Joe Doakes from Como Park writes (with occasional emphasis added):
Watch this video when you’re sitting down but not eating. At first, it looks like a typical chick-fight: slapping, hair pulling, minor kicking, nothing major. Certainly no reason to suspect the victim is in danger of Great Bodily Harm. Keep watching until you get to the 2:00 mark, then STOP it. Seriously, don’t watch the ending yet.
Here’s the video:
Remember – STOP THE VIDEO at the 2:00 mark. Don’t peek.
If the victim in this video had been a pistol permit holder who resisted the assault by brandishing the pistol, would she have been justified?
Should she have run away, out the door into the parking lot where the attackers were waiting? Where else could she have retreated to, the bathroom where the attack started? The kitchen where the staff stood around watching but not helping? Was she legally obligated to flee McDonalds? How? Where?
What if the third time the attackers returned, the victim felt she was too weak and battered to safely flee so she drew her permitted pistol and opened fire? Would that use of force have been justified as self-defense?
In Minnesota? Currently? A county attorney, sitting in a warm office with a cup of Starbucks on her desk and a Sheriff’s deputy guarding the building will decide that according to whatever abstruse legal theory she thinks applies, and whatever political priorities her superiors have committed to.
Now, turn the video back on.
The problem with present self-defense law is that up until the minute of that video, any reasonable observer would have said no, deadly force is not justified, it’s just some chicks acting stupidly. There’s no danger of serious harm so no right of self-defense. But watch the ending again.
That’s the danger of allowing the prosecutor and jury, sitting two years after the fact, with six months to spend analyzing the evidence from every angle while experts debate the proper course of action. The last few seconds of that encounter changed lives forever. Should the victim have been legally obligated to endure it? Or should she have had the right to prevent it?
Should she have been able to Stand Her Ground, using deadly force if necessary?
Gotta smash some eggs for a better society, right?
Right?
I’ve seen this and other similar videos. I got news for you, these are Tea Partiers. There is a valid reason why people like me avoid certain parts of town. I’m sure it’s been that way since the town was invented.
But let’s talk about something important, like the Royal Wedding!
Some years ago I read that the FBI documented there are 100,000 felonies that are NOT committed annually because someone (usually the targeted victim), brandished a pistol. End of threat – without a bullet being fired.
Granted, this victim ignored Kermit’s racist advice “Never Go To A McDonalds Where Black People Might Be” so I suppose you could say she had it coming. But making that advice into a legal requirement transforms society into a jungle where the most vicious rule the innocent. Why is that good public policy?
Why should the law say the victim is legally obligated to endure violence at McDonalds? She has a perfect legal right to be there. Why shouldn’t she be allowed to defend herself using an amount of force porportional to the potential harm her attackers might inflict on her?
.
Racist or reality, Nate? There aren’t too many random shootings in Maple Grove. Is that a racist observation? Can the same be said of North Minneapolis? Is that a racist observation? Or is it simply objective?
Big Stink, it’s actually a couple of million felonies averted each year due to lawful carry.
And quite frankly, when the attackers start kicking her in the head, that’s where I think deadly force is justified. At least that’s how I would rule if I were on the jury. Punches? OK. Pulling hair out and kicking someone in the head until they’re basically lying helpless? Not OK. Granny, draw your gun and put the offenders out of our misery.
To bring Nate and Kermit together on this:
I remember discussing Carry Permits on a politics listserver a few years before I started the blog. I was writing to support carry permit reform.
Some lefty (actually a fairly prominent one in Saint Paul) wrote something to the effect of “Carry Permits are for people who think they have a right to go into any part of town, any time they want”). To which I replied – incredulous – huh? We, the law-abiding, should cede any part of our city, or state, to criminals (whose race is utterly irrelevant)?
That is the way many of them see it.
Race is utterly irrelevant. That’s why I qualified my statement with “I’m sure it’s been that way since the town was invented.” As far as I know towns were invented long before the first African was dragged ashore in the New World.
It’s about human nature, not race.
