In reading his posts and those of Frylock and you with the face, I’m trying to figure out what’s the disconnect here between the way the situation seems to me and how it is to them.
If this is correct could you guys confirm it? I’m thinking that MAYBE split is using the fact that he’s dressed in his work clothes as strong evidence that the other guy HAD TO KNOW already what he was doing there, and therefore there was no other possible reason for coming up to him with a 2x4 other than he had the intention of assaulting him.
Is that how y’all see it?
That’s not at all how I read it, and it took some effort to come up with this for me.
The fact that split was wearing his work clothes is just evidence that the other guy COULD HAVE known what he was doing there if he had been paying attention and wasn’t a dumbass. But those are two assumptions you can’t make with someone who carries a 2x4 as a potential weapon. In all likelihood the other guy was a dumbass but felt that split was probably up to no good, and was carrying the 2x4 as a defensive weapon in case split were to attack him.
I don’t think either way–I’m taking it from the view of a dispassionate observer if I was on a jury or if I was a judge. I don’t have any way to know what the guy was or his motivations. If you killed him I would have to rely on your account of events to deduce whether you had a reasonable fear for your life/limb. I don’t so far see anything you’ve said that would make me feel you had a reasonable fear for life/limb.
You’re asking me to view the event exactly as you did, I’m trying to present to you how a neutral third party would view your story as related to them.
A prosecutor would most certainly note that carrying a stick isn’t illegal.
You might get arrested. A black man in Seattle was arrested for walking down the street with a golf club. The police officer who arrested lied, and said he “brandished it at her” and I believe even claimed he swung it at her. Life isn’t fair and neither is society or how its laws are enforced.
I’m trying to present the worst possible take on OP’s actions, and the most innocuous on the hypothetically killed man’s actions. Because that is how a prosecutor would present it. This OP is asking if his actions would be legally justified had he killed the person. I’m not a lawyer or an expert, just well read (in my opinion.) My opinion is a prosecutor would have a strong case against him because it’d be easy to paint him not only as not acting in reasonable self defense, but acting as the aggressor. He’s basically walked into that with his words here. He is a good example of why people need defense counsel, the way he’s phrasing things and his take on it, he’s essentially incriminating himself immensely. There’s a better way to spin anything, and he’s doing the exact opposite.
What if he walked up and said “Do you know anyone who speaks the language of Chinese?” A question can be illogical without being a threat. Like I said, asking someone “what they are doing” is not a threat as has been portrayed here. You can’t assume a question is a threat because you assume the person already knows what you’re doing. Again, prosecutor hat on, “Maybe he saw your work clothes and wondered what work you were doing in the neighborhood?”
I don’t have enough information to know what the guy’s motivations were. I only have enough information to evaluate OP’s story versus self defense law.
That line of thought isn’t relevant as to whether striking someone and killing them in response to a question is justified legally.
Your use of the term “advancing” is wrong, but you are also mistaken. A white person is less likely to be an attacker than a black person, statistically, than a black person, no matter the race of the other person. Blacks commit most of the crimes against blacks as well as most of the crimes where the attacker and the attackee are of different races.
You were apparently claiming that a black person should be more afraid of a white person than a black one. Statistically, that analysis is off. A black person should be more afraid of a black person, all things being equal.
I don’t believe that is the case, but at any rate, a white person who contemplated attacking someone in the same circumstances would be just as wrong, legally and morally, as a black one. You don’t get to attack people for asking you what you are doing.
OK, but let’s go even further and assume the guy with the 2x4 was motivated entirely by racism. He’s a card-carrying member of the KKK, and he said to himself “I bet that n****r is up to no good. I will find out, and I have my trusty 2x4 in case he starts any trouble”.
Even if all that is true, you can’t attack someone for asking you what you are doing. Even if he has bad motivations. You have to wait to attack him until you have some reasonable basis to believe that you have encountered a threat that a reasonable person would believe was credible. split would have to show that he knew that it was a racist and that the racist was going to attack him. Since that isn’t the case, attacking him is not legally justifiable.
Telling him to fuck off is fine, as I said before. Ignoring him is also fine. Walking away, calling the cops, whatever. But you can’t use force.
Martin Hyde, you and I agree, I was just trying to understand where they’re coming from in their statements that split could have been justified in the use of deadly force. Find agreement first then go from there.
split, here’s another way to look at it. His motivation could have been either of these two, among some others:
A. He could see you were wearing the clothes of a rail worker, therefore he knew what you were doing, but just wanted to come over and assault you with a 2x4.
B. He suspected that you may be up to no good, so came out to challenge you, and took along a 2x4 in case he needed to defend himself.
Now, if you absolutely knew that A was the case and could convince everyone else that there was no doubt, you would be justified. But the problem is that based on what you’ve told us, B is a strong possibility - my first-pass approximation would be that B had a 90% chance of being the case while A had only a 10% chance.
