This is my exact argument on why if someone starts attacking you and you beat them. You should be able to beat them unconscious before leaving, because he could come back with a hammer and kill you. He let him up from the ground when he should have put his foot through his face to be safe
You dont simply beat someone unconscious, life is not the movies or a cartoon.Â
If you knock someone to the ground their head can bounce on the pavement. If you proceed to kick them, you can cause brain bleeds, death or turning them into a vegetable.Â
Guess what happens to you if you do that. I know reddit has a complete disregard for human life and all and runs purely off emotion but cmon now.Â
The dude was walking back with a tire iron? He intended to do more damage than just having a head hit the pavement. White guy started it, and you have to protect yourself
The victim here made the right legal decision based on the information he had at the time he let him go. He didn't know he was going to go get a tire iron (unless he yelled out "I'm going to get a weapon"), so he can't use excessive or lethal force on someone who has stopped fighting and fled the scene. (Caveat: in some states, he could be justified if he claimed had a reasonable fear for his life, but that would be an uphill battle in the legal system, especially for a black man.)
When Mr. Pickup Truck leaves the scene and returns with a weapon, he is starting a new assault - a felony assault with a deadly weapon. If the victim drew a gun or a knife, that would have been fully justified.
Morally or legally You dont have a right to kill, mame or further harm someone once they were retreating in most scenarios. The right to further self defence only comes once he has obtained the weapon and starts to make his way back over (which is to say if he armed up and sat in his truck you wouldnt have right to attack him over it)
Exactly. The thread started with someone saying you should be allowed to beat someone unconscious because they might escalate if you let them flee. Then someone said (paraphrasing) "you can't do that legally, and it's showing a shocking disregard for human life to use lethal force against a non-lethal threat." Then someone points out that he did come back with a weapon, implying that beating him unconscious was the right call. Which led me to say you can't argue backwards from what did happen to what was legally justified earlier.
So yes, I am following the thread, and I agree with you.
It’s always the person who’s never been in a fight, that’s always trying to set the rules of fighting. All your pretenses will fade the second someone hits you.
True danger is a frightening place to be, and it’s not like watching a video. Never trust the person you’re fighting has boundaries.
You could learn from Ender Wiggin. If someone attacks me there are no Marquess of Queensberry Rules. I will never start a fight but if someone starts one I will end it whatever it takes. A single punch can kill someone so any attack must be considered attempted murder. If the attacker is KOd I will leave, if they are not I will continue. This is a perfect example of why, the return with a deadly weapon.
also don't do that for legal reasons. this is a great way to grab a twofer: a felony battery or some kind of "attempted blah blah" from the state in criminal court and get sued civilly by the family of the "victim". no traffic bs is worth the months or years of that hassle, and being right or having the moral high ground doesn't always translate into courtroom wins. but it will certainly translate into many many thousands for lawyer fees. road raging douchebag is flying off the handle? create distance, record, call the cops. if he smashes your car, great, more ammo for the insurance and the lawsuit.
473
u/DaRealGladi8r 6h ago
😠bro walked away from his wife after she caught a fade