Has this video been discussed already?

[gcmj45acp]

http://www.camp.com/vids/attacks/holdinitdown.wmv

I'm curious to know what advice you all would give to the PT Cruiser's driver. I think he/she started out doing the right thing by trying to drive off, they just didn't or couldn't follow through with it by either pushing other cars or driving over the moron. If that weren't an option, I might opt for shooting him but I think it's probably easier to explain treadmarks rather than bullet holes.

[PDWard40]

what the hell was up with that guy?

[gcmj45acp]

Idunno. I've been watching a couple other discussions about it in other forums. Lots of folks ready to shoot the guy. I can't really blame them. Not sure I wouldn't. But like I said before, I'd rather explain the treadmarks.

[Tackleberry]

He would have either been road kill cause I would have run him over or he would have been properly ventilated!!

There is no reason why that driver couldn't have used deadly force at that nut swinging a bat/bar at a car which has no means of escape and windows busted out.

I really hope that wasn't for real.

This is a prime example of why I carry all the time!


Tac
1*

[Contact]

Looks like he would be up for attempted murder, I believe I heard children screaming inside the PT...you can bet he would be roadkill or swiss cheese if it were me.

[archer0830]

That video just made me very angry. If I knew I wouldn't go to prison for running that bastard over I'd make sure my front tire stayed on his chest as long as possible. Some people make me sick. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[lsmalibu]

That video was definitely real, part of the infamous "Bumfights" series of videos. They're filming in Vegas and IMO after being egged on by the camera crew, the guy starts ranting about how "Metro" (Las Vegas Metro Police) can't keep him off the corner, hookers won't take his corner, etc. So to prove how much he doesn't care, he goes and smashes up a PT Cruiser. You can hear the lady scream "call the police."

[gcmj45acp]

So that basically means we've got two parties that need to be arrested, right? The moron with the crowbar and the idiot with the camera. I've since heard about the Bumbfight videos thing but was still hoping it was ALL staged. But if these folks are inciting attacks on random people they need to be put in jail along with the bums they are dealing with for their videos.

[zap]

....kids in the car? ....he's in real trouble....(how big would 10 .40 caliber holes all together be?)

....no kids in the car....I don't think I would get away with shooting the guy....but I might get out and give a chance to swing that stick at me.... ONCE... :eek:



Seriously...I think he is directing the attack at the car. Whithout kids in the car...I'm not sure you could argue well enough that you felt your life was in danger and had no choice but to shoot the guy...

If you are a gal in the car...shoot him....kids in the car...shoot him... guy by yourself...<shrug> wait til his swings at you then shoot him...

[Sleuth]

As soon as he stuck the crowbar through the window, he has attempted to use deadly force against me. Gunshots are REALLY loud inside a car.

Did you all notice that he had prepositioned the crowbar for quick access?

[Delta784]

Originally posted by zap
Seriously...I think he is directing the attack at the car.

Listen carefully....at one (at least) point, the bum taunts the driver, like "whatchoo gonna do" or something.

Originally posted by zap
I'm not sure you could argue well enough that you felt your life was in danger and had no choice but to shoot the guy...

As soon as you got out of the car, I guarantee that the bum would come at you with the crowbar.

Game, set, match.

[zap]

Delta784


<b><i>As soon as you got out of the car, I guarantee that the bum would come at you with the crowbar. </i></b>


I wholeheartedly completely agree.....

But, my question is whether or not you could successfully argue that you had no other option in court. Our laws here (Ohio) specify that you must retreat if that is an option before you are justified in using deadly force as a civilian. I think you win if there are kids in the car, or if you are a woman in the car. I am not sure about a single male (who is not yet considered elderly) even if the guy did taunt you while smashing the windows.

But again I agree that if you get out...he's going to come after you...and at that point....how can anyone argue that deadly force would have been anything but justified?





(yes...I did notice the crowbar if that is what it was...was right there ready) ;)

[keith758]

My personal opinion is that any jury, upon seeing this video, would wholeheartedly agree that this walking , talking waste of skin is simply wasting oxygen and deserved to be made a part of the road. It infuriates me that no one involved would take any type of action.

