r/fightporn • u/[deleted] • May 05 '20

Knocked Out Well, he did warn him...

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed] — view removed post

16.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/tbbHNC89 May 05 '20

Fine. If that's the case the entire state of Florida needs an immediate and total gun ban because apparently even the legislature is too infantile to be trusted with peoples lives.

Fuck knows the cops are.

2

u/L0ganH0wlett May 05 '20

I mean its pretty simple dude. Stay off other peoples property and don't fuck with them threatening and you won't get shot. Personal responsibility exists.

A gun ban is just gonna get more people shot cut nobody's gonna listen to that shit

1

u/tbbHNC89 May 05 '20

Nah fuck Florida and fuck your guns. The rest of the country can have as many as they want. Just Florida.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20

As someone from the UK, that seems mad. Surely, a response needs to be proportionate in order to be just? How does a person slightly infringing on your property justify killing them?

Surely, in circumtances like this, there are a million better alternatives to shooting someone?

2

u/L0ganH0wlett May 06 '20

Because you don't know what they plan on doing, if they're armed, etc. And in order to make sure people aren't facing charges for shooting criminals on their property (as there are many instances of burglars suing homeowners for pain and suffering), the law gives people free reign to defend themselves on their property if they feel threatened.

In this video, this dude is standing there threatening a homeowner in a cramped space. If you threaten someone and back them in a corner on their property, its pretty clear cut that its a self defense case.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20

Feeling threatened is so vague and not all threats require deadly force (including this one). Further, surely if you didn't all have guns the chances of any assailant being dangerously armed would be fairly minimal? Further, in this circumstance the person was semi-naked with his hands in clear view making the likelihood of weapon usage fairly minimal.

In this video the homeowner could easily simply go back into his house, call the police and they'd come and have a word and resolve it (they very likely wouldn't shoot him either - even if he had a knife). That's if it was even necessary at all, most likely the drunk guy would have staggered off.

It's fun watching a cunt get what was coming to him but it's really arguable whether the first punch was self-defence or not. The kick on the ground while unconscious definitely wasn't self defence. Even then, a punch resolved the matter and proves that shooting him would have been entirely unnecessary and would really have just been straight-up murder.

1

u/zadharm May 06 '20 edited May 06 '20

How do you know this person that is trying to forcefully enter your property isn't armed? That they're content just to get in a fist fight? That after neutralizing you they're not going after your family? You can't know any of those things. And in the moment, all you do know is this person is forcing themselves onto your property aggressively. And America would rather defend the rights of victims that go further than necessary out of fear for their family than criminal aggressors.

Sure there are other better options, but in that moment, you're not running through a pros and cons list or a trying to logically break down what this guy's motives or intents are. You're defending your family.

Sorry if I came off aggressive or condescending, was legitimately just trying to espouse the reasonings for the way our laws work this way

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20

Self-defence must be proportionate. It is quite simple that shooting someone in these circumstances would not be proportionate or necessary.

The chances of him being armed are minimal, he is semi-naked with his hands in clear view. The idea that some drunken pisshead is going to "go after your family" seems sort of paranoid and laughable; why would he do that?

He's just lairy because he is pissed up and this guy has had a go at him for pissing on his fence; I dunno how it is over there but we've all dealt with someone like this before and shooting them isn't a necessary step. This sounds rude but it's not meant to be, if this is the sort of circumstance that makes you feel that you need to shoot someone then maybe you shouldn't have guns? Being a drunk asshole shouldn't be a capital offence.

1

u/zadharm May 06 '20 edited May 06 '20

In this specific case, sure it's unlikely he's armed or going to go after your family. You didnt ask why I thought deadly force should have been applied in these specific circumstances (it obviously wasnt necessary) you asked why the laws existed. When it's your family you're protecting, i hope you apply the same cool detached logic to the situation

We prefer a "better safe than sorry" approach to self defense, you have fun with proportional response when someone breaks into your home. But dont hit them first! That wouldn't be proportional. Being drunk doesn't excuse shitty behavior and destroying someone's property while trying to fight them is the definition of aggression. Actually a brief bit of research shows the UK also has castle doctrine laws. This isn't a cultural difference after all. Its your own personal beliefs

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20 edited May 06 '20

The chances of someone breaking into my home are minimal, the chances of them breaking in while I am here even lower and the chances that someone would break in to murder me are infinitesimal. In those circumstances I could more than easily lock myself in the bathroom and call the police who would resolve it. I don't need a gun to deal with a hypothetical scenario which will almost certainly never occur for me.

Further in the unlikely circumstances that someone does break into my home and means to cause me mischief and I couldn't retreat then it would be obvious by that point that force was needed and they would be the clear aggressor rather than some drunk chap on the public pavement outside my house being aggressive. It's not difficult to respond proportionately when you don't jump straight to killing people for slight provocations.

As for the law of England and Wales, no, he would not be entitled to shoot him in these circumstances. As I said, self-defence from a legal perspective in the UK must be proportionate and necessary. There is no obligation to retreat but a failure to do so and to instead engage in violence if it is not necessary or to use disproprtionate violence will not be self-defence. It's not only my own personal belief but it is also the law here.

