# The ex-felon vs the two drunk douchebags **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 15, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696 "2011-10-15T00:51:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/101 "2011-10-15T17:36:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite for any of the beating being punitive. Look, the issue is that _you_ clearly think that the beating served as punitive. All the talk about teaching a lesson, and who deserved getting their asses kicked and who deserves a medal, is all a bunch of bullshit. You praise the action because of its punitive nature, and then turn around and ask for a cite about it? You can’t have it both ways. Argue till the cows come home about what counts as legitimate self-defense (and I might even agree with you), but in the U S of Fuckin’-A, we don’t teach people lessons by beating the shit out of them, no matter how much you think they deserve it. ---
**Author:** ![JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimboJamesJimmersonIII_Esq)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/102 "2011-10-15T17:48:17Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > But his cow-orker DID see everything, and he quite clearly thought that the line between self-defense and assault had been crossed based on his repeated attempts to intervene and cease the weapon. And you see the cashier’s defense cease as soon as he realizes at least one of two things: 1. His assailants have been subdued - From his perspective, bodily movement may means the threat is still be present; it’s a grey area, and views will often differ between a victim’s perception and an onlooker’s perception on what constitutes an ongoing threat. 2. He now nows he has an ally; someone has finally intervened in the situation. Up until that point, everyone else stands around with their thumbs up their asses. No one bothers to intervene as the cashier is assaulted. He is surrounded by people who know what is happening, but fail to intervene. He is effectively alone in the situation for those moments, and acts as a lone individual would upon assault from multiple individuals. I was once subject to an attempted strong-arm mugging. It happened in full view of at least three dozen people. The situaltion escalated from verbal threats to physical assault, and I tried to maintain control of the situation as best as I could. I’m not a small individual, and I was able to contain the first attacker, while a second attacker tried to knock me down from behind. In an attempt to find aid, I actually made eye contact with several people in the crowd, only to see them immediately look away. Most people are fucking cowards, but I can’t blame them; they don’t want to become victims themselves. The point is that I was alone in the crowd. If I had had the opportunity to get to a weapon, you’d better believe I would have used it. And if I had cracked one of their skulls in the process, my actions would have been justified and legal. And if they continued to move toward me, even on the ground, I would have done whatever I felt was necesarry. Luckily, a freind returned to the area, and the thugs realized that it was more trouble than it was worth, and scurried off. Had I lost my footing at any point during the altercation, I could have been stomped into unconsciousness or worse. The cashier had no aid until the end, and he did what he felt was necessary to prevent injury from his attackers. I’m not saying that he could not have stopped earlier, but it is far too easy to say it in hindsight as a casual observer. A fight or flight response is about self-preservation. He had no idea if or when the assault would stop, and he took measures to ensure his safety. As Martin Hyde tells above, an assault is not necesarrily over just because the perpetrator(s) is on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/103 "2011-10-15T17:52:08Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > To approach this issue from another angle - if the man behind the counter was an armed security guard or cop, he would have been within his rights to shoot these putas as soon as they jumped the counter. Short answer: no. Long answer: > [@](#): > > [New York Penal Code 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person](http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.15_35.15.html). > 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use > physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she > reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a > third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or > imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: > (a) The latter’s conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to > cause physical injury to another person; or > (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the > use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has > withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such > withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing > the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical > force; or > (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by > agreement not specifically authorized by law. > 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person > under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: > (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or > about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the > actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with > complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the > necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no > duty to retreat if he or she is: > (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or > (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police > officer or a peace officer at the latter’s direction, acting pursuant to > section 35.30; or > (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing > or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal > sexual act or robbery; or > (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing > or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that > the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of > section 35.20. With the above interpreted in light of the reasonable person test in [Goetz](http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nygoetz.htm) that considers the person’s background. A more useful hypothetical would be to ask what the fellow with the metal bar would have done if a cop had been standing beside him at the time. Was his mental state such that he still would have continued the beating of the people on the ground, or would he have stopped in the presence of the cop. That’s one way that that the modified M’Naghten test can be applied in some jurisdictions where the defence of irrestible impulse is permitted. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/104 "2011-10-15T17:56:35Z")
> [@JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](#): > > As Martin Hyde tells above, an assault is not necesarrily over just because the perpetrator(s) is on the ground. Yeah, but that was just one of those minor “high school scraps”. Martin’s relative should have just “walked off” his petty little injuries. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/105 "2011-10-15T18:14:33Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > And if she got up and came after him again, then what? She chucks a pot of hot oil in his face? > > Take her out. Take her out now. Don’t give her a second chance. She wants to be safe, she stays on her own damn side of the counter. Fortunately, the law disagrees with you and your aberrational and bizarre thoughts. Also from [Goetz](http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nygoetz.htm): > [@](#): > > We cannot lightly impute to the Legislature an intent to fundamentally alter the principles of justification to allow the perpetrator of a serious crime to go free simply because that person believed his actions were reasonable and necessary to prevent some perceived harm. To completely exonerate such an individual, no matter how aberrational or bizarre his thought patterns, would allow citizens to set their own standards for the permissible use of force. It would also allow a legally competent defendant suffering from delusions to kill or perform acts of violence with impunity, contrary to fundamental principles of justice and criminal law. ---
**Author:** ![JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimboJamesJimmersonIII_Esq)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/106 "2011-10-15T18:15:11Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Short answer: no. > > Long answer: > > With the above interpreted in light of the reasonable person test in [Goetz](http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nygoetz.htm) that considers the person’s background. > > A more useful hypothetical would be to ask what the fellow with the metal bar would have done if a cop had been standing beside him at the time. Was his mental state such that he still would have continued the beating of the people on the ground, or would he have stopped in the presence of the cop. That’s one way that that the modified M’Naghten test can be applied in some jurisdictions where the defence of irrestible impulse is permitted. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think you are trying to make the claim that the hypothetical cop’s presence would make the cashier stop his defensive action because the cashier thinks he is doing something wrong. If I stop attempting to put out a fire because the fire department shows up, that doesn’t mean I thought I was doing something wrong. It just means that someone better qualified showed up and my actions were no longer necessary. The key difference in your hypothetical is that it is (more or less) universally known that a police officer has a duty to act. You can count on a cop to step in and provide aid against an attacker, and as such, you can drop your guard. Your typical crowd can not be counted on to act. In fact, it is just as likely that they will stand around and do nothing as was the case here. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/107 "2011-10-15T18:17:16Z")
> [@JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](#): > > Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think you are trying to make the claim that the hypothetical cop’s presence would make the cashier stop his defensive action because the cashier thinks he is doing something wrong. If I stop attempting to put out a fire because the fire department shows up, that doesn’t mean I thought I was doing something wrong. It just means that someone better qualified showed up and my actions were no longer necessary. > > The key difference in your hypothetical is that it is (more or less) universally known that a police officer has a duty to act. You can count on a cop to step in and provide aid against an attacker, and as such, you can drop your guard. Your typical crowd can not be counted on to act. In fact, it is just as likely that they will stand around and do nothing as was the case here. I’d just like to say, that in my opinion, your username is too long. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/108 "2011-10-15T18:40:26Z")
> [@JimboJamesJimmersonIII\_Esq](#): > > Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think you are trying to make the claim that the hypothetical cop’s presence would make the cashier stop his defensive action because the cashier thinks he is doing something wrong. If I stop attempting to put out a fire because the fire department shows up, that doesn’t mean I thought I was doing something wrong. It just means that someone better qualified showed up and my actions were no longer necessary. > > The key difference in your hypothetical is that it is (more or less) universally known that a police officer has a duty to act. You can count on a cop to step in and provide aid against an attacker, and as such, you can drop your guard. Your typical crowd can not be counted on to act. In fact, it is just as likely that they will stand around and do nothing as was the case here. Policeman at the person’s elbow, as in a little angel on his shoulder dressing in a Bobby’s uniform stage whispering in his ear: “What you are doing is wrong.” If the person was in such a mental state as to not be able to stop despite hearing the officer’s warning, then irresitable impulse might succeed. If the person’s mental state should have not stood in the way of the person stopping, then the defence of irrestible impulse would fail. (Note: I do not know if such a defence is permitted in NY). BTW, you wouldn’t happen to be esquiring about in Vegas, would you? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/109 "2011-10-15T18:45:42Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Look, the issue is that _you_ clearly think that the beating served as punitive. > > All the talk about teaching a lesson, and who deserved getting their asses kicked and who deserves a medal, is all a bunch of bullshit. You praise the action because of its punitive nature, and then turn around and ask for a cite about it? > > You can’t have it both ways. Argue till the cows come home about what counts as legitimate self-defense (and I might even agree with you), but in the U S of Fuckin’-A, we don’t teach people lessons by beating the shit out of them, no matter how much you think they deserve it. I think it’s punitive only to the extent that if someone punches you and you punch them back and break his nose is punitive. I think the beating is _righteous_. It should be that everyone who acts like those two douchebags did gets a beating like that. Something punitive would come after the initial incident is over. Like if he now went over to one of their house and beat her again. Now, one could argue that the end of the beating was punitive. Maybe it was. And maybe it wasn’t. But there was only a couple seconds separating the righteous blows. For now, Mr. Cashier gets the benefit of any doubt. And a medal. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/110 "2011-10-15T19:00:27Z")
