Personally I think it's a sad state of affairs if the perpetrator of a crime gets more compassion than the victim. If the woman had had any sense she would have realised that you can't cash a counterfeit bill so the guy behind the counter had every right to refuse it. Jumping over the counter and chasing him gave (in my opinion anyway) him the right to defend himself.
The bill wasn't counterfeit. And I agree he has the right to defend himself, only he went way beyond that based on the video and what charges were brought against him by the authorities.
This isn't entirely correct. Some states have laws that would agree with what you say, while others have laws allowing you to stand your ground even if you can run away.
AFAIK, you still can't use disproportionate force to defend yourself, even in stand your ground states. You cannot continue to beat on someone when they are obviously incapacitated and are no longer threatening you. While it is difficult to tell what actually occurred behind the counter, I really don't think those women were continuing to be aggressive after even the first blow.
And NY doesn't have such absurd laws.
While I agree he went overboard, he has the right to defend himself, even with a weapon when they don't have one. One thing I do note is it appears he went to get the weapon and then came back. That IMO is a problem. Had he went and got the weapon and stayed there and they came at him, then yes, I'd say it was definitely self-defense. The problem I see is he got the weapon and appears to come back.
This is also the part that bothers me the most. That behavior doesn't strike me as being defensive at all, and apparently the police and DA feel the same way. If he had stayed in the back and they had actually physically attacked him I'd feel a bit differently about the initial blows, even though he clearly went far beyond self-defense after those were delivered.
Again, individual state law needs to be considered. Here in Missouri, using a weapon against unarmed attackers is allowed based on certain criteria. The two women attacking him fits that criteria for the state of Missouri.
This is what I think is really wrong with laws such as that. Here we have a tall young male who is apparently very fit being "attacked" by two diminutive women. I think he was cowardly to even get a weapon in the first place, much less return and apparently become the aggressor. Such laws don't take into consideration what actually occurs and give people an excuse to kill or seriously maim others.
Recall that the women attacked him.
Apparently, only one of the women "attacked" him by slapping him. If he had stayed at the cash register instead of seeming to go get a weapon and then immediately return, she may very well have never chased after him.
Although the guy definitely overreacted I'm surprised to see that Forma thinks he should be locked away. Weren't you in another thread all for prison alternatives? This guy isn't going to get any help in a state or federal prison, he'll only become hardened and even more dangerous to society when he gets out.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my opinions regarding this or gotten me confused with someone else. Prisons are the ideal environment for violent people who cannot control their own emotions. I was arguing that obvious psychopaths don't belong in prisons but mental institutions instead because they are a danger to everybody else in the prison. But you could certainly argue that non-violent criminals probably belong someplace else for their own safety as well.
If anyone in my office started beating women with a metal rod they'd have a lot more to worry about than prison.
This is the part I don't really understand. Being slapped by a woman isn't really an excuse to do what he did in my book. When I found it was a metal rod instead of a Big Mac, my opinion of what occurred changed immensely.