“Carry Permits are for people who think they have a right to go into any part of town, any time they want”
So the DFL thinks only scantily clad womyn should be allowed carry permits?
“Rules applying to MN concealed-carriers should allow greater discretion for when it’s okay to brandish a firearm.” Is this a fair statement of your point?
Do concealed-carriers in MN generally feel over-constrained? (The video is indeed stomach-turning; I of course immediately viewed it beginning with 2:00.)
As a practical matter, the introduction of private firearms into the scene of a fight or attack does not correllate with positive outcomes.
The second that it became two on one, deadly force response is justified. Ganging up on one person is cowardly and in most cases, as in this one, it is a losing proposition. If the victim takes out both attackers and I’m on the jury, I don’t budge on a not guilty verdict.
Gavin, it actually turns out that carry permit holders have a lower rate of wrongful deaths than do police officers. So if your logic holds, we need to take cops back to the days of billy clubs.
(as peace officers everywhere cringe)
Bosshoss, good point about two on one, especially two on one when the victim isn’t able to fight back effectively. (sorry, Mitch, but this is one where I disagree with you; from the start of the video, it’s pretty clear that at least on the part of the victim, deadly force is justified)
What is being missed in this discussion is the culpability of the establishment in which it occurred. An employee comes out, makes a lame attempt to stop it and then leaves. After the fact he tells the assailants to run, because the cops are coming. Meanwhile some soulless piece of excrement calmly takes video of the entire disgusting episode.
This is societal decay.
Bubbasan–your logic doesn’t impress: Police officers are likely present at far more incidents than are cp-holders. Your stat simply doesn’t matter.
Further info on the anti-trans hate-crime: http://tinyurl.com/polisman
Do concealed-carriers in MN generally feel over-constrained? (The video is indeed stomach-turning; I of course immediately viewed it beginning with 2:00.)
First – it’s not about concealed carriers. You don’t need a carry permit to have a firearm, concealed or not, on your own property (other than if carrying one in your car that’s not locked up in the trunk and unloaded).
As a practical matter, the introduction of private firearms into the scene of a fight or attack does not correllate with positive outcomes
That statement is so broad as to be meaningless.
Introduction of a firearm…by whom? Into what situation?
As a practical matter, introducing lethal force into any situation is, at best, the second-worst possible outcome. But when a law-abiding citizen acting in the right does the introducing, and they meet the criteria for self-defense, and the first-worst outcome is death, rape, kidnapping, brutal assault or such, second-worst is infinitely better.
And I’ve got the data (and have been writing about it in this blog since my second post, back in 2002) that shows that under those circumstances, it is in fact much more usually positive than not.
The international trangendered movement appears to be drawing a different lesson – http://tinyurl.com/balttv – http://tinyurl.com/trans-mcd
From a quick scan of the various clippings, it appears that the victim will recover completely. Anti-transgender attacks constitute a morally-urgent problem, globally. Still–I’m glad the 2 attackers weren’t killed. They should be punished severely–though I recommend something short of execution.
Bubbasan–your logic doesn’t impress: Police officers are likely present at far more incidents than are cp-holders. Your stat simply doesn’t matter.
Well, the stat – one among many – does most definitely matter.
According to the most recent serious study of the subject (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), U of Florida criminologist Gary Kleck’s Point Blank from 1992, armed citizens shoot the wrong person 2% of the time (among the 700 to 1,000 shootings self-defense is claimed per year); cops, more like between 8 and 11% of their 2-3,000 fatal shootings a year.
Which is not a riff on cops. They are in more situations – and they also arrive on the situation when it’s fluid and confusing, as a few years ago when a Saint Paul man stumbled into a crossfire between armed robbers and police, picked up a shotgun that a robber had dropped, and was shot by the police). Citizens, on the other hand, usually deal with much less ambiguity; a car driving up to a woman on a dark street and a guy jumping out and yelling “get in the car, bitch” leaves very little gray area.
In any case, neither figure undercuts the premise that the law-abiding, non-imparied citizen carrying a legally-owned gun is overwhelmingly a force for good.
I welcome your continued efforts to poke holes in the premise, Gavin. It keeps my argument sharp. But honestly, I have been through every angle that exists on this subject over the past 25 years. Keep trying.
Gavin,
Glad she’ll recover, but the point far, far transcends anti-transgender violence.
Joe’s question – was she in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm – is the issue here. People have died from beatings not far removed from that.
If one of those kicks had fractured her skull? Broken her neck? If the two belles of the balle had come back with bigger, badder women to join in (like the guy who got the living sh*t beaten out of him at Valley Fair two years ago)?
Anything that removes the ambiguity the law-abiding citizen faces in defending themselves is a good thing.
“From a quick scan of the various clippings, it appears that the victim will recover completely. Anti-transgender attacks constitute a morally-urgent problem, globally.”
Gavin, this is hindsight which is always 20/20. The fact that she was trangender has nothing to do with it either! This was unprovoked gang mentality assault! She was having a seizure from the head trauma and recurring episodes are highly likely.
“(like the guy who got the living sh*t beaten out of him at Valley Fair two years ago)?”
Or Kenneth Gladney, the St. Louis man that was beaten by a gang of miscreant SEIU union thugs protesting Obumblercare. He’s still suffering from that beating.
Gavin said:
“I’m glad the 2 attackers weren’t killed”
Because you value the lives of criminals in exactly the same proportion that you do innocent, law abiding citizens? I wonder why Democrats are _typically_ powerless to reduce crime?
Because you value the lives of criminals in exactly the same proportion that you do innocent, law abiding citizens?
Well, Troy, let’s err on the side of not leaping to believing people are inherently completely depraved.
Let’s assume Gavin means that it’s a good thing the two attackers are not dead, so they can face whatever justice will obtain in the case.
All well and good, in hindsight.
But if you were the one being beaten down by a bunch of thugs, and there was no escape, and you legitimately feared being killed or maimed (and as we saw, the victim was lucky she didn’t get a brain-damaging concussion, a fractured skull, broken bones, damage to internal organs…), and faced the real, present, serious possibility of ending up with catastrophic injuries on that floor, knowing what you knew that that moment not not after the fact with hindsight and a pocketful of cheery medical news…
…mightn’t your take be different?
Troy;
Unless it directly affects them! Then, they’re looking for someone to blame and someone to sue.
“Transgendered”. Hmm. That is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. I would say that violent attacks constitute a morally-urgent problem, globally, regardless of what your genital status is. Unless you want to establish special protected classes, of course. But that’s just silly. What logical person would want to do that?
I am also glad that the attackers aren’t dead, but the fact of the matter is that very few actual shootings are done by carry permit holders. More or less, the gun comes out, and miracle of miracles, the attackers disappear. It’s like they don’t want to be shot any more than the rest of us.
In other words, had the victim or the older person who stepped in drawn a gun, the two attackers would have stopped and run off, not stayed to get shot.
Regarding transgender issues; ugh. There has got to be something mentally very wrong to get a guy to want to divest himself of his “crown jewels,” and I dare suggest many “surgeons” who do this for a living should lose their license to practice medicine altogether.
I can give Gavin the benefit of the doubt, but policies like “arrest the gun” can lead one to believe that DFLers do think criminals and victims are equally valuable. *shrug*
I read a couple of articles about the attack and in one the victim said she was originally accosted for speaking to the boyfriend of one of the attackers, and quotes from the attackers in the article suggested they discovered the transexual element during the attack (sorry, didn’t save the links but you’ll likely be able to Google it; I found the sources from an Australian news service of all places). The attack was a serious assault regardless of its impetus; it would be just as wrong if the victim was also a black female.
Assault is assault, period. “Special circumstances” be damned. There can be no tolerance for this type of behavior in civilized society. The fact that it is not just tolerated, but ignored in certain quarters is a shame and a disgrace.
Gavin did EXACTLY what I fear juries will do: they looked back in hindsight and said “Well, she’ll probably be okay, so no big deal.”
