Death by Wedgie

[OULobo]

Here is a link to a recent news story about a fight that started as a wedgie and ended in disembowelment. Do you think this is a justified case?

http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story167436.html

 

[Touch Of Death]

You can't say the guy didn't have it comming. I f you go around direspecting people you will be treated with disrespect in return. This isn't high school.
Speaking of highschool something similar happened to me in HS. The Pitcher of our baseball team got the bright idea to walk up behind me while I sat in a desk, grab mr shoulders, and started making humping motions on the back of my head.(Time for cross of destruction) I ended up hyperextending his pitching arm. He was mad and walked away grumbling about how "Nobody messes with his arm", but he knew he was at fault and we never spoke again but I was sure he would not seek retribution, and he did not.
Sean

 

[Ceicei]

To your question, my reply would be that it isn't justified. There were several opportunities that could have either of them walking away before it even got to that point (knife incident). Since this happened with them starting at a sports bar before going outside to do wedgies, I assume they were drinking. They displayed poor judgment on both sides.

- Ceicei

 

[OUMoose]

A few words exchanged while drunk is no grounds for carving someone up. It doesn't matter which was the aggressor in this instance. If this person doesn't get the maximum sentence for murder, they should be institutionalized, as they clearly present a danger to society. Now if both were perfectly sober, that might make a difference, but it still no excuse to go to lethal force. Granted, this has a media spin to it, and doesn't talk if there was another weapon involved (rocks make handy bludgeoning weapons in a pinch). LEO's always talk about a force continum (sp?) that they have to follow, and it's really not much different for civilians.

If he was really offended, it should have been maybe a bit of a scrap, some punches thrown, maybe a broken bone or 2 if it got really serious, but everyone sobers up, walks (or limps) away, and the world keeps spinnin.

 

[theletch1]

This happened right here in my hometown. I've been into the bar where the altercation started. The sports bar is not known for altercations that go anywhere beyond a good yelling match. I'm with CeiCei on this one. There were so many opportunities to walk away from this that nothing should have gotten out of hand. The movie "Jackass" was pointed out in several places in the news article and that is exactly how both men were acting...like jackasses. Come on folks, if you're old enough to drink you should be old enough to comport yourself like an adult.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The wedgie giver failed to seek cover after pointing out that the smaller guy was not safe as long as he came to the bar because HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS! This guy was just asking to die. And so he did. :asian:
Sean

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Being a Gemini, I'm of two minds about the whole thing. One twin sees this as an awful and unecessary act of violence, ending in tragedy for those involved; one dead, and many (friends and family) scarred for life. The other, evil twin, sees two more boneheads having been removed from the actively breeding gene pool, and thinks we should be grateful. Honestly, do we want guys like this growing up to influence the next generation about rules of engagement and courteous conduct?

 

[Cruentus]

This should be a lesson not to carry a knife unless your trained in both technical/tactical aspects, as well as the legal aspects.

The bigger guy was enraged and ready to tear the little guy apart. Lethal force may have been justified, but now he is left with having to prove that murder was justifiable when the larger guy was unarmed. That will be a tough case to prove. Plus, to a jury, the little guy looks like another drunk A-hole who provoked the conflict. When the bigger guy gave him $20 for his underwear, the conflict should have ended. Even if it escalated in the bar, it should have ended there. The smaller guy throwing the bottle at the larger guy outside was what triggered the larger guy to finally run after him. When provocation is in place, it is hard to make the case for self-defense. Then, considering that among the entry wounds were lethal wounds to the throat and stomach, it will be very difficult to justify that his intent was not to kill when that knife was pulled. A trained person should have been prudent; not only preventing the knife from having to be pulled in the first place, but when it was, a properly trained person would know how to make the entry wounds as such where in the courtroom, it appeared that he was still trying to escape the bigger man (and most likely the bigger man wouldn't have been killed). A trained person should be able to control their unarmed opponent with the blade, w/o having to go completely lethal, regardless of the size of that opponent.

I have little sympathy for the larger man, as he brought this on himself, but the smaller man is going to do some time, at least for manslaughter, because of it. If the guy hadn't a died there may have been a chance. Going to jail because of some A-hole is not good self-defense, in my opinion. I wonder if the smaller guy will be repeating the cliche' , "It's better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6," over and over in his head while he is having to watch his @$$ behind bars?

