Drama on the Evo Forum!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Wow, that's insane.
I fast forwarded to the last two pages of the thread and it sounds like the vet can turn this around and sue the OP for beating his a$$ after the alleged vandalism.
I'm no expert but is this even possible? If so, that would suck for the OP.
The Vet definitely deserved some punishment for doing something stupid to the OP's property but was the beating justified? Will the fact that he's an MMA fighter make matters worse for the OP. I heard somewhere that if a person is a trained "fighter" his body can be considered as a weapon...
anyway, interesting shiet...
I fast forwarded to the last two pages of the thread and it sounds like the vet can turn this around and sue the OP for beating his a$$ after the alleged vandalism.
I'm no expert but is this even possible? If so, that would suck for the OP.
The Vet definitely deserved some punishment for doing something stupid to the OP's property but was the beating justified? Will the fact that he's an MMA fighter make matters worse for the OP. I heard somewhere that if a person is a trained "fighter" his body can be considered as a weapon...
anyway, interesting shiet...
There may be certain places where the law allows the use of deadly force in the defense of property, but it is certainly possible for this Evo owner to have committed either a crime or be liable for civil damages to the vandal for excessive use of force. Especially here where there does not seem to have been a threat of bodily harm to the car owner or any others with him, it's hard to justify the use of force as self defense, which would be protected.
Here are some Texas statutes:
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I tend to think that in this case he was not smart to post the video online, and to go around the internet chatting up his exploits. Of course a lot of people were bound to agree with him, especially on an Evo forum - but seriously, they're just cars. We carry insurance. I've had people vandalize my cars and steal stuff out of them too, and I would have been hot-blooded too if I had caught someone in the act - but I doubt that I would have laid into the person like this. You never know who has a concealed weapon. They caught this guy, and his punishment will be meted out by law enforcement. That's the way it's supposed to work, not vigilante justice that ends with blood on the asphalt and broken bones, or dead bodies for no reason other than some spraypaint that washed off.
Quick2k
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,177
Likes: 1
i think i would handle this a little different. i would pull out my .45 shot his tires and asked what was he up to. at this point i would ask if he could get one his knees and pray. i wouldn't beat the dude or shoot, but if he tried to grab me, it would be game over.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,333
Likes: 4
From: Texas
I read through bits and pieces of the 21 page thread last night and someone discovered that the MMA guy was banned from that forum for scamming people. It's interesting to see how this pans out.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
From: San Diego - Heaven on Earth
Originally Posted by Rowan' timestamp='1323318744' post='21219988
I fast forwarded to the last two pages of the thread and it sounds like the vet can turn this around and sue the OP for beating his a$$ after the alleged vandalism.
The Vet definitely deserved some punishment for doing something stupid to the OP's property but was the beating justified? Will the fact that he's an MMA fighter make matters worse for the OP. I heard somewhere that if a person is a trained "fighter" his body can be considered as a weapon...
The Vet definitely deserved some punishment for doing something stupid to the OP's property but was the beating justified? Will the fact that he's an MMA fighter make matters worse for the OP. I heard somewhere that if a person is a trained "fighter" his body can be considered as a weapon...
Even if this was a petty vandalism, I don't think excessive force was ever breached. He broke the guys leg as he was getting in the car to flee; that's disabling the suspect. It's hard to say when the punches came in based on the video.
But you have remember this doesn't fall under petty vandalism. The vandalism was a blatant hate crime (12-7 USN on a Japanese car); laid his hands on the owner, and called him a g***. I'm pretty sure given the nature of the situation, the moment he laid hands on the owner is the exact moment when deadly force could have been justified, as during a hate crime that would be considered a major imminent threat. The fact is the guy was left walking, talking, and breathing; sans the complete non-violent approach this was a class act citizens arrest/justice in my eyes, and I'm about as a big proponent of non-violence as the best of them. And the owner used very key wording in his a bit 'over the top' language; he said I 'could' have killed you; not that he will, or should, but that he was justified in doing so and in defense against a hate crime in process, I don't think he's wrong. So in a court those words can't be justified as a direct threat to the vet.
Interesting point. I agree with you on the hate crime part but I just don't see how the beating was necessary. Believe me, I do not condone vandalism let alone hate against anyone but in this situation, the response from the OP was more on the excessive side. To makes things worse, the video didn't capture the Vet as the aggressor. Instead he was bleeding and you can hear him somewhat pleading and offering to 'exchange phone numbers' to settle the situation whereas the OP shows his knuckle bleeding from the punches he threw at the Vet's face. We'll have to see how this pans out.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
From: San Diego - Heaven on Earth
Originally Posted by Rowan' timestamp='1323318744' post='21219988
Wow, that's insane.
I fast forwarded to the last two pages of the thread and it sounds like the vet can turn this around and sue the OP for beating his a$$ after the alleged vandalism.
I'm no expert but is this even possible? If so, that would suck for the OP.
The Vet definitely deserved some punishment for doing something stupid to the OP's property but was the beating justified? Will the fact that he's an MMA fighter make matters worse for the OP. I heard somewhere that if a person is a trained "fighter" his body can be considered as a weapon...
anyway, interesting shiet...
I fast forwarded to the last two pages of the thread and it sounds like the vet can turn this around and sue the OP for beating his a$$ after the alleged vandalism.
I'm no expert but is this even possible? If so, that would suck for the OP.
The Vet definitely deserved some punishment for doing something stupid to the OP's property but was the beating justified? Will the fact that he's an MMA fighter make matters worse for the OP. I heard somewhere that if a person is a trained "fighter" his body can be considered as a weapon...
anyway, interesting shiet...
There may be certain places where the law allows the use of deadly force in the defense of property, but it is certainly possible for this Evo owner to have committed either a crime or be liable for civil damages to the vandal for excessive use of force. Especially here where there does not seem to have been a threat of bodily harm to the car owner or any others with him, it's hard to justify the use of force as self defense, which would be protected.
Here are some Texas statutes:
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I tend to think that in this case he was not smart to post the video online, and to go around the internet chatting up his exploits. Of course a lot of people were bound to agree with him, especially on an Evo forum - but seriously, they're just cars. We carry insurance. I've had people vandalize my cars and steal stuff out of them too, and I would have been hot-blooded too if I had caught someone in the act - but I doubt that I would have laid into the person like this. You never know who has a concealed weapon. They caught this guy, and his punishment will be meted out by law enforcement. That's the way it's supposed to work, not vigilante justice that ends with blood on the asphalt and broken bones, or dead bodies for no reason other than some spraypaint that washed off.
Quick2k
exactly what I was thinking.
I feel for the OP. Having your property desecrated in such a manner is infuriating.
I wonder how the justice system will work on this one.
