Crime Victim Uses Submission Hold; Suspect Eventually Dies. Now What?

[Bill Mattocks]

Interesting story. From what I can glean, I'd have to come down on the side of the victim here; the suspect authored his own demise when he leaped upon the victim. However, I agree that when the threat subsides, so must the response. In this case, I don't think that threshold was exceeded; but perhaps I do not know the entire story.

In any case, it's yet another cautionary tale - this man may well end up in a courtroom, even if it is to respond to a lawsuit - so just being in the right legally does not always mean you walk away without consequences...

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/Crime-victim-uses-submission-hold-alleged-burgl?urn=mma-wp1243


Back in July of 2010, Montalvo fought off a burglar, slapped on a submission hold and left Douglas Uhler (http://www.nj.com/messenger-gazette/index.ssf/2011/04/douglas_richard_uhler_of_bridgewater_dies_at_age_1 9.html) unconscious on the street. Uhler never fully recovered and died yesterday at 19 years old.

[SFC JeffJ]

Well, that's one cockbite who won't be assaulting or robbing anybody else. Pity he was so young though. He might have been able to get out of that life.


Jeff

[K-man]

Seems to me the guy should go to jail. He injured a guy so badly that he died. That has to be manslaughter. He was not protecting property and it can not be self defence. He had chased the guys to the next block so there was no longer a threat. It could be argued that the guy who died was trying to protect his mate who had been knocked out. Technically you could argue that that was assault (or battery).

That's not to say the thieves were blameless but you can't be judge, jury and executioner.


Manslaughter is the killing or cause to death of a person without a pre-meditation or intention to kill or cause death.

[Bill Mattocks]

Here's some more information:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/bridgewater_teen_accused_in_ca.html


The street justice was administered by a 42-year-old Bridgewater man who heard people breaking into his car. A grand jury considered charges against the man, identified in court papers as Alex Montalvo, but none were brought.


"New Jersey law allows you to defend your physical self as well as your property," said Jenny Carroll, an associate professor at Seton Hall Law School. "You’re allowed to kill people under certain circumstances, particularly self-defense. If I jump on you, you’re allowed to do what is required to make me stop hurting you. But if I pause, you can’t just start kicking me in the head."
Carroll said there are no clear-cut answers.
"Here’s the trick in this case — did the homeowner exceed the need to protect his property?" she said. "If the kids are still in the process of taking the homeowner’s property, then he has a right to defend his property and to use force. The prosecutor must decide whether the homeowner used justifiable force, and whether it was reasonable.
"Even in the heat of passion, if you’re trying to subdue someone, it isn’t reasonable to kill them," Carroll said.
However, she said, the homeowner was defending himself against two people and might not have realized he was "using deadly force."
"I understand the dad’s emotional response and he may have a legal basis for it," Carroll said. "We have a dead kid and a homeowner who says his car was broken into. He could have stayed inside the house and just called the cops."


The father of the dead boy has said that there is no proof his son was involved in the break-in, and since he was never taken to trial for it (he was judged incompetent to stand trial due to the injuries he received), we'll never know. However, his friend and the person he was apparently defending that night has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.

I think if it was me, I'd have stayed inside and called the police; not because I feared killing someone, but because I feared getting killed myself. Those kids could have been armed; there is nothing in my car worth my life. However, it seems that according to NJ law, the man did have the right to pursue the criminals he observed taking his property. Having knocked out the first suspect, he was set upon by the second suspect, and at that point, it was self-defense (my opinion). Since the Grand Jury investigated and no-billed it, I think that's it as far as criminal prosecution goes. However, he might still be sued. Win or lose, it's going to cost a lot of time and money. I wonder if that was worth whatever the kids were stealing?

