Punch Lands Man 4 1/2 yr. Sentence

[MJS]

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-edi-rapo-uconn-0910-20110909,0,2542018.story

VERNON—
A judge sent 20-year-old Edi Rapo to prison for 41/2 years for causing the death of a University of Connecticut student with a punch last year, provoking murmurs and tears from a packed courtroom Friday morning.

Superior Court Judge Terence Sullivan rejected a more lenient 2-year sentence suggested by Rapo's attorney, who brought supporters to court to speak on his client's behalf. They described a remarkable and non-violent young man.

Sullivan took exception to that characterization.

What I wanted to talk about in this thread, was the punch and the effect that it had. So, here we have Spring Weekend, an event that usually attracts non UCONN students. A conflict started on the campus, was defused at the moment, but the parties met up at another location. The victim was sucker punched, fell, hit his head, and died. According to the article, the victim had an aneurysm, which probably was a contributing factor to his death. Of course, none of this was known to the attacker.

The article states that the victim was taunting the attacker, which led to the punch. Of course, if we get tecchnical, its only taunts. I mean, nothing you probably couldn't have walked away from.

So, whether or not the medical issue played a part or not, the fact is, the guy did hit his head.

So, if faced with a situation like this, where talking, escape, etc, has either been tried and fails or due to circumstances, is unable to be considered an option, and it comes to blows, do you feel that its your responsibility to ensure that if you punch someone, and they fall, that they fall in such a way, so as to not injure themselves further, ie: hitting their head and risk death?

I have my own thoughts on this, but will wait to post them.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Based on the description, it sounds to me like he hit him in anger, not self-defense. I don't have enough detail to make that assertion. If you are attacked, the attacker is responsible for any injuries they recieve. If you get provoked by insult and hit someone in anger, you're responsible for any injuries they receive so if they fall as a result of you striking them and they hit their head, it's your fault.

That's how I feel about it. An insult doesn't warrant an assault.
If someone attacks you and you concave both their knees it's their fault for attacking you, even if they fall down a flight of stairs, hit their head and get run over by a car.

 

[mook jong man]

Not really , once you start to think like that it's a slippery slope isn't it , where does it end.

Don't punch him in the chest because it might send his heart into arrhythmia and cause him to have a heart attack , or don't kick him in the shin because his shin bone might splinter and cause fragments to get lodged in a vein and cause a stroke.

This type of thinking will compromise your ability to properly defend yourself , just do what you have to do to end the threat without going overboard once the threat is no longer a threat.

Also it's worth noting that your adversary probably won't be concerned with extending you the same courtesy in being worried about your welfare as you are with his.

 

[jks9199]

It's a settled principle of law that you take your victim as you find them. The fact that the victim's aneurism was invisible and/or unknown prior to his death is not a major factor in the manslaughter case, any more than it would have been had he simply been knocked over, landing just right against a curb to snap his neck. There is a potential defense if the taunts prior to the assault rose to the definition of fighting words -- but it's probably going to be an uphill battle anymore.

The problem with trying to prevent undue/unexpected injury in an encounter like that is that, if you're at that fighting point, you probably aren't thinking clearly enough to control his fall. A much better and more workable goal is to remain calm enough to get out before it goes that far. Moving to a more defense-oriented situation, instead of something like this -- the most moral approach is to do no undue harm, so making reasonable efforts to control the fall or selecting non-injurious targets is a noble goal. There are a couple of arts that do focus on this... They demand a high level of self-discipline and skill, though!

 

[Cyriacus]

The Sentence is Excessive, despite his Questionable Motives.

I mean, a Suspended Sentence would be much better. But Prison Time is overkill.

 

[72ronin]

The circumstances have eliminated self-defense.
Law requires provable self-defense in that there would be steps taken to avoid conflict within reason.
This is a great egsample of how striking should be a last resort for us all, similar to not resting your finger on the trigger kind of thing unless you intend to fire.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think it's been well-said by others. While it may seem excessive at times, when we break the law we are often held accountable for the consequences of our actions, whether we planned them or not.

Self-defense is another issue entirely; the responsibilities for the consequences shift to the attacker; if they attack someone and are killed, they have reaped the consequences of their behavior. So no, you don't have to take special pains to avoid injuring a person who attacks you; if they're injured, that's their problem.

For those who feel that the person who was sent to prison should not have been, consider it this way. Your mother is walking across the street, and a mugger grabs her purse and runs away. But the mugger's act spins your mother into traffic and she's hit by a car and killed. The mugger is caught but says he should not be held responsible for your mother's demise because he only intended to rob her. He should not be sent to prison but given a suspended sentence as a first-time mugger. Would that be appropriate?