[RoryC]

That intersection is right on the strip, between Circus Circus, and the Stratosphere (you can actually see the Stratosphere in the background at first). I don't know what he is talking about saying Metro doesn't dare come around, I have personally walked across that intersection, that same sidewalk, and I've had my car in that same spot as the PT Cruiser, and I always see LV Police around there. It's on the freakin' strip of course LVPD is going to be around!!!!!!! I think he was just playing it up for the camera. And he could have been killed and the camera man probably could have been prosecuted as well (if he hasn't already been)

Too bad that fine citizen didn't get squashed.

[empd528]

That definetly deserves a few to the chest!!
and the best part is grab the A- hole with the camara and show thay it was unprovoked by you and was premeditated by this now full of holes idiot :mad:

[fahrenheit]

If it were me, I'd drive just far enough away to give myself time to draw my gun as I was stepping out of the car. Run at me? Go for your waistband? Done deal. Drop to the ground like a smart person does when you point a gun at them? Going to jail. Either way, he's off the street and not terrorizing families anymore.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by zap
Our laws here (Ohio) specify that you must retreat if that is an option before you are justified in using deadly force as a civilian.

Good thing I'm not a civilian. :)

Even under those restrictions, you could very reasonably argue that getting out of the car was an attempt to retreat, since the car was blocked in.

Originally posted by zap
But again I agree that if you get out...he's going to come after you...and at that point....how can anyone argue that deadly force would have been anything but justified?

Even here in the land of the Kennedys, juries like the idea of a little street justice to the likes of that bum. :D

[retdetsgt]

He'd be history and some relative would be telling the press how he was just starting to get his life together.....

What's going on in his mind would be immaterial in court. It's the mental state of the people in the car that's relevant. Maybe he didn't intend to kill or seriously injure anyone in the car, but there's no time to give him a psychological evaluation. Anybody in that car could be in fear of their life with the way this guy is acting.

Any lawyer would know that.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by slicktop
In their defense, the author of the video and the accused were co conspirators and they were just out to have some fun and used the excuse that they were merely acting and making a video, hell in this day and age they may even be able to call it a documentary.

Makers of documentaries don't destroy property and terrorize people.

Originally posted by slicktop
I could almost guarantee you that if it was a male alone in that car LEO or CCW irregardless and that person shot and that video later re-surfaced at trial as evidence, that it would be considered an un lawful use of deadly force.

Wishful thinking, counselor.

[Contact]

I'm failing to understand what the sex and Citizen vs. LEO being in said car has anything to do with this argument, why should a female be allowed to shoot while the same male, who is just as scared, has to run away, just because he is a man? What about a girly man? Or a manly girl...how would they be required to act?

The other thing I guess I am failing to realize is: Why is an off duty officer required to act differently than a citizen? Isn't that fact that your vehicle is blocked in traffic with a person smashing your car to hell enough to provoke even your most hard-core cop to have a little fear, and be taken by surprise?

Being a police officer doesn't change the fact that you are in your personal vehicle with no back-up or a 12 guage. However if it were me, I would hope I had the composure to act quick and stop it soon and I would also hope that a medical examiner would be kind enough to write "Suicide" in this guys tag when it was all said and done if he came at me.

[lsmalibu]

Yunno, when I first joined this forum I asked, "Does a LEO always need to carry off-duty?" I guess this video answered that question.

[zap]

<b><i>Contact

I'm failing to understand what the sex and Citizen vs. LEO being in said car has anything to do with this argument, why should a female be allowed to shoot while the same male, who is just as scared, has to run away, just because he is a man? What about a girly man? Or a manly girl...how would they be required to act?

The other thing I guess I am failing to realize is: Why is an off duty officer required to act differently than a citizen? Isn't that fact that your vehicle is blocked in traffic with a person smashing your car to hell enough to provoke even your most hard-core cop to have a little fear, and be taken by surprise?</i></b>


I hear ya for sure. I think the sex of the person in the car would have to do more with justifying in front of a jury than anything. For instance...when teaching karate or other self defense....I teach gals to go for the eyes if their assailant is bigger or much stronger than they are. A gal would be able to say without challenge that "I was so afraid for my life! and I knew if I got ouf of the car there would be nothing to protect me from this madman!!" ....and I bet highly that there would be little if any civil consideration as well after she was cleared of ventilating the scum sucker in the video.


