if in fact any are but most of us are going to note that wallet was not.

If the reason for entering combat is not physical possessions it begins to narrow the circumstances down. Police officers, holding a specific duty, are often forced to enter situations they would not - we can argue if a private citizen has a duty to stop future victims of theft by entering combat but I expect the answer is going to end up being no. Protection of others in imminent danger can be another reason for entering combat. In this case it does not appear the victim had others he was attempting to protect and it appears the bystanders decided this was not a valid reason for entering combat.

We are getting down pretty far on the list of reasons to enter combat and we are getting to a dangerous one: Pride. Like it or not many of these situations are entered, often inadvertently, because of pride. Again I am not blaming the victim here but I am willing to bet, as the wallet was not worth it, pride played a big part.

There is a reason many philosophies hinge on the idea of "walking softly but carrying a big stick" and its important, again in times when we can have the discussions with cool heads, to determine how far you will go for pride and what things you are willing to stand up for and enter combat.

Make no mistake blocking an aggressive individuals ability to retreat, if it is not entering combat, is escalating the likelihood of it.

[O4L]

I never saw the thug turn his back to the victim after robbing him.

[Deaf Smith]

Try this link.

http://www.easttexasmatters.com/news...tore/786160626

Deaf

[Deaf Smith]

Folks, the attacker first STOLE money right out of his hand. That is theft. When committed right in front of you here in Texas can legally confront them. It is a Class C misdemeanor EXCEPT when force is used to take the money (he snatched it from his hand and then when not allowed to leave he physically attacked him) then it becomes strong armed robbery, a felony. If the thief had killed him it would then have been capital murder (murder in commission of a felony.)

In actually, the Lufkin police charged him, Andrea Franks-Vanzandt, with aggravated robbery. They considered his hands and feet deadly weapons. Why? The severity of the beating (to me he almost killed him!)

But as the attack grew in force, and with the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Texas, the victim could have shot him.

But as in the title of this thread, keep your eyes pealed and aware of what is going on. And yes get some H2H skills just in case you have to stop them from BEATING YOU TO DEATH.

And anytime you confront someone you might get killed. Everyone knows that. One just has to decide if they are going to stop them or not. And folks need to decide if they will train themselves to be able to handle that kind of situation.

BTW, I've been to many schools, including SouthNarcs, Ayoobs, Tom Givens, and others (and 40 years of martial arts.) So this video of the assault just confirms what I've been trained.

Deaf

[OldMarksman]

That being said, as the "victim" I would have drawn as soon as any physical aggression began and if he proceeded with the attack I would have fired as many times as it took to stop the attack.

Back to the study hall for you!

"Any physical aggression" would not necessarily justify the use of deadly force. In Texas, if force were justified, the display of a firearm would probably be justified in the case of necessiity, but that would not mean that one should expect to get off lightly if one were to fire.

Prerequisites for justification would start with immediate necessity to defend against an imminent thereat of death or serious bodily harm--not the possibility (the o'l 'one punch can kill' routine), but an imminent threat.

One of the things about necessity is that there must be no other way to avoid injury or death. The fact that the victim here chose to try to block the departure of the attacker could weigh against any claim that the use of deadly force had been necessary to stop the attack.

As a bystander, I wouldn't have hesitated to draw from a safe distance, give a warning, and then fire if the attack continued.

Would the victim have been lawfully justified in the use of deadly force? If not, neither would a bystander.

This was a very violent attack and the victim could have been killed or very seriously injured.

"Could have been" is not always sufficient.

Legality aside, the victim here acted in an extremely imprudent manner. He could have been seriously injured, and he failed to try to avoid that.

[BumbleBug]

It looked like the guy was going to beat the victim to death. I seems like the store keeper should have armed himself & ordered the thug to stop. Most likely he would have immediately stopped & fled. If the thug was stupid enough to move towards the store keeper he would hopefully then have been shot. If the victim would have been armed & acted in the same manner he did, his gun would probably been taken from him. The thug with that much hate & aggression in him would probably not have hesitated to shoot & kill him with it.

[JoeSixpack]

I added a link to another source of the video for those of you having difficulty watching the original.