There is always a danger in engaging in fisticuffs that is not self-defense, as it appears this was not. Nor does it appear to have been mutual combat. It may seem harsh that the man is going to prison, but it's both appropriate and in accordance with our laws in the US as far as I can tell.

 

[Cyriacus]

For those who feel that the person who was sent to prison should not have been, consider it this way. Your mother is walking across the street, and a mugger grabs her purse and runs away. But the mugger's act spins your mother into traffic and she's hit by a car and killed. The mugger is caught but says he should not be held responsible for your mother's demise because he only intended to rob her. He should not be sent to prison but given a suspended sentence as a first-time mugger. Would that be appropriate?

My sense of Retrospect would say, Yes.
Though itd be partly due to knowing that he would Pay.

 

[MA-Caver]

Ironically I just got finished watching the 1935 version ofLes Misérables and thought the same thing that 4.5 years in prison was excessive (from the title of the thread) until reading that the guy was killed. Wrongful death by purposeful action is still... wrong.
H.G. Wells (while in reality too much of a pacifist for my taste) did make a very good point with the saying "The first man to raise a fist is the first one to run out of ideas".
I've had a lot of guys taunt me, I've had guys swearing up and down promising to kick my *** and narry a one ever carried out their threat... not even actually making a move in a half-hearted attempt. I've come to ignore crap like that. But lay a finger on me, touch me... then we've got something to really discuss now don't we? Depending upon my mood... you just might get away with a stern warning.
This fellow, hauled off and punched a guy just for running at the mouth.
Granted some people probably deserve to be rapped in the mouth, but then again only if you're willing to stoop low enough to their intelligence level.
Odds are the guy had no intention what-so-ever of killing the man he hit... but as it was stated should've taken a extra second to think about it.

Agreed, as MA-ists we do need to remember that always. It's no light thing for us, bearing the responsibility, to have the knowledge that we've trained so hard to acquire.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Worth repeating perhaps that generally speaking, a person is entitled to engage in violence in self-defense if a 'reasonable and prudent man' would fee that they were about to be attacked physically. One need not wait until the first blow is thrown, one can indeed throw a first blow and still be acting in self-defense. However, if one does not feel that they are about to be physically attacked, and they throw a blow, they have indeed broken the law in most places; and they are therefore responsible for the consequences, whatever they may be.

 

[MJS]

Based on the description, it sounds to me like he hit him in anger, not self-defense. I don't have enough detail to make that assertion. If you are attacked, the attacker is responsible for any injuries they recieve. If you get provoked by insult and hit someone in anger, you're responsible for any injuries they receive so if they fall as a result of you striking them and they hit their head, it's your fault.

That's how I feel about it. An insult doesn't warrant an assault.
If someone attacks you and you concave both their knees it's their fault for attacking you, even if they fall down a flight of stairs, hit their head and get run over by a car.

You're correct. This was 2 young adults, acting in anger, not SD. And I agree...this situation did not warrant what happened. I wasn't there, but this is a case that I have followed. One of the main reasons why I avoid bars, clubs, and things like spring weekend. IMO, anytime you have a mix of things like this, you're bound to have issues.

 

[MJS]

MJM, JKS, and Bill made some damn good points! While this article does not depict a SD situation, but more an assault, it does apply to SD.

To answer my own question...any existing medical issue the badguy may have, of course, is going to be unknown to me. Of course, this reminds me of when a LEO hits someone with a taser, the guy dies, and everyone cries that it was the taser that killed him, when in reality it could be a pre-existing medical issue. I do agree with mook....if someone is attacking me, and I've done all I could to avoid, defuse, etc, the situation, and it gets physical, no, at that moment, the #1 thing on my mind is my own well being, and the well being of anyone with me. If this guy gets a busted nose, then so be it. My goal, unless the situation dictates it, is not to set out to kill the guy.

JKS said:

"the most moral approach is to do no undue harm, so making reasonable efforts to control the fall or selecting non-injurious targets is a noble goal. There are a couple of arts that do focus on this... They demand a high level of self-discipline and skill, though!"

If I'm reading this right, you are suggesting that we should do what we can to ensure no excessive injury comes upon our attacker? If thats the case, doesnt this contradict what was said above...that it will hinder our thinking of defending ourselves, if we're overly concerned with whats happening to the badguy? Personally, if this is something that we should do, then IMO, I'd rather see someone call for help, ie: the police, an ambulance, or if you're qualified, some basic first aid.

 

[MJS]

For those who feel that the person who was sent to prison should not have been, consider it this way. Your mother is walking across the street, and a mugger grabs her purse and runs away. But the mugger's act spins your mother into traffic and she's hit by a car and killed. The mugger is caught but says he should not be held responsible for your mother's demise because he only intended to rob her. He should not be sent to prison but given a suspended sentence as a first-time mugger. Would that be appropriate?

