Modern VampireKiller - "IM KILLING A VAMPIRE!"

[Aridas]

And who says you have to tell the absolute truth to the police? That's a bit foolish.

[Knight]

So is assuming police are idiots.  Pretend you're a cop.  You come upon a smashed up peacock and a beaten and bleeding man, and someone still standing with a few grazes.  They (still standing) tell you that the man attacked the peacock, then assaulted you.  Yet the man is whooped and homeboy is near fine.  You know about animal rights people and how they think.  You know they've been feeding the peacock in a pet like way.  The whooped up vampire-hunter in training tells you he did not attack the man that is near fine.  So do eyewittnesses.  Do you immediately accept what you're told by the guy that is okay?  Does a judge?

then you're probably allowed to take reasonable, non-lethal action against the person to prevent bodily harm from coming to (in this case) that peacock.  Trying to subdue the man would probably fall under this category.

Preventing danger to an animal is by no means justifiable for assault on a human.  I personally think it's ridiculous that it would be.  It's sad if an animal is harmed, but I don't confuse animal life and human life, at all.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Why are you automatically assuming he is to be assaulted?  Or did you not read what I typed?

Aye, but how do you know he wouldn't have attacked anyone if he were provoked by, say, someone trying to restrain him?

[superluser]

So is assuming police are idiots.  Pretend you're a cop.  You come upon a smashed up peacock and a beaten and bleeding man, and someone still standing with a few grazes.  They (still standing) tell you that the man attacked the peacock, then assaulted you.  Yet the man is whooped and homeboy is near fine.  You know about animal rights people and how they think.  You know they've been feeding the peacock in a pet like way.  The whooped up vampire-hunter in training tells you he did not attack the man that is near fine.  So do eyewittnesses.  Do you immediately accept what you're told by the guy that is okay?  Does a judge?

It depends on the state.  This happened in NY, so let's look at the laws.

§ 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief.

A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises.

Criminal mischief is intentional or reckless damage of another person's property.  Since peacocks are not native to New York, you could expect the peacock to be someone else's property.

Of course, you could try to get in between the man and the peacock, and when he starts throwing punches at you, you throw them back.

And I'm sure that the BK parking lot has enough cameras to verify your side of things.

[Feroluce]

Frankly if I was there when that happend (after the shock wore off, anyway) I would probably take steps to beat the crap out of the guy, and think about the law later. Not trying to be macho or anything: In that situation, its what I would do. I tend to treat animal life with respect, even the animals I eventually eat, and seeing something like that would probably have me seeing red, and breaking the guys arms, before I stopped to think about what the cops would do.

I think, however, that seeing as the guy is clearly deranged, I would probably scrape past with nothing more then some community service.

[Aridas]

Why are you automatically assuming he is to be assaulted?  Or did you not read what I typed?

Aye, but how do you know he wouldn't have attacked anyone if he were provoked by, say, someone trying to restrain him?

In fact, I already said that before you did. Someone wasn't listening, which is why telling him is pointless.

[Xuzaf D]

Restraining someone against their will is assault by the way. Also, beating someone near to death will definitely get you more punishment than serving hobos soup for a week.

[Netrogo]

Why is it the 'beating him is wrong' people all seem to think we want to beat him within an inch of his life? Honestly myself I'd try to stop him, probably hit him/kick him a few times, but I probably wouldn't beat the living hell out of him. I'd try to restrain him but if he got out of the grapple then yeah punch or be punched.

Likewise what Luser posted is right, you can defend your stuff or the stuff of others through physical means if it becomes necessary. If someone's walking past your house and kicks your dog, you yell at them for it and to not do it again, and they keep doing it. Then you're justified to defend yourself. Likewise for wild animals. They're living creatures, not playing things for retards with nothing better to do.

[superluser]

Restraining someone against their will is assault by the way.

Looks more like unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, if you ask me.  And again, defensible.

Also, you do have to realize that the police and district attorneys are often very overworked, and they will often not prosecute cases which don't pass a certain threshold.  You'll often see police telling people to break it up and go home, but it's much rarer to see that person get shipped into a paddy wagon and taken away.

Now, my idea of how to restrain someone in this case would be to put myself between him and the peacock, or to grab him around the waist and attempt to drag him away from the peacock.  No more physical interaction than that, unless he tries to hit me.

[Knight]

Geez.

Grabbing someone about the waist is assault.  Restraining someone against their will is assault, as MAD said.  Property is someone's property only if you know it's someone's property.  You can't just assume a stone, a bird, a wandering peacock is someone's property and beat/hold down someone for it.  I know what the law for New York says as quoted above but nine times out of ten it falls to the responding officer's judgment.  Also just as likely is you get the hell beaten out of -you-, unless you are all Mr T.  Maybe Mr.  Vampire Killer or whoever carrys knives, a gun, or other weaponry.  You never know.  Again, it's sad, but you don't go screwing with people over animals physically unless you want to end up in the cooler or worse.  If you don't believe me, then whatever.  Go out and restrain/beat someone trying to harm a peacock/squirrel/cat/dog whatever.  That's your prerogitive. They may take pity if they are also animal compassionate (the cop, the judge etc.) but what if they think animal people are psychos?  You never know.  End of my two cents for this discussion.