So im not hearing much discussion on thoughts of non lethal weapons.
The more I think about this the more I think I would have liked to have a can of pepper spray at hand.. I've never carried spray but Im really thinking of trying it, Generally not to expensive and it's situations like this that make me realize Im not really equipped to handle things in a less than lethal way.

I think getting some hand 2 hand training is great, But there are so many variables in a physical contest and if you're carrying a gun the stakes are extremely high if you loose.

[hdwhit]

Someone comes up and takes money or my wallet out of my hand? I just get out of their way, laugh and remind myself that I hope they enjoy the $20 in the wallet because all the credit cards will be shut off by the time they can make it to the corner store.

Yeah, I lose a morning at the DMV getting a new license and I have to use my back-up credit card until the new one arrives, but that's far less hassle than the trip to the police station, the grand jury and court for shooting someone to death over a few bucks and a driver's license.

And make no mistake, even if the police determine the shooting was justified and the grand jury issues a "no true bill" so that you have no criminal liability, you're still going to court. That's because some relative of the victim is going to institute a civil proceeding against you for wrongful death.

[Deaf Smith]

And make no mistake, even if the police determine the shooting was justified and the grand jury issues a "no true bill" so that you have no criminal liability, you're still going to court. That's because some relative of the victim is going to institute a civil proceeding against you for wrongful death.

Not necessary. In the case this is about it is in TEXAS. A 'Stand Your Ground' law AND a 'Castle Doctrine' state. And Texas juries really don't like vicious beatings.

I seems like the store keeper should have armed himself...

Not the store keepers responsibility. As John Farnam says often.. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.

It's up to you, the victim, not anyone else.

Deaf

[Lohman446]

Not the store keepers responsibility.

This is arguable. As a business owner I have a moral obligation to provide a safe environment to by employees and customers. Now do I depend on others to do the same? No I don't because I don't depend on others for my safety but I do feel that a business owner has a responsibility to his or her employees and customers.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

Not the store keepers responsibility.

Legally and/or morally? In this era of irresponsibility, I wouldn't take those odds to Vegas as far as legal action goes

[spacemanspiff]

That being said, as the "victim" I would have drawn as soon as any physical aggression began and if he proceeded with the attack I would have fired as many times as it took to stop the attack.

In that situation I can honestly say that I would be in fear for my life or great bodily harm. You can't wait until someone punches you to begin to defend yourself.

As a bystander, I wouldn't have hesitated to draw from a safe distance, give a warning, and then fire if the attack continued.

I'm trying to be polite here with my reply. Apologies in advance if my tone becomes rude or mean.

O4L, I have no doubt that you believe deadly force would be justified when faced with an unarmed attacker. But just because you believe it does not make it correct, lawful or even moral.

I don't know what state you reside in, so I do not know what process you may or may not have had to go thru in order to carry. Perhaps you live in a state like I do where no permit is required, you simply have to be able to lawfully own a gun. But prior to my state relaxing the carry laws we had to take a class in which an instructor went over the entire state statutes regarding the justifiable use of deadly force.

And applying my states laws to the attack on the video, you as a victim would not have been justified to 'draw at the first sign of aggression'. Maybe the laws are different where you live.

But laws are not the only factor involved when we make the decision to carry a firearm. There is the morality, where each persons conscience guides them as to whether or not they have the mental fortitude to take another life, and in what circumstances. Its easy to see when reading thru forums like this, who has and who has not let their conscience guide them. A lot of us comprehend that deadly force is sometimes going to be the last possible resort, and sometimes it is going to have to be the first option.

Your comments about being in fear for your life because someone starts punching you, tells a lot. Contemplate this, if you were the victim in that attack, and you have someone knocking your money/wallet out of your hand, (thats the first sign of aggression), wouldn't it make more sense to get distance from the attacker? If he is close enough to knock you wallet out of your hand, do you really think you will get your gun out and level it at the attacker before he starts beating you and possibly knock the gun out of your hands?

