Woman beaten inside her car at McDonald's drive thru

[mamabearCali]

In my haste, I posted the same statue twice. Here is aggravated assault http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.02.00.html the primary differences between the two are the use of a deadly weapon and serious bodily injury. Make note, I said draw with the intent to discharge. The woman only exhibited bruises and a mild laceration on the finger. Are you willing to go before a grand jury and have your counsel argue that "serious" bodily injury resulted without the exhibition of a deadly weapon, yet you required no stitches, fracture bones, nor a concussion?

Biting can be lethal---I don't know if she has HIV or Hep B and is trying to infect me just out of spite. Punches to the face can be lethal--maybe they were not punching but slapping, I don't know. But if someone is punching my head I consider that aggravated assault. As a side note--some of my most serious injuries I have ever had would only be detectable outside a x-ray machine by swelling and bruising.

My concern is that CHL and MPA begin "protecting" themselves with a gun against non-deadly force / aggravated assault threats arming (pun intended) antigun proponents with energy to attempt to repeal gun carrying rights.

Again--if they are willing to attack me through the window I don't know what is coming next. Nor should I have to wait to find out. That grape soda could just as easily been a brick or a rock. If a person is so deranged as to attack another person on so slight a provocation as "thats not cool" Then I have no idea what they are capable of.

Although I am in agreement with speedsix about not approaching someone over littering and it is not my property, I do not feel she instigated the attack. Keep in mind, as a CHL holder; we are required to steer away from provocations. Yes, in today’s society, speaking up can be provocation. A good prosecutor may be able to argue that the CHL only approached the gang of litterers because she was armed and not a good Samaritan.

No, that would be a prosecutor with a vendetta, not "good" by any stretch of the mind. Additionally the woman did not "approach" anyone she spoke out her window. Anyone who thinks a person asks another person not to litter because they are hoping to shoot someone has a particular deranged mind. One punch can kill--and in this case it was two women that were standing that were beating up on a seated woman trapped in a car....not hard to argue disparity of force there.


I am not saying we need to shoot people for throwing soda (absolutely not!). However neither should we be required to take a beat down before fighting back. Punches to the face and bites are serious. People can and have lots fingers and hands from simple bites (bacterial infection).

[tacticool]

...if you mean wishing with all your heart you could have a do-over...she's probably already in his shoes...maybe she learned a lesson about minding her own business in public and not appointing herself to correct those around her...

...they were totally wrong and broke the law...she was totally wrong first and provoked the incident...had she kept her trap shut...it wouldn't have happened...

If you're ever a crime victim, I hope the witnesses heed your advice and keep their mouths shut so they don't provoke the criminals.

[Valor]

Mamabear, I do not disagree with one being able to protect herself. My angle is to point out that as CHL holders we are held to a higher standard. Although a solid punch to the face can be lethal, if it doesn't knock you to the ground causing "serious" injury and you draw your weapon and discharge injuring or killing the assailant, your attny will have a much harder defense case. Let's say the assailant charged you with a club, then all is fair in love(hate) and war.

And most prosecutors are about improving their conviction ratio, not being vindictive. If they find any internet postings or witnesses to state you are "trigger happy", there again, another challenge for your defense. Another reason why carrying less lethal tools for defense, in addition to side armor; can save lives, money and misery. Remember, the objective is to STOP a treat, not KILL the threat. Killing is often a byproduct of attempting to stop.

[Jumping Frog]

Mamabear, I do not disagree with one being able to protect herself. My angle is to point out that as CHL holders we are held to a higher standard. Although a solid punch to the face can be lethal, if it doesn't knock you to the ground causing "serious" injury and you draw your weapon and discharge injuring or killing the assailant, your attny will have a much harder defense case. Let's say the assailant charged you with a club, then all is fair in love(hate) and war. .

The flip side of that is I've read of too many cases over the years where someone was killed by a single blow to the head. I don't have to wait for them to give me their best shot before defending myself.

BTW, CHL's are not "held to a higher standard". The statutes on use of force and use of deadly force are the same for everyone.