[Xuzaf D]

Does anybody else notice that the people who were there are all said to be employees? This may actually be a key point since many establishments have codes of conduct in the event of a crime, nearly all of which refer to staying out of the situation and contacting authorities.

You may have heard about a clerk or two who have lost their jobs after breaking a robber's bowling/shooting arm. It's the same concept. Burger King just doesn't want it's employees tackling people of any sort and probably hate the idea of customers going to order a crispy chicken sandwich from the guy who tackled the bird killer. Sounds like bullshit, but it happens.

[superluser]

Grabbing someone about the waist is assault.  Restraining someone against their will is assault, as MAD said.

No, it isn't.  It's unlawful imprisonment.  For assault, you need to cause injury.  In New York, it's not even sufficient to make a threat of violence.  That's a separate crime, called menacing.

but nine times out of ten it falls to the responding officer's judgment.

And the judgment of the district attorney and the judgment of 12 jurors.

Please note that this man was obviously not all together, mentally.  When the police come, he's not going to tell them that he was out for a stroll when he was jumped by hoods.  He's going to tell police that these impertinent subjects of the Burger King have stopped Van Helsing from exterminating the vampire peacock.  And that's when the nice men in the white coats will place Mr. Vampire Killer into the back of a wood-paneled station wagon.

And then if he stomped on the bird, there will be bird blood inside his shoe tread (not just on the surface, where you could get it if you walked through blood spatter, but deep inside, where you'd have to walk through a deep puddle of blood), and that's hard to explain if you're not doing the assault.

[Valynth]

Does anybody else notice that the people who were there are all said to be employees? This may actually be a key point since many establishments have codes of conduct in the event of a crime, nearly all of which refer to staying out of the situation and contacting authorities.

You may have heard about a clerk or two who have lost their jobs after breaking a robber's bowling/shooting arm. It's the same concept. Burger King just doesn't want it's employees tackling people of any sort and probably hate the idea of customers going to order a crispy chicken sandwich from the guy who tackled the bird killer. Sounds like bullshit, but it happens.

You have just described all of the U.K. minus the work at Burger King part.  Again, only God or whatever superior entity you place stock in can help you if the man claims that killing/assaulting you/it is a part of his culture.  If that's the case the officers just call you racist and do nothing as you/it are wounded, assaulted, and/or killed.  Afterwards they -may- pursue your case if it becomes too prominant.

Anyway, I seriously doubt any jury in the U.S. would convict you for restraining him.  I'm also fairly sure you could sue BK for wrongful termination if they fire you for this incident.  Besides here in the U.S. you'd be praised for restraining the man as the attitudes expressed in doing so is shown on this thread and the fact that Americans are bleeding hearts when it comes to pretty/cute animals.  The incident would therefore increase your worth to BK for being a local hero which would slightly boosting sales for that establishment.  You probably will not get a pay raise, but you have a fairly good chance of them not firing you on the basis that you brought them good press about how they have employees that are willing to defend animals (and by extension the customers) from crazy people.  I think it's fairly established that people like to eat at a place where they feel safe.

I think the employee's lack of effort is more or less something plaguing New York specifically.  It is the city known for it's population's complete lack of concern for others (animal or human) in a depressing extreme after all.

[Xuzaf D]

Grabbing someone about the waist is assault.  Restraining someone against their will is assault, as MAD said.

No, it isn't.  It's unlawful imprisonment.  For assault, you need to cause injury.  In New York, it's not even sufficient to make a threat of violence.  That's a separate crime, called menacing.

How is grabbing someone "unlawful imprisonment?" I thought imprisonment involved being in prison.

but nine times out of ten it falls to the responding officer's judgment.

And the judgment of the district attorney and the judgment of 12 jurors.

No, that would be the one out of ten...

[superluser]

I'm also fairly sure you could sue BK for wrongful termination if they fire you for this incident.

I'm certain that you could sue for wrongful termination/wrongful discharge.  I was prepared to say here that I was also certain that you'd lose, but in the wake of Feliciano v 7-Eleven, it appears that you just might win such a case.

How is grabbing someone "unlawful imprisonment?" I thought imprisonment involved being in prison.

No.  As a general legal term, it also covers holding people against their will.  Look up unlawful imprisonment on Google News.  Most of the cases that you'll find do not involve prison (except for the person convicted of unlawful imprisonment).

As a technical legal definition...

§ 135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
    The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful.  A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim,  if  he  is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
[definitions for `abduct' and `relative' omitted]

§ 135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person.
Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

If you want to claim that it's not unlawful imprisonment, then I don't think it's against the law to grab someone (so long as you don't cause injury) in NY.

[Xuzaf D]

You would still have to force someone into said restrained positions wouldn't you?

