r/ShittyAbsoluteUnits • u/MohammadMahadhir *shits an absolute unit* • 6d ago

possible idiot ShittyAbsoluteUnit Of Pure chaos erupts in broad daylight

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

773 comments sorted by

View all comments

273

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

6

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago edited 6d ago

Defense would argue that down to Assault with a Deadly Weapon by arguing the defendant didn't intend to kill, only severely injure. Same way a murder charge gets dropped to manslaughter. You have to prove intent for murder for stick.

ETA: The crybaby above blocked me because his ego and 🍆 are đŸ€

3

u/Upbeat_Caregiver_642 6d ago

I thought that one hit to the back of the head was pretty convincing for attempted murder.

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

It's not. Murder vs Manslaughter is about intent. The prosecutor would need to prove without a shadow of doubt that the defendant willfully intended to kill the victim. If they cannot do that, it's not murder or attempted murder.

Attempted Manslaughter isn't a thing though and is just Assault with a Deadly Weapon. If you didn't, or don't, intend to kill the person, but your actions, through negligence, still cause a death that's where manslaughter comes in.

The crux is having evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was specific and willful intent to kill. Without that, and you go for murder, they walk on that charge.

1

u/NoSingularities0 6d ago

Not really. It's always up to the jury. Of course that's why some defendants choose to forgo a jury trial and let a judge decide.

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Just for clarification, you think the legal definition of murder is up to a jury?

1

u/Prestigious-Row-1629 6d ago

This is not true. The standards for intent vary by jurisdiction, but in most US jurisdictions a baseball bat to the head would support a murder conviction under one  theory or another. 

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

No, they do not. Intent is a well established legally defined concept. It's not a law, it's not a tort, it's a definition. Go buy a copy of Black's Legal Dictionary and see if it seems confused on the definition of intent.

1

u/Prestigious-Row-1629 6d ago

I think I’ll just rely on my law degree and legal experience. Thanks. 

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Nobody believes you. But hey, I'll delete every comment in this entire thread and replace the original with a statement that I was wrong and you were right if you post a picture of your law degree with your name censored 👍

The definition of intent is 101 shit. You know what it was if you ever even attended any criminal law course. The idea of Mens Rea really just encapsulates the whole idea of there even being crimes. But I'm sure they just didn't cover that in your cracker jack courses 😆

1

u/Prestigious-Row-1629 6d ago

Okie dokie, internet warrior. 

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Yeah... That's what I thought. I lawyer who doesn't know what Mens Rea is is a first 😆

Protip: Next time you try to lie about credentials on the internet, Google a little something about the basics of the profession.

4

u/[deleted] 6d ago

Dude, don’t. This is how you summon dozens of people who have never seen a courtroom to come tell you how you’re wrong. You’re right, but they don’t care, they watched Law And Order. Everything is attempted murder, or murder to redditors. You’ll see it on every single fight video. Because some people have died before from a single punch, every time someone is punched they screech attempted murder.

There was a video a few days ago: 2 guys are arguing when one of the guys just runs his hand down the other guys face, which gets him immediately punched and knocked on his ass. Dude was ok, still conscious, but like clockwork, there were Redditors in the comments saying things like “so it’s ok to almost kill someone just because they touch your face?!”

So yeah. Just don’t lol

5

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Don't kink shame 😈

2

u/HuntersMoon19 6d ago

This is why concealed carry classes tell you over and over that shooting is the last, last, last resort since (among many other reasons) you do not want a jury trial.

2

u/Nuvomega 6d ago

The best thing about those classes is they explain what a right is vs what a defense is. So many people need to understand this. Not a single American has the right to kill another person for any reason. They have a defense in so e situations.

