What would you do during a Bad Guy Attack

[hopeless]

Okay...

After reading the above I removed this post as its utterly unnecessary.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As you say, no one really knows what they would do, if they haven't been in that situation before. But based on the closest parallels for me, I think fight or flight for me is going to mainly depend upon something setting me off. I've never been prone to fight, but I've got "protective instincts" that are a bit extreme. So if the guy is coming at me, I'm almost assuredly running, unless I've got no good way out. If he is coming after my co-worker, the 60 year old nice old grandmother that I've known for years--then I'm probably going after him. In violent situations (e.g. car wrecks) that I have been in, it has been about 50/50 on, "time slows down and I can see and react to every detail," versus, "did someone get the license number of the truck that hit me?" So assuming I don't freeze or miss it entirely, I think the "set me off" part is the critical thing. And if you think I'm extreme that way, you should know my sister.

But people are strange. For every incident of total panic, there is a counter example. One of my favorite incidents happend a few years ago in Birmingham, AL. A 14 year-old punk tried to steal a purse from a 90 year-old lady. She walloped him with the purse, then pulled from it her 38. As he turned to run, she shot him twice. He ran around the corner into an alley. While wearing high heels, she chased him into the alley, and shot him twice more. He got away, but showed up later that night in a local emergency room, where they dressed four bullet holes in his butt.

At the trial, the judge asked her why she shot four times. She said that the alley was dark, and her eyes weren't what they used to be. She was afraid she might hit someone else if she shot again. The judge told the punk that he should take this as a sign that he wasn't cut out for a life of crime.

That wasn't TV. That was real. I think if our TV guy comes after this old lady, he better have something more than a hammer and bleach.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My Dad always says there's a reason why little old ladies get to be little old ladies...

 

[Janx]

I like these "what-if" scenarios you are throwing out there with regards to TV situations. It gets the gears turning and provokes interesting discussion.

But, why all the mystery about the show and the circumstances? Wouldn't the thread and subsequent posters/readers be aided by simply stating:

"I was watching an episode of Luther and some dude went into an office building, and attacked a bunch of people in a cubicle farm with a hammer and a squirt gun with some kind of acidic liquid."

It would get past all the ambiguity that prevent people from answering the question appropriately from their point of view.

I'm glad your enjoying the topic, even when my line of reasoning is goofy.

I'm being vague, as sort of a means of not giving away spoilers. Luther's just being aired on BBC America.

also, hopefully it keeps us more focussed on the kind of situation, rather than talking about the show. Since most of the topic is about how we think reality might turn out different.

The other thread is about a Federal agent who has the longest day of his life each season. I've just started watching it on NetFlix (working on season 2 right now).

 

[apoptosis]

But people are strange. For every incident of total panic, there is a counter example. One of my favorite incidents happend a few years ago in Birmingham, AL. A 14 year-old punk tried to steal a purse from a 90 year-old lady. She walloped him with the purse, then pulled from it her 38. As he turned to run, she shot him twice. He ran around the corner into an alley. While wearing high heels, she chased him into the alley, and shot him twice more. He got away, but showed up later that night in a local emergency room, where they dressed four bullet holes in his butt.

A

I wonder why she was not charged with aggravated battery. She shot him when he turned and ran (that is no longer self-defense but a case could be made that it was the speed of the situation).

Once she chased him into an alley she is now the aggressor and she cannot claim self-defense. She probably should have been charged with a felony.

****Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV. This is all based on what i have read on self defense but I am pretty sure this is accurate****

 

[Janx]

I wonder why she was not charged with aggravated battery. She shot him when he turned and ran (that is no longer self-defense but a case could be made that it was the speed of the situation).

Once she chased him into an alley she is now the aggressor and she cannot claim self-defense. She probably should have been charged with a felony.

****Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV. This is all based on what i have read on self defense but I am pretty sure this is accurate****

Legally, you're probably right (IANAL as well). Self Defense laws usually cover anything to stop the attack. Since the enemy retreated, she was out of bounds of the self defense rights laws.

Factors to her not being prosecuted:

• jury nullifaction, a juror may decide in her favor by way of their consience or injustness of the law (she is good, he is bad, bad guys have no rights logic).
• extenuating circumstances, she's old, crook is young, you don't want to be the DA who puts a heroic grandma on trial, thereby rewarding the crook. that's bad PR
• the criminal could have filed a civil suit, but she's old and probably has less money, and he's a crook with no money. No lawyer would probably take the case or hope that the jury would side with his criminal client.

Anybody who can justify why its OK for the grandma to not be in trouble would torpedo the case against her as a juror. Since the case would revolve around a normally law abiding person who "broke the law" when provoked by a criminal, sympathies will lie with her.

A DA wasting time on such a case to put a "good guy" in jail would be seen as punishing the good. It also wouldn't accomplish much in the scope of making the town a better place. Grandmas don't generally go around shooting good people. So it's better to let her get off, and prosecute another "bad' guy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I wonder why she was not charged with aggravated battery. She shot him when he turned and ran (that is no longer self-defense but a case could be made that it was the speed of the situation).

Once she chased him into an alley she is now the aggressor and she cannot claim self-defense. She probably should have been charged with a felony.

****Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV. This is all based on what i have read on self defense but I am pretty sure this is accurate****

This was sometime in the mid-90's. So I don't remember many of the details other than the ones I already listed. But my guess is that it was a combination of things. This was actually metropolitan Birmingham, in Bessemer, which since the late 80's as had a lot of violent crime--including "purse snatching" that ended up with people seriously hurt. So she could have legitimately felt more threatened than the average snatching. I gathered from the newspaper reports that the alley was not far. She was in heels. So it couldn't have been that far. Also, there were multiple witnesses.

