It wouldnt be assault, would it? I’m curious to know what the law says in such a case. The Good Samaritan was stopping a crime in progress, using what looked like “adequate force”. How else do you restrain someone that big?
It wouldnt be assault, would it? I’m curious to know what the law says in such a case. The Good Samaritan was stopping a crime in progress, using what looked like “adequate force”. How else do you restrain someone that big?
It depends on the state, but defending someone else from assault is generally included under self-defense. When he lunged out at the workers he assaulted them, they easily had legitimate fear of harm, and the Samaritan defended against that harm. It’s generally part of the stand your ground laws.
That's California. You're barely able to defend yourself without getting charged for something. California is the state where good Samaritans get sued for stuff like this. Chances are he'd immediately be charged with assault despite saving the day. The guy was smart. Even if he didn't have so much as a parking ticket on his record; he was smart to book it.
I'm glad I live in a state like Utah that has some common sense when it comes to this kind of stuff. We've had two cases of homeowners shooting a home intruder. The cops took a statement and that was it. In California the homeowner would probably be behind bars and eventually standing tall before a judge.
That's California. You're barely able to defend yourself without getting charged for something. California is the state where good Samaritans get sued for stuff like this. Chances are he'd immediately be charged with assault despite saving the day. The guy was smart. Even if he didn't have so much as a parking ticket on his record; he was smart to book it.
I'm glad I live in a state like Utah that has some common sense when it comes to this kind of stuff. We've had two cases of homeowners shooting a home intruder. The cops took a statement and that was it. In California the homeowner would probably be behind bars and eventually standing tall before a judge.
I may want to clarify. I'm not talking about the people obviously. I lived there for 15 years. I'm talking about the general policies and laws. If auto manufacturers have to make a special variant of their car to allow it to be sold in California, and there are labels that state "This product has been known to cause cancer in the state of California", you already know something is wrong.
Sorry, not trying to derail the thread. Just a little passionate on the subject.
Admit it. If this happened in a state like Texas for example, and the cop was some Sherriff with a cowboy hat on - "We wanna find this young fellow and thank'em for what'ee did" - would we have any doubt that's really what they'd want to do and suspect for one second that they wanted to arrest him? Hell no. They'd take his picture and frame it at the station. They'd want to take his picture in California as well. With him holding a Santa Ana PD sign with todays date on it which we can all agree would be stupid as fuuuuu
Okay. This is specifically with regard to lethal force. I’m sure it applies to regular assault as well in a similar code.
CA 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self- defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime>)];
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;
AND
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.
CALCRIM 3470 is the one that applies here. The one thing to note though is that this is not criminal code. It’s jury instruction for deciding a self-defense defense claim’s legitimacy. The police follow the criminal code and by CA law, that guy committed battery. The police would have no problems arresting him and sending the charges to the DA for prosecution. The DA would then have to judge if the charges are worth pursuing if the jury is likely to grant a self defense claim.*
Based on what I'm reading there, the guy that dropped biggie-smalls would not be protected by that CA 505 because he wasn't acting in self defense nor was he really in "imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury". He wasn't even involved in the scuffle. He barged in, landed a right to biggie's jaw and called it a day. Totally justified IMO. But according to CA law, it looks like there's a fair chance the guy would get charged with battery or assault.
Based on what I'm reading there, the guy that dropped biggie-smalls would not be protected by that CA 505 because he wasn't acting in self defense nor was he really in "imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury". He wasn't even involved in the scuffle. He barged in, landed a right to biggie's jaw and called it a day. Totally justified IMO. But according to CA law, it looks like there's a fair chance the guy would get charged with battery or assault.
CA 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another
I think that counts. I was in a jury where the Prosecution tried to use this and it worked.
Based on what I'm reading there, the guy that dropped biggie-smalls would not be protected by that CA 505 because he wasn't acting in self defense nor was he really in "imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury". He wasn't even involved in the scuffle. He barged in, landed a right to biggie's jaw and called it a day. Totally justified IMO. But according to CA law, it looks like there's a fair chance the guy would get charged with battery or assault.
Post 20 clarifies the technicalities around lethality. It’s the same thing just with less than lethal threat or force. And as I mentioned there, your comment about being arrested is likely right. I think he could justifiably be arrested and innocent simultaneously.
Well, either way, pretty awesome. The great thing about big guys is that the head is always vulnerable. The hit-and-runner knew just what to do.
Plus, the employees can't do anything. Even in states less liberal than California; if you're a retail worker and you try, in any way, to stop a shoplifter, chances are you'll be fired. I worked in retail in three different stores and this was always the policy. You can stop someone verbally and inform them that you saw them shoplift and ask them to accompany you to an office or something like that. Then call the cops. Works with kids and stuff sometimes. But you can't so much as block someone from leaving the store let alone grab them or boom - 95% chance you'll get fired.
The way the cop repeats "I'd like to get him ID'd" he doesn't sound like he's gonna personally thank him or anything... sounds more like they want to throw an assault charge at him.
The way the cop repeats "I'd like to get him ID'd" he doesn't sound like he's gonna personally thank him or anything... sounds more like they want to throw an assault charge at him.
"maybe he's done it in the past" Yeah get the fuck out of here with your promise of a thank you.
It wouldnt be assault, would it? I’m curious to know what the law says in such a case. The Good Samaritan was stopping a crime in progress, using what looked like “adequate force”. How else do you restrain someone that big?
It would be assault, there is no justification for a lone wolf to act as a vigilante in light of your parameters. At least that would be the case in a progressive state like NY, perhaps not FL or TX.
They had the guy's description and lp. They should have let him scoot. If he pulled a gun it would be a lot different video.
Originally Posted by doopstr
If I'm working the grocery store and see somebody walk out with a cart of stolen food, I'd call 911 and my job is done. Not getting killed for a job.
No kidding. I wonder if one of them in the vid was a manger that was trying to stop him. If so I bet the store would want to fire him ASAP and then train the rest of the employees on what not to do while showing them this video.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
09-06-2018, 08:36 AM
"maybe he's done it in the past" 