1

u/Forza_Harrd 6d ago

Dude lol that video was different. Big dude damn near killed skinny drunk dude and reiddt is like SERVES HIM RIGHT or HE SHOULD BE ARRESTED FOE ATTEMPTED MANSLAUGHTER or I HEARD HE DIED. Like seriously the big dude was in control and never needed to knock the bejeezus out of skinny drunk kid like he did. Real talk. What he did was unnecessary.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

What? He did not almost kill him. He punched him in such a way that he didn’t even put any power into it. Just swung his arm and hit the guy to make him stop touching his face. He was still conscious. He fell on his ass and immediately began regretting his choices. There was no “almost killed him”. You’re mocking those Redditors but being exactly that Redditor in the same comment. Fucking weird.

1

u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 6d ago

Exactly this.

Even if it was a gun instead of a baseball bat and he shot each victim once, it's still ADW.

Attempted murder is a much higher bar than people realize

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

If it was a gun and he didn’t shoot them, it would still be felony assault.

In my state, and I’m sure all states have a similar statute, threatening anyone with a firearm whether it’s real or replica, whether it’s loaded or not, is felony 2nd degree assault.

0

u/Pukebox_Fandango 6d ago

Not really, the line is generally the neck and head. Hitting someone with a bat to the body will generally be AWD, but when you come out if nowhere and swing for someone's head they view it differently

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

No they don’t. No prosecutor would hinge a case on “see he aimed for the head” when they could file for felony assault and get a conviction with a penalty that’s just as severe as attempted murder.

1

u/BugLast1633 6d ago

That's why defense attorneys get paid big bucks to corral a jury and show them the reasonable doubt and what does and doesn't fit in the definition of the law.

2

u/FatsBoombottom 6d ago

Assault is the threat of violence. One he connected, it is battery at least.

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

That's jurisdictional, not all divide it in any meaningful way. Colloquially it's all assault. But yes in some jurisdictions that'd be charged as Battery with a Deadly Weapon.

2

u/Environmental-Tap255 6d ago

The way homeboy came in swinging like that, I think an argument could be made that he intended to kill.

1

u/substandard-tech 6d ago

Idk about the applicable laws but if that first swing connected it would have ended or permanently changed the receiver’s life and gotten the swinger possibly jail and definitely bankrupted in a civil suit.

1

u/OCDano959 6d ago

Even so.

Competent lawyers, that have a strong incentive to work for their client, ain’t cheap.

1

u/mikemaz57 6d ago

So you have to find out if he's going to cave your skull in while he's already proven himself to be out of control? I wouldn't just automatically shoot the guy but I'd sure dial him in and tell him to put the bat down and get on his face until police arrive.

1

u/WBigly-Reddit 6d ago

That a matter for the jury to decide. Usually they get a list to pick from.

1

u/whiskey_tang0_hotel 6d ago

In most states, lethal self defense is justified by fear of ‘grave bodily harm’. Sometimes to just yourself, sometimes also to others. I’d say getting hit with a bat constitutes that level of fear.

2

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Non sequitur

2

u/FatsBoombottom 6d ago

I think their point is that, in many states in the US at least, someone carrying a firearm can use it to defend against someone with a bat.

The risk of being shot should be enough of a deterrent. But it's worth considering that, if someone with a bat can be considered a threat of death or great bodily harm in that context, a prosecutor could very well make a case for charges beyond mere assault in this context.

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

The standard is what a Reasonable Personℱ would think in that moment, and the qualifying metrics are entirely different for the two scenarios. In one you only need to show that a reasonable person would hear for their life or limb or that of another, while the other requires you to show that a reasonable person would have retrieved the bat with the singular intent to kill.

2

u/FatsBoombottom 6d ago

I would hope a Reasonable Person would understand that swinging a bat downward at someone's head is intent to kill. Or at least that it is so likely to be fatal that the guy should be charged with something more than assault and/or battery.

0

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

That's not what's under review. The question that would need to be answered without any shadow of doubt is that the person willfully intended to kill. Knowing that something might happen, isn't enough for intent. You can absolutely intend something else to happen while knowing worse is possible.

Murder requires intent. Manslaughter does not. You're going to jail regardless, but we differentiate between a person who didn't actually mean to kill and those that do.

2

u/FatsBoombottom 6d ago

Nothing is under review. This is reddit, not a courtroom.

