White Men Beat Black Girl (video)

[Sunni Man]

Just another feral black girl doing what she knows best. ..

*notice the hoodie she is wearing?*

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Another thread based on race on USMB, so what else is new? We've already had 100's on them. That in itself, says plenty about this board.

Well this is the Race Relations forum.

 

[Alfalfa]

These boys might have some trouble. In Michigan one can only effect a CA when a felony has been committed. A robbery is only a misdemeanor if it's less then $1000. The woman appears to have been knocked down while holding onto her purse but this might not clear the hurdle for felony assault since there was no obvious intent to cause harm and there was no physical contact by the assailant.

Punching her in the face might not look so good either.

 

[Mr. H.]

"I weigh 250 pounds, I guarantee you're not getting up".

 

[Againsheila]

These boys might have some trouble. In Michigan one can only effect a CA when a felony has been committed. A robbery is only a misdemeanor if it's less then $1000. The woman appears to have been knocked down while holding onto her purse but this might not clear the hurdle for felony assault since there was no obvious intent to cause harm and there was no physical contact by the assailant.

Punching her in the face might not look so good either.

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

 

[kiwiman127]

Another thread based on race on USMB, so what else is new? We've already had 100's on them. That in itself, says plenty about this board.

Well this is the Race Relations forum.

Yeah, I missed that. As Roseanne Rosanna Danna would say,,,,,,,
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0]Gilda Radner Nevermind - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Alfalfa]

These boys might have some trouble. In Michigan one can only effect a CA when a felony has been committed. A robbery is only a misdemeanor if it's less then $1000. The woman appears to have been knocked down while holding onto her purse but this might not clear the hurdle for felony assault since there was no obvious intent to cause harm and there was no physical contact by the assailant.

Punching her in the face might not look so good either.

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

 

[Againsheila]

These boys might have some trouble. In Michigan one can only effect a CA when a felony has been committed. A robbery is only a misdemeanor if it's less then $1000. The woman appears to have been knocked down while holding onto her purse but this might not clear the hurdle for felony assault since there was no obvious intent to cause harm and there was no physical contact by the assailant.

Punching her in the face might not look so good either.

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

She was biting him. He punched her to get her to stop biting him. What would you do? Let her keep her teeth digging into your skin?

 

[Alfalfa]

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

She was biting him. He punched her to get her to stop biting him. What would you do? Let her keep her teeth digging into your skin?

And you're not getting this. If the citizens arrest is ruled illegal the woman might have just self defense cause for biting the guy who tackled her, sat on top of her and refused to abate.

As I said, I'm not making any value judgements just making legal observations.

This guy better hope he has bite marks and a medical report confirming so. If not, a jury might not look kindly on him punching her in the face 3 times.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

These boys might have some trouble. In Michigan one can only effect a CA when a felony has been committed. A robbery is only a misdemeanor if it's less then $1000. The woman appears to have been knocked down while holding onto her purse but this might not clear the hurdle for felony assault since there was no obvious intent to cause harm and there was no physical contact by the assailant.

Punching her in the face might not look so good either.

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

There wasn't anything false with that arrest.

In Texas I can legally shoot and kill anyone that steals from me regardless of how much the property is worth.

Texas law (PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY) for use of deadly force in defense of property states:

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 property1) 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.

 

[Alfalfa]

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

There wasn't anything false with that arrest.

In Texas I can legally shoot and kill anyone that steals from me regardless of how much the property is worth.

Texas law (PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY) for use of deadly force in defense of property states:

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 property1) 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.

This happened in Grand Rapids Michigan.

But leave it to a brain dead texan to make it all about tejas.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

There wasn't anything false with that arrest.

In Texas I can legally shoot and kill anyone that steals from me regardless of how much the property is worth.

Texas law (PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY) for use of deadly force in defense of property states:

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 property1) 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.

This happened in Grand Rapids Michigan.

But leave it to a brain dead texan to make it all about tejas.

I was educating your ignorant ass on Texas law just in case you or any of your liberal thieving buddies ever decide to visit.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

These boys might have some trouble. In Michigan one can only effect a CA when a felony has been committed. A robbery is only a misdemeanor if it's less then $1000. The woman appears to have been knocked down while holding onto her purse but this might not clear the hurdle for felony assault since there was no obvious intent to cause harm and there was no physical contact by the assailant.

Punching her in the face might not look so good either.

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

I'm not an expert on these things but I think you might be confusing shop lifting with purse snatching. From what little research I did, it seems purse snatching in itself is a felony, no matter the contents of the purse. Maybe because it is seen as a violent act?

Man charged in purse snatching from woman, 82

Police: 1 held after snatching purse from elderly woman on North Michigan Avenue - Chicago Tribune

 

[JohnL.Burke]

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

She was biting him. He punched her to get her to stop biting him. What would you do? Let her keep her teeth digging into your skin?

And you're not getting this. If the citizens arrest is ruled illegal the woman might have just self defense cause for biting the guy who tackled her, sat on top of her and refused to abate.

As I said, I'm not making any value judgements just making legal observations.

This guy better hope he has bite marks and a medical report confirming so. If not, a jury might not look kindly on him punching her in the face 3 times.

Certainly bite marks and a medical report would help. Having a video of the assailant biting the good samaritan is pretty good evidence as well. Actually, I would say it's even BETTER evidence since one couldn't argue the origin of the teeth marks.

 

[Alfalfa]

She bit him, what was he suppose to do? Let her bit his hand off? Give him aids?