But you would have the obligation to show that B couldn’t have been true, that A was the only possible reason the guy was there. And in most states, even if you could show that, you’d also have to show that it was not possible for you to retreat. Based on what you’ve told us, there is no way you could show either of these, so you would be arrested and justifiably convicted of assault.
You have yet to cite a statistical factoid that’s actually relevant to the situation. What’s needed is a comparison of cases where a white person is advancing* on a black person with a potential weapon in hand vs cases where a white person is advancing on a white person with a potential weapon in hand, where the two are strangers to each other and have no known common social contacts. That’s part of what would be necessary to cite, it is not what is sufficient for a relevant cite. Your references to general national crime statistics are not clearly applicable to the case described. Of course I doubt such statistics exist. In a case like this, we have only our intuitions and experience to go on, really.
(I think there is a named fallacy you are committieng, but the name is escaping my mind at the moment. A simple parallel example would be “The majority of fruits in the world are inedible. So this fruit in this refrigerator in this home is probably inedible.”)
Moreover the terror I referred to was not supposed to be just terror at the prospect of being attacked, but terror concerning the aftermath as well. As a white person, if I survive an attack I am more likely to be able to look forward to quality medical care and institutional support for punishment of my attacker. If I am black, not so much.
In my world, normal people don’t normally just approach a stranger who isn’t bothering anyone or anything with a question like “what are you doing?” unless they are trying to start some shit. They just don’t. In the rare case someone does this, they make pleasantries first as a guesture of good will. They don’t assume of posture of authoritah by demanding someone explain themselves.
I hardly think my experience is that unique. As I said earlier, no one ever has said anything like to me in my life. And I would never dream of saying this to someone else.
I think the more likely thing is that he didn’t care whether the OP had a reason to be there. He just wanted to act the tough guy and get a reaction out of him. Because if he thought the OP was a possible criminal, calling the cops is easier than going up to him.
At the time I said that, he had not said anything that would clearly distinguish his scenario from mine.
“What are you doing,” absent other context, is not nearly so personal as that. You’re in public, in a human society; speech is how human beings interact. You have the right to not talk if you like, but not the right to stop others from talking. You do not have the right to become violent when people say mundane things to you, presuming that you are a person like unto them.
That you seem to share a touch of the OP’s misanthropy does not make either of you right.
I would be saying that you were a vicious racist as well as paranoid.
The OP has never described the guy coming at him in any way. He never charged. He never swung. He walked, he stood, he spoke. That’s not “coming at” someone.
Though obviously I disagree with OP, I must say that I think a lot of you aren’t giving enough credence to his feeling of being threatened. It’s a really weird, aggressive, and unexpected situation he was suddenly thrust into. If he really did see the guy come out of his house and walk right over, then the 2x4 is almost definitely a weapon. While “What are you doing?” is not quite a threat, it’s also more than a normal (if rude) question – an accusation at least. I’d be nervous in his situation.
I differ with him about the use of lethal force for two reasons. One, I think there’s a duty (moral if not legal) to retreat or try to de-escalate before initiating violence (also it’s just more likely to be practical). Second, that the guy came out of his house specifically to attack some innocent stranger is even more unlikely than him thinking that OP is dealing drugs or casing a robbery or something. He’d have to be a special kind of psycho for the former to be true. For the latter, he just has to be an aggressive, probably-racist asshole, of which there are all too many. And if it’s the latter, just talking to him will probably end any threat. It doesn’t matter that you shouldn’t have to answer his question, unless you’re literally willing to die on that hill.
Its bizarre statements like this that make me agree with the OP’s frustrated view towards posters in this thread. So what you’re saying is, just because he didn’t explicity disavow or articulate every single possible variable, nuance, or factor that would make his experience similiar or dissimilar to some alternative version of reality you imagined for him, this means it’s fair for you to assume this alternative version is the true version. Not at all giving the OP any benefit of the doubt that he had a legitimate reason to be fearful. Bullshit.
How would you feel if you recounted a situation in which a guy acted creepily or agressive to you, and a bunch of mansplainers insisted you pegged the guy wrong just because you failed to be detailed enough in your subjective assessment about the situation? This has happened to me, and few things are as maddening.
Have you ever in your life asked a perfect stranger “what are you doing?”, absent anything else, when they are just standing there minding their business? Please be honest. If you really expect me to believe this is not a rude question, then with no problem you should be able to recount saying this to someone at least once in the last year.
The only circumstance that would prompt me to say this is if I see someone doing something wrong. Like scribbling graffiti on a wall or harrassing a homeless person. Even then, I would not be saying it near them, but rather ffrom a safe distance. Because I know it could provoke someone into doing something unpleasant. (Which is why I would probably just call the fucking cops.)
Classy. So I’m starting to see why you might have a problem with knowing what rudeness looks like.
