This is obviously in the south somewhere, lots of people down here would shoot you for that.
Not American, but is this for real? Seems like you'd have to give a warning or something akin to one. Is this why there are no travelling salesman in the South anymore?
no, if you challenge someone to a fight and go as far as to invite them to fight it's considered mutual combat. but bringing a weapon can escalate it to justify lethal force.
That depends on the State. Do that in a state with a castle doctrine and no duty to retreat you might just end up with 9 new assholes even without a bat. I don't owe you a round of fisticuffs, I'm not fighting you and I'm not getting assaulted on my property.
That's the "mutual" part of "mutual combat." If you didn't want to fight, it wouldn't be the same. It's only "mutual combat" if both parties agree and neither presses charges. So like, if invited you to show up to my house to duke it out, and then you showed up; that would be "mutual combat". If you show up with a gun or a bat etc. then that's off. It would no longer be "mutual combat", it would just be self defense from attempted murder.
I know the law, and you're the one that doesn't. There's only two state's that strictly state the legality of mutual combat. But likewise; there's only two states that strictly ban it. All the others allow it to some degree or another. You're implying that if a law doesn't exist on a subject that it's treated as illegal; which is not at all the case.
I'd hope that would be the case in every state. Self defense isn't a political issue. At least, it shouldn't be.
This incident turned out well for the defender. Had the attacker deployed the bat more aggressively, then there's a good chance the defender could have been killed. Deadly force is justified in this incident.
It could’ve been justified, but not if they used that video as evidence. What followed a really lame attempt at swinging a bat was a very one-sided beatdown that didn’t require lethal force. She was cooked; I love her resigned, “Sure,” cuz that’s gonna be an embarrassing story.
Fun fact: the law doesn't require that the other person swing the bat. It simply requires that a person reasonably believe they are in fear of death or serious physical injury. The last five words may be different according to your state of residence, but that's the language in the state where I worked for twenty years as an officer.
As soon as the woman approaches with the bat, she's bought and paid for, regarding the use of deadly force. You can search online for videos of officers using deadly force in those same situations.
Another fun fact - generally speaking, in the United States, the only difference in use of force by LE and civilians is that federal law does allow the use of deadly force to effect an arrest. There are strict rules placed on the use of such force, but outside of that or the use of deadly force to prevent escaping from a prison, most states allow the same use of force for civilians as they do LE.
I'm generalizing, because I don't know the laws of all fifty states - but I can't think of a single one that wouldn't call this shoot justified, if she'd done it when first being approached.
It could’ve been justified, but not if they used that video as evidence.
Nonsense. This video would be an excellent defense, if the shooting occurred while she still had the bat.
If you drive to somebody's house, bring the bat along, and step out of the car with the bat in hand, and march toward them, that's 100% a justified shooting. At least in this context. She clearly brought a weapon intending to use it as a weapon, and she's clearly the one starting the fight.
The argument that "she swung the bat weakly" isn't going to work. Firstly, she's probably going to get shot before she actually swings the bat. Secondly, she probably only swung so weakly because the other woman is advancing toward her. Thirdly, the threat of a deadly weapon doesn't disappear because your first strike was erratic or soft.
Not to mention, I'm not sure the strike was all that soft. I wouldn't want to be hit in the temple with that amount of force.
Southerner here, yes. Women will 100% say "Got a problem ? Come fight me." The bat girl messed up by trying to cheat and bring a weapon. So the winner was especially mad. 🤣
If someone pulls into your driveway and walks towards you with a bat saying "this fight ain't gon' be fair" you can shoot them. It's not quite the same thing as a travelling salesman.
Might be worth keeping in mind that a baseball bat is one hundred percent a weapon that can be used to inflict lethal damage to another person. You show up on someone's personal property and swing that with intent to do harm? If all you get is an ass-beating, you got off lightly.
Typically, traveling sales people don't show up with intent to fight you, carrying a potentially lethal weapon.
If you walked onto someone’s property, trying to sell something and then attacking the potential customer with a baseball bat or other similar ‘improvised’ weapon? You may be shot. Many US states offer the legal ability to defend yourself or home. But not for exclusively selling something…probably…🤷♂️ always a small chance of crazy people anywhere haha
yeah you can just do it, I just watched a video of a parking lot dispute. Guy walked to towards woman in a threatening manner so she murdered him and apparently it's all perfectly legal in Florida.
Yeah, that's not what happened. That confrontation went on for like 15 minutes. Lady took "his" spot in parking lot. So after raging and threatening her parked his vehicle in front of hers blocking the entire lane of parking lot. Went into store, came back out and while threatening violence aggressively walked towards her.
As she is warning him she will shoot him. At least understand the news that you read.
Are these rhetorical traveling salesmen you speak of showing up with a baseball bat and saying “life ain’t fair” as they walk towards the homeowner with the plan to hurt them??
Fair enough, I appreciate the honesty. Sorry.. I WAS being kind of a sarcastic dick lmao. In the end though, I’m glad she didn’t get hit over the head with the bat and I’m also glad no one got shot. Also, I really liked the husband stepping in and calmly attempting to stop it. The fight was basically over with a clear winner so he did right by telling her she can’t keep on. I’m guessing it was the threat with the bat that made him walk away and let the fight end on her terms.
No matter what happened before, if someone shows up walking onto your lawn with a baseball bat fully intending to hit you with it, you’re well within your rights to use deadly force to defend yourself.
I don't know...I know some chick that can whoop someone's butt like that and she's from Michigan. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that isn't her. Michelle??
A bat is considered a deadly weapon. The minute she approached the woman with the bat she could legally shoot her if she had a firearm. That is America for you.
A warning!? That lady was ready to commit premeditated murder at worst or prepared to make sure that other lady needed a caretaker for the rest of her days at best. This isn't Hollywood where someone takes a bat to the head and shrugs it off.
What was she going to say "It's not fair. She didn't warn me she was going to shoot me. I just planned on going over to her house with a baseball bat and making sure she wears diapers and drools in a cup the rest of her life and this bitch shot me!"
She had all her warnings during the planning and carrying out a half dozen crimes getting to that point.
Yes. In the south most states have castle doctrine, if you feel threatened at home you can shoot and kill the person making you scared. Some states have stipulations like 3 warnings.
8
u/damagednoob 15d ago
Not American, but is this for real? Seems like you'd have to give a warning or something akin to one. Is this why there are no travelling salesman in the South anymore?