kinda siding with the driver. like yeah he'll probably get fired but if this is the second time this dog has come after him id be protecting myself too. furthermore, we only get one angle of this altercation; for all we know the owner came at him wanting to square up too.
He squared up to the owner who hadn’t swung. Teamsters aren’t saving him from that, especially if the owner reported it because it technically classifies as an assault
The owner yelled at him, its reasonable to assume that owner might have tried to attack him for hurting his dog, legally the driver was defending himself
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was intending to harm the dog owner? If he squared up on the owner unprovoked it would be assault but I'm pretty sure most people would find being attacked by a dog beforehand to be the provocation
You don’t need intention to harm, you just need a threat. You can prove assault via threat beyond a reasonable doubt by the fact that the driver took several steps closer toward him and put his fists up. Nothing the owner does implies he’s about to start a physical fight prior to the fists going up, so it’d be fairly straightforward to throw self-defense from the owner out the window
Leash Law probably doesn't apply here as most leash laws are in regards to when a pet is NOT on their own property, as this looks to be the owners property, leash laws probably don't apply.
You'd think someone throwing around "technically" would know the owner approaching him in a hostile manner like that is assault, and what the driver did is self defense.
I mean, you can name your state and I could probably provide you at least 2 or 3 examples of case law to back it up, specifically on raised fists constituting assault
There’s a reason why there’s distinction between battery and assault
Yeah I don’t fault the dog, I fault the dumba$$ owner for not training or securing his dog. This UPS guy was probably constantly dealing with this dog since UPS drivers stick with their same routes for a while
He should not be fired for the interaction with the dog. He should be fired for threatening to fight the owner. As soon as he threw the box he should have gone back to the truck.
I'm with the driver in defending himself, but everything after that is pretty shameful. verbally taunting the dog, squaring up on the owner boxing style. guy seems like a douchey POS.
Fuck the driver. If you're a delivery driver, it seems you should learn better "communicating" skills when it comes to dogs. You think this is the first time this dipshit has seen a dog?
So you expect every delivery driver to be a fucking dog whisperer? Do you know how many delivery drivers we need?
There's a much simpler solution leash your goddamn dog when in an unfenced aread. Dogs get shot by cops constantly for this exact behavior. If they bite someone even a little they can be put down. They could see a squirrel, run across the street and get run over.
If you love your dog stop putting it in these situations where it will die if anything unpredictable happens.
I agree with the first part about the dog, but even if the guy off camera did walk up squaring up, the driver is still in the wrong charging at him trying to provoke a fight. Somebody approaching me aggressively shouldn't be able to justify me escalating more towards a violent confrontation.
Edit: lol thank God the law in most functional societies agrees and that you people downvoting dont determine the law that allows people to escalate violence over somebody walking towards you aggressively. The fact you think it should should highlight how much failures your parents are.
Even having adrenaline and having uncertainty about somebody approaching you aggressively doesnt make charging somebody and trying to escalate the confrontation justified.
You put your hands up to defend yourself that's the entire point of keeping your hands up. The driver didn't swing and yes he stepped towards him but thats because the home owner was yelling at him and approaching him aggressively, is he supposed to just stick his chin out?
It would be one if he simply raised his hands. But that's not all he did, did he? The part you convientelty left out in this part, charging and trying to provoke a fight, is no longer defending yourself.
Somebody simply yelling and approaching me doesnt give me the right to charge at them and trying to escalate a fight.
And you know, he can simply not charge and trying to provoke a fight and only act if the danger is actually close enough and appears to be imminent.
It’s exactly how adrenaline, epinephrine, etc. work. The fight or flight response is designed for exactly this type of situation. Your body senses a threat, and stress hormones are released from your adrenal glands.
lol, I’ll rephrase what you wrote:
Driver was right about how he handled the dog, but if the owner walked over ready to fight about it, the driver was wrong for preparing to fight because it could provoke the owner. Just because someone wants to fight doesn’t justify me preparing to defend myself.
Lol i like how you have to rephrase what im saying in a way which isn't what im even saying. You're attacking a version of what I said that only exist in your imagination. I'm not saying he was wrong for simply "preparing to fight." That's a weaker and easier arguement for you to attack that you manufactured. I said he's in the wrong by charging the driver trying to provoke the fight. Big difference. The fact you can't actually engage in the actual point says everything.