[superluser]

You would still have to force someone into said restrained positions wouldn't you?

So?  There is no law against using force in NY, so long as you don't intend to cause injury and wind up causing injury.  Look it up:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

You want Penal Code, Part 3, Title H, OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING PHYSICAL INJURY, SEXUAL CONDUCT, RESTRAINT AND INTIMIDATION

[Xuzaf D]

Thats the thing though. Many people can claim assault by simply claiming to have also been injured. Considering the persons reaction to the law, and their own violent nature, there would have been a struggle and any form of scratch or cut received in said event regardless of size can be seen as an injury and therefore the grounds of an assault charge. Then there's the classic emotional damages...

[superluser]

Thats the thing though. Many people can claim assault by simply claiming to have also been injured. Considering the persons reaction to the law, and their own violent nature, there would have been a struggle and any form of scratch or cut received in said event regardless of size can be seen as an injury and therefore the grounds of an assault charge. Then there's the classic emotional damages...

Did you read the law?

§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
    A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
    1.  With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
    2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
    3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
    Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

With intent to cause *physical* injury to another person, he causes *such* injury.  So if you didn't mean to injure him, but you did, then it's not assault unless you were reckless or using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

Assault in the first and second degrees look to be more complicated, but a quick scan suggests that you can't commit them unless you meet the criteria for assault in the third degree.

[Xuzaf D]

Yes I did read the law.

§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
    A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
    1.  With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
    2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
    3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
    Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

With intent to cause *physical* injury to another person, he causes *such* injury.  So if you didn't mean to injure him, but you did, then it's not assault unless you were reckless or using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

Do I need to comment? Can you not tell that the idea of jumping a vampire slayer might actually be considered reckless?

[techmaster-glitch]

Only you seem to be considering it reckless, ya coward.

[Xuzaf D]

WOW MAN. SO NICE TO SEE YOU MAKE SUCH NICE CALCULATED POSTS IN THIS THREAD.

Seriously though, did you just read the last post and comment at random in an attempt to seem awesome?

[techmaster-glitch]

Uh, no. I've been reading this entire thread every time a new post is up, and I find your constant gabbering about reckless annoying. It's not until now that I said something about it.

As Aridas put it adequately:

They're multiple people up against an unarmed man. If you think you're in any danger you're an idiot.

[Xuzaf D]

Actually, we've been talking about assault. You would know that if you have read more than just my last post.

[techmaster-glitch]

Hmm, I do see where I have made a mistake, and I apologize.
But your post was a little misleading,

the idea of jumping a vampire slayer might actually be considered reckless

The way you worded it seemed to imply you were taking this in another direction. But let's go back over everything:

An obviously insane person starts beating up a lost bird.
Going hypothetical, someone (or several someones) get up and atempt to restrain the man.
Said man possibly resists, resulting in the need for the restrainers to use force in self-defence.
Said man is accidentally injured in the process.

First off, as superluser has quoted from a (at least a NY one) legal document, this cannont be classified as even third degree assault.
Taking that into account, I simply do not see how this is reckless.

And again, I apologize for this
'Only you seem to be considering it reckless, ya coward.'

[Xuzaf D]

You fail to understand that responsibility would fall on the party who initiated physical contact. If these "restrainers" force themselves on to the man and he tries to struggle loose and the group then proceeds to "use force" on him, then they have acted in a way which lead to injuries and we would have a case of assault.

Secondly, you also don't understand that being as safe as can be in a situation does not nullify the concept of recklessness. Recklessness does not just apply to ones own party, but the party (or parties) they act upon as well. The very idea of unintentionally harming someone due to the lack of forethought is definitely under the definition of reckless.

So in closing: hurting people is illegal.



-edited for extra vowel-

[Netrogo]

Okay honestly WHY are we debating this. All the arguments aside the bird didn't deserve to die, and frankly 'Van Helsing' there deserves to be beat with bricks until it stops being funny. Fuck, the guys either a COMPLETE fucking asshole, completely cracked out of his fucking mind, or just plain nuts. Either way he shouldn't be on the streets and if he's one of the first two, he deserves whatever the fuck comes to him. God!

[techmaster-glitch]

Edit: To Dalmunda:
You're still completely missing the point of just stopping this maniac, by any means on hand, but instead using only those that are neccesary.

But if I owned a gun, and I happened to be on the scene, the moment the guy beating on the peacock yells "I'M KILLING A VAMPIRE!", betraying his obvious insanity, I probably would have shot the man though the head and be merciful on the peacock and him, life sentance in prison be damned. (I certainly wouldn't have pleaded 'not guilty' in court)

Ok, that's harsh. I really would have just taken out a leg to incapacitate him.


EDIT:To Netrogo:
Thank you Netrogo. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[xHaZxMaTx]

I don't know, Netrogo, why are you still debating it?

[techmaster-glitch]

He was talking about debating weather or not it was ok with the law to stop this hellsing wannabe, not the actual act of doing so.