But this kind of thing does happen. It could be the guy didn’t go out with the intent to kill the OP, but harrass him? Make him feel uncomfortable? Scare him off with a big stick? These are all in the realm of possibility. Then he could go back to his buddies with a story to tell about how he kicked some nigger’s ass, even if he really didn’t. Years ago, me and some classmates went to Pensacola, FL and some locals roughed up a friend of mine (black male) for no reason except they were drunk and racist. Was that “unlikely”? Who knows and who cares? It happened.
I’m very unfamiliar with rail work and have a difficult time picturing the scene leading up to the confrontation. Could the OP please elaborate a bit on what sort of activity he was doing in the parking lot? I earnestly have no idea if that kind of work could have been misconstrued as something suspicious.
Also, about how far exactly would the stated perfect striking distance with a 2 x 4 be? Between one and two meters from the OP?
But you knew–you knew–that if he were for some reason required to clarify, he would clarify things on the side of it being a dangerous situation.
Your remarks or questions did not have the purpose of information gathering, because you already knew the information you purportedly wish to gather. You knew full well the probability was zero that the OP would reply that it was one of the hypothetical situations that did not involve a threat.
So, not information gathering. Not clarification. No, your questions had a different purpose.
“Speech is how human beings interact.” You and others in this thread continually redirect from what was actually said to a more general concept of just “speech”. Why do you suppose you do that?*
We can interact through speech by saying, unarmed, “Please excuse me, it’s not really my business but I was really curious about what you’re working on,” or we can interact through speech by saying, armed, “What are you doing.”
Stop pretending.
*This reminds me of a time my sister complained that she got a ticket “for parking in front of my house.”
Actually, of course, the ticket was for parking too near an intersection.
I think I’d be extremely apprehensive in OP’s situation, even before the guy spoke to me. Carrying a 2x4, while legal, is strange behavior enough to warrant my attention. People using 2x4s for construction/carpentry purposes generally don’t have just one piece of board and don’t walk around carrying it like a ball bat. If the neighborhood is known for crime, then a worker there alone as an “outsider” is at a decently elevated risk of mugging or etc. I have never said the OP was irrational in being concerned or feeling threatened, only that he wouldn’t be legally justified in killing someone in response to those feelings, sans any other actions by the 2x4 guy.
But none of those things you listed would allow the OP to justify using deadly force.
Look, no one is saying that it’s not possible that the other guy was there with the intent to assault, we all agree that that’s one possibility. But it’s also possible that he was there because he thought split was up to no good, and carried the 2x4 just in case he needed to defend himself.
If split were to use deadly force against this guy, he would have to show that the latter scenario was impossible, not that the former was possible. That’s what we’re advising him on. You can’t use deadly force simply because you’re fearful, or that you think it’s likely that someone intends to assault you. You have to be sure that deadly force is the only option, including that retreating was not an option.
And even if they were in a stand-your-ground state and split was able to successfully defend himself against the inevitable criminal charges, his life would still be fucked up. There is just no scenario where it’s advisable to use deadly force unless it’s really your only option left.
No, which is why I believe the OP had better options than fight or flee, and have said as much. That doesn’t mean I think its likely that the guy had only noble intentions. Based on what the OP has described, I find it more reasonable to conclude he had shit-starting intentions.
I see a anumber of posters trying to reduce the guy’s behavior to probabilities. Saying stuff like “what are the odds he was going to attack a stranger?” as if we’re talking about a dice roll or something. To go back to the subject of bias, I doubt statistical reasoning would be offered in a discussion about a black stranger accosting a white person. Why? Because it would be more obvious that math has no place in a discussion about human behavior.
When fights break out, premediated violence is probably never the main driver. Pre-meditated dick waving is, though, and such dick-waving can easily escalate to violence if a temper gets out of control. So forget probabilities. Fights like this break out everyday, thousands of times a day.
Would it be reasonable for the guy to assume OP was up to no good? I think that’s an important question to answer, because it hits on the question of racial prejudice and why the OP might feel threatened by someone who is interacting with him through that ugly lens.
I don’t think it is reasonable to assume the OP was up to no good, so if that was what motivated him to approach the OP, then its fair to assume his demeanor was hostile and unfriendly–just as the OP said it was. It would be one thing if the OP said he was fiddling with the parked cars or pacing around suspiciously around the neighborhood. But he has maintained from the beginning that all he was doing was standing under the streetlight quietly waiting for his ride. In addition, he wasn’t dressed in stealth criminal gear. He was wearing a garment that would actually *attract *attention, that would mark him as some kind of worker. Not a vagabond.
Try as hard as I might, the underlying theme in this thread is that not only is it acceptable for white folks to assume black people might be “up to no good” just because they are standing outdoors in a public area, but that it is acceptable for them to go up and ask black people to justify their presence on demand. And then also expect that black people will politely indulge this form of questioning and not be afraid or see it as rude. Even when the person bothering them with this nonsense has a stick in hand like they might hit them when they don’t shuck and jive quickly enough.
So I will ask again. Do you think it is reasonable, based on the OP’s description of events, to assume the OP was up to no good?