PAUL

 

[OULobo]

I think both used bad judgement, but I don't know where I stand. The killed was asking for this in so many ways. He was assulting people in the bar (even if he paid for the underwear) and he prolly had the mind set that he could just squash this little man. On the other hand the little guy wasn't even really involved and let his mouth get him involved, and he threw the bottle that sparked the actual fight.

The problem is that while I understand Moose's continuum statement, I don't agree. There is no force continuum for civilians. It may be implied, and those implications may be applied in a courtroom, but I don't believe there is a legal contiuum of force for civilians. The truth is that if the little guy was "in fear for his life' which is a realistic notion when he is presented with a much larger, intoxicated, aggressive man, then all action to stop the larger aggressor is valid. The knifer didn't continue his attacks while the big guy was on the ground or while he was retreating. He only progressed with his attack while the big guy was attacking. I don't see that the fact he had a knife makes any difference at all. The sticky part is that he threw the bottle when the big guy was walking away initially. That is an aggressive act that now places him as looking to continue the fight, not avoid it.

I almost think that if two people enter a fight both willingly, whether they win or lose, they can't be held responsible for damage after. This guy rolled the dice with what he thought were good odds and came up snake-eyes and bleeding. Without trying to sound too cold, brutal and unsympathetic, too bad for him, next time don't go pullin people's shorts and attacking people in a parking lot. Oh wait looks like there won't be a next time. I know it doesn't work this way in court, but if I had my way, I'd give the knifer an assault charge for the bottle throwing and the rest was self-defense.

 

[OULobo]

The bigger guy was enraged and ready to tear the little guy apart. Lethal force may have been justified, but now he is left with having to prove that murder was justifiable when the larger guy was unarmed.
PAUL

Many self defense cases have been won by only showing fear of survival, regardless of method used to insure survival. The big problem is that it really just depends on the jury's opinion. PS if it is justifiable it's no murder, just homocide.

That will be a tough case to prove. Plus, to a jury, the little guy looks like another drunk A-hole who provoked the conflict. When the bigger guy gave him $20 for his underwear, the conflict should have ended. Even if it escalated in the bar, it should have ended there. The smaller guy throwing the bottle at the larger guy outside was what triggered the larger guy to finally run after him. When provocation is in place, it is hard to make the case for self-defense. PAUL

Agreed and to make things worse I don't think it was the knifer that got wedgied, it was his friend.

Then, considering that among the entry wounds were lethal wounds to the throat and stomach, it will be very difficult to justify that his intent was not to kill when that knife was pulled. PAUL

No need to prove intent to not kill. Infact that would be detrimental to his case. If you are going to use a lethal weapon you have to have the intent to use it until the threat is gone, regardless of the condition of the threat afterward neutralized. Besides in the chaos of a fight and without training the knife could go anywhere, not to mention the guy was perforated everywhere not just vitals. This supports the fact that he was in a panic for survival (or a rage of determination to kill).

I have little sympathy for the larger man, as he brought this on himself, but the smaller man is going to do some time, at least for manslaughter, because of it. If the guy hadn't a died there may have been a chance. Going to jail because of some A-hole is not good self-defense, in my opinion. I wonder if the smaller guy will be repeating the cliche' , "It's better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6," over and over in his head while he is having to watch his @$$ behind bars?

PAUL

Pretty much my stance, except he may not have to go to jail. We'll see.

 

[Phoenix44]

This isn't "death by wedgie." It's death by alcohol and stupidity--you know, the usual way.

 

[Cruentus]

Many self defense cases have been won by only showing fear of survival, regardless of method used to insure survival. The big problem is that it really just depends on the jury's opinion. PS if it is justifiable it's no murder, just homocide.

When you say "many cases," I think you will find that in each case, lethal force was demonstrated to be justifiable. You are correct, the Jury has to decide. But, the Jury will be biased to the knife wielding person regardless. Add that to the fact that the other man was unarmed, the knife wielder provoked the attack, the gruesome hospital pics of the wounds and all the emotional appeal, I still say that this will be a hard case for the knifer.

Agreed and to make things worse I don't think it was the knifer that got wedgied, it was his friend.

Whoops! Your right, that would make it worse. I read the story fairly quickly, and I think I missed that detail.

No need to prove intent to not kill. Infact that would be detrimental to his case. If you are going to use a lethal weapon you have to have the intent to use it until the threat is gone, regardless of the condition of the threat afterward neutralized. Besides in the chaos of a fight and without training the knife could go anywhere, not to mention the guy was perforated everywhere not just vitals. This supports the fact that he was in a panic for survival (or a rage of determination to kill).

