Punch Lands Man 4 1/2 yr. Sentence

[MJS]

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.

Just to clarify what I said earlier: I'm not suggesting that we go into a situation totally oblivious to our surroundings, and what our actions are. I've said it many times...we, as martial artists, need to be aware and conscious of what we do. We should be able to adapt our techniques to the situation presented to us at the moment. I should be able to change a strike to the throat to a backhand to the face. I should be able to transition to a joint lock at any moment during a tech. This is the stuff that I train, and like to train, because 99% of the techs out there, are really above and beyond what we really need to do, yet those that aren't capable of making that transition, will hit the throat, when its not necessary, theyre the ones that'll be up the creek.

My point was simply....if, during the course of my defense, this jackass gets a busted nose or looses a few teeth, then so be it. THAT is what I'm not concerning myself with. Its a given that some injury will happen. What the injury is, and the extent of it, is what matters, IMO.

 

[MJS]

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.



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:

I hear ya Bill. As always, you're posts are top notch. I was simply saying that the 2 scenarios, the one I presented, and the mugging, I could see someone (not you or anyone here) trying to twist the 2.

 

[WC_lun]

The young man got what he deserved. He physically asaulted someone and that asault led to a death. Something for young men to think about before letting words lead to blows.

As far as doing what you can to protect someone attacking you, I disagree with that. If someone if asaulting you, your priority is to escape the situation unharmed. If you are trying to keep your attacker from being unharmed as well, that is way too much to take on, no matter how skilled a martial artist might be. Thinking you can do that aproaches the boundries of fantasy, in my opinion. That doesn't mean using lethal techniques on some drunken idiot when a simple lock or even a push will take care of the situation. When an attacker offers you violence, refuse thier offer, returning it to them. You don't have to give them extra

 

[Cyriacus]

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

Im not referring to Self Defense - Im referring to the Justifiability of Various Uses of Force.

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.

Fair Enough.

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.

But can you Prove that?

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.

Apologies for the Late Reply - I only now actually saw it.

 

[Carol]

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



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.

I don't think its my responsibility at all to hit them in such a way that they fall gracefully. Monk Bando, Aikido, Jujutsu, Tom Patire's CDT...there are a number of training avenues out there that focus on controlling a person. Personally I think whether a person trains in those systems or not should be something up to the individual.

Rather than seeing that a person falls the right way, I think effort should be put in to learning self-defense. AOJ triad, OODA loop, etc.

Freak accidents can happen, but if a person focuses on learning what will help keep them out of legal trouble, then they will be better prepared for an encounter...whatever that encounter may be. :asian:

 

[Indie12]

Kinda where the training in the 'use of force' and 'use of force pyramid' come in handy. Although legally it wont do much to protect you, it will give you better odds in dealing with "the kind of force to use". (I'll go into more details later!)

 

[chinto]

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



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.

NO!! NOT AT ALL! The only responsibility I have is to avoid the altercation if I can, and if I can NOT avoid it by hook or crook or what have you: not get hurt myself.
I do NOT think by the sound of it there was intent to kill. and I would say it will be appealed but it is the east coast so who knows.

 

[Zero]

On the face of the limited presentation of the apparent facts, should this guy go to prison? Absolutely.
Should it be for 4.5 years? As a bare minimum. He killed a person, be it manslaughter (ie slaughtering a man). Taking a life, when his life/safety, or the safety of those around him, was not in jeopardy or in need of defence, is inexcusable. We should have no time for cowards who sucker punch others or imbeciles unable to keep their own emotions in check.

The eggshell skull (or thin skull) principle is well established in the US, UK and many other jurisdictions. You are essentially liable for all actions resulting from your wrongful act. You may push a chap over in the street without the need for self defence and he falls over and strikes his head and dies. A “normal” person may not have died but this guy was recovering from a fractured skull/brain surgery and he up and dies. You are responsible for this. Essentially you take your victim as you find them (and don’t get to say, hey, he looked like a solid chap and should have been able to take it).

Where you have the legal avenue of self defence, which in certain circumstances (and jurisdictions) includes the right to pre-emptive strike, then as long as the defence itself is applicable, then the above concerns do not apply.

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves. Pre-emptive strike is interesting; a court will need to look at all the facts to ascertain whether in acting you thought your personal safety, or of those around you, was “imminently” in danger. This may well require more than verbal abuse and the presence of witnesses will go a long way here. Coupled with a threat of “I am goanna bust you up”, said person being close enough to follow up on the threat or moving towards you will go along way to satisfy a jury. However, even the lack of verbal abuse can at times still justify a pre-emptive strike. I’m not a criminal/defence lawyer but did a dissertation on this back in law school so if any criminal law attorneys on the site please feel free to add to/correct above.

Summary, this kid was a fool, acted wrongly and unlawfully and someone else’s kid is in the ground permanently. This kid should pay. 4.5 years as opposed to an eternity in the ground adds up to peanuts.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In short; liability follows responsibility. If you are the attacker, responsible for assault, you are liable for what happens. If you are the victim, the attacker is responsible for the assault, and liable for what happens. Whom it happens to is less important that who is liable for it.