FWIW, I'm not saying this guy should not have been sent to prison. I hope my OP didn't imply that. As I've said, this was clearly an assault, not a case of SD. In the scenario you list, yes, the mugger should be charged with stealing the purse, as well as the death. The intent was to steal the purse, but unfortunately, getting hit by the car, was a result, just like the kid getting hit and falling. Of course, this was an assault, not Sd.

I can see where this wording is going, and (no offense intended Bill) but it almost seems like a setup. Maybe setup is a poor word. I'll say playing devils advocate. I'm probably setting myself up with what I'm about to say, but what the hell, I'll say it anyways..lol. In a SD situation, one could say that the defender should be charged with the badguys death. I'll disagree with that. First, as long as I try to do, if possible, whatever I can to avoid/defuse the situation, and use enough force to end the situation, and no more, then, IMO, him falling is a result out of my control. IMO, its no different than someone breaking into a home, and the home owner shooting the guy with a gun. The homeowner is legal in carrying, lives in a state where the laws dictate that its ok to shoot, and if the BG dies, no, no charges should be filed. Yes, I'm sure the guys family will sue, blah, blah, blah, because after all....their son was an upstanding citizen...even though his record is longer than both your arms and mine put together, and is addicted to crack.

I highly doubt that anyone attacking me, is going to be concerned about my well being. Yes, I know, thats probably not the best way to think, but be that as it may, thats my story and I'm sticking to it. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, otherwise, we may as well never even defend ourselves in the first place. Just let the guy rob us, shoot us, kill us, beat the hell out of us, etc.

There is always a danger in engaging in fisticuffs that is not self-defense, as it appears this was not. Nor does it appear to have been mutual combat. It may seem harsh that the man is going to prison, but it's both appropriate and in accordance with our laws in the US as far as I can tell.

Agree.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can see where this wording is going, and (no offense intended Bill) but it almost seems like a setup. Maybe setup is a poor word. I'll say playing devils advocate. I'm probably setting myself up with what I'm about to say, but what the hell, I'll say it anyways..lol. In a SD situation, one could say that the defender should be charged with the badguys death. I'll disagree with that.

No, I definitely did not say that. In a SD situation, the onus is on the perpetrator. Whatever happens to them is their own fault. The person engaging in self-defense has no duty to know about any pre-existing medical condition the bad guy might have, or attempt to minimize the risks to the person who attacked them. It has been pointed out to me that SD in some states has a 'minimum force necessary' or 'reasonable force' clause, but that's not the same thing as looking out for the person's well-being. Minimum force means don't beat the man with a baseball bat when he obviously no longer poses a threat to you, basically. If he attacks you and you defend yourself and he slips and falls down, that's his own problem, not yours.

Basically, the responsibility for injuries attaches to the person who broke the law.

In my example about someone's mom and a purse-snatcher, if she had swung the mugger around by the purse strap and slung HIM into traffic where he was killed, that would be his problem; she was not the perpetrator.

I highly doubt that anyone attacking me, is going to be concerned about my well being. Yes, I know, thats probably not the best way to think, but be that as it may, thats my story and I'm sticking to it. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, otherwise, we may as well never even defend ourselves in the first place. Just let the guy rob us, shoot us, kill us, beat the hell out of us, etc.

That's why I made the distinction between SD and just deciding to smack someone who is running their mouth at me.

When someone attacks you, the responsibility for their well-being is basically on them. When they engage in obnoxious but otherwise-legal behavior and you decide to teach them a lesson, well, then the responsibility falls on you (generally speaking).

No one has the right to attack you. Likewise, you don't have the right to attack other people. Whomever is legally in the wrong is probably going to have to answer for the consequences of their actions. And "he had it coming" is only a legal defense in Texas. :angel:

 

[MA-Caver]

So how do you know the guy is actually going to hit you to warrant hitting him first?
Like I said... lots of guys have diarrhea of the mouth and just talk.
I can be totally pissed off and do the same thing, insult you, your family, and everything about you and your life and throw down lots of threats on you... but am I going to ACTUALLY DO IT??
Hard call to make IMO.
Some folks just feel better venting out their frustrations without actually doing anything than stretch their vocal cords.

 

[jks9199]

JKS said:

"the most moral approach is to do no undue harm, so making reasonable efforts to control the fall or selecting non-injurious targets is a noble goal. There are a couple of arts that do focus on this... They demand a high level of self-discipline and skill, though!"

If I'm reading this right, you are suggesting that we should do what we can to ensure no excessive injury comes upon our attacker? If thats the case, doesnt this contradict what was said above...that it will hinder our thinking of defending ourselves, if we're overly concerned with whats happening to the badguy? Personally, if this is something that we should do, then IMO, I'd rather see someone call for help, ie: the police, an ambulance, or if you're qualified, some basic first aid.

