[StarSlayer]

Knives are extremely messy weapons, and while the human body is incredibly durable in some aspects, a bladed weapon making a successful cut to the insides of the arms, thighs, neck or a stab to the armpit or kidneys will bleed you out post haste.  It's nothing to mess around with and treating an attack with a knife as some minor issue is foolishness, there isn't anything superficial about being stabbed in the back and the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even if the wielder is a moron.

[Scotty]

the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even especially if the wielder is a moron.

fixed that for you.

Also, the gist I got from this is that the marines stopped the guy, but otherwise didn't do anything to him, and then he stabbed one of them.  If that isn't one of the clearest cut cases of self-defense ever, I don't know what is.  The extent to which they did or did not injure him is, next to that, pretty damn trivial up to and including (in Texas, at least. loltexas) death.

[karajorma]

Scotty, you're talking about the true version of the story. I have no issue with that. I'm talking about the fake version in which the perp was very badly beaten and could have easily died as a result of his injuries.

The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.

Generally speaking, knife attacks could cause death.

You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?

[Polpolion]

You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?

If a criminal stabbed a police officer he would probably be shot.

(so yes, it's fine)

[karajorma]

There really is no convincing some people.

[StarSlayer]

Scotty, you're talking about the true version of the story. I have no issue with that. I'm talking about the fake version in which the perp was very badly beaten and could have easily died as a result of his injuries.

The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.

Generally speaking, knife attacks could cause death.

You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?

If they beat the **** out of him while taking him into custody then yes it probably would be an issue, maybe not for me personally because despite being socially progressive in most respects I'm decidedly Olde Testament when it comes to justice.  If they had killed him in the midst of him using a knife to fight them certainly not.  They are trained soldiers suddenly faced with an immensely dangerous life threatening situation, as I mentioned earlier a knife is no joke even in the most amateur of hands.  That they didn't break his arm and crush his trachea shows admirable restraint.

[karajorma]

It's nothing to mess around with and treating an attack with a knife as some minor issue is foolishness, there isn't anything superficial about being stabbed in the back and the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even if the wielder is a moron.

I was looking at it from the point of view of a DA. You have person who was stabbed vs one person who has been life-threateningly beaten. Are you seriously telling me that there is no way you believe someone might look at that incident and believe that things went too far?

Oh and BTW, I've not yet even brought up the point of the highly suspicious police report.

[Polpolion]

There really is no convincing some people.

Anyway, I'm sure that there is at least one attorney somewhere in the states that would be willing to make that case. But that doesn't matter.

And it doesn't matter that the marines didn't have to intervene. That was perfectly legal. The stabbing wasn't.
It doesn't matter if there were 4 marines or 4 battalions of marines. If one got stabbed then the others can legally (by civil law) take measures to protect themselves and the injured.

The police report is probably the best thing you have going for you. Ironically it implies that the marines felt they went too far themselves, and of course one does not get all those injuries tripping on any curb but ones on highway overpasses. While it would make people suspicious enough to investigate, I'd have to say it's a bit beyond the scope of the true problem being discussed.

Let's ignore the rather stupid question of "Would they investigate?" for a moment and assume they do, and let's also make it interesting and assume the thief died: In most states, using lethal force in self-defense is permissible if you can reasonably show that lives were in danger and there was nothing else you could have done. In this case it depends on the fight. If the thief was disabled before the marines killed him then SD does not apply because the thief ceased to be a threat. On the other hand if he was killed on the first blow after the stabbing, then I'm willing to bet that SD would apply.

Now lets say the thief died the next day because of his wounds. Now the results of the case are determined solely by how much pounding occurred after the thief was disabled. The less there is the better the case the marines have.

Now lets just go assume the thief survived, albeit bruised badly. The same results as above. Things really only change if you take out the knife and stabbing.

[Klaustrophobia]

the stamp of wank looms over this thread.

[karajorma]

Now lets just go assume the thief survived, albeit bruised badly. The same results as above. Things really only change if you take out the knife and stabbing.

What do you mean by that last sentence?

