(Hypothetical) Moral Quandary

[Conde Koma]

Disclaimer: This is purely hypothetical and focused on the issue at hand. I'm not interested in what Three Step Qi Power Super Throw you would have done in the character's place, this is purely a discussion of this character's actions only.


George was walking down the street when a homeless man stopped him and grabbed him by the shoulder, asking for money with his free hand. George politely refused, then tried to get free, but the man's grip was firm. Unable to leave and with the man still asking for money, George pulls the man's head down and gouges his eye until released.

Was this an appropriate use of force for the situation? Why or why not?

[Bneterasedmynam]

I would say no it's too easy to cause serious damage with eye gouges especially since there was no real immediate danger.

[Permalost]

Disclaimer: This is purely hypothetical and focused on the issue at hand. I'm not interested in what Three Step Qi Power Super Throw you would have done in the character's place, this is purely a discussion of this character's actions only.


George was walking down the street when a homeless man stopped him and grabbed him by the shoulder, asking for money with his free hand. George politely refused, then tried to get free, but the man's grip was firm. Unable to leave and with the man still asking for money, George pulls the man's head down and gouges his eye until released.

Was this an appropriate use of force for the situation? Why or why not?

No it was not. Gouging someone's eyes while grabbing their head is very damaging and high on a force continuum, while grabbing a shoulder is not. He first should have at least said "Let go of my shoulder or I'll gouge your fucking eyes out!". Also, by escalating the level of force, he's now justified in gouging your eyes, or stabbing you etc. The last thing the homeless need is dysfunctional eyeballs.

[Rivington]

No. Clearly, any homeless person with a grip strong enough to hold someone by the shoulder with his palm and fingers, but whose neck is weak enough to be pulled down by the clearly wimpy George, is clearly some sort of mismatched cyborg from the future, attempting to take George through a time tunnel and stop nuclear Armageddon.

Also, the eye is probably bionic and shoots lasers, so George is dead anyway.

[Joz]

Was this an appropriate use of force for the situation? Why or why not?

No because the level of force, potentialy maiming was dissproportionate.

[M1K3]

My first response was Phil Elmore.

Gouging an eye is inappropriate for the level of threat that had been displayed by the homeless person. Especially since he may have been able to defuse the situation by giving the homeless person some spare change or even a few bucks.

Now comes the however.

However this has to be judged by the past experiences of the gouger, for example he was stopped, beaten badly and robbed by a homeless person in the past then the response may well have been appropriate for that person as he felt threatened and that maybe even his life was in danger.

[Tom .C]

George could have just left him attached to his shoulder and walked around with a "homeless guy lapel pin" the rest of the day.

[twisted mind]

I consider that to be an excessive use of force. From what you have said, the homeless man was not a hostile threat. He should have told the homeless man to let go and then given him a chance to comply before he took action. There are also less damaging ways to make someone let go of you other than gouging them in the eyes..........but then again blind, homeless men might become the new fad for 2011.

[Conde Koma]

...may well have been appropriate for that person as he felt threatened and that maybe even his life was in danger.

this is my big HOWEVER as well, and the reason for the thread. even if George hadn't necessarily been stopped and mugged before, suddenly being grabbed is a pretty stressful experience. and if the bum suddenly pulled a knife, wouldn't it be too late for any other response?

[twisted mind]

if the bum suddenly pulled a knife, wouldn't it be too late for any other response?

I guess we'll never know.

Unless he's like Rutger Hauer in Blind Fury, He'll probably have a rough time trying to shank someone now.

[battheo]

I know this is hypothetical Conde, but realistically the man being homeless has nothing to do with your characters actions. What (if any) was the size disparity between the two men? Was the homeless man aggressive, or simply slow witted? Who else was present on the street, were LEO's or 'innocent bystanders' present that George could have requested help from before deciding to blind the stranger?

If George was physically overwhelmed by a large aggressive opponent, felt genuinely threatened, and had no one else to turn to for aid in subduing the man, then I think George is within his rights to protect himself. But this is only if he felt genuinely physically outclassed enough to resort to 'claw in eye' tactics. a decent restraint would be far more appropriate if George were capable.

I know this type of question gets thrown around alot by the RBSD guys, I think their implication is 'better jail than dead' but I can't help but wonder if someone like Wagner would be able to judge situations appropriately... imagine him permanently blinding a harmless homeless dude? Alternately, imagine him trying that shit on a boxing trained, bodybuilding mugger! Wrestling would be a better bet... giving the dude some cash would be the best.

Moral? Maybe, sometimes, who knows? Wise? No, never.

[wetware]

this is my big HOWEVER as well, and the reason for the thread. even if George hadn't necessarily been stopped and mugged before, suddenly being grabbed is a pretty stressful experience. and if the bum suddenly pulled a knife, wouldn't it be too late for any other response?

George couldn't have cleared the arm and made some space? Or worked a take down with the offered arm? There is no evidence that the bum wanted anything from George other than a little cash. If the bum has a knife he's pretty sure to pull it if HE feels that he's in danger. The homeless are often attacked and sometimes for sport. There's two sides to this.

[Ciderbone]

George was justified in using physical force to free himself from the homeless man grip. This is because George has the right to refuse to give the man a gift, George has the right to move freely without being detained, and George is justified in feeling physically threatened by the combinations of aggressive panhandlings and physicality of the man.

George was not justified in using a technique likely to permanently deprive the homeless man of his eyesight. This is because the level of aggression and threat by the man are not severe enough to make such behaviors reasonable. You say you are not interested in hearing about other techniques he could have used-okay-but there are lots of ways he could protect himself without eye gouging.

:gwbdance:

[Tom .C]

I know this is hypothetical Conde, but realistically the man being homeless has nothing to do with your characters actions.

Duz 2!!! The story is hypothetical and can be anything Conde wants.

[Conde Koma]

I know this is hypothetical Conde, but realistically the man being homeless has nothing to do with your characters actions. What (if any) was the size disparity between the two men? Was the homeless man aggressive, or simply slow witted? Who else was present on the street, were LEO's or 'innocent bystanders' present that George could have requested help from before deciding to blind the stranger?

If George was physically overwhelmed by a large aggressive opponent, felt genuinely threatened, and had no one else to turn to for aid in subduing the man, then I think George is within his rights to protect himself. But this is only if he felt genuinely physically outclassed enough to resort to 'claw in eye' tactics. a decent restraint would be far more appropriate if George were capable.

I know this type of question gets thrown around alot by the RBSD guys, I think their implication is 'better jail than dead' but I can't help but wonder if someone like Wagner would be able to judge situations appropriately... imagine him permanently blinding a harmless homeless dude? Alternately, imagine him trying that shit on a boxing trained, bodybuilding mugger! Wrestling would be a better bet... giving the dude some cash would be the best.

Moral? Maybe, sometimes, who knows? Wise? No, never.

you're absolutely right, the size disparity is probably more important. in the spirit of "keeping all things equal," let's say they are both equally sized. my broader question is a little bit on the social perception of homelessness and a bit on reactions to stressful situations. i suppose it would be a bit more interesting if the man asking for money was a well dressed businessman, but let's keep to one topic for now.