Paul Nowicki wrote:
Do you some of you guys have information that the rest of us did not see in the videotape or is all fo this speculation? How do we really know what the cell phone guy said to the lady? the first notion was that he said "Oh great it will take even longer now" the second version is along the lines of " This fat B%#$ cut in the line" . Which one is correct?
If we're speculating lets just STOP right here because now we're making up the story to go along with this incident and whatever conclusions or oppinions we generate will be false and fictional.
If the guy on the cell phone was rude is one thing but from the video I can't see or hear anything unreasonable that he did to instigate the incident. So why are we shifting part or all of the blame on him again?
People need to separate what is esentially a matter of judgement and what is a legal issue. Whatever the guy said, however he said it, to whomever he said it to, it's illegal to use any kind of force against him. You do not get to nuke somebody just cause they dissed you. Period. Since cell phone guy offered no threat to either the women or the man in question they are both guilty of assault wit the guy probably guilty of aggravated assualt) depends on the state law). He would have been justified in using pretty much any level of force (empty hand) to stop the threat, especially after he took that first hit and the attacker kept beating him. At that point he probably could have accessed a weapon and been justified as long as he used it only to the degree necessary to stop the threat.
The definition of deadly force is that it has a liklihood of creating lasting or permanent serious bodily harm. A sustained beating by a three hundred pound assailant is definitely a deadly force situation. He could have sustained permanent neurological damage, been permanently disfigured etc. All of this is by definition deadly force.