Originally Posted by Rowan

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.

Originally Posted by whiteflash

If you write race based obscenities on someones property, call them a racist name, and lay hands on them; they have all the reason to beat you til you bleed out in self defense. At that point you have no idea what that mans capable of, or intending and based on the racism, it wouldn't look pretty. And let's not pretend that even basic navy men are trained to know how to kill, and this was not a small 'harmless' guy. Of course he was pleading, he tried to flee the scene and had his car door slammed on his leg so hard it broke it. He got his ass whooped; he's pleading because he doesn't want to go to jail, because he doesn't want to feel the shame of being a bigot. You think a guy who spray painted racial obscenities on a whole flock of cars, is going to "honestly exchange phone numbers to handle the situation"? Nope. The Evo owner used reasonable force to disable the attacker from flee'ing, which was probably AFTER the scuffle. This guy wasn't beating him in his front seat; it's pretty straight forward. Evo owner approaches racist pos, racist pos continues to be racist pos, gets beat, tries to run, and gets disabled.

I can't think of a cleaner way to handle an aggressor, while in the process of both self defense, protecting property, and a citizens arrest. Not to mention, this guys a trained cagefighter. As I said before, this dude was walking, talking, and breathing when it was done. The evo owner as a cagefighter CLEARLY showed restraint.

Originally Posted by Quick2K

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