When I'm working with guys however, I have to show them other ways to deal with bigger and stronger assailants so that they cause less physical damage...at least at first. We don't teach them to go straight for the eyes. (although I think it would be justified) I think we have a much better chance of getting them out of the legal system, and subsequently out of the almost always present civil action by showing that they did in fact try one or two less physically damaging techniques first.

Personally that is why I started working pressure points into my routine so that I would have options other than to put an elbow into someone's face or finger into their eyes. (black belts have the same majical power as LEOs to the general public....we must be able to flip our wrist and tie the bad guys up in a bow...similar to a cop should be able to shoot the gun out of his hand or wound him in the leg etc)

In Ohio, we must retreat (unless in your home) if possible before using deadly force as a civilian. I think there would be a bit more latitude to a LEO however. We don't have to put ourselves at more risk in order to retreat though. That is why I said a gal or anyone with kids in the car would have been outright justified in shooting this bad guy.

As soon as any of the other people there would have been interviewed....the common thread was he was smashing THE CAR.... so the argument would then be...can you leave the car, call the police, and get away without shooting this scum sucker? If the jury believes that you were playing "cowboy" as our papers now call the new CCW law.... the chances are you will not be able to meet your burden of proof as it relates to use of deadly force in self defence.

That was my rationalization for what I have posted. Now, lets move to the here and now and be realistic. If he pokes that thing inside the car at me....too bad for him. If not...I would have waited til his was on the other side of the car before getting out....and I would not hesitate a second should he move toward me in a threatening manner...."Yes, I felt in fear for my life and felt that I might have to shoot this guy to stop the danger to myself personally. But then I remembered that I had to retreat before using deadly force...so I exited my vehicle and that guy charged me...yelling at me...I had no where else to go your Honor...I didn't even have time to call 911 on my phone...I really had no choice [concerned and solem look on yer face]"

From which position would you rather argue your justification...one that demonstrates you knew your responsibilities and tried to follow them...or one where you made a potentially rash decision that resulted in one gutter snipe with 10 .40 caliber holes in him....:confused:

[Delta784]

Originally posted by Contact
I'm failing to understand what the sex and Citizen vs. LEO being in said car has anything to do with this argument, why should a female be allowed to shoot while the same male, who is just as scared, has to run away, just because he is a man?

There is a legal concept called "disparity of force". Long story short, a 5' 100lb female can probably justify shooting a 6'6" 300lb unarmed male that attacks her, because the chances are that the guy is going to get the gun away from the female and kill her.

Originally posted by Contact
The other thing I guess I am failing to realize is: Why is an off duty officer required to act differently than a citizen? Isn't that fact that your vehicle is blocked in traffic with a person smashing your car to hell enough to provoke even your most hard-core cop to have a little fear, and be taken by surprise?

IMO, being a cop in that situation is advantageous. My incident report would read that I exited the vehicle with the intention of placing the suspect under arrest. When I exited, he came at me brandishing a dangerous weapon, I was in fear of my life, and I used deadly force to defend myself and my family.

[retdetsgt]

I would be hard to show that a 6-5, 280lb man could overpower an crazed guy who's 5-8, 140 and wielding a tire iron. I don't think sex or size is going to come into play that much in this situation.
One shot to the noggin with that tire iron and you'll likely be either dead or a vegetable for the rest of your life. I had a case once where a 5-6, 130 lb guy did a number on a 6-2, 230 pounder with a pool cue. He damn near went for attempted murder, but plead to Assault I and was sent to his room for quite a few years. A tire iron is much easier to use and can do more damage.

And the "Candid Camera" defense isn't viable. It's taught in Law 101 of police academies that it's the mindset of the victim, not the assailant. If a stranger points a gun at me, I have no responsibility whatsoever to try to determine his intent before I act. And this guy's intent wasn't that much in question by the way he's using that tire iron.

[Contact]

Originally posted by Delta784
IMO, being a cop in that situation is advantageous. My incident report would read that I exited the vehicle with the intention of placing the suspect under arrest. When I exited, he came at me brandishing a dangerous weapon, I was in fear of my life, and I used deadly force to defend myself and my family.

