store manager kicks @ss

[Shadow Skill]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=403_1185268268

[Knifefighter]

Based on what was shown on that video, I'd say two people may end up in jail.

[SifuAbel]

How so?.....

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ah, if ONLY the shop keeper hadn't continued when the vandal stopped posing a threat...

[Knifefighter]

How so?.....

Same reason Osiris might have gone to jail if he had pummelled Springer after he had taken him down and punked him and Springer had given up.

[WinterPalm]

Based on what was shown on that video, I'd say two people may end up in jail.

You're referring to the criminal and his buddy in the car outside, right? Can't say I agree with violence on that level, but the guy got what was coming.

[Knifefighter]

You're referring to the criminal and his buddy in the car outside, right? .

Ummm... no.

[Becca]

Excessive Force:
How This Can Change Self Defense Into A Crime (http://www.moneyinstructor.com/doc/excessiveforce.asp)
How so?.....

You have the leagal right to defend your self, but it must be perportional to the threat. You don't stop when the aggressor stops, you become the agressor, even if you cause no serious physical damage. Emotional damage counts.

[PangQuan]

good use of a jumping attack.

simple, fast, low, and used as a great distraction.

[banditshaw]

yeah that flying kick straight into the punch was great.
When the guy was on the floor and was no longer a threat it should of ended I guess but the guy in black kicked him on the floor...that was harsh. When he dragged him away off camera the first thing that came to mind was that scene in Pulp Fiction...''bring out the gimp'':eek:....:D

Good dominating position by the guy in black at first with the ground and pound. It was hard to see but it looked like he was trying to snap his arm maybe.

[kismet]

The guy trying to rob the place keeps placing his hand behind his back. While watching it I really thought he had or was pretending to have a gun.

[Shaolinlueb]

hahahahhaa i thought pulp fiction too when he dragged him away. this also reminds me of the scene from harld and kumar go to white castle. where the extreme guys come in and trash the shop while the indian dude is like please stop. well f that, this one kicked his ass. good for him. i am sure the jury would be easy on him.

[PangQuan]

I would just be like.

"the guy threatened my lively hood, I went temporarily crazy. Sorry, my bad. Did he die?"

[Iman01]

Excessive Force:
How This Can Change Self Defense Into A Crime (http://www.moneyinstructor.com/doc/excessiveforce.asp)

You have the leagal right to defend your self, but it must be perportional to the threat. You don't stop when the aggressor stops, you become the agressor, even if you cause no serious physical damage. Emotional damage counts.

These laws are different in each state. While what is written is true in California and other legally retarded states; lots of other states feel you are allowed to protect your possessions.

[BentMonk]

Becca has a point from a CYA point of view. It's not right, but currently in the good ole US of A the piece of **** criminal has more rights than the decent man trying to make a living. If you don't want to end up tried by 12 yourself you have to be careful how severely you kick an ass. I think that anyone who knowingly sets out to victimize another human being forfeits their rights of any kind, and deserves to have their ass majorly kicked. I hate all of the "society and circumstances drive people to crime" BS. There are plenty of people who have it rough all of their lives without resorting to crime in order to live their lives. If everyone did to criminals what that guy did, maybe the criminals would start thinking twice before they victimize someone. I will now stop ranting, and step down from the podium. :D

[Becca]

These laws are different in each state. While what is written is true in California and other legally retarded states; lots of other states feel you are allowed to protect your possessions.
The spacifics of how far you are allowed to take it differ. that you are not justified in becoming an agressor just because you started out the victom is pretty much the same.

Here in Colorado we have a "make my day" law. If you feel threatened by someone breaking into you home, you have the right to use deadly force. This does not extend to any place outside of your physical house. Right now they are trying to amend the law to make it "make my day better." Basically to extend the right to use deadly force in self defence if you are attacked in your car. This would still not make it ok to contunue beating up a perp who stopped fighting the instant he'she realized you are not going to just let yourself be vicomized...

[Iman01]

The spacifics of how far you are allowed to take it differ. that you are not justified in becoming an agressor just because you started out the victom is pretty much the same.

Here in Colorado we have a "make my day" law. If you feel threatened by someone breaking into you home, you have the right to use deadly force. This does not extend to any place outside of your physical house. Right now they are trying to amend the law to make it "make my day better." Basically to extend the right to use deadly force in self defence if you are attacked in your car. This would still not make it ok to contunue beating up a perp who stopped fighting the instant he'she realized you are not going to just let yourself be vicomized...

I totally agree with what you are saying. But that article you linked stated that you need to leave if you come home and find someone in your house stealing your stuff; it would remove you from danger hence you don't need to use any force. I see that as some serious backward thinking.