MJS -- I'll give you a better answer when I have more time; it's not quick and my time is limited. But, one example of a non-violent system is the Bando Monk System. A Monk practitioner chooses to use non-injurious targets and controls rather than strike to maim or kill. It does restrain their options... and it's a choice. I'm NOT a Monk practitioner. My mind ain't there. I admire those who are... But even allowing that -- use of force in self defense must be reasonable, not excessive, so there are already constraints by law on what we can do to the attacker.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So how do you know the guy is actually going to hit you to warrant hitting him first?

There are no hard and fast rules. However, courts have often held that statements of intent and aggressive body movement are good ways to convince a 'reasonable and prudent man' he is about to be attacked.

"I am going to kick your ***," combined with a step directly towards you or a fist raised? That's pretty much all it takes. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but if he says it and I believe it, I'm not going to wait one instant longer. There is no rule that says you have to wait to be hit first.

On the other hand, if he yells and screams and says "I should come over there and punch you in the mouth," and his hands are at his sides or he's twenty feet away, and he doesn't take a step towards you? Not so much.

Like I said... lots of guys have diarrhea of the mouth and just talk.
I can be totally pissed off and do the same thing, insult you, your family, and everything about you and your life and throw down lots of threats on you... but am I going to ACTUALLY DO IT??
Hard call to make IMO.
Some folks just feel better venting out their frustrations without actually doing anything than stretch their vocal cords.

If someone says they are going to assault me and takes one step towards me or raises their hands at me, I am going to interpret that as an assault and commence self-defense. I think most courts would back that definition.

It does not matter (to the courts) what the person ACTUALLY INTENDED to do to me. What matters is what a so-called 'reasonable and prudent man' would BELIEVE he was about to do. There are no cut-and-dried rules, but it also isn't rocket science. If you believe he's about to put the beat-down on you, it's go time. If a person threatens another with violence, they've already broken the law. If they take any action to make the other person believe they're about to carry out their threat, then they have assaulted that person also. There is generally speaking no need to wait for the threat to be made real.

 

[Cyriacus]

There are no hard and fast rules. However, courts have often held that statements of intent and aggressive body movement are good ways to convince a 'reasonable and prudent man' he is about to be attacked.

"I am going to kick your ***," combined with a step directly towards you or a fist raised? That's pretty much all it takes. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but if he says it and I believe it, I'm not going to wait one instant longer. There is no rule that says you have to wait to be hit first.

On the other hand, if he yells and screams and says "I should come over there and punch you in the mouth," and his hands are at his sides or he's twenty feet away, and he doesn't take a step towards you? Not so much.



If someone says they are going to assault me and takes one step towards me or raises their hands at me, I am going to interpret that as an assault and commence self-defense. I think most courts would back that definition.

It does not matter (to the courts) what the person ACTUALLY INTENDED to do to me. What matters is what a so-called 'reasonable and prudent man' would BELIEVE he was about to do. There are no cut-and-dried rules, but it also isn't rocket science. If you believe he's about to put the beat-down on you, it's go time. If a person threatens another with violence, they've already broken the law. If they take any action to make the other person believe they're about to carry out their threat, then they have assaulted that person also. There is generally speaking no need to wait for the threat to be made real.

Personally, this is where I think Takedowns come in handy.
Instead of Punching him in the Head, making him Inconveniently fall onto the Back of his Head would go down alot better.
Plus, its only a Suspicion of him Attacking.
And since Strikes can be Unintentionally Lethal, under that exact circumstance, one guy, on his own, whos an apparent threat; Id refrain from hitting him right away.

So overall, I agree.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Personally, this is where I think Takedowns come in handy.

The law generally does not distinguish between methods of self-defense. Either you're justified in using self-defense or you are not.

Instead of Punching him in the Head, making him Inconveniently fall onto the Back of his Head would go down alot better.

I would not advise anyone what type of self-defense they should use, but speaking for myself, I'll defend myself (if I have to) without a lot of consideration for what damage I might be doing to the person who is attacking me.

Plus, its only a Suspicion of him Attacking.

No, it is not 'suspicion'. If a person issues a threat of physical violence, and has the ability to do it, and takes any steps to indicate that they are about to do it, they have committed assault. Not suspicion of assault, they have already assaulted you.

And since Strikes can be Unintentionally Lethal, under that exact circumstance, one guy, on his own, whos an apparent threat; Id refrain from hitting him right away.

So overall, I agree.

Everyone has to decide for themselves when they feel comfortable defending themselves. I would not wait to be hit, and I know that by law, I don't have to. But the choice is yours.

 

[oftheherd1]

I know Bill is a careful researcher, so I know he is right for where he lives. But you need to find out what the law is where you are. Some jurisdictions require retreat if it is resonably possible, and you are not defending something you have a right or obiligagion to defend.