Self-Defense or Destruction of Property: Barista’s Revenge -Who is Guilty?

Disputes between employees and customers happen every day. But what goes down in this viral video gets out of hand. Is this a case of self-defense or destruction of property?

Details of the Video

The man in the video became upset after the owner charged him $20 for water and coffee. He asked the barista for a $5 discount but threw the coffee at her when she didn’t oblige.

The woman then grabs a hammer and uses it to shatter his windshield. Is her activity self-defense or destruction of property?

Throwing a Drink at Someone Could Land You in Jail

First, let’s examine the man’s actions. He threw liquid at the woman, which can qualify as aggravated assault.

Aggravated assault can be classified as a misdemeanor or a felony. It counts as a misdemeanor if you:

• Commit reckless or intentional actions that lead to injury (Class 1 misdemeanor)
• Intentionally place a person in a position that may cause them harm (Class 2 misdemeanor)
• Intentionally touch a person to cause them harm (Class 3 misdemeanor

It counts as a felony if:

• The victim is under 15 years old or a prosecutor (Class 2 felony)
• The activity involves a deadly weapon or results in a serious injury (Class 3 felony)
• The person is disfigured (Class 4 felony)
• The activity involves taking a firearm from a police officer (Class 5 felony)
• The activity involves assaulting a healthcare worker or teacher on duty or someone under protective care (Class 6 felony)

However, if the liquid misses or lands only on the person’s clothing or if you throw an empty container, the charge might be reduced to basic assault.

Self Defense or Destruction of Property

So we can establish the man committed a crime against the barista, but was her retaliation self-defense or destruction of property?

Courts will consider several factors when determining if a crime is self-defense. One of these factors is proportional response. The person using self-defense can only use the force necessary to remove the threat.

A court is likely to determine that the barista used excessive force. After all, the man threw liquids at her, which did not appear to be hot. The barista retaliated by utilizing a hammer to smash his windshield, a potentially deadly weapon.

The barista also did not use force to directly protect herself from the man. She used the hammer to smash his windshield. Therefore, she could be guilty of property destruction.

Can Comparative Fault Apply?

Some states have comparative fault laws. For example, in a dog bite case, if the dog bit a person but evidence shows that the person provoked the dog,

If a jury finds the victim was somewhat responsible for the incident, say 10% responsible, the final award would be reduced by 10%.

In this case, you could argue that the man was somewhat responsible for the barista’s actions. However, in a self-defense case, you must typically prove that you believed the plaintiff was about to harm you. For example, if someone is about to punch you and you punch them first, the comparative fault might apply.

The man exhibited violent activity and had the potential to attack the barista. However, you can see he was getting back in his car when she hit his windshield with a hammer. Therefore, it would be difficult for her to claim that she believed she was in danger.

To wrap it up, the woman would be guilty of destroying property. She’s unlikely to claim self-defense. Furthermore, since the windshield likely has significant value, she might face felony charges.