Cause it seems that you're saying that whether it is SD or not depends on how much of the beating was inflicted after he was no longer a threat but that last bit is confusing.

[StarSlayer]

It's nothing to mess around with and treating an attack with a knife as some minor issue is foolishness, there isn't anything superficial about being stabbed in the back and the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even if the wielder is a moron.

I was looking at it from the point of view of a DA. You have person who was stabbed vs one person who has been life-threateningly beaten. Are you seriously telling me that there is no way you believe someone might look at that incident and believe that things went too far?

Oh and BTW, I've not yet even brought up the point of the highly suspicious police report.

The highly suspicious police report doesn't exist quite frankly it's immaterial to what happened to the suspect, that's an Internal Affairs issue.
If the Marines had tried to take him into custody using appropriate force then he pulled out a knife and stabbed one of them that changes the scenario.  They are no longer taking into custody a criminal they are dealing with a life threatening situation.  At that point they need to eliminate the threat and if they had fallen back on their training more then likely the suspect would have been mauled or killed.  I should make the distinction though, injuries sustained while they are taking him down are a different matter then putting the boots to him afterward. 

[jr2]

Stumbled On that. What are the chances? Lol. Anyway, what do you guys think? Photoshop?

[Polpolion]

Now lets just go assume the thief survived, albeit bruised badly. The same results as above. Things really only change if you take out the knife and stabbing.

What do you mean by that last sentence?

Cause it seems that you're saying that whether it is SD or not depends on how much of the beating was inflicted after he was no longer a threat but that last bit is confusing.

Sorry, without a knife he could still be belligerent, but fists are much less of a dangerous weapon than a knife and you'd have a really hard time justifying any injuries inflicted, and almost no chance of justifying the injuries inflicted in the story. You could argue that it appeared as though he was reaching for a weapon he had in his pocket or something, but that's hardly a defense I'd want to use.

[Aardwolf]

@Polpolion

The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened.

Thus your comment that

If a criminal stabbed a police officer he would probably be shot.

is irrelevant.

[Polpolion]

Either I just can't seem to see your reasoning or you didn't read all of Kara's post (and the better part of this page).

[Nuke]

you **** with the wrong people and you get ****ed, its as simple as that. whos the jury gonna believe, 4 charity collecting marines, or one knife wielding theif.

[FireSpawn]

Notice how the argument focuses on the marines, but after a brief discussion, steers clear of Chuck Norris, whose beatdown was a lot more vicious than the marines one.

Why is this?

[Mars]

Because if someone is in the act of attacking you (with deadly force), there are no limits to what you can do, including lethal force. This is especially true in Texas and my home state of Colorado, where it is lawful to kill someone if they invade your home. 

The argument here is that the assailant appeared to be in the act of fleeing when he himself was attacked - potentially an act of revenge rather than of self-protection.

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION OF POST.

[NGTM-1R]

@Polpolion

The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened.

Thus your comment that

If a criminal stabbed a police officer he would probably be shot.

is irrelevant.

Bull****. That turns the entire theory of responsibility for criminal acts on its head. If you drive drunk and kill somebody it's still homicide. If you're starving and steal from a store to feed yourself it's still theft. If you jack crap from a store and get stopped by four uniformed United States Marines (because they typical do charity work like that in dress blues, looks damn snappy), you have a choice to surrender quietly, but instead you pull out a knife and stab one.

At that point they are entitled to defend themselves. Their previous actions do not matter. You were not legally attacked, and certainly not in any way that justifies assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide. You are stabbing them because you do not want to go to jail. That is not a legal right.

[Aardwolf]

I perceive some ambiguity here.

You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?

Polpolion, you answered whether it would be appropriate after he had stabbed a (hypothetical) police officer.

But considering the context of Karajorma's question ("You miss the point." ... "until they intervened."), it seems more likely he was asking whether it would be appropriate prior to him stabbing the officer. Which is (probably) not how it would have happened, if the scenario in the article were true, but whatever; that's how I read it.

Karajorma can clarify.




@NGTM-1R: I said his comment was irrelevant, not wrong.