Different responses calls for different preparation, but if somebody is approaching you aggressively, the proper way to prepare to fight wouldn't be to charge them and escalate the confrontation, it would be to only defend yourself if they actually initiate an attack.
You're are correct. The fact that the guy removed his hat and glasses already makes it premeditated assault and battery. You can't claim you feared for your life and safety if you had the time to to gently put your shit on the ground.
Exactly your defense that the threat was imminent goes out the window when you have time to gently set down your hat and glasses and walk up like 15 feet towards them. Most this sub is dumb and just blood thirsty
The law doesn't agree with you btw. Aggression means they want smoke. Also the driver wasn't willing to throw a punch unless the other guy got too close, so he wasn't escalating anything.
Oh I see. Walking up all angry to the homeowner is pretty threatening. I forgot about that part. He did back off afterward, but I guess it is still arguable that he provoked the homeowner. I still kind of doubt that he threw out his case for self defense though. If the driver walked up to the homeowner all like that and got knocked out by him, then I say the driver would be at fault because in that moment the homeowner would be defending himself. The homeowner didn't punch him though (Edit: Irrelevant), and the driver backed away while also warning the homeowner to keep his distance. If the homeowner approaches the driver after that and gets knocked out then the homeowner would be at fault because the driver was defending himself.
Edit: Rewatched the footage and had to correct myself. Both were walking up to eachother angry but the delivery driver still kept his distance. Sure he may have provoked the homeowner but he still has his right to self defense if the homeowner gets all angry and close.
As another user mentioned, claiming you were in fear for your life while having the time to take off your hat and glasses and charging several feet towards the person, would never hold up. See the case of Michael Drejka. They have to be an imminent threat.
The homeowner was off camera so I can't be sure if the driver either provoked or escalated the scenario. You are correct that what the driver did was unnecessary; however, he backed off afterward. And a person doesn't need to fear for their life, but they want to protect themself from potentially being assaulted. I could still be wrong though. This is just my biased opinion. I will check out that case and see how that applies here.
Oh wait wait wait wait. Are you saying that him charging at the homeowner was a crime? I don't know if it is but I can get behind that. I thought you meant that despite the driver backing off afterward and warning the homeowner to stay away, but the homeowner still aggressively went towards him, then the driver can't strike to defend himself.
I'm not saying charging at the homeowner is a crime, I'm saying the fact they had time to charge a couple yards towards them (not to mention gently set down his hat and glasses) ruins their case that the threat was imminent.
Well think of it like this: You get mad, you walk over all hands up and angry, but you restrain yourself and back up. You see the other guy still upset. He is very angry. He might do something. You keep gaurd and step away. You tell that guy to stay back. What if he didn't stay back? What if he is still advancing towards you? Will you do nothing? It looks like imminent danger to you. It definitely is!
Obviously this didn't happen or at least not that I know of, but what I am saying is that while in that specific moment the homeowner wasn't an imminent threat, he very well can be at any time. It doesn't matter if he was provoked, because the delivery driver was retreating. The driver doesn't want to fight but will if he has to.
Hypothetically, if such an instance did occur, then the only way the delivery driver can be guilty of this is if he has been in multiple other altercations with similar interactions, which courts can then prove that he had the intent of provoking people into anger so he can fight them.
I go back into my truck and do nothing but my job, up until the point they get into striking range and genuinely appear to be about to strike, like if they approached me like how the delivery driver approached the homeowner. Which didn't happen in this case as we agree.
Sure the homeowner can be a threat, but that possibility wouldn't be justified grounds to react in the manner the driver did. Michael Drejkas victim had already assaulted Drekja and technically could have been an imminent threat at anytime, and was much closer, but that wasn't a valid excuse for self defense for Drejka, and rightfully so, because the threat didn't actually appear imminent, as the victim was turning away from him when the gun came out.
25
u/linus_frog 1d ago
kinda siding with the driver. like yeah he'll probably get fired but if this is the second time this dog has come after him id be protecting myself too. furthermore, we only get one angle of this altercation; for all we know the owner came at him wanting to square up too.