Robber sues good samaritan

[Manfred Belheim]

Are you not supposed to put some sort of summary in the OP?

 

[warpus]

Was the ethnic group "The Samaritans" full of good samaritans? Or was that a sarcastic stereotype that stuck?

 

[Perfection]

Was the ethnic group "The Samaritans" full of good samaritans? Or was that a sarcastic stereotype that stuck?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

 

[warpus]

Interesting, thanks

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

17 stab would sound a lot, but when you're in a fight, you don't tend to count, you just lash reflexively.
A common parallel is how many gunshots are actually fired compared to how many someone thinks he fired, during a violent confrontation. Typically, the person will think he shot maybe two or three times, while he actually emptied his barrel.

Whenever I'm stabbing someone, I try to ensure that I don't go above 12.... cause 13 is bad luck.

 

[Evie]

I'd say there is such a thing as excessive force, even in dealing with someone who directly threaten your life or another's. That line being that any use of force past the point where a reasonable person, in the same situation as yourself, would have known or should have known that the person was no longer a threat, is excessive.

 

[Ryika]

There most certainly is such a thing as excessive force in any situation, but the threshold for excessive force being used intentionally is just so much higher than the point where you can, as an observer of the situation, say that the attacker was no longer a threat, because a person in that situation just doesn't have the ability to think as clearly as a person who is just watching it.

 

[Akka]

I'd say there is such a thing as excessive force, even in dealing with someone who directly threaten your life or another's.

Someone is threatening to kill you. How exactly can you go past "killing someone" ?
(I mean, except if you go into some cartoon-like evil behaviour like stun him, then mutilate him, then maim him, and then kill him ?)

That line being that any use of force past the point where a reasonable person, in the same situation as yourself, would have known or should have known that the person was no longer a threat, is excessive.

There is no "reasonable person know it's good enough" when you've been stabbed and you're fighting for your life.

 

[Kyriakos]

Someone is threatening to kill you. How exactly can you go past "killing someone" ?
(I mean, except if you go into some cartoon-like evil behaviour like stun him, then mutilate him, then maim him, and then kill him ?)

There is no "reasonable person know it's good enough" when you've been stabbed and you're fighting for your life.

As known, the law allows for leniency if the person 'overdoes' it due to being under obvious emotional strain* (eg if he/she does fear for their life, so keep on hitting the attacker to ensure they won't be a danger). Yet this is why the court would have to establish how much this was the case in any particular situation. It isn't (and rightly so) self-evident or not to be examined, for all cases.

Eg in this case there is one negative, and two positives (? i think; that would have to be established) :
-(negative) the person kniving the attacker 17 times was NOT the barrista under immediate threat of harm/robbery. It was some customer who took it upon himself to do something.
-(positives) a) the attacher might not be masked (?) and thus one could realistically fear they would be killed by him to avoid recognition (?) b) the 17 knife wounds APPARENTLY (not sure) were not that deep, so it doesn't look like some freakish bloodlust.

*this is why a very close relative may revenge kill the killer of his/her family, while enraged/not calculative, and still be sentenced very very leniently. In some cases even not serve any time in jail.

 

[Akka]

-(positives) a) the attacher might not be masked (?) and thus one could realistically fear they would be killed by him to avoid recognition (?) b) the 17 knife wounds APPARENTLY (not sure) were not that deep, so it doesn't look like some freakish bloodlust.

c) The guy was stabbed in the neck before disarming his attacker. What more do you need ? If someone stabbed me after trying to rob a store, you'll have a hard time claiming I wasn't under emotional duress and fearing for my life.

 

[Kyriakos]

c) The guy was stabbed in the neck before disarming his attacker. What more do you need ? If someone stabbed me after trying to rob a store, you'll have a hard time claiming I wasn't under emotional duress and fearing for my life.

Well, the customer jumped him first, so the other two parameters probably are more crucial here (if someone stabs you AFTER you drop a chair on them, chances are you can't expect non-violence by that point, let alone from a would-be robber). Without knowing the specifics, i think that the crucial bit is how dangerous the robber actually was, AND how much the customer actually felt he needed to keep on stabbing him. The latter doesn't have to follow from the former, either. Imo the biggest point to the customer's favour is that (apparently) the 17 stab wounds weren't deep.

 

[Akka]

Well, the customer jumped him first, so the other two parameters probably are more crucial here (if someone stabs you AFTER you drop a chair on them, chances are you can't expect non-violence by that point, let alone from a would-be robber). Without knowing the specifics, i think that the crucial bit is how dangerous the robber actually was, AND how much the customer actually felt he needed to keep on stabbing him. The latter doesn't have to follow from the former, either. Imo the biggest point to the customer's favour is that (apparently) the 17 stab wounds weren't deep.

The guy had a gun and a knife and was using them for a robbery => he was dangerous and armed, he was the one to start aggression. I'm pretty sure defending someone else is perfectly acceptable under the law.
Smashing him with a chair was actually proportionate and appropriate according to the threat the robber posed, which was already potentially lethal. Then he fought back with deadly force, escalating even further.

I still don't see how it can be considered "excessive force" in any way.

 

[Kyriakos]

Depending on factors not known to us, it could be excessive force, but this particular case seems to not be that. Just noted that it isn't as clear from the info we have.