[LuckyKBoxer]

On July 31 at 3:39 a.m. in Bridgewater, N.J., Montalvo and his wife heard their car alarm go off. The 42-year-old ran to the street, identified two suspects and chased them to the next block.


this alone is going to more likely then not open the guy up for civil charges.
he pursued the men after they had given up their crime and were fleeing. Any good lawyer will state that the kids felt they were being attacked by the 42 year old and felt they could not escape so had to turn to "defend" themselves.

my guess is the guy will most likely not be criminally charged since the trial will most likely be iffy at best to get a conviction and will likely be high profile and costly.

the civil lawsuit that is going to come is most likely going to hurt this guy very badly though.

my opinions... but it is what it is.

[Bill Mattocks]

this alone is going to more likely then not open the guy up for civil charges.
he pursued the men after they had given up their crime and were fleeing. Any good lawyer will state that the kids felt they were being attacked by the 42 year old and felt they could not escape so had to turn to "defend" themselves.

my guess is the guy will most likely not be criminally charged since the trial will most likely be iffy at best to get a conviction and will likely be high profile and costly.

the civil lawsuit that is going to come is most likely going to hurt this guy very badly though.

my opinions... but it is what it is.

I don't know about his pursuit being a problem.

Citizens generally have the right to arrest people whom they have witnessed to commit a felony; in some cases, even a misdemeanor. Almost every state I can think of would have no legal problem with a person pursuing a person they had witnessed committing a crime; it does not matter that they are no longer doing it.

If I see someone knock over a little old lady and run off with her purse, I can pursue him as a citizen. Even if he throws away the purse while he's running and I know that, I can tackle the sucker and hold him for the police - even if it means knocking him out by punching or choking him.

That doesn't mean I am justified in using deadly force on him - in some states yes, in some states no. However if his buddy jumps out of the bushes at me and attacks me and I choke him out as well, it becomes a different situation. Now it's self-defense if I reasonably thought my life was in danger and I am justified in using deadly force in most states.

The fact that the Grand Jury no-billed kind of says it for me. As to civil suit - sure, anyone can sue for anything. I don't know if they will in this case, and if they do, if they'll prevail. About all they could argue would be the facts of the final assault, though. I don't think that the initial pursuit could play a part in it; the family argues that their son wasn't even there, right? If he wasn't there, he wasn't being chased, so the legality of the chase itself doesn't matter at all. What matters in this issue would be what happened from the moment that their son allegedly jumped out at the guy. They could dispute that he actually attacked him, or that as you said, he thought he was defending his buddy - his buddy who admitted he was burglarizing the victim's property...hmmm.

In any case - I'd still have stayed inside if it had been me. Not because I didn't have the right to defend my property - but because I don't want to get shot or sued over a stereo tape deck.

[SFC JeffJ]

Now that I've done the research, I retract my previous comment. I know better than that for crying out loud.

Also, someone might want to check the language filter and add the word I used.

Jeff

[Cryozombie]

Also, someone might want to check the language filter and add the word I used.

Jeff

Cockbite? But thats such a great term!

[Bill Mattocks]

Cockbite? But thats such a great term!

I wonder if I can say skidmark without it being filtered?

[Bill Mattocks]

I wonder if I can say skidmark without it being filtered?

Ayup.

[punisher73]

I don't know about his pursuit being a problem.

Citizens generally have the right to arrest people whom they have witnessed to commit a felony; in some cases, even a misdemeanor. Almost every state I can think of would have no legal problem with a person pursuing a person they had witnessed committing a crime; it does not matter that they are no longer doing it.

If I see someone knock over a little old lady and run off with her purse, I can pursue him as a citizen. Even if he throws away the purse while he's running and I know that, I can tackle the sucker and hold him for the police - even if it means knocking him out by punching or choking him.

That doesn't mean I am justified in using deadly force on him - in some states yes, in some states no. However if his buddy jumps out of the bushes at me and attacks me and I choke him out as well, it becomes a different situation. Now it's self-defense if I reasonably thought my life was in danger and I am justified in using deadly force in most states.