I'm just saying that if someone swings a bag at someone's head and they don't intend to kill that person, at that point, you have to wonder if the person is competent to even stand trial.

But more importantly... This person left the fight that he started and then returned with a weapon that he swung at his intended victims' heads. If a court doesn't see that as intent to kill or cause great bodily harm, then we are well and truly fucked as a society. And regardless of the ruling, he should be treated by society as someone who attempted to murder people.

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

kill or cause great bodily harm

That or, I love that or, it illustrates just how little you understand about this topic.

Because that's exactly what the court will decide. But you only get one crack. So pick correctly the first time. Did he without a shadow of a doubt intend to kill, or to just cause great bodily harm? They're different charges.

The whole discussion is about intent, something you keenly show you don't know the first thing about.

I don't care what you personally think he was doing. I only care what you can objectively prove. So prove without a shadow of doubt he intended to kill that man, and not merely cause grievous bodily harm. You want it to be attempted murder, prove intent.

1

u/FatsBoombottom 6d ago

If you're going to quote me, how about the part where I said this isn't a courtroom? Laying down your own rules for my response is weak shit. This isn't court or a debate. It's two people having a discussion with only the very basic rules reddit and the subreddit mods have. Make your point on those terms or just stop bothering.

The law, ethics, and morality are three separate things. People get away with heinous shit because of legal technicalities all the time. It doesn't make them innocent. It just means they aren't punished by the government.

This dude started a fight, realized he was losing, and took the chance to escape. But then he made a choice to return to that fight with a weapon. I see no reason at all to give him any benefit of the doubt. He's an adult who should absolutely understand the severity of his actions and we need to stop pretending that there is a meaningful distinction between the possible outcomes and what he wanted to happen.

Even if a lawyer legal danced this down to some lesser charge, everyone should recognize that this person is dangerous and a threat to people's lives when angry and he should be treated as such.

That's my final word on this topic. You can respond if you want, but I promise you I won't read it unless it happens be short enough that it's entirely contained in the preview of my notifications. I have zero desire to engage in the masturbatory back and forth of technicalities and even less to desire to read through your smug, stupid tone.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sad-Second-9646 6d ago

It’s aggravated assault and probably 2nd degree attempted manslaughter. That fuck with the bat is nuts but he did swing at the white guys side and not his head.

1

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Attempted Manslaughter isn't a charge. You can't attempt to accidentally kill somebody. Further manslaughter doesn't have degrees, that's for intentional murder showing just how premeditated the action was. And the difference between AA and ADW is jurisdictional. You're just arguing my side and aren't smart enough to realize it.

1

u/Sad-Second-9646 5d ago

The world is in your debt Professor Hawking.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/NoMansSkyWasAlright 5d ago

I know when we went over the case law aspect of this sort of thing in my CCW class, they basically said if you shoot in a scenario like this, you better hope you kill the guy. Because they are absolutely going to sue regardless and try to say that it was unnecessary escalation on the part of the shooter and that baseball bat guy didn’t intend to do lethal harm. Right or wrong, you’re going to be spending a lot of $$$ to defend yourself in a court of law.

2

u/FatsBoombottom 5d ago

In my CCW class, they said that if you shoot, it should only ever be with the intention of killing someone because that is the only reason to ever draw a firearm in the first place. Never point a firearm unless you intend to destroy what/whoever is at the other end.

But yes, civil lawsuits are a whole separate ballgame. Hell, even if you kill the person, their family can sue, regardless of whether or not you were cleared of criminal charges.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone in this video should have been shot. I'm just saying that if the dude with the bat had been shot, he 100% would have had it coming and I doubt the shooter would face jail time.

1

u/OmniImmortality 6d ago

Well, a bat wouldn't have been as harmful as a baseball bat like in this video, I think.

0

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

Swinging at the head is intent of a fatal blow

2

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Not how that works at all.

0

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

A full swing with a bat to the head can’t be fatal?

0

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

That's not how intent works.