But mainly, I think if the DA had prosecuted, he would have been laughed out of town. If the kid had been paralyzed or seriously hurt, they would have probably at least considered some kind of charges. The judge certainly had the attitude that if an elderly lady hits you four times in four shots, and all you get out of it is a trip to the emergency room, some time sitting on a pillow, and a minor felony conviction--you probably should count yourself ahead of the game. If I remember correctly, the kid didn't even get jail time.

On a more serious note, everyone involved in this was African American. This lady had lived in Bessemer most of her life. That means she probably picked up her weapon handling skills as a teen or was taught by someone during the 60s as defense against more serious attacks. That community is far more forgiving of using weapons in broad self defense than you might find in some other cities.

 

[apoptosis]

Legally, you're probably right (IANAL as well). Self Defense laws usually cover anything to stop the attack. Since the enemy retreated, she was out of bounds of the self defense rights laws.

Factors to her not being prosecuted:

• jury nullifaction, a juror may decide in her favor by way of their consience or injustness of the law (she is good, he is bad, bad guys have no rights logic).
• extenuating circumstances, she's old, crook is young, you don't want to be the DA who puts a heroic grandma on trial, thereby rewarding the crook. that's bad PR
• the criminal could have filed a civil suit, but she's old and probably has less money, and he's a crook with no money. No lawyer would probably take the case or hope that the jury would side with his criminal client.

Anybody who can justify why its OK for the grandma to not be in trouble would torpedo the case against her as a juror. Since the case would revolve around a normally law abiding person who "broke the law" when provoked by a criminal, sympathies will lie with her.

A DA wasting time on such a case to put a "good guy" in jail would be seen as punishing the good. It also wouldn't accomplish much in the scope of making the town a better place. Grandmas don't generally go around shooting good people. So it's better to let her get off, and prosecute another "bad' guy.

MHO below based on limited internet based understanding of the laws.

I understand your counter and I agree that it has merits contra to them prosecuting here. But it seems that once she chased him into the alley, i think they would almost have to try and prosecute. It seems to be a very clear violation of self-defense laws.

I would guess that some bargain would be made due to extenuating circumstances based on what you stated. Additionally, she is also is going to be liable for a civil lawsuit as well.

If this went to a jury, the judge would instruct them on the limits of self-defense which in this scenario does not fall under. Obviously things are always a crapshoot when a jury is involved and the prosecuting would have to take that into account.

 

[apoptosis]

This was sometime in the mid-90's. So I don't remember many of the details other than the ones I already listed. But my guess is that it was a combination of things. This was actually metropolitan Birmingham, in Bessemer, which since the late 80's as had a lot of violent crime--including "purse snatching" that ended up with people seriously hurt. So she could have legitimately felt more threatened than the average snatching. I gathered from the newspaper reports that the alley was not far. She was in heels. So it couldn't have been that far. Also, there were multiple witnesses.

But mainly, I think if the DA had prosecuted, he would have been laughed out of town. If the kid had been paralyzed or seriously hurt, they would have probably at least considered some kind of charges. The judge certainly had the attitude that if an elderly lady hits you four times in four shots, and all you get out of it is a trip to the emergency room, some time sitting on a pillow, and a minor felony conviction--you probably should count yourself ahead of the game. If I remember correctly, the kid didn't even get jail time.

On a more serious note, everyone involved in this was African American. This lady had lived in Bessemer most of her life. That means she probably picked up her weapon handling skills as a teen or was taught by someone during the 60s as defense against more serious attacks. That community is far more forgiving of using weapons in broad self defense than you might find in some other cities.

As I said, I am no legal expert and there is always a difference between the 'real' law and the 'practice' of law (and i could be way wrong about this as well).

It does bring up what I always think is an interesting aspect of these 'what would you do scenarios.' The aftermath. The law is often unkind to self-defense pleas (mostly since self defense is the overwhelmingly most common defense in cases of assault and battery).

 

[Janx]

MHO below based on limited internet based understanding of the laws.

I understand your counter and I agree that it has merits contra to them prosecuting here. But it seems that once she chased him into the alley, i think they would almost have to try and prosecute. It seems to be a very clear violation of self-defense laws.

I would guess that some bargain would be made due to extenuating circumstances based on what you stated. Additionally, she is also is going to be liable for a civil lawsuit as well.

If this went to a jury, the judge would instruct them on the limits of self-defense which in this scenario does not fall under. Obviously things are always a crapshoot when a jury is involved and the prosecuting would have to take that into account.

Well, like I said, a very Lawful alignment person would pursue a case against her. She broke the law.

I bet there could be regional impact to the decision. I think a big city DA might pursue the case, wheras a country cops and lawyers might look at it as country justice and not pursue it.

I think the DA gets to decide what cases to file or not. Meaning he gets told of a crime by cops and he decides to proceed in court or not. I could easily be wrong.

In that model, the cops may not bring it to his attention. The crook's Public Defender may be too swamped to mention it to the crook so he can file assault charges. In some states, the victim (unless dead) must file charges for the police to proceed.

This is why some abusive husbands don't get arrested because the battered wife won't file. In Wisconsin, the State can file assault charges, bypassing the wife (I have a sister-in-law who lacked the gumption to fix her life herself, and the cops looked at her and arrested the jackass).

So, if the crook doesn't press charges, the grandma escapes notice of the legal system (and I suspect more cops are going to side with grandma to smooth that along).

In short, despite the rigid rails of the legal system, the humans working within it use their own ideas of justice to ride the train WHEN they see fit.