[PangQuan]

I totally agree with what you are saying. But that article you linked stated that you need to leave if you come home and find someone in your house stealing your stuff; it would remove you from danger hence you don't need to use any force. I see that as some serious backward thinking.

nah, you just say he attacked you.

your word against a criminals. who do you think the jury would believe?

ill lie to protect my gear from some scumbag.

[Becca]

I totally agree with what you are saying. But that article you linked stated that you need to leave if you come home and find someone in your house stealing your stuff; it would remove you from danger hence you don't need to use any force. I see that as some serious backward thinking.No, it said that if you are comming home and noticed someone in your house while you are still in the yard, you have to leave. The unspoken part would be that if you have already entered your home before becomming aware there is some one inside, you still need to leave, as your person has not been threatened at that point. But if you are in your home and that person attacks you or your family, then your right to use deadly force for self-defence kicks in.

It's leagal grey water. You can choose to defend your property, but if you can't proove you couldn't avoid being in a situation that required you to defend your life, the law does not protect you. If you knowingly enter your home with a perp inside, you could have prevented being in a situation that would have required deadly force.

[BentMonk]

IMO the law is absurd. Why should you as a law abiding citizen have to wait to be attacked to defend yourself, your family, or prevent having the things you worked to buy from being stolen? That's like telling the criminal, "Ok, you can break into a home or business and steal what ever you want. As long as you don't threaten or hurt anyone, you'll be allowed to go on your merry way." What a crock! If you are not a criminal and someone attempts to commit a crime against you, why should they be given anything more than a beat down and told to go get a job? The message society should be sending is, "Don't be a criminal. Decent people have the right to treat you like the scum you are. Being a criminal could get you beaten or killed." Instead of, "Oh we're sorry you have such an awful life. Here, you can steal from me, but I won't do anything because you have your rights as a person too." Please... :rolleyes:

[The Willow Sword]

Although the subduing of the alleged robber was a tad excessive, i still think the punk got exactly what he deserved. This is the kharma he is reaping to what he sowed when he tried stupidly to rob a seemingly secure convienient store.

As for the whole person breaking into your home deal. I tend to agree with alot that you have a right to defend your property and your loved ones. You cant just stop to think,"uhh well does this person have a weapon or what are his intentions blah blah blah". Someone is trying to unlawfully enter your home,you do what is necessary to defend and protect your property. Ive said it on these boards before when these issues have been brought up and that is "If you decide to shoot the person you better make sure they are all the way in the house before you do, that way the law is pretty much on your side and wont cause too much of a fuss. At least in Texas the law gives you the right to use deadly force when someone is entering your home. I dont like the idea of killing anyone for any reason, but i will if my life or the lives of my loved ones are threatened. Good thing i live in a neighbourhood that rarely has anything remotely criminal going on to where i would have to worry as much.

Peace,TWS

[masherdong]

Well, what is the difference between being robbed in your home and being robbed in your place of business?? If we can use deadly force inside of our residence, then how is that different than your place of business?? I do not think the owner would go to jail. He did what he was supposed to do to protect him and his employees.

[Becca]

IMO the law is absurd. Why should you as a law abiding citizen have to wait to be attacked to defend yourself, your family, or prevent having the things you worked to buy from being stolen? That's like telling the criminal, "Ok, you can break into a home or business and steal what ever you want. As long as you don't threaten or hurt anyone, you'll be allowed to go on your merry way." What a crock! If you are not a criminal and someone attempts to commit a crime against you, why should they be given anything more than a beat down and told to go get a job? The message society should be sending is, "Don't be a criminal. Decent people have the right to treat you like the scum you are. Being a criminal could get you beaten or killed." Instead of, "Oh we're sorry you have such an awful life. Here, you can steal from me, but I won't do anything because you have your rights as a person too." Please... :rolleyes:
... Because less-than-ethical people have been known go too far. An old man, a while back, made the head lines for shooting a kid for walking on his lawn. His justification was that his property had been vandelized in the past.

Law makers do thier best, by and large to make useful, meaningful laws. But trying to make 1 law work in a thousand situations is tough. Our society has become one that says, "I want to do what I want to do." You make it illegal to kill in self-defence, then people who genuinly needed to end up in jail. You make it legal to kill in self-defence, you get ego maniacs who kill anything that pizzes them off and justifies this blatent murder by twisting the law.

A law can only be as good as those who created, those who enforce it, and those to whom it applies. And humans have a tendancy to be less than perfect from time to time...:(

[PangQuan]

humans have a tendancy to be less than perfect from time to time...:(

I dont believe that for a second!