The fact that the Grand Jury no-billed kind of says it for me. As to civil suit - sure, anyone can sue for anything. I don't know if they will in this case, and if they do, if they'll prevail. About all they could argue would be the facts of the final assault, though. I don't think that the initial pursuit could play a part in it; the family argues that their son wasn't even there, right? If he wasn't there, he wasn't being chased, so the legality of the chase itself doesn't matter at all. What matters in this issue would be what happened from the moment that their son allegedly jumped out at the guy. They could dispute that he actually attacked him, or that as you said, he thought he was defending his buddy - his buddy who admitted he was burglarizing the victim's property...hmmm.

In any case - I'd still have stayed inside if it had been me. Not because I didn't have the right to defend my property - but because I don't want to get shot or sued over a stereo tape deck.

A good defense attorney is going to say that they didn't even commit the crime. They were going to commit it, but then changed their mind when the alarm went off and tried to leave. They never actually commited anything, it was attempted. Just playing devil's advocate.

There are a lot of factors in the case to consider. Would he have had charges filed if he had chased down the two men and then shot and killed the second one? What is the law in their state for police officers using the choke hold? I think the biggest concern is that they don't want to punish someone for protecting their own property. I wouldn't want to be the grand jury to decide whether or not to bring charges or the prosecutor's office.

[CoryKS]

Too bad, so sad. Since his partner pleaded guilty to burglary charges, it can be argued that Uhler's death occurred during the commission of a crime. Therefore, his buddy Johnston should be slapped with a murder charge.

[sgtmac_46]

Interesting story. From what I can glean, I'd have to come down on the side of the victim here; the suspect authored his own demise when he leaped upon the victim. However, I agree that when the threat subsides, so must the response. In this case, I don't think that threshold was exceeded; but perhaps I do not know the entire story.

In any case, it's yet another cautionary tale - this man may well end up in a courtroom, even if it is to respond to a lawsuit - so just being in the right legally does not always mean you walk away without consequences...

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/Crime-victim-uses-submission-hold-alleged-burgl?urn=mma-wp1243

In Missouri it wouldn't be a civil or criminal case........one has the right to use lethal force in defense of self if force is threatened in the commission of a felony.......and the affirmative defense in the criminal case is considered an affirmative defense in the civil case requiring anyone who files a civil case to pay all fees associated with the case for filing it as frivolous........and the fact that the force used doesn't meet the definition of 'lethal' by Missouri statute, despite the outcome, makes it even far more dubious anything would come of it.......as in Missouri they'd be good to go if he'd shot the guy dead.



I did like the clown commenting about blaming MMA......that's some asshat logic.

[sgtmac_46]

Too bad, so sad. Since his partner pleaded guilty to burglary charges, it can be argued that Uhler's death occurred during the commission of a crime. Therefore, his buddy Johnston should be slapped with a murder charge.

YEP! Felony murder rule should apply......wouldn't that hack the family off.......but the reason they haven't charged him, is they haven't decided to charge the victim or not yet........because charge the suspect would negate the charge against the victim because it would be a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that the death was in the commission of a felony.

[MA-Caver]

Same thing happened to me long, long time ago in my early twenties when I was walking towards a destination late at night (missed the last bus) and a guy had jumped me wanting my (non-existent) money. In the course of our fight I gave him a slashing sword hand strike to his throat, he dropped to the sidewalk gasping and I just walked away from him as fast as I could. I have NO idea of his fate, I would like to imagine that he managed to breathe well enough and got up and staggered on home that much wiser. I hit his windpipe dead-on and pretty hard... :idunno: like I said... dunno what was the result... only that I was able to get away. I don't think the guy had any intention of killing (neither did I) but it happens... same as a cop who fires back when fired upon... he hopes that it won't kill but if it does... then it's one less scumbag for them and the average citizen to worry about.

