Daytona veteran beaten up for trying to save turtle's life, police say

[The Annoyed Man]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/dayton ... police-say

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - Three young men were arrested Tuesday after police said they beat up a Navy veteran who asked them to stop torturing a turtle, according to Daytona Beach police.

A woman was walking her toddler around a pond at Wedgewood Apartments and told police she saw three men torturing a turtle. She went home and told her husband, Gary Blough, they were “smashing up a turtle.”

So this story does not address the use of a concealed handgun, but it got me to wondering. In a situation like this, where the agressors were clearly doing something morally/ethically wrong, and presumably illegal, but they are not attacking you, your wife, your child, your dog......in fact, they are torturing a wild animal that belongs to nobody.....it made me ask:

1. Would any of you interfered? If not, why not? If yes, based on what reasoning?
2. If yes, would the situation have justified getting your hand on a weapon first?
3. At what point, if any, did the (human) victim's actions become defensible or indefensible?
4. Stuff like that there.

He DID tell his wife to call the police, so he got that part right. But would interfering the way he did have the same legal effect as "fighting words", reducing your options to defend yourself with deadly force? Stated another way, is "interfering with illegal behavior" different from "fighting words" with respect to self defense?

I hope my questions are making sense. I can tell you that I know that my own inclination would have also been to speak up and say something to them, and if they betrayed even a smudge on of aggression toward me, even just verbally, I might be very tempted to draw down first and ask questions later. But some would call that escalation rather than deescalation. In the meantime, the animal they were torturing was found dead in the pond in a pool of its own blood just afterwards.


Just interested in y'alls opinions.

[Bitter Clinger]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/dayton ... police-say

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - Three young men were arrested Tuesday after police said they beat up a Navy veteran who asked them to stop torturing a turtle, according to Daytona Beach police.

A woman was walking her toddler around a pond at Wedgewood Apartments and told police she saw three men torturing a turtle. She went home and told her husband, Gary Blough, they were “smashing up a turtle.”

So this story does not address the use of a concealed handgun, but it got me to wondering. In a situation like this, where the agressors were clearly doing something morally/ethically wrong, and presumably illegal, but they are not attacking you, your wife, your child, your dog......in fact, they are torturing a wild animal that belongs to nobody.....it made me ask:

1. Would any of you interfered? If not, why not? If yes, based on what reasoning?
2. If yes, would the situation have justified getting your hand on a weapon first?
3. At what point, if any, did the (human) victim's actions become defensible or indefensible?
4. Stuff like that there.

He DID tell his wife to call the police, so he got that part right. But would interfering the way he did have the same legal effect as "fighting words", reducing your options to defend yourself with deadly force? Stated another way, is "interfering with illegal behavior" different from "fighting words" with respect to self defense?

I hope my questions are making sense. I can tell you that I know that my own inclination would have also been to speak up and say something to them, and if they betrayed even a smudge on of aggression toward me, even just verbally, I might be very tempted to draw down first and ask questions later. But some would call that escalation rather than deescalation. In the meantime, the animal they were torturing was found dead in the pond in a pool of its own blood just afterwards.


Just interested in y'alls opinions.

Teens who abuse animals most likely engage in other antisocial behaviors - substance abuse, gang activities, etc. I would have told them to stop and called police. If attacked, I would be forced to defend myself.

[Jusme]

Great post TAM, all of that is thought provoking. I don't know that telling someone to stop doing something that is ethically/morally wrong, even involving a non human, would be considered fighting words. People who delight in torturing animals, have no sense of decency, and would probably not hesitate to turn their aggression toward someone who called them out about their actions.

I have a difficult time, answering hypothetical questions, because each circumstance is different. I would not have approached them unarmed, and once the attack turned towards me, at my age and physical abilities, I would have probably drawn my gun. If they continued the attack, the fact that there were three of them, would make me believe that I was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, and would have reacted accordingly.

But more than likely, I would have tried to be a good witness, even if it meant the death of a turtle, and provided descriptions and, if possible, photographic evidence for the police.

Hopefully, these three wastes of good oxygen, will spend plenty of time behind bars. I don't know what kind of turtle it was, but there are some species Federally protected, so, hopefully, the Feds, can put even more time on their incarceration.

[bblhd672]

Teens who abuse animals most likely engage in other antisocial behaviors - substance abuse, gang activities, etc. I would have told them to stop and called police. If attacked, I would be forced to defend myself.

Unfortunately these days when dealing with certain people, getting involved beyond calling the police increases your risk of personal harm. Nothing that has happened the last 8 years or so gives any pause to people that committing an offense against your person has consequences. Further, as a criminal you are almost guaranteed to find a percentage of the population who will give you a pass for any number of reasons for committing a crime against another person.

[The Annoyed Man]

Great post TAM, all of that is thought provoking. I don't know that telling someone to stop doing something that is ethically/morally wrong, even involving a non human, would be considered fighting words. People who delight in torturing animals, have no sense of decency, and would probably not hesitate to turn their aggression toward someone who called them out about their actions.

I have a difficult time, answering hypothetical questions, because each circumstance is different. I would not have approached them unarmed, and once the attack turned towards me, at my age and physical abilities, I would have probably drawn my gun. If they continued the attack, the fact that there were three of them, would make me believe that I was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, and would have reacted accordingly.

But more than likely, I would have tried to be a good witness, even if it meant the death of a turtle, and provided descriptions and, if possible, photographic evidence for the police.

Hopefully, these three wastes of good oxygen, will spend plenty of time behind bars. I don't know what kind of turtle it was, but there are some species Federally protected, so, hopefully, the Feds, can put even more time on their incarceration.