But Joe specifically asked you to look at it in the here-and-now. From the viewpoint of the person standing in the restaurant, was there liklihood of great bodily harm? At first, no, just slapping. But notice victim was beaten severely enough to go into convulsions, likely caused by brain trauma from the beating. Brain trauma sufficient to cause convulsions seems like Great Bodily Harm to me. At least, I’d prefer to avoid it.
So the legal question is: if you were the victim standing in the restaurant, would you have been justified in opening fire, knowing what you knew at the time? Not knowing what you Googled a year later. Not knowing what others have argued after studying the event. Knowing only what you know standing in the restaurant. That’s all the information the shooter has.
Gavin did EXACTLY what the Prosecutor hopes he’ll do and therefore votes for No right of self-defense. Had the victim shot the two attackers to avoid suffering brain damage, Gavin would be leaning toward conviction.
And that’s precisely why the Stand Your Ground law is so important.
Avoid certain parts of town.
what parts?
the parts where people like that are
people like what?
the bad people in that video
the bad people in that video are all Black. So, avoid Black parts of town?
yes. it’s reality. there aren’t as many random shootings in Maple Grove which is mostly white, as in North Minneapolis which is mostly Black. Objectively, we must conclude Black parts of town are unsafe precisely because that’s where Black people are. So to be safe, don’t go there.
black people are unsafe to be around?
yes
but you’re not racist?
no!
well okay, then. If that’s the basis for making public policy – that Black people are unable to conform their behavior to the dictates of civilized society so civilized people should relegate them to savage zones and stay the Hell out of those zones – then perhaps you think we should take another look at Jim Crow laws? After all, how am I to know whether some dangerous Black people are lurking in my McDonalds? Best if we had “Whites Only” restaurants, much like “Gun Free Zones.”
i never said that
/berg/ can’t we all just get along?
.
Rather than deal with the stomach-churning video, let me run a hypo of the same scenario with you. Instead of us watching the two grabbing and beating the crap out of the third, just one of them walks up to her and says, quietly, “I really don’t want you [whatever: “hitting on my boyfriend” | “wearing that color here” | “being that color here” | “ordering a filet-o-fish sandwich — you got the last one” | “keying my car like you just did”. Whatever.] With her hands folded behind her back, as though she’s at parade rest.
What the victim doesn’t see — but we do — is that the quiet, apparently calm person making quiet and reasonable or unreasonable demands has an icepick behind her back.
We’re three seconds away from the victim being stabbed; in three seconds — we’ve stopped the hypothetical tape — if the victim, who has been backed up in the corner next to the bathroom, doesn’t do something drastic and effective, things are about to go all stabby.
Is the victim justified in displaying a gun? That’s easy: no. From the perspective that the victim has, as a reasonable person, the threat is only of being hindered and inconvenienced. That’s not the reality of it; it’s the appearance, and we’re obligated to conform our behavior, when it comes to the use or threat of deadly force, to a “reasonable” perception.
In the actual example, the victim is being set upon by two assailants, neither of whom is showing any restraint at all — in fact, as you suggest, they’re attempting to move the victim outside, to a “secondary crime scene.” The victim has every reason to fear that outside, it’s going to be worse, and when she’s knocked down and her (limited) ability to defend herself from two attackers of greater size (the victim is a very slight person; neither of the attackers are as slight as she) is further compromised.
So Bubbasan has the right of it: at the very least, when they start attacking her head with their feet and the floor, she’s reasonably in fear of death or GBH, and by both statute and case law, given that she’s a reluctant participant (I’m assuming that; we don’t know how this all started), and has no lesser force way of defending herself (manifestly so) and has no place of retreat or succor, she clearly is entitled to use whatever force, including the intentional taking of life, to defend herself.
So she somehow or other draws her gun, and they don’t stop, and she shoots one. The other flees, and she’s promptly arrested, and the very sympathetic cop offers her a cup of coffee and a quick interview, and chats about this and that, and finally asks, “If you hadn’t had a handgun, what would you have done, you think?”
