Legal Input: Would it be justifiable to pull a handgun in this situation?

[Guest WyattEarp]

I saw this video, and I was just wondering if someone was in this situation with these odds and this many people attacking them would they be

1.) justified to pull a handgun to stop the confrontation?

2.) justified to use deadly force?

Video: This Is Just Wrong: Crazy Brawl Of 2 Girls & A Guy Jumping An Elderly Lady In A Hood Of Dover, Delaware For Trying To Stickup For A Boy & Then The Whole Block Comes Out

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think anyone sticking around in a stupid situation like that needs to have their head examined. That

video is someone's dumb excuse for fifteen minutes of fame. It may even be preferable for them to

execute a circular firing squad.

[dats82]

We obviously do not know the whole story, but it seems like the white people could have just gone into their house to end the conflict. If that were not an option and I were in this situation, I can tell you that that hood would have ended up a few brothers short of a full step crew.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Also, if you are justified to pull a gun then you are justified to shoot. Now whether you choose to shoot or not is another thing. You can't go around pulling a gun to prevent confrontations unless the confrontation is life threatening in which case dealy force would be justified.

Even though it appears as though the blacks (actually a single black man) were the aggressors in the beginning the whites had an opportunity to retreat but did not. The white women even became aggressive at a point when everything seemed to be calming down. You even hear several blacks saying to just go inside which would have been the smart thing to do. And the black guy in the black shirt was even helping the white kid.

Considering the white women became the primary aggressor I would have considered the reaction the black women had to be reasonable. The white women came up to the the black women in an aggressive manner and the white women did get beat but it wasn't excessive or extended. Had they continued to beat the white women after she was obviously was incapacitated then stopping it some how would have been the right thing to do. If I had some crazy drunk person come up to me and my family acting as though they were going to attack my response would probably be similar.

Now at the end it appeared a bit over the top with 5-6 on the man and 2 on the women. That would have been the only time I personally would have interferred but only if it continued and didn't end so quickly.

I don't see myself being in a situation where I would see something similar to that happening. And as 6.8 siad anyone who is in a situation like that would be stupid to stick around especailly if you are the minority. The majority of what happened was caused by the white women and her inability to shut her mouth.

Would you be justified in pulling a gun? I would say probably so based solely on the video because of the amount of people involved in the beating. But to me no one was is immediate danger of being killed so I probably would have not got involved based on what I saw in the video. But as I said had the beatings continued then yes I would think the use of deadly force would be justified if you thought someone was going to be seriously injured or killed. Something else, had someone been shot or killed on behalf of the whites how do you think the witnesses would have sided?

Dolomite

[bubbadavis]

So does a mob beating qualify as a hate crime?

Lots of things everyone could have done to prevent that crap from happening. Sometimes its smart to simply walk away.

[Guest m&pc9]

I only made it through first 2 minutes. He had plenty of time to retreat and get in the house and call 911.

Then if they tried to get in the house the use deadly force would be justified.

[Andyshowfan]

Appears to me that the boy and the woman had ample time to go back into the house, call 911 and wait for the authorities to arrive. With the "mob" mentality of people in general, most likely the altercation would have ceased. I do not believe that either of the parties were in the "right" but do think that by not retreating into the house, the boy and the woman were instigating violance also. I'm not one to run and hide but sometimes it is the best thing to do at that moment. If they had of went inside and the "mob" continued to pursue them then I do think it would be justifible to brandish your weapon to stop the threat.

[TNFF319]

Go in the house and shoot em as they break in. I think it is time to move from that area.

[finz50]

When they left there property (the female) and got into a fighters stance, she escalated the situation, so if she shot she'd likely be in jail for murder since she escalated the situation based on my limited knowledge. Had she had a half ounce of brain, she would have gone inside and left well enough alone....

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you believe in that hate crime crap, you've swallowed a pill you shouldn't have. That's a law that should have never been considered. That law is a pile of crap.

[Guest m&pc9]

If you believe in that hate crime crap, you've swallowed a pill you shouldn't have. That's a law that should have never been considered. That law is a pile of crap.