You already state that as a bystander you would 'draw from a safe distance'. As the victim, if you could put ten or 15 feet between you and the attacker, why wouldnt you do that prior to drawing? Why couldnt you close the distance, and tackle the attacker, or at least shove him away from you?

Just because you carry a gun does not mean that is the only option for your defense.

[OldMarksman]

Not necessary. In the case this is about it is in TEXAS. A 'Stand Your Ground' law AND a 'Castle Doctrine' state.

Many states, including mine, have eliminated the duty to retreat. And many states, including mine, havecivil immunity laws.

Neither provision will keep you out of court.

And Texas juries really don't like vicious beatings.

If things have progressed as far as a jury trial, a court has already judged that the claim of justification was not clear cut. The defendant may win, but he will not have enjoyed the ride.

[Lohman446]

I would have drawn as soon as any physical aggression began

With the benefit of calm hindsight when exactly was that?

Texas juries really don't like vicious beatings.

The problem here becomes that effective self defense also prevents the beating. With effective self defense you may have no evidence that said beating was going to occur. Further evidence of that beating may be ignored (we saw physical evidence of a beating having occurred basically ignored in an event not too long ago in Florida).

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

With the benefit of calm hindsight when exactly was that?

That's the problem isn't it?
He probably would have been justified after he's on the ground and being kicked and stomped but by then the fight was over.. it was now a beating.
But the problem is he was in no shape at that point to actually help him self let alone deploy a gun.

To me it looks like the fight was over on that 2nd punch.. even if he had tried to draw after the 1st I don't think he would have been able to under the rain of blows he was getting.

That's what's so bad about this situation.. by the time most of us would agree he's in the clear he's to far gone to do anything.

Originally Posted by Lohman446

The problem here becomes that effective self defense also prevents the beating. With effective self defense you may have no evidence that said beating was going to occur.

Exactly, That's why I find situations like this so paradoxical.

If the situation plays out we know the man received an absolutely brutal beating, I mean I really don't think any jury would convict this guy for using deadly force against that sort of assault....
But if we go back in a time machine and he shoots the guy.. Then it just looks like an armed guy shooting an unarmed guy.


The only thing I can come up with is some less then lethal solution, If you're not absolutely sure you can win a physical contest.. and even if normally you can you might not get the chance if the attacker lands a sucker blow.

We may have to look at some pre-emptive non lethal force.
I mean I don't wanna walk around with a bat belt.. but at the same time cops don't go fist fighting suspects unless they're caught off guard.. they just taster you.

And if you ever see a cop fight 1on1 they always try to keep the gun away from the attacker.. so they know the stakes.

[CalmerThanYou]

Tough question. I see after re-watching the video the victim did have time to retreat, and should have.

However once he was on the ground, he became mostly defenseless. Also once he was on the ground, given the severity of the beating and the thug showing no signs of stopping it is no longer about the wallet or money.

I do think at that point his life was in clear danger. Given the close proximity of the attacker, I think this victim was SOL
Reaching for a gun at that point seems difficult at best and could very well end up in the attackers hands.

Part of me suggests that a otf automatic knife would have been a lower profile option, as the victim could have opened it and used it with one hand, even under the stress of the beating. However then you have the use of potential deadly force road to go down even if you succeed in wounding him causing retreat.

Not sure what I would have done as a bystander. perhaps ask the clerk if they have a bat behind the counter and take the guy out, as he was pretty unaware of his surroundings as he beat that poor dude to a mess.

P.S. one thing I noticed is the victim did not make proper effort to , slide, crawl, stumble run, make a diversion or anything else offensive when he was down. Anything to put some distance between him and the attacker would have provided more options to fight or flee.

[Deaf Smith]

If things have progressed as far as a jury trial, a court has already judged that the claim of justification was not clear cut. The defendant may win, but he will not have enjoyed the ride.

Only if the prosecutor decides to do anything. I doubt it here in Texas where it happened. We are a conservative bunch and there are plenty of SD cases where the Texas system didn't do anything to the defender, especially with such graphic video of the attack backing them up ... just like this one.


But in NYC or California.. who knows.

Deaf

[Lohman446]

especially with such graphic video of the attack

How does such exist with effective self defense?