And she screws up. She says something other than, “I would have died right then and there, that’s what would have happened.” Nah, she says something reasonable, like, “I’d have tried to get away.”
“Think you could have?”
“Maybe.”
And then, of course, some twenty-five year or prosecutor who lives in Edina, and drives from his or her attached garage to the staff parking area of the HCGC and back, gets to decide just how much to turn her life upside down, because she’s admitted that she had another alternative.
Meanwhile, the dead girl’s mother and boyfriend, tears in their eyes, stand on the courthouse steps in front of the cameras explaining that the late lamented Bambi — or whatever her name was — was just upset that some tranny was hitting on her boyfriend, and, besides, it was only a little hairpulling, and, besides, Bambi was just getting her life together.
And so it goes.
Nate, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth when you try to put words into it. If you choose to ignore the full scope of what I said, so be it. If you want to call me a racist, that’s your problem. If you choose to ignore reality, that’s really your problem.
I framed the subject in a historical light, which precedes America by thousands of years. You are stuck in pre-sixties America.
“As a practical matter, the introduction of private firearms into the scene of a fight or attack does not correllate with positive outcomes.”
What if it prevented the GBH as seen in the footage above?
Gavin, why do you hate the 2nd Amendment?
Kermit, I appreciate that nobody likes to be called out for the racist implications in their comments. But I fail to comprehend how your comments, made specifically about the events in this video, can be interpreted in any other way, especially your objective justification for your remarks comparing the crime rates in different cities.
I suspect you initially were trying to be funny in a Liberal Progressive Jon Stewart sort of way: snark about Tea Partiers, blame the victim for taking the obviously insane risk of walking into a McDonalds, smirk, then remind us of your Elite credentials by distaining the enthusiasm of the unwashed masses for celebrity weddings, implying you only talk about Important Things which this isn’t. Stewart can pull that off; you, well, don’t quit your day job. After I called you on it, you got defensive without realizing that the implied basis for your objective explanation of reality was more offensive than the original lame humor. quit digging.
But even if I was completely wrong about your comments, and you genuinely only meant “As long as there have been cities, there have been bad parts of town that any sensible person would avoid; the victim here assumed the risk of straying into dangerous territory so she deserves little sympathy and should not be allowed to defend herself from the harm she knew might ensue from her poor choice,” I still would take exception to your remarks albeit on different grounds.
we’re talking about what the law SHOULD be. Should innocents be legally required to avoid certain areas of town on pain of death or great bodily harm? are we really a society of Amish who must submit to whatever violence is visited upon us? it might be smarter to avoid those areas – but suppose people choose to enter the Danger Zone, should the law say “Go if you want to, but you assume the risk of whatever harm the inhabitants chose to inflict upon you; you are not allowed to defend yourself and if you do defend yourself we will punish you for defending yourself when we told you your Legal Duty was to Run Away.”
In other words, if Snake Plissken is dumb enough to walk into New York City, can he take a gun or must he go disarmed? What should the law be?
This is a philosophical discussion about our vision of how society should be shaped. this is an elite intellectual exercise. you’re missing out.
I’m sorry Nate. The quote you attribute to me was never made. “As long as there have been cities, there have been bad parts of town that any sensible person would avoid; the victim here assumed the risk of straying into dangerous territory so she deserves little sympathy and should not be allowed to defend herself from the harm she knew might ensue from her poor choice,”
I did however say “Race is utterly irrelevant. That’s why I qualified my statement with “I’m sure it’s been that way since the town was invented.” As far as I know towns were invented long before the first African was dragged ashore in the New World.
It’s about human nature, not race.”
You called me a racist. That’s bullshit. I can, however, make one fundamental observation. You are wrong. Period. I suggest you check you posterior. There may just be a large stick protruding from it.
Having unwisely watched the video I feel absolutely sick. Maybe it would help if I called someone a racist?
UB. I tried that. It didn’t help.
Pingback: The Top 10 Tea Party Bloggers You Need to Read | North Star Tea Party Patriots