• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Surveillance video shows violent confrontation at gas station

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

So... Who should go to jail?

  • Punch Thrower

  • Shooter

  • Both

  • No one...

Results are only viewable after voting.
classy said:
The guy who threw the punch is at most fault here. But why did he open the door and did the dude hit him because he had the gun out? But the dude who threw the punch is at fault here.
Click to expand...


Rofl.... "Most fault" "but why did the victim......"


Typical blame the victim mentality.

This isn't high school. You punch someone or threaten their life and you just might get (legally) shot.
 
My post from the ATOT thread on this was as follows:

As for the case at hand, this will be dictated by the applicable state law, available at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm. It provides, in relevant part:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

* * *

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

* * *
Click to expand...

I see this as something of a close call in that the kid who was shot (who I intentionally don't refer to as a victim) was not clearly trying to enter the shooter's workplace (which was, in any case, a public store), and did not commit or appear to be attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. That being said, I think the clerk could reasonably have feared for his safety, and perhaps his life. The fact that he had previously been shot by a robber is not legally significant to whether he was justified in shooting (the standard is objective, not subjective), but I would certainly consider it mitigating.
 
Clerk has self defense on his side. He is stupid for opening the door... Unless he was threatened that they would shoot up the place if he didn't. I don't know exactly what happened from the video before the altercation.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
The crumponite crew is still sleeping off their hangovers.

They have made very clear that a single punch with no noticeable damage does NOT justify lethal force. You must wait until you are literally in the middle of dying (IE bleeding out etc) before shooting someone who is attacking you.
Click to expand...


Or until an imaginary shotgun is pointed at you.
 
The only thing dumber than punching a guy with the a gun is a mob of 25 yelling about wanting justice, when they don't even know what happened.
 
They were both idiots. The guy with the gun was emboldened with his weapon so he open the door and escalated the confrontation. The idiot who got shot was just being a tough guy.

The correct thing to do is call the police when someone is being belligerent.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
That is ridiculous. That punch didn't do any damage, look the clerk shrugged it off.

He should've let the thug and his friends beat him up until 1 punch before death before shooting is justified.
Click to expand...
LOL +1

Jaskalas said:
The sentiment in this topic has caught me off guard. Never expected a single punch to be grounds for deadly force in the eyes of P&N.
Click to expand...
You start a fight, you take your chances. There should be no obligation to take a punch to the face, especially when you've been robbed and shot before.

I voted "no one" though. While the punch thrower clearly was in the wrong, surely taking a round in the gut is sufficient punishment for simple assault and battery.
 
dmcowen674 said:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
So far looks like the kid will live which stinks because he will probably sue the guy and the store.



The clerk is not wealthy and from the looks of the Convenience store owner he is not wealthy either.
Click to expand...

they got more money than your broke ass so they are the evil 10%ers. Screw 'em.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
Rofl.... "Most fault" "but why did the victim......"


Typical blame the victim mentality.

This isn't high school. You punch someone or threaten their life and you just might get (legally) shot.
Click to expand...

Man fu. There is blame here for the store clerk as well. He didn't have to the open door and he clearly was looking to do his confrontation as well.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
The crumponite crew is still sleeping off their hangovers.

They have made very clear that a single punch with no noticeable damage does NOT justify lethal force. You must wait until you are literally in the middle of dying (IE bleeding out etc) before shooting someone who is attacking you.
Click to expand...

wth does crumponite mean?
 
The guy shouldn't have punched him, he had no right to do it and this is the problem with some people who will resort to this kind of violence just because they dont get their way

The shooter was defending himself and no way should face charges, Maybe the kid will learn a lesson and not do this again
 
oh my god someone punched me I must kill them.. give me a fucking break it's the people who think this is a reasonable response who should be thrown in jail or killed before they end up killing someone.
 
Oyeve said:
Wow. Cigarettes are less than five bucks in Houston?
Click to expand...

That's your state Governments for ya. They are $8 here in NY and that is almost all State tax. The Gov said it's not your fault, you guy suckered in by bad advertising and lied to about the heath risks. The solution is to take money out of your pockets for something that wasn't your fault.
 
dmcowen674 said:
So far looks like the kid will live which stinks because he will probably sue the guy and the store.
Click to expand...

If shooting is warranted, a kill shot is usually preferable. I think the clerk could have been more graceful if he just kicked the guy's center of gravity back and closed the door. Grace is not a legal requirement. Personally, i think it would be most fun to literally taze the shit out of the guy while dropping Bond-villain one liners in between shocks but hindsight is always 20/20.

Based only on the evidence in the article, I'd not charge the clerk with anything, charge the puncher with assault, and admonish the puncher's father for not teaching his kid any manners. If I were judging the case I'd have a lot of questions.
 
Last edited:
Paul98 said:
oh my god someone punched me I must kill them.. give me a fucking break it's the people who think this is a reasonable response who should be thrown in jail or killed before they end up killing someone.
Click to expand...

Stupidest statement I've seen this month.
 
People on here have totally lost touch with reality. You are fucking sick and should be killed if you think that was a reasonable use of force.
 
The guy who shot him was a fucking pussy who should have never been able to get a gun, I hope he goes to jail and gets his ass beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top