For those that consider the fact that the instigators in this story were unarmed women to be irrelevant, let me pose this question; if everything in this story were the same except that the perps were, say, 11 yr old girls, would you feel the same way about the employee’s actions? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/111 "2011-10-15T19:05:07Z")
Here is a much more clear and unedited copy of video: [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tFvPKHABgk) Sure looks to me like he fought them off, and once they were down he only gave them a couple of wacks. Fair enough. Then about four seconds later, after another employee had cautioned him, he started up again on the burgers that were on the floor. Not good. Then, after another pause of abourt eight seconds, during which time his fellow employee further cautioned him and tried to pull the metal bar away from him, he went back to thrashing the trash on the floor. Very bad. I think that the cautions and the pauses between the thrashings served to show that he stepped past delf-defence, and crossed into vengeful beatdown. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Conqueror\_Worm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@The\_Conqueror\_Worm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Conqueror_Worm)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/112 "2011-10-15T19:09:50Z")
Of the people in this thread that say they have been in fights I wonder how many have been in a real life or possible death struggle? School yard brawls do not really count. The simple truth is most people never have had a grown adult coming at them with malice, let alone with an accomplice covering their back. Thank the gods for that. I hope nobody ever has to witness such an event, let alone be the focus point for one. Anyone who has never been in such a situation hasn’t a single clue how they would actually act. In truth, I’ve never really been in this sort of circumstance, but I’ve trained for it for some time. Because of my training and attitude I’ve defused and walked away from a confrontation or two, but the key words here are “my training.” The average person on the street never will be involved in something like this cashier and for that we should all be thankful. Once more, I think he probably over reacted, but I think it might be possible that it’s entirely understandable in this instance. However, given the fact that most of the western population has never witnessed this sort of violence directly, let alone been involved in it I think their reactions and judgements are not valid. However, for those that think this man went over and beyond what was required, I think it’s likely that the dude is fucked. Oh, and still think the news piece was appalling in the way it was biased. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/113 "2011-10-15T19:11:17Z")
Where do you draw the line between self-defense & assault? IMO anything past the 1:10 mark in that video crosses it. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/114 "2011-10-15T19:11:56Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > For those that consider the fact that the instigators in this story were unarmed women to be irrelevant, let me pose this question; if everything in this story were the same except that the perps were, say, 11 yr old girls, would you feel the same way about the employee’s actions? Are they hot looking or are they pimple faced with braces? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/115 "2011-10-15T19:17:06Z")
And now to open up a can of worms, what’s black women in McDonald’s? [- YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=tS3rf_9tpDM) [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EmMuZWDqMc) [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/J6LVOYb5CKo/hqdefault.jpg "Epic girl fight! Bring it says woman...") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6LVOYb5CKo) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/116 "2011-10-15T19:17:09Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Are they hot looking or are they pimple faced with braces? And are they holding kittens or puppies? ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/117 "2011-10-15T19:19:28Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Are they hot looking or are they pimple faced with braces? You’d have to show me what your definition of a “hot-looking” 11 year old is before I could answer that. I don’t have such a definition. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/118 "2011-10-15T19:24:44Z")
Christ, almost everyone is saying that it was OK for him to hit them back with a metal bar, even though they weren’t armed. I agree, and said so in the other thread, but if I or anyone else were truly castigating the man for fighting back then surely we’d be claiming he should have fought with his bare hands? But no - they came behind the counter and there were two of them, so hitting them with a weapon was an entirely understandable reaction. Especially since he sufficiently bigger than them that it was unlikely they could take the weapon off him. It’s hitting them when they were down that’s the problem. Pause, wait (a few seconds is long enough), hear coworkers shouting stop, hit the people on the ground again. TBH, those of you who think that was a wonderful thing for him to do: you’re fucking psychos. Absolute pathetic people with serious malfunctions in your perception of the world. Fortunately I suspect most of you are also too physically weak to enact your violent fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/119 "2011-10-15T19:25:49Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > You’d have to show me what your definition of a “hot-looking” 11 year old is before I could answer that. I don’t have such a definition. :dubious: Maybe he meant to post on the To Catch a Predator thread. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696/120 "2011-10-15T19:37:24Z")
Not to mention the sub-set of black women at McDonalds using their shoes to commit assaults: [http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/woman-wanted-for-high-heel-attack-surrenders-to-police](http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/woman-wanted-for-high-heel-attack-surrenders-to-police) [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Mjs43oIG7Q/hqdefault.jpg "6pm: Passenger talks about McDonald's mayhem") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mjs43oIG7Q) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ex-felon-vs-the-two-drunk-douchebags/599696.md?page=7)