No I know, he was suppose to let her go so the next time she robbed a senior citizen she could kill her.

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

I'm not an expert on these things but I think you might be confusing shop lifting with purse snatching. From what little research I did, it seem purse snatching in itself is a felony, no matter the contents of the purse. Maybe because it is seen as a violent act?

Man charged in purse snatching from woman, 82

Police: 1 held after snatching purse from elderly woman on North Michigan Avenue - Chicago Tribune

There is not enough info in these links to determine if the larceny involved elevated simple theft or robbery to a felony. If the person says "give me your purse or I'll kill you", that is a felony. If the person was armed, that is a felony. But simple larceny or theft less then $1000 in Michigan is defined as a misdemeanor.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I wanna see the video where "White Men Beat 350 lb, 6'5" Black Man."

Try watching Bait Car, Cops or Lockdown.

Cops with guns and billy clubs?

****YAWN****

Rerun of Rodney King = BOOOOOORING

Perhaps I should rephrase:

I wanna see Unarmed Middle-aged White Men wearing beige Dockers Beating 350 lb, 6'5" Black Man"

You seem to have a very specific porn fetish.

 

[Againsheila]

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

I'm not an expert on these things but I think you might be confusing shop lifting with purse snatching. From what little research I did, it seem purse snatching in itself is a felony, no matter the contents of the purse. Maybe because it is seen as a violent act?

Man charged in purse snatching from woman, 82

Police: 1 held after snatching purse from elderly woman on North Michigan Avenue - Chicago Tribune

There is not enough info in these links to determine if the larceny involved elevated simple theft or robbery to a felony. If the person says "give me your purse or I'll kill you", that is a felony. If the person was armed, that is a felony. But simple larceny or theft less then $1000 in Michigan is defined as a misdemeanor.

The woman whose purse she stole was knocked down. Doesn't that make it assault also?

 

[Alfalfa]

She was biting him. He punched her to get her to stop biting him. What would you do? Let her keep her teeth digging into your skin?

And you're not getting this. If the citizens arrest is ruled illegal the woman might have just self defense cause for biting the guy who tackled her, sat on top of her and refused to abate.

As I said, I'm not making any value judgements just making legal observations.

This guy better hope he has bite marks and a medical report confirming so. If not, a jury might not look kindly on him punching her in the face 3 times.

Certainly bite marks and a medical report would help. Having a video of the assailant biting the good samaritan is pretty good evidence as well. Actually, I would say it's even BETTER evidence since one couldn't argue the origin of the teeth marks.

If you're going to be a "good samaritan" and effect a citizens arrest, anywhere in the country, you'd better be versed in the law of that state because they vary, some allow misdemeanors, others like Michigan it has to be a felony.

I doubt the state will press charges on these men but a civil suit is always a possibility.

 

[Alfalfa]

I'm not an expert on these things but I think you might be confusing shop lifting with purse snatching. From what little research I did, it seem purse snatching in itself is a felony, no matter the contents of the purse. Maybe because it is seen as a violent act?

Man charged in purse snatching from woman, 82

Police: 1 held after snatching purse from elderly woman on North Michigan Avenue - Chicago Tribune

There is not enough info in these links to determine if the larceny involved elevated simple theft or robbery to a felony. If the person says "give me your purse or I'll kill you", that is a felony. If the person was armed, that is a felony. But simple larceny or theft less then $1000 in Michigan is defined as a misdemeanor.

The woman whose purse she stole was knocked down. Doesn't that make it assault also?

Well, she claims she was knocked down but I'm not convinced. The victim states the purse was sitting on the table where she was having lunch with her daughter when the perp drove by on her bike and snatched up the purse. Based on the pics I've seen of the woman on the ground (I assume that is where she landed and waited for EMT to arrive) it looks like they were sitting at a table behind a wrought iron fence and when the purse was snatched up she rose from her chair and lunged at the perp and/or her purse, falling over the fence.

If a purse snatcher grabs your purse and you pursue them and end of tripping and falling on the pavement, is that assault?

That might be up to a jury to decide.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

He punched her in the face three times.

I'm not making a value judgement on this incident, but I do believe a false citizen's arrest and assault and battery civil suit might be filed against the three men who tackled and held her. The victim claims the only valuables in the purse was a $50 camera and lipstick. As I said, in Michigan a CA can only be effected when a felony has occurred and the unless the theft was over $1000 it's only a misdemeanor.

I'm not an expert on these things but I think you might be confusing shop lifting with purse snatching. From what little research I did, it seem purse snatching in itself is a felony, no matter the contents of the purse. Maybe because it is seen as a violent act?

Man charged in purse snatching from woman, 82

Police: 1 held after snatching purse from elderly woman on North Michigan Avenue - Chicago Tribune

There is not enough info in these links to determine if the larceny involved elevated simple theft or robbery to a felony. If the person says "give me your purse or I'll kill you", that is a felony. If the person was armed, that is a felony. But simple larceny or theft less then $1000 in Michigan is defined as a misdemeanor.

I'm just wondering if purse snatching is considered larceny or theft as opposed to a class 4 felony. Of course (according to the video) that fact that somebody was hurt due to the crime being committed (the woman would not have tripped on the sidewalk if not chasing the purse snatcher) then the purse snatching crime becomes more serious than a misdemeanor. I'm guessing. Anyway, I don't think there is a court in the world that would prosecute these guys. In terms of a civil lawsuit, I just don't see it happening unless the purse snatcher is dumber than her crime would imply.