Return to “another beating at a McDonalds”
03Lightningrocks wrote:It depends on how hard you hit them with it.Toadstone wrote:Aside from drawing a gun on them, punching their lights out, or pepper-spraying the attackers, what do you think about finding a fire extinguisher and letting them have it with that? I'm pretty sure it would distract them.
baldeagle wrote:I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The cause of an altercation does not enter into the legal justification for using deadly force in defense of another person.zero4o3 wrote:Yes if your going to draw your gun, it matters what it was about.suthdj wrote:Does it really matter what it was aboutThe reasons for the attacker using deadly force against the third person are not part of the legal justification for using deadly force.Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
In this particular situation, a CHL holder would have been justified, under Texas law, in drawing their weapon and threatening to use it if the two attackers did not cease and desist immediately. If they had continued to beat the victim, a CHL holder would have been justified, under Texas law, in shooting one or both of them to stop the attack.
That is exactly what I would have done in this situation. I would have drawn my weapon and ordered them to stop repeatedly. (Stop or I will shoot!) If they had continued to beat the victim, I would have shot them.
BTW, the fact that you provoked someone does not give them the right to use deadly force against you. Even if the victim provoked the two attackers, they would not be justified, under Texas law, in beating her until she suffered brain damage (which she clearly did.) The purpose of the provocation clause is to nullify a defense where you clearly provoked someone so that you could use deadly force.
I read this to mean that to be justified under section 9.33 you would have to meet the requirments of 9.32, which states that the person force was used on was not provoked.under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly
Dont take what im saying as a "you shouldnt try to help at all" just in answer to your questionsuthdj wrote:Again it does not matter because what ever she may have done to provoke these females into beating her was mute as she was not even defending herself. she was no threat to the aggressors. Now this does not mean I would draw on them, but would put myself in a position to defend the girl from further beating, then if and when the need arose, draw if I have to.
Yes if your going to draw your gun, it matters what it was about.Does it really matter what it was about
austinrealtor wrote:Wow, that is a disturbing video. Hope those women are arrested and charged with attempted murder or worse.
After seeing the video, does change my initial stock answer a bit. But still not completely convinced that rushing into to "break it up" or pulling a gun in this situation is best solution.
Others tried to break it up, including what appears to be an older woman (in white warm up suit) and they even get into a brief shoving match with her. So this tells me two things: 1. these aggressive women did have capability to be aggressive toward others (not just the girl in blue top) but 2. they weren't so aggressive that they turned toward others with same lethal force as used on the target of their aggression (girl in blue top).
At some point, if cops or other help didn't arrive quickly, perhaps I would have pulled a gun and told them all to leave or I'd shoot. But before doing so you must decide:
1. will any of THEM pull a gun out of a purse and point/shoot at you? this is especially dangerous if you're holding one or two at gunpoint and a third is to your side just outside your field of view.
2. are there other spectators/hangers on who are WITH what appear to be three aggressive women committing the assault? how will THEY react if you pull a gun? Is there some gangbanger boyfriend waiting in the car outside who would see you pull a gun, then charge in with his own guns blazing?
3. if you're going to draw in this situation, do it from a position of strength and cover/concealment from not only the three or so assaultive women, but also from any associates who may enter the fray from other directions
All of the above is just my own thought processes. I have no formal training in such matters (big reason why I would still hesitate to intervene) other than random reading I've done.
Still say this type of situation should be approached with EXTREME caution, but after seeing just how vicious this beat down was I admit I'd have a hard time just "calling 911 and being a good witness" ... morals/ethics would push me very hard to intervene.
IANAL but from my interpretation of the law, yes it does matter the use of force is not justified to protect some one who provoked a fight or was engaged in criminal activitysuthdj wrote:Does it really matter what it was about? The girl was not putting up a fight or much of if any defense this is clearly a beating for whatever reason.glbedd53 wrote:Gotta be careful though. If you don't know what the fight was about or what led up to it and you use that gun, you're really leaving yourself hanging out.