[speedsix]

...I've had to deal with as a cop dozens of fights and worse because someone thought they were appointed by God to correct a stranger out in public about something...quite different from someone with the authority and/or responsibility to go around telling people what they're doing wrong...like a cop or teacher...if it's bad enough to bother us that bad...report it...otherwise, it is much wiser to keep our opinions about others' behaviour to ourselves...
...I didn't say that they were justified to respond physically...it's just a fact of life that lowlifes often do...there's a world of difference between becoming properly involved and being a good witness...and taking a lipshot at a stranger who's already wrong and knows it...if she'd controlled her mouth...the incident would never have happened...that's the whole point I was making...and I stand by it...

[tbrown]

...you could take the same pose about speeders...or shoplifters...and get maybe even more exciting results...there are people to report criminals to who are paid to deal with them...and that's our business...reporting them...mouthing off to a stranger in public is not...she provoked the beating...

Following that rule, you provoked a beating by posting.

[speedsix]

...a public opinion forum is provided for us to state our opinions...and, for those so disposed, to twist the points made because they disagree with them...quite different from creating a problem in a public place because you have the Parent syndrome...

[ScooterSissy]

...I've had to deal with as a cop dozens of fights and worse because someone thought they were appointed by God to correct a stranger out in public about something...quite different from someone with the authority and/or responsibility to go around telling people what they're doing wrong...like a cop or teacher...if it's bad enough to bother us that bad...report it...otherwise, it is much wiser to keep our opinions about others' behaviour to ourselves...
...I didn't say that they were justified to respond physically...it's just a fact of life that lowlifes often do...there's a world of difference between becoming properly involved and being a good witness...and taking a lipshot at a stranger who's already wrong and knows it...if she'd controlled her mouth...the incident would never have happened...that's the whole point I was making...and I stand by it...

And if these people who "thought they were appointed by God" simply spoke to someone, and the other person's response was to get physical, then it was your job to "deal with it". Correcting someone isn't illegal. Fighting someone because you didn't like them correcting you is.
You talk about "controlling her mouth", yet the stance of the police is they can't be everywhere and take care of everything. Are you going to pretend that you, as a cop, would have responded to a call about littering? Call me a skeptic.
That's one of our problems, those in "authority" don't want to deal with things like that, and the common man has been made afraid to do it.

[ScooterSissy]

...a public opinion forum is provided for us to state our opinions...and, for those so disposed, to twist the points made because they disagree with them...quite different from creating a problem in a public place because you have the Parent syndrome...

I agree. Of course, no one in this thread has ever said anything about "lipping off". Telling someone "that's not cool" is not quite lipping off. And, I'd have to say, hardly provocative. Neither is it indicitive of a "parent syndrome".

[speedsix]

...but it is...ever take defensive driving? Parent, Adult, Child syndromes are discussed...Parent always wants to correct and make the other person do what's right...Adult minds his own business and takes wise, appropriate action based on what he sees...Child acts irresponsibly...in this case...had she been an Adult-minded person, she would have ignored it, dialed the police, or called Don't Mess With Texas...or picked up what they'd thrown out, if it really bothered her that badly...after they'd gone...instead, she couldn't miss an opportunity to correct someone who OBVIOUSLY already had social problems...and they responded predictably...
...as to your ideas on law enforcement...if HQ dispatches a call about littering, the officer assigned deals with it...is it likely to happen? NO...but that's still the only wise option...report it to whose job it is to correct lawbreakers...don't take on that job yourself...it's entirely likely that the person will respond in like manner as these did...verbally if you're fortunate...physically if you're not...rarely will you get a favorable response making obvious comments like she did...
...hope those of you who find no fault with what she did don't teach your kids to go around acting like she did...for their sakes...

[Valor]

...but it is...ever take defensive driving? Parent, Adult, Child syndromes are discussed...Parent always wants to correct and make the other person do what's right...Adult minds his own business and takes wise, appropriate action based on what he sees...Child acts irresponsibly...in this case...had she been an Adult-minded person, she would have ignored it, dialed the police, or called Don't Mess With Texas...or picked up what they'd thrown out, if it really bothered her that badly...after they'd gone...instead, she couldn't miss an opportunity to correct someone who OBVIOUSLY already had social problems...and they responded predictably...
...as to your ideas on law enforcement...if HQ dispatches a call about littering, the officer assigned deals with it...is it likely to happen? NO...but that's still the only wise option...report it to whose job it is to correct lawbreakers...don't take on that job yourself...it's entirely likely that the person will respond in like manner as these did...verbally if you're fortunate...physically if you're not...rarely will you get a favorable response making obvious comments like she did...
...hope those of you who find no fault with what she did don't teach your kids to go around acting like she did...for their sakes...