I disagree. You need to prove that not only were you in fear for your life, but that you didn't WANT to hurt anyone, but had to in self-defense. It is hard to make that case when A. there was provocation, without strong justification (it was his friend who was wedgied, not him) B. He was carrying the knife in the first place (no word on the explaination behind why he had the knife on him) and C. Entry wounds to the throat and body (to the point that his intestines were hanging out) demonstrate intent to kill NOT "I was scared and tryed to escape." Plus, the fact is that the guy is dead. If the wounds were superficial, he wouldn't be having to justify homicide, and his case would be a lot easier.

Pretty much my stance, except he may not have to go to jail. We'll see.

I'll be very suprised if he doesn't do some time.

 

[Tgace]

Throw some more chlorine in the gene pool!!!

 

[Cryozombie]

Williams threw a glass or bottle that crashed onto the parking lot pavement, Elizabeth Freel testified.

Enraged, Jon Freel went after Williams, who was running across an alley and into a grassy field. No one could clearly see much of their encounter after that, but Elizabeth Freel testified that at first they appeared to be boxing.

The argument can be made, that regardless of Freel being mad that Williams threw a bottle at the pavement he CHASED Williams down... if the man was that much larger and stating:

"I'll do to you whatever I want."

I don't know that I wouldnt have used a knife myself. It would depend on how frightend of Freel I was... Big Jocks, drunk or not, tend to intimidate me...

 

[OUMoose]

The argument can be made, that regardless of Freel being mad that Williams threw a bottle at the pavement he CHASED Williams down...

This irks me. Did the guy throw the bottle and it just landed on the pavement because he was drunk, or did he intentionally throw it on the ground? The reason I ask is it illicits 2 different responses.

1) He throws it on the ground - He's trying to pick a fight or just puff up and look mean.
2) He throws it at the other guy and misses due to intoxication or just being a bad shot - That I would go after the guy too, since he could have caused pointless damage, or hit someone else (like the guy's wife).

Basically, there's alot of sticking points in this case that both parties did wrong, I agree. I still hope the guy gets alot of time though. I'd say the other guy gets Assault charges, except he's dead...

 

[Cruentus]

The argument can be made, that regardless of Freel being mad that Williams threw a bottle at the pavement he CHASED Williams down... if the man was that much larger and stating:


I don't know that I wouldnt have used a knife myself. It would depend on how frightend of Freel I was... Big Jocks, drunk or not, tend to intimidate me...

Oh...I'd use my knife. The difference is I hopefully wouldn't have done anything that could have been seen as provocation before hand (I definatily wouldn't have thrown the bottle), I would have used a smaller knife, or a knife that I could justify carrying for reasons other then self-defense so there could be no accusations of premeditation, and I would have intended cut the attacker in nonlethal areas, areas that would stop him but not kill him.

If the knifer had done these things, he would not be dealing with a homicide, and the other guy would be dealing with assult charges. Instead, he now has to defend himself for murder. He'll probably get manslaughter, and go on vacation for a few years. I wonder if there is any way for us to follow up on the sentancing, w/o having to do a ton of leg work?

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh...I'd use my knife. The difference is I hopefully wouldn't have done anything that could have been seen as provocation before hand (I definatily wouldn't have thrown the bottle), I would have used a smaller knife, or a knife that I could justify carrying for reasons other then self-defense so there could be no accusations of premeditation, and I would have intended cut the attacker in nonlethal areas, areas that would stop him but not kill him.

If the knifer had done these things, he would not be dealing with a homicide, and the other guy would be dealing with assult charges. Instead, he now has to defend himself for murder. He'll probably get manslaughter, and go on vacation for a few years. I wonder if there is any way for us to follow up on the sentancing, w/o having to do a ton of leg work?

I dunno, but I would consider the fact that even tho he "provoked" the attack, he did attempt to flee, and also that he cut his opponent 11 times, It was not until he cut his throat that the "attacker" stopped attacking and wandered off. Notice that they didnt say Williams chased him down after he stopped attacking... which to me would indicate his intention was not to kill him but to stop him.

