Did I do good?

[InfinitusEquitas]

This is a no brainer. What the kid did, knowingly or not, was aggravated assault.

You were completely in the right in seeking to protect yourself from further harm.

The incident is already on record. To the administration pose it this way... reinstate me, or I file charges for aggravated assault, and whatever charges are applicable against the administration for undue retaliation.

Explain, that a law enforcement officer would be well justified to SHOOT back. That you acted in a manner that was most justified to end the threat to yourself and others, as quickly as possible.

Since this has already progressed to repercussions against you, I would very very seriously consider filing assault charges against the kid, and negligence on the part of the school, and the parents.

 

[Laser Chick]

^^ Perfect!!!! I like the way you think InfinitusEquitas
Exactly what I was getting at but worded differently. You were the victim, don't forget that.

 

[Trendkilla254]

Please re-read my post with the direct examples. I'm not sure if my post was overlooked. :thinking: Those are Case Examples and Precedence. Showing Precedence is what a court would require from an attorney.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

^^^Thought it was a very good post actually.

 

[Benm]

Well, lets look at it from a prosecuters point of view:

Not true at all! You can't 'look away' fast enough to prevent permanent eye injury from a laser of any significant power.

Yes, you can. If you notice one and no damage has occurred yet, the only thing you need to do to prevent damage is not to look at it. You could have walked off looking away from the laser with zero risk of incurring any harm yourself.

The pointer was broken in half so it will no longer hold batteries. This could easily be 'fixed' with duct tape to meter the laser.

This would be similar to arguing that me randomly ramming a side mirror off your car is not an offense since you can simply duct-tape it back on with no loss off function at minimal cost.

You could argue your actions were in self defense, but technically they were not. You could have just walked (and looked) away reducing the risk to yourself to zero by just doing so. He could not have harmed you by shooting you in the back with the laser. What you did, did not reduce your risk of harm, but actually increased it somewhat.

Question is how this would work out if actually brought to court: They could see you as a big bully breaking some poor kids laser toy, in which case you'd be convicted of robbery, vandalism or both. They could see your perspective and appreciate your actions also prevented -others- from bodily harm justifying what you did.

This really could go either way though. I would not be comfortable facing trial even knowing that i did was morally best at the time.

In all honesty i've given people selling powerful laser pointers on the streets of bangkok a stern talking to myself, but i never resorted to physical violence. I've theatened them with putting that thing where the sun doesn't shine though, but that would technically be any place on earth at night

 

[tuskiomi]

Please re-read my post with the direct examples. I'm not sure if my post was overlooked. :thinking: Those are Case Examples and Precedence. Showing Precedence is what a court would require from an attorney.

I saw that and read it. Very helpful!

^^^Thought it was a very good post actually.

Good read!
Update: i spent the day in the office, suspended. No word on a fine. They didn't talk to me. Strange

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Well, lets look at it from a prosecuters point of view:

Yes, you can. If you notice one and no damage has occurred yet, the only thing you need to do to prevent damage is not to look at it. You could have walked off looking away from the laser with zero risk of incurring any harm yourself.

This would be similar to arguing that me randomly ramming a side mirror off your car is not an offense since you can simply duct-tape it back on with no loss off function at minimal cost.

You could argue your actions were in self defense, but technically they were not. You could have just walked (and looked) away reducing the risk to yourself to zero by just doing so. He could not have harmed you by shooting you in the back with the laser. What you did, did not reduce your risk of harm, but actually increased it somewhat.

Question is how this would work out if actually brought to court: They could see you as a big bully breaking some poor kids laser toy, in which case you'd be convicted of robbery, vandalism or both. They could see your perspective and appreciate your actions also prevented -others- from bodily harm justifying what you did.

This really could go either way though. I would not be comfortable facing trial even knowing that i did was morally best at the time.

In all honesty i've given people selling powerful laser pointers on the streets of bangkok a stern talking to myself, but i never resorted to physical violence. I've theatened them with putting that thing where the sun doesn't shine though, but that would technically be any place on earth at night

Completely disagree with you from the standpoint of a US prosecutor. Yes in theory you can also duck from a gun being shot at you, or duck from it's trajectory. That does not lessen the impact of the potential assault.

The question isn't one of actual threat in this case, it's of perceived threat, and that threat was the potential loss of vision. Something not to be taken lightly.

The only sure way to prevent further injury would be to disable the attacker, which is exaclty what tuskiomi did.

In some US states there are even stand your ground laws which would clear him from a lethal response to a perceive threat.

Bottom line from a prosecutor standpoint is, was the action within reason to prevent further harm? Yes. It was.

Update: i spent the day in the office, suspended. No word on a fine. They didn't talk to me. Strange

Most bureaucratic organizations generally do all they can to sweep all incidents under the rug with as little fuss as possible. I don't know your circumstances, but strongly suggest speaking with a lawyer, union rep if you have one, and to consider filing charges. If for no other reason that to cover yourself down the line. As it stands now, on paper, you're the only one who did something wrong, and that can come back to hurt you. Cover yourself. Put a record together, get some people to sign off on statements to confirm your side of the story.

 

[APEX1]

Good job bud! You were in the right here, it's a dam shame you're the one being punished in this situation.

 

[Benm]

Completely disagree with you from the standpoint of a US prosecutor. Yes in theory you can also duck from a gun being shot at you, or duck from it's trajectory. That does not lessen the impact of the potential assault.

The question isn't one of actual threat in this case, it's of perceived threat, and that threat was the potential loss of vision. Something not to be taken lightly.

You cannot duck in time to evade getting hit by a bullet under practical conditions - it might be possible to do so if you could see the muzzle flare from a sniper a mile from you, but it is not viable at distances where you can actually recognize a gun.

Also, you cannot simply reduce the risk of injury to zero when someone is shooting at you. Getting shot in the back of the head instead of the face will not reduce danger to an acceptable level at all.

In case of someone shining a laser at you you can with certainty prevent future eye injury by looking the other way or closing your eyes. This means there was a perfectly non-violent way to evade the danger available to you, but you chose to attack the person with he laser instead - for no legally good reason.

So don't go self-defense on that part, it holds no ground. What could potentially hold is defending your actions because you wanted to keep other people from probable harm. You could argue that you defended the public from the laser that posed an immediate harm to them by taking action.

Legally this would, to some degree, equate to shooting a bankrobber as customer of the bank. Whilst you are not fearing for your own life, you perform a violent act in order to defend the safety of innocent people against a criminal.

I'm not certain that defense would fly with the court, but it is a far better one than stating you were in a position where you could have been harmed yourself unless you took violent action. That clearly is not true in this case.

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

I'm not buying the "look away" solution either. I don't know how that stands legally but from a realistic perspective here, that doesn't make sense. How could he know when it's safe if he doesn't look. It the kid was being malicious should tuskiomi really be expected to take a shot in the eye and then do his best to not look, is he expected to put his hands over his eyes and call for the teacher? If the kids shines the teacher is he/she to just close their eyes and call the police?

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

@Bemn, any action you list, closing eyes, looking away, blocking beam with hand, doesn't actually STOP the attack.

Consider that you're also allowing the attacker the chance to simply come up closer to you, and change the angle of attack.

Consider that help might take time to arrive, and with your eyes closed you don't know that there is any help nearby.

The only action you're left with, is to stop the attacker, preferably (but not with a requirement to do so in many states) with the least amount of violence possible.

 

[Benm]

It would depend on if you can consider this an attack: Was is just some kid dicking around with a laser pointer, or did he have a desire to harm (blind) you for some reason? If the latter was the case you could argue that simply looking and walking away would not have been entire safe, since he could run around you and shine you in the eyes again.

By the initial story i get more of the 'dicking around' sense than that on of an attack aimed at a specific person with the intent of causing bodily harm.

As for stoping the attack or making yourself completely invulnerable to it, there would be no legal difference between them when in comes to self defense. In this case it could be demonstrated that no harm could have come to you if you turned your back, unless this laser was so powerful it could have set your clothes on fire.

I hope this doesnt go to court really, it is hard to excuse taking violent action in a situation where all you had to do to be completely safe was walking (or even looking) away. As there was 10 feet of distance between the laser-wielding kid and you, it would be somewhat illogical to move yourself closer (increasing the risk of harm) just to take the laser from him.

What also works against you is that he was shining it at people at chest level, apparently not trying to hurt these people at all. Shining you close or into the eyes was probably accidental, not intentional.

I understand the actions and reasoning behind them really, but i can't see any legal justification for them. If this kid sues for robbery he might just gets his way since that is technically what happened here. Circumstances and outcome may result in a minimal or zero sentence, but i fear guilt would be established.

 

[tuskiomi]

It would depend on if you can consider this an attack: Was is just some kid dicking around with a laser pointer, or did he have a desire to harm (blind) you for some reason? If the latter was the case you could argue that simply looking and walking away would not have been entire safe, since he could run around you and shine you in the eyes again.

By the initial story i get more of the 'dicking around' sense than that on of an attack aimed at a specific person with the intent of causing bodily harm.

As for stoping the attack or making yourself completely invulnerable to it, there would be no legal difference between them when in comes to self defense. In this case it could be demonstrated that no harm could have come to you if you turned your back, unless this laser was so powerful it could have set your clothes on fire.

I hope this doesnt go to court really, it is hard to excuse taking violent action in a situation where all you had to do to be completely safe was walking (or even looking) away. As there was 10 feet of distance between the laser-wielding kid and you, it would be somewhat illogical to move yourself closer (increasing the risk of harm) just to take the laser from him.

What also works against you is that he was shining it at people at chest level, apparently not trying to hurt these people at all. Shining you close or into the eyes was probably accidental, not intentional.

I understand the actions and reasoning behind them really, but i can't see any legal justification for them. If this kid sues for robbery he might just gets his way since that is technically what happened here. Circumstances and outcome may result in a minimal or zero sentence, but i fear guilt would be established.

there's nothing that isn't an attack about shining a laser in someone's eyes. that's losing an entire organ system.
you can argue that harm would come if you turn your back. have you ever been jumped? do you know who people target when they jump someone? that's right. someone with their back turned.

 

[VisibleGreen]

Benm the point is that it doesn't have to be purposeful, negligent or just plain stupidity, it's the consequences of not being careful with a dangerous object.
What if it was a gun instead? If someone were just waving it around like a moron and someone gets shot it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. That person is going to get full punishment and rightly so.

 

[Pi R Squared]

You shouldn't have grabbed the laser and broke it, you should have imediatlly made a 911 call, the police would have arested the ass hole and if it happened here they may have even shot and killed him and there would have been few questions asked afterwards.

Alan

 

[Alaskan]

I've waited and thought about this for a long time, grabbing that laser away from him put you into a bad situation, don't pay the price for his stupidity, there could have been a different way of dealing with the situation while eliminating the risk of being punished yourself, I think. That said, had he blinded someone with it, no one would be saying you shouldn't have grabbed it.