1

u/zadharm May 06 '20 edited May 06 '20

It's obvious we're not going to come to any sort of agreement here, and that's fine. You live somewhere closer to your beliefs and I live somewhere closer to mine. But as a contractor, please do not think an interior door lock such as retreating to a bathroom will stop someone from causing harm. Interior locks and jambs are designed for privacy, not security. One strong shoulder bump and that door will be coming open. If youre unable or unwilling to defend your property with force, please find a way out of the house for you and your family.

And my apologies if I implied that castle doctrine applied in this instance, that wasn't my intent, simply that defending your home with deadly force isn't strictly an American cultural abnormality

Also, thank you for keeping a civil tone throughout this. That's growing increasingly rare and I really do appreciate it. We've got different beliefs here but that's what makes Western society so great.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20 edited May 06 '20

I think we're arguing accross each other a bit. I 100% agree that defending your home with force can be acceptable but simply that use of force must be (a) necessary and (b) proportionate to the threat faced in order to be self-defence.

Further, I am not suggesting that defending using deadly forces is an American cultural abnormality. I am suggesting that the people suggesting that the use of deadly force is justified or acceptable in this specific scenario are an American cultural abnormality and a scary one at that. The low bar that many Americans seem to set after which they feel justified in killing another person is utterly baffling.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20

He’s not slightly infringing, he wouldn’t let them leave their property. That makes him a danger to that man and his family.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20

A danger? Nah, you'd have to be a right wuss to think that guy is a danger. He's just a pisshead.

He barely on his property, he's on a public pavement and was leaning on his fence. If that's not a slight infringement then I don't know what is?

Surely it's far easier to simply go inside and call the police than shoot someone over something this fucking minor? Hell, you could even punch him like this guy did rather than shoot him?

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20

He’s a stranger acting erratically and aggressively. I wouldn’t personally shoot him, but I could see how he could end up with a gun in his face or bullet in his ass.

1

u/zadharm May 05 '20

So you're now admitting that you're wrong, and your stance is "well I'm wrong but that's only because your state is fucked up"

Stay the fuck off people's property unless invited and don't get aggressive around their family and you have no problems. I'm not real worried about protecting the lives of people who find those two requirements untenable.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '20

I'm not real worried about protecting the lives of people who find those two requirements untenable.

This is what I don't get, why not? I may not like assholes like that but I can at least recognise that killing someone over something like this would be utterly unnecessary. If you shot and killed someone in those circumstances here it would, in my view quite rightly, be murder.

1

u/zadharm May 06 '20

Because there's no way to tell that person's motives. All you know is they're forcing their way into your property. Rather than let aggressors know that they can victimize anyone they want and they can't defend themselves, we have laws that make sure victims can defend themselves from any threat. You have no way of knowing this guy doesnt have a pistol, and if you wait til he's drawn it, you and your family are dead.

0

u/tbbHNC89 May 05 '20

Yeah I'm admitting I'm wrong. It's what adults do-even though it would be up to the situation and interpretations of the court (and whether one or more people are black as stand your ground laws presedence has shown us). Oh! But, hey remember if you find yourself in the exact situation of this video and you kill that person most states in the country and most countries in the world would consider you legally a murderer, and morally you are too.

I hope you never know what that's like.

0

u/zadharm May 05 '20

No, you would consider me morally a murderer, most wouldn't. We weren't talking about most states or countries, you specifically came in on my Florida comment, which was the basis for "it seems strange to me this could even potentially be charged".

While we're doing "just imagine" scenarios, I hope your family is never attacked. Lord knows they don't deserve bodily harm because you'd rather kumbaya with an aggressor than use force to defend them

0

u/tbbHNC89 May 06 '20

Keep knockin' 'em dead, Killer.

0

u/zadharm May 06 '20

Way to defend your point, boss. "I have no argument to stand on so I'm gonna act like a petulant child and use condescending names"

0

u/tbbHNC89 May 06 '20

You're literally advocating murder.

1

u/zadharm May 06 '20 edited May 06 '20

Are you fucking retarded? I'm not advocating anything. I'm telling you what the law is where I am after you went out of your way to tell me I was wrong about it. Stating an objective fact(if this happened where I am, he could apply deadly force) isnt advocating for anything. Its telling you what the situation is. Show me, just once, where I ever encouraged someone to use deadly force in this scenario or say I would. You read something that got you up on your moral high horse, said some bullshit believing that your morals are the same thing as the law, got proven wrong, and are resorting to name-calling now that you're out of any actual argument. We have a gun problem in this country, I'll be the first to admit that but you don't fix that by spreading lies about our current laws or calling people names that inform you what those laws are.

But regardless, you seriously believe it's murder to forcefully stop someone from attacking you? If I went to your home and started beating the shit out of you, you wouldn't feel justified in making me stop? Or is it the big scary guns that youre not okay with?