From my initial read, it sounds like a Loudmouth bully (Freel) started a confrontation, someone else (Williams) pushed back... Security threw Freel out, he didnt leave immediately, but was still waiting when Williams left... Something happened in the Parking lot, Williams threw a glass or a bottle at the pavement and fled, and Freel chased him down and got stabbed. Maybe if Williams had sat there with his mouth shut while Freel "wedgied" everyone in the place none of this would have happened, but if Freel had "Let it go" and left when he was thrown out, or not pushed his attack beyond the point that Williams ran, or not pushed the point beyond Williams pulling his knife...

It just seems that Freel had more "Agressive" posture thru the whole encounter. I would be much more likley to side with Williams than Freel.

 

[Tgace]

If the "wedgie'e" had felt violated and called police, he could have had the guy arrested...as the victim didnt seem to feel that was warranted, the stabber should have kept his nose out of it.

Id have gladly locked the knucklehead up for harassment (unwanted physical contact) and Criminal Mischief (intentional damaging of property).

 

[OULobo]

When you say "many cases," I think you will find that in each case, lethal force was demonstrated to be justifiable. You are correct, the Jury has to decide. But, the Jury will be biased to the knife wielding person regardless. Add that to the fact that the other man was unarmed, the knife wielder provoked the attack, the gruesome hospital pics of the wounds and all the emotional appeal, I still say that this will be a hard case for the knifer.

Tru 'nuff

I disagree. You need to prove that not only were you in fear for your life, but that you didn't WANT to hurt anyone, but had to in self-defense. It is hard to make that case when A. there was provocation, without strong justification (it was his friend who was wedgied, not him) B. He was carrying the knife in the first place (no word on the explaination behind why he had the knife on him) and C. Entry wounds to the throat and body (to the point that his intestines were hanging out) demonstrate intent to kill NOT "I was scared and tryed to escape." Plus, the fact is that the guy is dead. If the wounds were superficial, he wouldn't be having to justify homicide, and his case would be a lot easier.

If the wounds were superficial he might not be here to justify anything. I have a bit of the same outlook as Techno, big, dumb, drunk, jocks are intimidating, dangerous and do stupid stuff to act tough, but never want to face the consequences. Most firearms instructors, lawyers and cops say that if you fire a gun, shoot to kill. If you don't or you testify that you are shooting to injure then you are not proving valid grounds for lethal force in that you are not scared enough to kill. It has to be shown that you are past wanting or not wanting to, only you had to. A) No provication needs to be proven. If a nut job jumps out and attacks me, his motives are moot, and my motive is survival. That's all that needs to be proven, that the knifer was insuring his survival at that moment, not what his motivation was before hand. For your point B) there is no need to justify having a knife of that size at all as it's not illegal (assumption of VA law). It is a tool that many people choose to carry for constructive purposes. Hell, my old profs. used to say that you aren't much of an engineer if you don't have a pocket knife. For point C) lets remember that there were more wounds than the ones in his stomache and throat. Those other wounds prove that he wasn't picky about his targets or aim. The stomache is the easiest and most natural target of all and hanging intestines aren't a hard thing to accomplish. Once the viceral wall is violated even in a small way, the body's internal pressure will do the rest.

In the end though the jury will get gushed up by the sorrowful widow, the law will fall to jury's whim and the guy will get the chair (or whatever VA allows).

 

[Rich Parsons]

If the "wedgie'e" had felt violated and called police, he could have had the guy arrested...as the victim didnt seem to feel that was warranted, the stabber should have kept his nose out of it.

Id have gladly locked the knucklehead up for harassment (unwanted physical contact) and Criminal Mischief (intentional damaging of property).

Tgace,

No Disrespect for I believe you would have showed up and done something.

Yet, there was many a night when the police I had to deal with did nto care, nor wished to do the paperwork. I agree the knifer should have staid out of it. Maybe he stepped in to protect others from getting hurt? I do not know.


To the Rest,

About the knifer.

Questions a Good detective or DA will ask:

So why did you run into the alley to avoid witnesses, except for the fact to make it harder for witnesses to say you were attacking the deceased.

So, did you offer, first aid to the victum? Did you try to stop the bleeding, or call 911 for an ambulance?

Believe me when assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to commit great bodily harm or Murder is discussed, it is a long haul for the guy who claims self defense. Each step of the way, the person will be questioned, and or arrested and put into jail until bail can be arranged. Pick up is about 5:00 PM on Friday. Means Monday time frame for Bail. You character and intent will be called into question. If the DA is trying to make a point, then you will really have to defend yourself at every turn.

Not sure what really happened
:idunno: