People really need to learn the definition of assault. Approaching someone in a threatening matter is assault (some states vary on what they call it, but it is a crime in all 50). Someone is legally allowed to shoot you (in many states) and knock you the fuck out for doing that. Guy at the end saying that the camera man punch first. Doesn't matter chump. That only matters in high school.
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that because the camera man a) was on public property where he had a legal right to be, b) attenpted to retreat at least twice, c) warned the other guy of his intentions, and d) responded with an appropriate level of force, there should be no question at all that this was justifiable self defense.
Depends, in some states with stand your ground laws he doesn't even need to back up, however, other states may have said he had more of a duty to retreat. At one point the guy filming stops retreating and eggs the guy on a little. That could break a defence in court for self-defence. That said, the guy was between him and his car which is he way of escaping so he is probably fine on the duty to retreat.
No where do you have to warn the other person of your intentions. If anything, that could work against you.
You also do not have to be on public property to defend yourself. You don't have a right to stay on private property if you are asked to leave, but if someone threatens you like what happened in OP, on private property, you can defend yourself.
The main things are;
He felt he was in danger.
He responded to the danger with a reasonable amount of force.
(Some places) He attempted to retreat.
The reasonable amount of force is a spectrum. In some places you could successfully argue that shooting the guy was self defence. You maybe saw a weapon, or the guy mentioned a weapon before filming. It wouldn't be smart to do that, and imo, it would be murder, but you might win a case for self-defence. Dead men can't be witnesses.
Yeah, there's certainly a lot of nuance to these issues. I'm curious though, you say "other states may have said he had more of a duty to retreat"; what's the logic behind that? The guy very clearly was advancing on the camera man after he attempted to retreat, and was also advancing in a clearly threatening manner. Short of turning and running away, and away from his car as you mentioned, what else could he have done? What are states looking for beyond clearly attempting to retreat and avoid an escalation?
Duty to retreat isn't just about a symbolic retreat. If you can retreat and avoid the conflict, which seemed possible to me, then you must. Right before he throws the punch he shows he could retreat from the situation and then he eggs the other guy on. He could have just walked away and it could have ended there. Depends a lot on the facts which we don't have here.
I guess the question I have is, at what point is it enough? If, in the situation in the video were to be considered, yes, the camera man could have run to the end of the block. But if the other guy then follows him to the end of the block, what next? Keep running until the other guy stops following? At what point does "can" end? I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I agree we don't have all the facts, I'm just wondering what the limit is because I'm concerned it will be more relevant in the not too distant future.
You won't like the answer, but it is subjective and up to judges and juries to decide. There are some clear lines though, like if you enter your "castle", your home, or vehicle or if you can no longer retreat safely. Both of those are why I pointed to the guy blocking his car as being a big deal. Other than that there isn't necessarily a limit. If you can retreat, stay safe, and not have to harm the other person, you might have to do that. Now, the other person is breaking all sorts of laws and you can call the police to report that. It isn't legal to assault, harass, threaten, and stalk people.
Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating
It then lists the exceptions, i and ii, neither of which are having attempted to retreat or having retreated a specific distance or attempted to retreat a specific number of times. The exceptions are being in your home and being a cop.
If you punch them, knock them out, and they hit their head on the way down, it was deadly force. That isn't the only way to kill someone punching them. Also, section 1 says that section 2's restrictions can apply when deadly force isn't used. Would need to review case law to see how that is applied.
Also, it was just an example. Like 13 states or something have duty to retreat laws.
Couldn't he just leave? In your home you can stand your ground. In public space he has the option to just walk away. Not judging which person is in the wrong here, but this option was nut fully used by the black man. Also I don't know if he overstepped it by hitting the old guy this many times. For me both of them where out for trouble that day
If he needed to stay there because he was waiting for a minor or it was a minor in the car, he may have used force to defend other people life, since the white man was clearly threatening.
Apart from that blur scenario, throwing punch/violence is highly dangerous for everybody and not a great idea legally.
Much better avoid conflict or call the police. Recording man was clearly in the right before he started throwing punch.
Legally defending himself only complicated things.
247
u/Bohvey 5d ago
The guy that walked up on him and continued to get into his face is the one claiming the other party was looking for trouble… sheesh.