I strongly agree with that, but not only that, officers have also been given training to constantly observe what's going on around you, and I think I would have definatly picked up on the guy cussing the camera long before he approached my truck, possibly not affecting the outcome, but I would have at least known it was coming.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by Contact
I strongly agree with that, but not only that, officers have also been given training to constantly observe what's going on around you, and I think I would have definatly picked up on the guy cussing the camera long before he approached my truck, possibly not affecting the outcome, but I would have at least known it was coming.

The car was far enough away that I don't know if the people saw him cussing at the camera or not. But that wouldn't be nearly as material as him running around your car, beating it with a tire iron and cussing. A cop might be more likely to fight back than a citizen just because of mindset, but a citizen would certainly know that they were in serious trouble with this moron. As far as court, even if there wasn't a video of it, the damage to the car would be a pretty good indicator of the mental state of the assailant. I would see no problem for a citizen defending themselves against this guy with whatever is available to them. Especially if this person is a complete stranger and they would have no way of even guessing his intentions.

[VSPClem]

Having seen the video I dont see what the big deal is? I mean, with the back window of that PT cruiser knocked out the car should have much less drag when driving down the street? Right? I mean thats the defense in court, "Your honor, my client was simply trying to provide a detail service, and wasn't even paid. Truth be told judge these so called 'victims' still have not paid my client."

But seriously,If I were driving that guy would become the new hood ornament for Chrysler. That guys next video would be
"Leroy Jones Live from the hood........of a PT cruiser."

[Tburg]

I dont know about other states, but in the Texas Penal code it clearly states that under the self defense laws, one can defend yourself, another, AND personal property!! This video has all three justifications. :D

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by Tburg
I dont know about other states, but in the Texas Penal code it clearly states that under the self defense laws, one can defend yourself, another, AND personal property!! This video has all three justifications. :D

You can kill somebody breaking into your car?

[Frank Booth]

In MI you can shoot someone when they FLEE after breaking into your car.....I don't know about shooting them in the act though....

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by Frank Booth
In MI you can shoot someone when they FLEE after breaking into your car.....I don't know about shooting them in the act though....

I had a case where a guy went to prison for shooting and killing a 16 year old kid who was breaking into his truck. The kid was fleeing when he shot him with a deer rifle. Here you can defend yourself or another person with deadly force, but not property.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by Frank Booth
In MI you can shoot someone when they FLEE after breaking into your car

How does that square with Tennessee v. Garner?

[Frank Booth]

TN V. Garner was a civil case. It said you may be held civilly liable for shooting a fleeing felon and others under certain circumstances. You still can't be prosecuted by the state. Fired by your dept. for a rules violation, but not prosecuted.

Laws, rules keep cops from removal

Charges can't be brought if suspected felon is shot
May 17, 2000

















BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
and JOE SWICKARD
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS



Sometimes, laws and regulations thwart officials when they try to get rid of a cop for a questionable shooting.


Detroit police executives and prosecutors agreed in 1995, for instance, that a rookie cop was wrong when he shot an unarmed teenager who was tampering with a car. But they couldn't kick him off the force or put him on trial.


"We fired him," Police Chief Benny Napoleon said. "The arbitrator gave him his job back."


The officer, Archie Arp, declined to comment.


On the night of Aug. 23, 1995, Arp was off duty and dropped in to visit his girlfriend at a bar on Joy Road near West Parkway. Arp, 45, had been a cop for a year.


Arp was in the bar a few minutes, police and court records show, when he was asked to check out the parking lot because a kid was seen messing with a car.


Moments later, gunshots were heard and 14-year-old Charles Clay lay dying on the street. Clay was about 90 feet from Arp, and a screwdriver with a 4-inch blade was near the youth's body.


Arp told investigators the youth ran but suddenly turned on him with a shiny object that Arp believed was a weapon. It was the screwdriver.


The autopsy showed that Clay had been shot in the middle of the back. The bullet's path through his body indicated that he may have been running when hit.


Even so, Sgt. Arlie Lovier of the special assignment squad, who was the officer in charge of the homicide investigation, said it was "a good shooting," with no violations of criminal law or department regulations.


The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wanted to charge Arp, but couldn't. The office determined that a criminal case was impossible because a Michigan Supreme Court ruling said it was legal for anyone -- civilian or police officer -- to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. Assistant prosecutor Michael King said he regretted that he could not bring state charges, "but I feel bound" by the Supreme Court ruling.


