another beating at a McDonalds

[philip964]

Man shot at McDonald's in the Woodlands last night. Gee and I just thought it was the fries that were dangerous.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/27644577/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow... and that is not a gangster neighborhood. It can happen anywhere.

kinda sounded like a drug deal gone bad.

[Ameer]

Man shot at McDonald's in the Woodlands last night. Gee and I just thought it was the fries that were dangerous.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/27644577/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow... and that is not a gangster neighborhood. It can happen anywhere.

kinda sounded like a drug deal gone bad.

My bet is on drugs or prostitution, based on the details police released.

[sawdust]

I say, "de-escalate" the situation by dousing the assailants with a glass of, or bucket of ice water, or hosing them down with a water hose. Anything that breaks them out of their aggressive rage with an unexpected action.

If that doesn't do the job, go to Plan B.

Seriously, how can anyone stand by and watch an obviously defenseless person being battered by out-of-control assailants? As sleazy as they were, the other sleaze-bag is the one who took the video - everyone wants to be a "news reporter" these days. Such people have no sense of morality or ethics and seem to feel that they are somehow separate from all that goes on around them. My hat is off to the elderly lady who at least tried to protect the victim, even putting herself in some danger of assault.

She gets it.

[WildBill]

I say, "de-escalate" the situation by dousing the assailants with a glass of, or bucket of ice water, or hosing them down with a water hose. Anything that breaks them out of their aggressive rage with an unexpected action.

Actually I had the same thought. An Extra Large Ice Water.

[Oldgringo]

I say, "de-escalate" the situation by dousing the assailants with a glass of, or bucket of ice water, or hosing them down with a water hose. Anything that breaks them out of their aggressive rage with an unexpected action.

Actually I had the same thought. An Extra Large Ice Water.

GREAT IDEA!

That 'shoulda, coulda' been part of the employee/manager's training. The owner probably ain't around in these franchise units. The owner is off somewhere in Vegas, the Carribean, New York city or somewhere.

[philip964]

OK, I was wrong the employee who took the video has been fired. McDonald's doesn't read from the same playbook as Costco.

[WildBill]

OK, I was wrong the employee who took the video has been fired. McDonald's doesn't read from the same playbook as Costco.

McDonald's is a franchise, so the store owners may have more discretion on how to handle certain employee issues.

[zero4o3]

Does it really matter what it was about

Yes if your going to draw your gun, it matters what it was about.

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.

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.

The reasons for the attacker using deadly force against the third person are not part of the legal justification for using deadly force.

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 never said I thought the 2 girls where legaly kicking the snot out of the one.

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

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.

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

I admit I could be wrong.

[baldeagle]

Does it really matter what it was about

Yes if your going to draw your gun, it matters what it was about.

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.

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.

The reasons for the attacker using deadly force against the third person are not part of the legal justification for using deadly force.

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 never said I thought the 2 girls where legaly kicking the snot out of the one.

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

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.

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

I admit I could be wrong.

You're reading it to say that if the attacker was provoked you cannot do anything no matter how violent the attacker has become. The point of the law is that you cannot provoke someone in order to develop the justification for using deadly force against them. But even if you provoke someone to violence, there comes a point where their violence crosses a line and deadly force becomes justified. Just because you provoked someone does not mean they are allowed to beat you senseless and you are not allowed to defend yourself.

The issue here is how does provocation affect your justification for deadly force when you are not the one who provoked the attacker. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the law would expect you to never use deadly force when someone is being beaten senseless simply because they provoked the attack. There's a huge difference between provoking someone to the point that they punch you and provoking someone who then proceeds to get a tire iron and beat you until your bones are breaking and you lapse into seizures from brain damage.

[Running Arrow Bill]

IMO take cover, call 911, stay the heck away from the conflict. Avoid problems & errors & potential injury or lawsuit.

[chasfm11]

In my world it is not all or nothing. Carrying a concealed handgun does not mean I can't use other measures to intervene in a situation like this. Realize that we are all typing from different realities. I am 50 and pretty darned strong for a guy my age. Heck... I am strong for a guy of 25...LOL. One poster even mentioned he was 24... 6'4" and fit. If I were 10 years older or had other issues putting me at a tactical disadvantage, I would respond differently. Last year I had a neck injury that made it hard to function normally. I would have been useless to do anything. Other than to get beat up. If my family is with me, I respond different than if I am alone or with buddies. I go more defensive than offensive if my daughter is with me. I can't risk her safety. The whole "what would you do" varies so much it is hard to have a straight answer.

This one struck a cord with me. Alone, I might wade into something that I shouldn't. I don't care what happened before, the beating that was going on needed to be stopped and fast.

That said, I was approached at the Sam's club gas station by a guy looking to buy gas with a Wal-Mart gift card. Of course, the machine wouldn't take his card. Maintaining my distance from him, I told him that I couldn't help him. I didn't because my 7 year old granddaughter was in the car with me. There were enough things wrong with the situation that I had already shifted to condition orange but I probably would have stuck my neck out a little if I had been by myself. With my granddaughter there, it wasn't going to happen. I was thinking about that when I was watching the video. As much as I might want to help the victim, I rarely go to McDonalds alone and I could see the escalation where the two girls decided to turn on me and my family as a result of my trying to interfere to stop the beating. I would have called 911 have the first part of the altercation. Better to roll the LEOs than to risk the situation getting out of hand - as it did.

[Jasonw560]

Very disturbing. I, too hope the two women get punished.

I would have tried to get the victim out of the situation, after calling 9-1-1. Maybe blocked her way as she went into the women's room and locked the door, and stood until the police came.

[chuckybrown]

How would I react? I simply could not live with myself for not having done the MORALLY correct thing. One MUST step in. To behave otherwise is cowardice.

To later say "yea, man, I saw this lady getting beaten badly, so I dialed 911 and hid behind a table". No thanks, I think many here are better than that.

As usual, my .02 cents.....

[Shoot Straight]

There's a huge difference between provoking someone to the point that they punch you and provoking someone who then proceeds to get a tire iron and beat you until your bones are breaking and you lapse into seizures from brain damage.

They are different, but in both cases you lose the legal justification of self defense if you start the fight. If the other person escalates, they may also lose their legal justification of self defense. It's possible for all parties in a fight to be guilty of assault or aggravated assault.

[Heartland Patriot]

Wow, well...do a quick search and look up this beating...a large NYC paper is showing a VERY clear image of the individual who got the "beatdown". And, in the words of that wacky movie character, Austin Powers, "It's a man, baby". Which is what I was trying to say when I commented before. This is the EXACT type of situation that reminds me of why I need to asses the situation first, though time may be in a crunch, before I go clearing leather. Like I said before, those two women doing the beating went too far, but a man in the womens' bathroom is certainly a provocation. I happen to think they are all pretty lousy, and I wouldn't want to put my life or good name on the line defending ANY of them. I WOULD make a call to the cops via 911 and report the situation...and that is all.