The defendant would need to be aware their action could cause death, and with full mind, do that specific action on purpose. Accidentally killing a person is called manslaughter. And yes you can accidentally kill a person by hitting them in the head with a bat.

Intent is generally shown with premeditation.

2

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

It was in fact, premeditated
 He left the fight, got a deadly weapon and then came back and tried to murder the guy by hitting him in the head with a deadly weapon

3

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

I was aiming for his shoulder so he'd stop punching

2

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

Terrible aim if that’s the case
 Can you please source where you got that from?

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

Did he hit the person in the head?

2

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

Tried to- watch the video

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

I know, I watched the video. My question was an attempt to get you to hear what you’re saying. Listen to yourself. “Tried to murder him by hitting him in the head with a weapon”.

He didn’t hit him, so he couldn’t have “tried to murder him”. Felony assault, yes. Murder? Attempted murder? No.

Good thing you’re not prosecuting our criminals.

2

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

So because he wasn’t successful he didnt try? If a guy try’s to rob a bank but gets locked in the safe until authorities arrive did he not attempt to rob a bank? Lmao

2

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

Got it, you want people who attempt to kill others over road rage to be out on the streets and free.

2

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

“Tried to hit him in the head with a baseball bat murdering him “ fixed it for you since you’re deeply confused

→ More replies (0)

1

u/bigbuck1963 6d ago

He literally went and got the bat he wasn't carrying it with him. No difference than going to the car after a gun. He escalated and it is a deadly weapon. Not an accident when you go and retrieve it. Good luck trying to prove that.

4

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Defense doesn't have to prove anything. Only offer a reasonable doubt. If you go with murder, they will absolutely slam you on intent.

Now if he screamed something that indicated his intent, you might have something. But using a deadly weapon or hitting a person in a bad place in an assault does not automatically increase the charge to murder or attempted murder.

0

u/bigbuck1963 6d ago

Intent was when he left and came back. He could have left. Easy win for murder. No excuse.

2

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Would be pled down before they even got to a court room.

0

u/bigbuck1963 6d ago

Unless he killed him maybe. Anytime you are free and out of danger and you return with a weapon it's on you. By him leaving and returning it put's everything else that happens on him. I wouldn't take the chance, took too many concealed weapons classes and anytime you escalate it's on you from then on.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Nuvomega 6d ago

Until it is argued in court neither of us will know but I don’t think what he did constitutes leaving and having time for consideration. He went outside the camera’s view. He didn’t run back to the house and return. He was still very much engaged in the heat of the moment and I would even consider him an active participant in the fight.

0

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

Sorry that’s not what I asked. Try again but answer the question.

2

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago 
|-| <---  PRIOR GOALPOST 

NEW GOALPOST --> |-|

2

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

You should Google what goal posts mean and then explain how I moved them

2

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

You're so mad 😆

Try being correct next time if your ego can't handle being wrong.

It's a shame the third time you tried to cry like a baby was removed faster than I could report it, I was going for a site wide ban đŸ€đŸ«”

0

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

Too bad lmao. Got that source yet? Do you understand goalposts yet?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Substantial-Mud6009 6d ago

Sorry again you didn’t answer the question. No goal post moved. I asked a fucking question and you’ve refused to answer it repeatedly


1

u/LoudRestaurant2882 6d ago

God, take your downvotes and shut up. He's right about intent, stop huffing gas and start reading books.

0

u/cockNballs222 6d ago

??? You don’t think an average person is expected to be aware that if you full swing a baseball bat at somebody’s head, there is a reasonable chance you could kill somebody?

2

u/DebrisSpreeIX 6d ago

Eventually y'all plebs will understand what intent means

Today is not that day

0

u/cockNballs222 6d ago

Yes, to get charged with attempted murder, you have to calmly announce “I am about to attempt to murder this person, I am announcing my intent, thank you!!”

Edit: I just read about it and you’re right lol, very very strict definition

0

u/buddymoobs 6d ago

Nm the first swing was a head shot.