[K-man]

Same thing happened to me long, long time ago in my early twenties when I was walking towards a destination late at night (missed the last bus) and a guy had jumped me wanting my (non-existent) money. In the course of our fight I gave him a slashing sword hand strike to his throat, he dropped to the sidewalk gasping and I just walked away from him as fast as I could. I have NO idea of his fate, I would like to imagine that he managed to breathe well enough and got up and staggered on home that much wiser. I hit his windpipe dead-on and pretty hard... :idunno: like I said... dunno what was the result... only that I was able to get away. I don't think the guy had any intention of killing (neither did I) but it happens... same as a cop who fires back when fired upon... he hopes that it won't kill but if it does... then it's one less scumbag for them and the average citizen to worry about.
The differences are:
1. You were physically confronted.
2. You responded appropriately.
3. You didn't use excessive force or continue your response after the threat was removed.
4. You walked away.

You ticked all the boxes for lawful self defence.

[Twin Fist]

makes me glad I live in texas, where we are not so civilized as to think the right response is to "ask for help"

my yard? he would have had rounds in him before he got to the next block

one less scumbag in the world. Feel bad for his mom tho.....

[chinto]

I would have to say if they can not prove that the intent was to kill, and the technique is normally used to restrain and or submit with out using what would normally result in death.. ( chokes and strangles) then I would be hard pressed to find him guilty of anything.

[MA-Caver]

The differences are:
1. You were physically confronted.
2. You responded appropriately.
3. You didn't use excessive force or continue your response after the threat was removed.
4. You walked away.

You ticked all the boxes for lawful self defense.
True that... but at the time I didn't think about it... just acted/reacted and acted again. Also I walked away for couple of reasons... 1. in fear that he may have others nearby and will entrap me, 2. I was angry enough to want to actually kill him. I've had many months and years to think about this... though it has been a long time since my last thoughts have been upon this incident. Oddly I feel no regret or remorse upon it even though I do not know the fate of the attacker.


"Even in the heat of passion, if you’re trying to subdue someone, it isn’t reasonable to kill them," Carroll said.
However, she said, the homeowner was defending himself against two people and might not have realized he was "using deadly force."
"I understand the dad’s emotional response and he may have a legal basis for it," Carroll said. "We have a dead kid and a homeowner who says his car was broken into. He could have stayed inside the house and just called the cops." That he could have stayed in the house and called 911 but he didn't.
To say that two people who might not have realized that he was "using deadly force"... that sounds presumptuous on what the kids were thinking when they were intending to rob the man of his property. Anyone knows... anyone with good common sense would know that if you intrude onto another's property with ill intent (steal, vandalize, destroy, whatever!) you're going to be dealt with harshly... that includes the possibility that the home/property owner may use deadly force to stop you... and be in the right to do so. It's trying to project the innocence of a couple of kids who by that age of 19 would definitely already know better and are aware of possible consequences.
Granted that they may have speculated that the worse that could happen is that they get busted and go to jail. But surely they had in their minds that the guy could come out with a gun and shoot 'em... of course he didn't... and they learned that there are other ways to be deterred.

Sad that a 19 year old boy had to throw away his life choosing the path which lead him to his death.

[Twin Fist]

since when did we start caring more about the criminals than the victims?

[MA-Caver]

since when did we start caring more about the criminals than the victims?
We don't... but criminal or victim... they're all human beings... but it is a lawyers job and they done a damn good one of convincing people to care for the criminal and their so called rights under the law. The lawyers and then the judges who didn't get disgusted enough to throw them out of the courtroom when hearing the mournful plea for the pitiful criminal down on his luck, victim of circumstances and all the other crap that a silver tongued defender has to offer.

[Twin Fist]

scumbag lawyers take the case, and scumbag liberal judges agree to hear the cases, and lord knows the idiot juries that go that way...............

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Same thing happened to me long, long time ago in my early twenties when I was walking towards a destination late at night (missed the last bus) and a guy had jumped me wanting my (non-existent) money. In the course of our fight I gave him a slashing sword hand strike to his throat, he dropped to the sidewalk gasping and I just walked away from him as fast as I could. I have NO idea of his fate, I would like to imagine that he managed to breathe well enough and got up and staggered on home that much wiser. I hit his windpipe dead-on and pretty hard... :idunno: like I said... dunno what was the result... only that I was able to get away. I don't think the guy had any intention of killing (neither did I) but it happens... same as a cop who fires back when fired upon... he hopes that it won't kill but if it does... then it's one less scumbag for them and the average citizen to worry about.