However, prosecutors issued a news release indicating that the shooting could be a "civil violation of the deceased's federal rights to be free of unreasonable arrest."


In a September 1995 letter to the police department, county prosecutors said Arp's story wasn't supported by facts, and his use of deadly force appeared to violate department policy.


The police department held hearings and fired Arp, but the dismissal was overturned on appeal in 1998. Arp was suspended for six months, and is still with the department.


Clay's family sued in Wayne County Circuit Court in 1995. The city settled the case for $1 million a year later.

[retdetsgt]

He's lucky he was there. In Oregon, he would have probably been tried for murder. We nor the public can shoot anyone fleeing unless there is reason to believe that person is a danger to society. And Chevrolet's aren't considered part of society.....

[Delta784]

Originally posted by Frank Booth
However, prosecutors issued a news release indicating that the shooting could be a "civil violation of the deceased's federal rights to be free of unreasonable arrest."

Ask Stacey Koon & Laurence Powell if you can go to prison for a civil rights beef. :rolleyes:

[slim202cop]

Looking at that videotape, I really don't know how I would react. I know would've just get out and shoot the person if he were just hitting my vehicle and breaking windows. I know I would just draw on him, then radio for assistance(we have take home radios :) ).

However, if he was yelling threats at me while hitting my vehicle, thus making me feel like my life is in danger, I would squeeze a shot off at his chest.

[Frank Booth]

Ask Stacey Koon & Laurence Powell if you can go to prison for a civil rights beef.

The difference was that the state of CA prosecuted the Rotney cops (and lost). The state of MI didn't prosecute this guy because they couldn't. I believe that's why the feds didn't get involved. Nevertheless. That's the law in MI. You'd better believe that if they thought they could get away with prosecuting that guy, they would have.

[wscop411]

That crowbar is considered a deadly weapon in Texas. The driver would probably be justified in running the creep over if she chose to. She would have been using a level of force justified in terminating the level of force used against her. But she was obviously in a panic and trying to get the hell out of Dodge. I think she would be no-billed by a grand jury.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by Frank Booth
The difference was that the state of CA prosecuted the Rotney cops (and lost). The state of MI didn't prosecute this guy because they couldn't. I believe that's why the feds didn't get involved. Nevertheless. That's the law in MI. You'd better believe that if they thought they could get away with prosecuting that guy, they would have.

Whatever a state does means nothing to the Feds.

I thought that the Federal prosecution of Koon & Powell was a clear violation of double-jeopardy, but the Feds have the cute clause of "dual sovereignty".

I'm just speculating here, but I'm willing to bet big that the Feds didn't get involved in the MI case because;

1) Both the officer and the victim were minorities.

2) The officer was a minority, while the victim was not.

Am I right?

[Frank Booth]

1) Both the officer and the victim were minorities.

2) The officer was a minority, while the victim was not.

Am I right?

Not even close...that's why I thought the feds would have been involved if they could have. 40+ year old rookie white cop, 15 year-old black kid shot in the back in a white neighborhood after tampering with a car in a white cop bar parking lot.

[Valor55]

Originally posted by VSPClem
Having seen the video I dont see what the big deal is? I mean, with the back window of that PT cruiser knocked out the car should have much less drag when driving down the street? Right? I mean thats the defense in court, "Your honor, my client was simply trying to provide a detail service, and wasn't even paid. Truth be told judge these so called 'victims' still have not paid my client."

HAHAHA Anybody see that Simpsons where Homer is buying a car (dressed as Krusty) and the Mafia shoots holes in the hood trying to shoot Homer? The salesman tells him they are "Speed Holes" so Homer goes home and uses a crow bar to put speed holes in his hood.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by Valor55
HAHAHA Anybody see that Simpsons where Homer is buying a car (dressed as Krusty) and the Mafia shoots holes in the hood trying to shoot Homer? The salesman tells him they are "Speed Holes" so Homer goes home and uses a crow bar to put speed holes in his hood.

The Simpsons is the best reality show on television.... That's the only regular broadcast show I watch, other than baseball.....

[VSPClem]

"PT cruiser, 9 out of 10 bums love em. This is how the 10th feels about them though..."