*applauds*

The OP asked whether the victim would have been in the shoes of Zimmerman provided she "defended" herself using a pistol and killing the BG. In this case, probably so. It is challenging for the defense to argue you feared for your life when you did not have a problem initially confronting the eventual attackers. When you are concealed carrying, mind your business. Unless, true aggravated assaults/robberies are happening to you or in your presence.

Not saying "the common man" should be afraid, be wise.

[ScooterSissy]

sorry guys, I am still going to disagree with you both.
speedsix short version, call those who will likely do nothing. I hope you see why I disagree
Valor short version, by getting a CHL we give up the right to free speech. Again, I hope you see why I disagree

[speedsix]

...I'm really surprised at the number of folks here who think she did no wrong by correcting strangers in public when she wasn't in a position of authority to do so...that's arrogant and confrontational to do...we shouldn't go round trying to enforce ANY law, even littering(which, by the way, occurred on private property...a civil matter, not a crime, unless the McD's reported it...)unless we have in our pocket or pinned on our shirt the proper answer to the obvious question: "Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?" which you can reasonably expect the "perp" to ask you...if you seriously think you're going to accomplish a positive change by berating a litterbug...go for it...I'm going to go call a broker and invest in Band-Aid stock...
...those of you who think she did well...I hope you don't ever talk yourselves INTO a situation where you have to use your gun...you may find that the cops, the DA, the judge, and the jury had mothers like mine...who taught their children to MYOB...instead of going round telling folks what to do...

[knotquiteawake]

Maybe like 50 years ago it would have been more ok to correct a stranger in public (and even then probably only in the town of Mayberry). I have the Parent syndrome and find myself biting my tongue. I know i should MYOB but have a strong compulsion to correct people, thankfully for the most part I've just kept my mouth shut.

[mamabearCali]

The OP asked whether the victim would have been in the shoes of Zimmerman provided she "defended" herself using a pistol and killing the BG. In this case, probably so. It is challenging for the defense to argue you feared for your life when you did not have a problem initially confronting the eventual attackers. When you are concealed carrying, mind your business. Unless, true aggravated assaults/robberies are happening to you or in your presence.

Not saying "the common man" should be afraid, be wise.

Two people assaulting one person who is trapped in their car...no I don't think the defense would find that a challenge. Just because a person makes the (slightly foolish--but not illegal) statement of "thats not cool" does not mean they are ready to fight it out. They are commenting, perhaps not wisely, but certainly not illegally. And they do not lose their right to self defense because they talked with someone who then beat them up.


Speedsix--you keep writing about how you have to "deal with situations" because someone talks to a lowlife and they respond violently. You signed up to be a police officer. I would hazard a guess that you are going to have to "deal" with these people whether or not someone says "thats not cool" to them or not. If they attack on so slight a provocation as I would expect my four year old to be able to walk away from then the police (You) are going to have to "deal" with them sooner or later. One of these days someone is going to look at them wrong or ask "Can I help you?" and they are going to try and beat that persons' brains out. This is more of a case of person X was there when the two low lifes (really three) went nuts and so they are to blame

Is it wise to tell people "that is not cool"--no not really. Is it provocative to the point that you caused the beating and thus cannot legally defend yourself--absolutely not. I try to MYOB and teach my kids to do so as well (to a point--if someone is beating a child or a woman up and serious injuries are occurring I am going to have to stop it--I have to look in the mirror in the morning too!). What bothers me is not saying that this person is unwise (she was mildly silly in my view to think that this would have any impact on the people), but that she could not have legally defended herself because she had said something completely legal to them. This very much bothers me. It is part of the reason that people think they can beat someone up with no consequence. The attitude that you were there and these people did something criminal, so it is your fault. That I find really infuriating.