Are you saying there is no hate crimes?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Read that law and tell me it protects. It's an unnecessary piece of tripe. You are joking, aren't you?

I'm sure there should be a Unicorn Protection Act any time in the future, just for those who hate unicorns.

[Guest m&pc9]

Read that law and tell me it protects. It's an unnecessary piece of tripe. You are joking, aren't you?

I'm sure there should be a Unicorn Protection Act any time in the future, just for those who hate unicorns.

That didnt answer my question. Are there hate crimes?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Does the emotional motivation of a crime make much difference? I realize that sometimes extreme emotional states can get people lighter sentences, but wonder if an extreme emotional state should get one a heavier sentence?

Consider murder. Does a cool calm dispassionate gangland execution deserve more or less punishment than a murder committed by a road rage housewife? Does a cool calm gangland execution deserve more or less punishment than a racially-motivated or gender-motivated or religion-motivated murder?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not like that law wishes. Do you want a law against everything. Sure, there are crimes that involve hatred,

but it doesn't involve what was in the video.

The people in the video have devolved to the point that they have become animals by the nature of their

actions. How do you legislate that? There are plenty laws on the books that cover their actions other than

getting into a discussion of Hate Crimes legislation, which was a stupid law. When you legislate love and hate,

you're heading in the wrong direction. You are getting into too much political correctness with legislation in

this area.

[Guest m&pc9]

Murder is murder and should have same punishment.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You answered your own question.

[bubbadavis]

If you believe in that hate crime crap, you've swallowed a pill you shouldn't have. That's a law that should have never been considered. That law is a pile of crap.

Sorry, my sarcasm didn't show through my posting! IMO, 'hate crimes' are a way to place extra penalties on a crime based on why someone believes they committed the act. Who gets to determine why? If we wanted to be sensible, all murders would be hate crimes - I can't imagine murdering someone out of love...

[Guest m&pc9]

You answered your own question.

I took it as you said there are no hate crimes. I know there are hate crimes but also know murder is murder.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If I took it wrong, sorry about that. It's that term "Hate Crime" that bothers me. You could use it

anywhere. And I agree. And what difference does it make how much and what kind of hatred increased

it. It's horse hockey. That's why the politicians did it, also, to make someone feel special.

I never said there were no hate crimes, but I did say there was no reason to have a law to specify that

line of thought, because it was a politically correct pile of dung. You must have taken me wrong, m&pc9.

I'm just maintaining that our society would be a lot better off with a lot less laws that tend to incriminate

more people, which is tyranny, by the way, than adding something to make a particular class of people

feel good. Laws end up by allowing a government to obtain an inordinate amount of power over the

people when liberty is at stake. Choose your poison carefully. There may be a law passed, one day that

you violate when go out on your porch stoop and shake your fist at your neighbor. You will feel real

differently when they take you to jail and confiscate your weapons, even when none was in use.

Liberty or tyranny?

[bubbadavis]

I completely agree 6.8 AR: the whole concept of a 'hate crime' is ludicrous.

"Lets make something more illegal. Yeah, that's the ticket!" must have been their train of thought when coming up with these laws. But it makes certain people feel good. Blah...

[dou44]

looked like both sides hate each other. the whites should have went in an called 911 and then shot who ever came in the house. both sides could have left.

[Guest rebeldrummer]

wow...that could have turned SO BAD SO FAST....luckily it didn't. I would have packed up and moved out that same day.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Do people just walk around with cameras ,nowadays, just filming events like these to put on the web,

or was it staged to some extent?

[Guest rebeldrummer]

Do people just walk around with cameras ,nowadays, just filming events like these to put on the web,

or was it staged to some extent?

i dont think it was staged?? it could have been one of those "hey watch this" moments?? it looks like she started filming after it already started though??

and since everyone now a days has a camera phone, and everyone wants their 5 min of fame (or shame) they have them ready to go whenever.

thanks to youtube, we all can be famous, or in-famous!!!