From the picture, it appears to be some kind of sea turtle. I think that those species are all protected......but I don't know much about it.

Injured Turtle

[Jusme]

Great post TAM, all of that is thought provoking. I don't know that telling someone to stop doing something that is ethically/morally wrong, even involving a non human, would be considered fighting words. People who delight in torturing animals, have no sense of decency, and would probably not hesitate to turn their aggression toward someone who called them out about their actions.

I have a difficult time, answering hypothetical questions, because each circumstance is different. I would not have approached them unarmed, and once the attack turned towards me, at my age and physical abilities, I would have probably drawn my gun. If they continued the attack, the fact that there were three of them, would make me believe that I was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, and would have reacted accordingly.

But more than likely, I would have tried to be a good witness, even if it meant the death of a turtle, and provided descriptions and, if possible, photographic evidence for the police.

Hopefully, these three wastes of good oxygen, will spend plenty of time behind bars. I don't know what kind of turtle it was, but there are some species Federally protected, so, hopefully, the Feds, can put even more time on their incarceration.

From the picture, it appears to be some kind of sea turtle. I think that those species are all protected......but I don't know much about it.

seaturtle.jpg

I don't think that is the same turtle, I think that was part of another article/story in the link. But I could be wrong. If that is the turtle, or of the same species, there are severe Federal penalties for harming/killing sea turtles.

[locke_n_load]

I am NOT a lawyer and this is not legal advice, this is only my opinion.

Just looking at a Texas Law standpoint:

Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS. (a) In this section:
(2) "Animal" means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. The term does not include an uncaptured wild living creature or a livestock animal.
(8) "Torture" includes any act that causes unjustifiable pain or suffering.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(5) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner;
(c) An offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), (5), (6), or (9) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a state jail felony if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section, two times under Section 42.09, or one time under this section and one time under Section 42.09. An offense under Subsection (b)(1), (2), (7), or (8) is a state jail felony, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section, two times under Section 42.09, or one time under this section and one time under Section 42.09.

So it looks like torturing a previously not captured wild animal is not crime, while torturing a previously captured animal (I'm thinking like a zoo) or a dog or cat is a crime, and a felony in fact, which is important for the next section.

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

So a regular citizen can make a "citizen's arrest" if they witness a felony in person.

Now to use your handgun as a threat of force:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

You must be justified in using force to produce your weapon as a threat, but are you justified to use force to make an arrest as a citizen? From 9.51:

(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

So you need to state the purpose of the arrest to the person arrested before using force, so you would not be able to use the production of a handgun as a threat until you had stated that purpose.

So in your scenario, had it happened in Texas, the torturing of the turtle sounds like it is not against the law. And before you say that the clause is written that way to protect hunting, there is an exception for that already.

I think the only way for a person to use their handgun as a threat in this scenario would be to make an arrest during a felony, since protecting animals that aren't your own isn't covered under use of force in chapter 9.

Now had they been torturing a cat or dog, it would have been a felony, at which point you could make a citizen's arrest, and you could display your handgun as a threat of force only after you told the person committing the felony why they were being arrested.

I am NOT a lawyer and this is not legal advice, this is only my opinion.

[bblhd672]

Police found the turtle, dead, floating in the pond in a puddle of blood.

“The animal likely suffered greatly during the time it was being battered by the three defendants,” the officer wrote in the arrest report.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

To paraphrase Captain Ramius in 'Hunt for Red October'; "I know this situation. The veteran acted stupidly".

Animal cruelty is an indicator/precursor of sociopaths, gangbangers, drug use, future serial killers, etc

1) drop a dime to the cops/game warden before doing ANYTHING else. 2) Be a good witness (preferably with video). 3) If your heart bleeds sufficiently for reptiles/amphibians/lower food species that much, and you're not factoring in the 3-on-1/age/physical disparity of force to indicate to you that you have an equalizer available, .......

Q1: other than #1 & #2 above, probably not.
Q2: good situational awareness, strategy, and tactics would have indicated having one available
Q3: ethically/morally defensible - perhaps from the beginning. legally defensible when/if things go downhill - gray area.
Q4: 'F' in situational awareness, strategy, and tactics. If you engage a superior force armored by nothing more than moral indignation, expect things not to end well......

[WTR]

Three kids kill a turtle, and you guys are talking about drawing your pistols?

What about them attacking a Disabled Vet escapes you?

[WTR]

Three kids kill a turtle, and you guys are talking about drawing your pistols?

What about them attacking a Disabled Vet escapes you?

So this story does not address the use of a concealed handgun, but it got me to wondering. In a situation like this, where the agressors were clearly doing something morally/ethically wrong, and presumably illegal, but they are not attacking you, your wife, your child, your dog......in fact, they are torturing a wild animal that belongs to nobody.....it made me ask:

Would any of you interfered? If not, why not? If yes, based on what reasoning?

If yes, would the situation have justified getting your hand on a weapon first?

At what point, if any, did the (human) victim's actions become defensible or indefensible?

This, mostly.[/quote

Putting the animal cruelty aside, once the scum lay a hand on me, I'm fearing for my life and lead flies.

[wheelgun1958]

Perhaps a couple of pictures and a call to the game warden would have been appropriate.

[rotor]

What other species tortures for the sake of torture? These three "kids" are sick and demented and very likely would have killed the man that asked them to stop. He did suffer facial fractures and I believe that he would have been in his right to use deadly force, at least in Texas.

The fact that he was a veteran (I am one too) just has no bearing on the story. Three kids torturing a living creature for the fun of it and you better be able to protect yourself if you decide to physically intervene. Interviews with the young killers in Chicago show that they kill without remorse. It just doesn't bother them. Some things are just best left to the police.