At 15 I was walking back from TKD class and stupidly taking a short cut behind a some buildings. Accosted by a crackhead with a busted bottle. I was petrified and and front kicked him in the throat (How I did not get cut in the leg is dumb luck IMO) and he went down like a bag of crap, holding his throat, no sound coming out and rolling around on the ground.
RAN! home, dont know what happend to him (I was checking the Police Blotter that week intently) told no one for years, nervious about any legal ramifications but as to his fate? You should not threaten people with GBH and if you do you deserve what you get including death.

Screw the Perp, 6 billion people on this rock, lots of them good and in dire straits so I'd rather care about them than crimminals and low IQ basterds who mess with innocent people.

Yes you have to care about the legalities, but these laws need to change.
Your home is your castle, mess with the king and off with their heads.

[tinker1]

There is also a bit of an issue related to a submission choke hold and a strike (punch or a kick). I don't want to get into a debate about effectiveness of either - been down that rabbit hole a time or two...

A strike is a instant reaction. Bang and it's done. The guy is out cold - or depending on the strike or how he went down, he could be dead.

A submission hold such as a choke is not an instant thing. It takes a few moments to take full effect. In the case of a choke, the amount of time or the difference in time of release between causing unconsciousness, or causing brain injury or death and be hard to ascertain. I'm sure an experienced fighter in the grappling arts can determine it, but differences in physiology of the victim + adrenalin pumping through the veins of the instigator, could skew this.

The issue as I see it is that the choke was applied for some amount of time. That length of time was a choice made by the instigator.

I'm suggesting that if the action of the instigator was a *bang* and it's over event, there may not be cause for litigation. Whereas because the choke was held for an amount of time to cause eventual death, litigation could be possible.

[Sensei Payne]

The Out come will usually be determined by whatever state that this happened in...some may call it involuntary manslaughter...and some may call it self defense.

In Kentucky, the victim would't probably be held for questioning...but after the story checks out...he would probably walk away from it without any other penalties...but thats after he proves he had to do what he had to do.

[JohnEdward]

After reading the everyone's well thought out responses thus far, I hope am going to make insightful comments, both directly and indirectly.

I was told, when I was interested Judo and BJJ, based on my concerns that choke holds will not kill, and no one has ever died or seriously injured from being choked out. This idea was pretty prevalent to be true among people in both arts, including those who watch pro wrestling. I found it very difficult surfing the web to find a case where that chokes clearly caused death. With that in mind, it is a good assumption the victim was told the same thing as I, in some way or another. It is not unreasonable to believing he use a choke hold as a means of a safe way to restrain someone, to "put them to sleep." I think that would be strong stance in his defense. Also, it has to be proven that the choke hold was the actual cause of death. The suspected burglar could have died from something else, not directly related to the choke. Such as, a brain later hemorrhage, or due to a previous health condition or injury. Doctors and the law are very picky about stuff like that, such as what is the exact cause are of illness or death. The idea chokes are a way of restraining and controlling someone without the result of death is very, very common.

It is my understanding the suspect did not die immediately at the scene. That the victim's choke hold didn't kill the suspect immediately; break his neck collapse the trachea etc. Now the suspect's trachea my have been damaged, but not to the point of death. Otherwise death would have been instantaneously. If the trachea collapsed the suspect would have died at the scene. I will than assume it was a choke that cut off the blood supply to the brain. Which I was told in theory that it takes sometime time holding that choke to kill someone on the spot. Most people I have witnessed in the dojo and once in the street, as well as myself, applying a blood choke instinctively release the hold from the person upon collapsing and is passed out.

