Honestly I can't say if this was pre-emptive or not. Not enough context. Couldn't hear the dialogue. Don't know what had happened before this. Don't know if the white guy had others with him so he couldn't just walk away. Don't know if there had been previous physical contact or verbal threats. To me the weird posture adopted by the black guys was definitely threatening and that coupled with verbal (I could hear some but not the content) would lead me to believe he was about to embark on some violence. The white guy was ready way before that though. As I understand it, in UK law at least, you are not expected to make fine distinctions like that. If someone is posturing up, acting aggressively and threatening to hurt you then they have given you reasonable grounds to think they mean you harm and so you can pre-emptvely strike them to prevent that crime (assault on your person). You don't have to be a mind reader and judge if they really mean it or not. Especially in a high pressure aggressive confrontation.
It's not what it is, it's what it looks like - at least what it can be made to look like in court. Rather than asking "Was a pre-emptive strike justified?" it would perhaps be more apt to go with "If you were the striker in the video, what would be your statement to the cops?" Avoid using the term pre-emptive strike altogether, as that assumes that it was pre-empting something, and that something might not have existed at all! Let's assume that the clip was the only piece of evidence available for this case study, and the striker was insisting that the KO victim was, in fact, the aggressor. CLAIM: "The man approached me unsolicited and was aggressive in his behaviour." VIDEO ANALYSIS: Though this might appear true at first glance, with the goading and finger pointing at the start, the "aggressor" walks away, and re-approaches when the striker engages verbally with him. CLAIM: "I considered my options for leaving the area peacefully, and chose to resolve the situation verbally." ANALYSIS: The striker looks straight at the door (poss exit?), then turns around and chooses to engage. Rather than de-escalate though, he chooses to challenge the "aggressor" and clearly lines up a shot, adopting a bladed stance to do so, clenching his fist in anticipation. CLAIM: "His behaviour and body language made me believe he was about to attack me." ANALYSIS: Although the "aggressor" has moved to striking distance, and has adopted a (somewhat comic) martial arts pose, he fails to display many of the traditional signs of aggression: Raised voice, increased use of profanity, large body language/gestures, clenched fists, marching forward, head down, etc... The striker also stands his ground, and makes no clear attempt to create a safe space between him and the "aggressor." CLAIM: "Believing my life to be in imminent danger, i used what i believed to be lawful and reasonable force to protect myself." ANALYSIS: At the time of the strike, the "aggressor" is in the middle of giving his smart-ass lecture, and winding up the striker. There is nothing to say he is armed either, and that he would have pursued the striker had he just left the area. Also, the relative age and physical build of the two parties does not put the striker at a significant disadvantage, and the striker has at least one friendly asset (the girl) in his corner, putting him at a 2:1 numbers advantage. Her affiliation is made clear when she spits on and strikes the downed "aggressor" (which is a case all of its own!). So, who is really the aggressor here? And what charges would they likely face? Affray? Assault? Perhaps aggravated assault? Food for thought...
Common Law. UK If you have a genuine honestly held belief that you or another are in imminent danger you may use such Force as is reasonable and necessary to avert danger stop event of breach of the peace or to save life. Since we're making up scenarios on who is right and wrong. Here's a regular account. (Paraphrased but pretty much all there) (A) "I had a genuine and honest held belief that to stop this shoplifter from stealing a box of cadburys chocolate worth £2.00 retail (89p wholsesale) was to give chase and grab him. He resisted me so I had no choice but to hit him, which unintentionally resulted in a broken jaw. I'm innocent and just doing my job" (B) "I was hungry and I'm homeless. The shop has loads of these anyway. What is it going to cost them? They were on sale. I know it was wrong but I'm starving. So I took one and ran away. The guy caught me but he started grabbing me and I got scared. So I tried to get away and dropped the box. Next thing I know, I'm in hospital. I only wanted to eat" A common scenario that a Judge (CPS in the UK) would look into and take a while into consideration. One although has committed theft, he was left with injuries. The other believed he was using force as his believed guidance but was it necessary over a box of chocolate and at what point did he fear for his life? It then becomes a "2 wrongs don't make a right" situation and majoritively ends with a "they both cancelled each other out" and no charge for both. The shoplifters punishment was his injuries (and hes homeless to boot) and it cannot be proven on just how scared the security person was, as it is subjective. That's how things work unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint). In regards to the video, i'm hating on Janno as not only has he got there first, but he explained it better than I could've ever had. :evil:
Others have explained a lot better in a whole lot more detail. For me, from a personal point of view (self defense, morally, whatever), it seems to me that the guy who threw the punch had opportunity to avoid the situation. From my quarterback's armchair, it seems reasonable that he could have walked away with a good chance of the guy NOT following him out. It doesn't excuse the behavior of the guy who got KO'd (and I cannot for sure say whether or not I would have drilled him myself), but from the limited view I have, the strike was not necessary and there was a reasonable avenue of escape.
I think its more of an example of what 'pre emtive' striking came from before it became packaged and moulded into almost a product. Its a street tactic that the street savvy and big bad men have done for many many years to get the edge. It comes from a particular mindset some might want to not think about or give credit to.... a predatory mindset thats going to challenge or accept a challenge if anyone wants it. Not one thats nice and cuddly and thinks about the law or what the right thing to do is. I laugh to myself as that could of been one of the countless self protection people or martial artist who some might percieve as the 'good' guys, in their early days. In fact many did not care about law and were involved in all sorts of incidents not disimilar. This violent solution needs to be thought of by violent people before it can be packaged for the less violent who would not consider it as a viable tactic in the first place. It is what it is to me...just the real world. We dont know if that guy has been there before and done something different and its not gone aswell....so now he does that. Maybe he was having a bad day.
