We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Just an aside–while it’s true that in MOST states the use of excessive force strips one of the right to claim self-defense for that use of force, that’s not true in ALL states.
In a minority of states if the only defect in the self-defense claim is excessive force, the defendant can still argue “imperfect self-defense.” This is not a true self-defense claim (which if successful would result in an outright acquittal) but rather a legal doctrine that mitigates the offense from what would have been murder to manslaughter.
Of course, it follows that “imperfect self-defense is therefore only relevant where the person against whom the defendant used force actually died as a result.
Obviously, no normal law-abiding person engages in the kind of brutal beat-down seen in this video. Where normal law-abiding people DO find themselves facing the prospect of imperfect self-defense is, most typically, where the only defensive tool in their tool box is a gun, and they go to the gun in the face of a genuinely frightening but non-deadly threat, and kill their attacker in what is NOT legally-speaking self-defense.
Sorry if that’s too ‘inside self-defense law,” but I thought some folks might be interested. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Legalese aside that SOB got exactly what he deserved and because of it he may never try that again which is…As it should be.
WOW!!
Just cause some guy is jawboning you, taunting you, etc…doesn’t give you cart blanche to go on the attack. I’d say grey t-shirt is more likely the aggressor here, but by a very slim margin. White T shirt has at some point a clear need to defend his life.
There is a huge grey area on this in self defense law, I agree. You put a guy down for trying to assault you, then you’ve killed an un armed person. You let it get to the point it did in the video, then you’ve lost much more.
The aggressor deserved to be defeated but not brutalized. There’s a big difference between a good ass kicking and attempted murder. Sadly the two men at the end decided on the latter.
Did they catch the “victors”?
Lock ’em up and throw away the key. Violent guys like this most often repeat and repeat until three strikes. But judicial systems very lenient and offer probation or parole far too soon.
Totally disguising. The head slam to concrete. The guy was out cold long before.