Btw, I was told by an ENT, who is a martial artist, that it takes a mere seven pounds of direct force. i.e. a punch upon the trachea to collapse it resulting in death. Am not sure if any submission/choke hold techniques like a rear naked choke/sleeper hold applies that much force as you are instead compressing the trachea. There is no force coming down on the trachea to collapse it.

Is suspicion of stealing someone's property an automatic death sentence? I too live in Texas, and stealing is a death sentence, such as in the Horn case. So too is aggressively approaching someone where the other person feels threatened. There are many examples of this through out Texas, especially with road rage, and bar fights. 99.9% of the time a gun is involved. Most people here understand you just do go off on someone where they feel threatened, burglarizing property or robbing someone there is a high risk of being justifiably shot to death. Putting a choke hold on someone, is far less lethal than shooting someone for suspension of burglary. It is my understanding the suspect ran away empty handed. And the victim chased him to stop him from getting away. In most states, generally, a person has to use the same force legally in terms of self defense. You can't shoot someone for slapping you. You can only slap them back in consideration there is a threat. But, the suspect was running away and wasn't a threat. That is the rub for many people, because it seems so irrational, uncivil, and immoral for someone to die who is suspected of burglary who was running away to end up dead by the alleged victim.

And it disturbs people and is irrational that the idea they could be killed on suspicion of theft. Let's say you walk by a car in a parking lot going to your car and the alarm goes off, the owner also walking to his car thinks you've attempted to brake in to his car do to your proximity and reacts thereby strangling you, or shoots you. All without a trial. You are instantly assumed guilty and sentenced to death.

Bottom line for me is choke holds are dangerous, though you never see the danger in it on the UFC or other venues like that. Or in professional wrestling where chokes are a staple. Never in the dojo, where chokes put on someone are monitored in is a safe and control environment. All of which points to choke holds are a safe way and effective way to restrain someone. As this case proves that all is a myth. If the facts where presented that choke holds are dangerous, maybe the victim wouldn't be in the situation he is in now.

[bushidomartialarts]

The chasing seems to be the big hangup.

Agree with TF here...a guy I caught on my property with ill intent ends up taking his meals through a tube for a while.

But most states have little sense of humor when people pursue others with the express purpose of doing them harm. Although we have the right to a citizen's arrest, we're not really supposed to chase them -- not even licensed security guys are supposed to pursue somebody once they leave the property.

I'm shedding no tears for the 19 year old dumbass -- though I feel bad for his family. But situations like this are exactly why we have the right to defend ourselves...not the right to wreak our idea of justice on the bad guys.

[chinto]

There is also a bit of an issue related to a submission choke hold and a strike (punch or a kick). I don't want to get into a debate about effectiveness of either - been down that rabbit hole a time or two...

A strike is a instant reaction. Bang and it's done. The guy is out cold - or depending on the strike or how he went down, he could be dead.

A submission hold such as a choke is not an instant thing. It takes a few moments to take full effect. In the case of a choke, the amount of time or the difference in time of release between causing unconsciousness, or causing brain injury or death and be hard to ascertain. I'm sure an experienced fighter in the grappling arts can determine it, but differences in physiology of the victim + adrenalin pumping through the veins of the instigator, could skew this.

The issue as I see it is that the choke was applied for some amount of time. That length of time was a choice made by the instigator.

I'm suggesting that if the action of the instigator was a *bang* and it's over event, there may not be cause for litigation. Whereas because the choke was held for an amount of time to cause eventual death, litigation could be possible.

In my state if you use a technique that is likely to result in death ( choke or strangle are considered such ) you have initiated DEADLY FORCE. if you do so and they die, and they have not shown lethal intent and capability.... MURDER is the charge... and other wise ATTEMPTED MURDER will provably be charged. if you have them in some other kind of submition that does NOT normally end in death, then it would not rate a murder charge or attempted murder charge. ( bu then they are making noises about charging a girl that is 9 years old with attempted murder for tying a knot in a rope at a school that the kid she tied it for used to try and commit suicide... so don't count on anything legally except that if they can charge you they provably will. )