In that situation, there was a second person available (girl in black) who could've opened the door or at least be a 2nd set of eyes.
Looks like the door is directly behind him. Keep your hands up (and open preferably), keep telling him 'I don't want any trouble' and walk backwards towards the door... hopefully you remember the way the door swings and what kind of entrance it is. Granted, if the other guy closed the distance and threatened to attack, he would have to react... but it seems from the (short) clip that he probably could have done so, as long as he could deal with the insults and taunts that he would probably get. Also, he should have directed his girlfriend to leave and had her open the door and go first... seems like she may have been helping to instigate the issue.
You see the guy on the left, look at his foot placement. You'd say the guy on the right started in a fighting pose, but this pucher already had his foot in a narrow stance and 'bounced' his legs a bit to get that spring ready. He had his arms down, but was very much ready and planning to strike. He was definatly not going away even though he could. I can't hear what they spoke, bot his body language very much was not de-escalation. He was manouvering to strike even before the other guy had his pose. This was no pre-emptive strike in self defense, this was just a first strike to dominate. EDIT: to clarify, this kinda looks like some JKD type stuff here, though can't realy say for sure. A lot of it is first strike / intercept / suprise, but a bad teacher won't give you a good context and it get's misused
oh and also, you know how a lot of self-defense lessons tell you to keep your hands low but in front of your body in a de-escalating posture? look at the guy, there was no body language saying "I don't want to fight you" that turned into a punch. It was all fists closed, arms back going "just try and come at me if you dare" Maybe I'm looking too much into it, even though we don't know what the background was and if the other guy was in the wrong at first, there was no proper lawfull use of self defense here as far as I can see.
Why does that even matter? He postured himself in a way that he believed he could better defend himself when he identified a threat. It wasn't subtle,but he isn't obliged to be and may not even be capable of being subtle (especially in a high stress environment) He didn't try to de-escalate,again he isn't obliged to do so and may not be capable of doing so. He didn't walk away,but he wasn't obliged to and it may not have been a safe option (or he may not have perceived it as a safe option).
Do you think acting submissive and like you don't want to fight is always a good way to avoid a fight with an aggressive person? It's not,but again he isn't obliged to and may not know that.
Watched it again. He actually makes the "come on then" motion. White guy wanted a fight. Absolutely no signs of de-escalation.
No it's not always useful but if you are going to posture at least do it in such away that you don't look like an aggressive **** on CCTV.
I guess the better question to ask is why you want to argue that it is justifiable morally or legally judging on the video alone, especially when many people have given you good reasons to view it otherwise? You keep harping on about leaving and potentially facing someone chasing after you but when the girl opened the door and went outside, he could have easily followed her out and ended the situation. As has been pointed out, this was definitely not a case of self defence, they were both willing participants and the puncher was goaded the other guy on and gestured for him to come on and get some. The strike was effective, but that's not really the question. Had the person who got punched hit their head on the ground and died, the question then becomes was it justifiable or would the puncher be spending the rest of his life behind bars for not deescalating a situation that he could have? Hard to say either way, but nobody is buying your line of reasoning on this. Everyone has already given a better description of the video and the implications of the confrontation, as well as some good food for thought. Fear of being seen as submissive is an ego defence mechanism, not something related to self defence. You are continuing to argue from the wrong viewpoint, the puncher is actually lucky that the guy wasn't badly injured or hospitalised, because any legal proceedings would be costly and self defence very hard to prove.
@please reality I'm actually just sympathetic to the puncher,so putting myself in his position. I've enjoyed reading all of the well thought out replies from the other perspective,I'm sure lots of people here have had to justify themselves before so having a debate on this issue I think is good. I have been attacked outside clubs,pubs,chippies and other places before,in fact more often outside than inside and it's only ever gone horribly wrong outside. That's why I'd be more inclined to stay inside if possible,you may have a different frame of reference which has brought you to a different conclusion. I'm not trying to 'win' or troll.
No problem, just seemed you were irrationally sticking to supporting his behaviour, which as others have pointed out, is hardly defensible. At best they were duelling, he was not acting in self defense, had an opportunity to leave and instead escalated, and his sucker punch could easily be prosecutable. If we consider the fact that he could have killed the guy with that punch(one punch knockouts that have resulted in fatalities when the person hit their head on the ground are quite within the realm of the possible), it doesn't seem particularly smart or a good thing that he took the swing. As we don't know who started the confrontation or who was being the aggressor(or whether they both were), it is odd to feel sympathy for any one actor's plight in the video. Your own history aside, you shouldn't side with anyone just because at first glance it seems to jibe with your experience. Unless you were working in a LEO capacity, you might want to consider why you have been attacked as much as you claim. Was it because you were a victim in the wrong place at the wrong time, in which case you might want to consider where and when you go certain places or avoid them all together. If otherwise, you might want to look at your behaviour and if there was something you were doing that was contributing to this pattern. However, staying in an environment where you think there is hostility against you, especially when you are with a girlfriend or someone you may need to protect, doesn't automatically sound like it is necessarily the best tactical response to said hostility. Going outside may result in someone following you, but staying inside shows that you are probably more interested in participating, than you are in protecting yourself and deescalating the situation. If it was your home, it would easily be a different story, but choosing to stay and engage instead of actively looking for ways to exit the situation speaks volumes to a jury and a prosecutor.
