It would matter to me. It presumably mattered to the grand jury.
I’m okay with “until the authorities arrive to arrest them,” but I’m certainly willing to hear alternate suggestions.
I’m nit at all comfortable imbuing individual citizens with the right to use physical, and in this case potentially deadly, force to detain someone. Are you really okay with that?
I suppose I would’ve voted as the grand jury did, as I’m not at all comfortable with lawbreakers striking first and then following up battery with trespassing, such that I’m okay with citizens using the amount of force in question against aggressors who apparently refused to stay down.
I stopped giving a shit about what the guy did or whether it crossed the line as soon as the DA brought a faked video into the courtroom. At that point it became about the interests of justice. I want this guy to go free because I don’t want myself or my loved ones or anyone else being put in prison by a crooked prosecutor with forged evidence. That’s a bigger threat than being attacked by a McDonalds employee, even if you think that an assault is what happened here.
Sure. That wasn’t my question to you.
We all agree that we cannot see the women on the ground. We can hear the onlookers screaming and see the coworkers urging restraint. In that context, the idea that these women continued to pose a threat and that his continued beatings served to counter their aggression is sheer Bernie Goetz type fantasy.
Are you okay with allowing individuals the use of deadly force for the purpose of detaining someone (specifically preventing their eacape) until authorities arrive?
do you regard jury nullification as justice?
Sure it was: you asked whether I’m really okay with it, and my answer was “yes.” On the other side, though:
My question to you was whether they were staying down or getting back up, and I haven’t seen your answer yet.
Yes, if (a) the amount of force in the clip is what you have in mind, and (b) no force is administered while the folks who committed the crime are staying down.
Late to the party, but extremely glad to hear this.
Aww, stuff the slime yourself. It may cool and salve your butthurt. Justice prevailed. Deal with it.
Nope. I specifically asked about detention. Go back and check it out if you don’t believe me.
I don’t know. Do you? If so, how?
For me, it is exceptionally relevant as to what they were doing. I strongly support self-defense. I think granting people the right to use force to detain someone is insane.
So if they start to belly-crawl away…?
Look, the guy is clearly not in jeopardy. He has an escape route, a weapon, and his attackers are two drunk women. I disagree that he needed to “make them stay down.”
Wait - I thought your argument was that I misused the concept of internet tough guy. Now it’s that I have a difference about justice?
Sadly, I have to say that I think very little of you at this point.
Here’s the quote: “I’m nit at all comfortable imbuing individual citizens with the right to use physical, and in this case potentially deadly, force to detain someone. Are you really okay with that?”
I am, in fact, really okay with that – and so replied that “I’m okay with citizens using the amount of force in question against aggressors who apparently refused to stay down.” What’s the conceptual hurdle for you, here? That making them stay down somehow doesn’t equal detaining them?
Fascinating.
Well, it’s his story, and a witness on the scene confirms it, and I haven’t heard the criminals claim otherwise.
No citizen’s arrest in your world, eh?
You seem to be implying that two women become less of a threat when they’re drunk, which is odd; he’s already been struck, they’re already trespassing, and you admittedly don’t know whether he was perfectly willing to stop using force if the folks he couldn’t be sure weren’t carrying weapons had simply stayed down after he interrupted their crime.
I’m using the term detain specifically to mean “to hold or keep in or as if in custody.” Is that definition elusive or unfamiliar for you?
Extremely limited citizens arrest in my world, and certainly no allowance for the use of deadly force to detain someone, where detain means “to keep or hold as if in custody.”
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with alcohol. It is a depressant. It slows reaction time and impairs coordinated movements. Here’s my internet tough guy anecdote. A drunk guy once charged me. You know what I did? I stepped aside, and he fell down a short flight of stairs behind me.
So, now you know.
“Faked video”??
Cite?
I suppose I’m as fine with it as I am with his response to the criminals.
In my world, the amount of force he used to keep them in place would be wholly out of place if they’d stayed down, and may well have been precariously close to insufficient if they’d kept getting up. I therefore would’ve voted as the grand jury did, since they apparently live in my world rather than yours.
We’re talking about the woman who smacked him upside the head faster than he could react, and then jumped over the counter, right?
My argument was that you pretended that people you couldn’t best in the debate were actually being internet tough guys. You tried to distract with that name calling and imply that it made their point not valid. I’m sure there is a fancy Latin term for such a tactic.
And I’m sorry you have come to a point where you think so little of me. I assure you that I still feel the same about you as I always have.
Its disinhibiting effects can easily turn even a pair of frail girls into a deadly threat to an unimpaired man before its incapacitating effects nullify them, though.
You talk about “deadly force.” Remember that the item he picked up (variously described as a “pipe” or a “bat”) was in fact a flexible rod less than a quarter of an inch in diameter. When you have two aggressors you reasonably believe to be armed, in an enclosed (and dangerously outfitted) space, ~30 seconds does not seem like an unreasonable amount of time to hold them at bay before they stop trying to get up. It does seem unreasonable to suggest that the only reasonable course of action at that point would be let them get up and see what happened.
[QUOTE=Hentor]
you’re a moron and a pussy.
[/quote]
Hmm…
I’m going by the assertion that one of the girls had a fractured skull. But more to the point, I’m interested in the limits or lack thereof that TOWP believes a private citizen should be allowed to use to prevent someone from fleeing.
oh yeah? Whyn’t you come over this counter and see if you can contemplate putative inconsistencies in my posts? 