# Man Dies After Being Punched



## MJS (Dec 11, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/




> DETROIT  The death of a 67-year-old Detroit Burger King customer who police say fell and later died after being punched by a 20-year-old employee has been ruled a homicide.
> 
> Wayne County medical examiner's office spokesman Dennis Niemiec says an autopsy conducted Friday determined that Paul Cannon died from blunt force trauma to the head.
> 
> ...


 
For those that have defended themselves in a confrontation or for those that train to be capable of defending themselves, do you take the results of your strikes, into consideration?  We've heard cases of someone falling and hitting their head after being punched, and dying.  In this case, a punch to the mouth, resulted in the guy to choke.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah, I do take the possible results into consideration.  Last conflict I was in 2 years ago on my b-day I didn't even throw a punch, instead I accepted his punch and used it to hip throw the guy to the ground. Knocked the wind out of him and embarrassed him enough in a bar full of people that ti was the end of it.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 11, 2010)

Every year or so, you'll hear about some kid playing baseball getting nailed, in the chest with the ball, and dropping dead. Freak things happen.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 11, 2010)

MJS said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just a note, based only on the snippet you posted...

The death was a homicide.  Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being.  Whether it's a criminal homicide is the decision of the prosecutor.  

The job of the medical examiner is to rule on cause and manner of death.  Manner is the mechanism; in this case, it sounds like it was probably strangulation due to the dentures blocking his airway.  There are only 5 causes of death: Natural, Accidental, Suicide, Homicide, or Unknown.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 11, 2010)

Old age, by the way, is NOT a cause of death.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2010)

Here we would have an Inquest (which is a court of law here) and the coroner or even a jury can chose from many verdicts to cover this case. This includes accident, unlawful killing, lawful killing ( killing in self defence is this), death by misadventure or even an open verdict if they can't decide. There's a good few that wouldn't fit in this case including death by self neglect or by industrial disease, the latter is a verdict to enable proceedings to be taken if companies are negligent or to allow compensation to be paid. There's a death by neglect verdict too.

Probably it would be death by misadventure going on the 'evidence' supplied if it were here.

If I'm not on duty I don't take into account any damage I may cause, I'm female,  too old and too small so if I damage someone who starts on me it's just plain tough and yes I expect to get away with it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 11, 2010)

MJS said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Yes, when I as confronted a few years ago by an older man (* I would say early mid 60's *) he was angry and approached me while yelling he was going to kill me. He swung I passed and checked his shoulder with a hand. He fell onto his side. The person with him was screaming do not hurt him. He was ok, no real damage other than his ego for falling down. 

I was not going to stand there and get hit. 
But I did not think fiting the older man in the face or body was the appropriate response. A push to the shoulder to keep him off balance so he could not swing a sceond time was my idea of the proper response. 

Of course the off duty officer who was surprised by the guy and did not see him but saw me and my reaction was drawing his weapon with his surprised and yelling wife. The officer did not fire and once he realized that I was not the threat but responding to one his weapon went away. 

My point here is that no one was hurt so the response could be listed as appropriate, but if someone had been hurt then there would be questions.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 11, 2010)

As ever, the only way not to get hurt or to cause more injury than than you intended is not to get into a fight.  That is oh-so-much easier said than done but it can be done; to date, I have only had to use my martial training once in my adult life and that was because of a momentary bad decison on my part.

Reagrdless, punching a pensioner is hardly an appropriate response by a young and, presumably healthy, man.  I don't know the story so I shall restrict myself to that, rather than launching into a "What is wrong with people!?" spiel.


----------



## MJS (Dec 11, 2010)

Much like the response that we choose, I think that taking the person into consideration is just as important.  A 20yo punk trying to mug you, an old man or drunk Uncle Frank, should all be approached differently, IMO.  

Of course, like Rich said, I'm not going to stand there and get hit either.  Even in Richs response, I'd imagine the guy still could've gotten hurt when he fell, despite the 'gentle' approach.  I say gentle, because IMO it was more gentle, than landing one on the guys face.

JKS mentioned the 5 ways to die.  Would this still be homicide even if my original intent was not to kill the person?  I mean, as I said, we need to be aware of what we're doing, but OTOH, I dont think that we should be so paranoid that we dont even defend ourselves, out of fear of the outcome.  IMO, if the other person didn't attack us......


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> As ever, the only way not to get hurt or to cause more injury than than you intended is not to get into a fight. That is oh-so-much easier said than done but it can be done; to date, I have only had to use my martial training once in my adult life and that was because of a momentary bad decison on my part.
> 
> Reagrdless, punching a pensioner is hardly an appropriate response by a young and, presumably healthy, man. I don't know the story so I shall restrict myself to that, rather than launching into a "What is wrong with people!?" spiel.


 
These days I'd hesitate to call 67 old, I know a good many of that age who could give a young chap a good beating so I wouldn't go with the thought that a young chap shouldn't be hitting an old one.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2010)

MJS said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It would be unjust of a legal system to charge someone with a crime for the unintended and unforeseen consequences of lawful actions, to wit, a self defense situation, where the individual actions were justified by the situation, but where the results were more severe than intended.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 12, 2010)

MJS said:


> Much like the response that we choose, I think that taking the person into consideration is just as important.  A 20yo punk trying to mug you, an old man or drunk Uncle Frank, should all be approached differently, IMO.
> 
> Of course, like Rich said, I'm not going to stand there and get hit either.  Even in Richs response, I'd imagine the guy still could've gotten hurt when he fell, despite the 'gentle' approach.  I say gentle, because IMO it was more gentle, than landing one on the guys face.
> 
> JKS mentioned the 5 ways to die.  Would this still be homicide even if my original intent was not to kill the person?  I mean, as I said, we need to be aware of what we're doing, but OTOH, I dont think that we should be so paranoid that we dont even defend ourselves, out of fear of the outcome.  IMO, if the other person didn't attack us......


Yes, it'd still be homicide.  Further classifications of homicide would include but not be limited to accidental, negligent, or murder.  In this case, my guess is that he'd be looking at either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter depending on the totality of the circumstances and the mood of the prosecutor. 

Oh -- and for those questioning a young lad attacking a pensioner...  Take a look at Bob's Portraits of the Masters.  Several of them would qualify as pensioners, in any sense of the word...  And I know for a fact that at least one would likely have tucked the "youngster's" hand somewhere anatomically unlikely... and that's if the youngster were lucky!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 12, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> It would be unjust of a legal system to charge someone with a crime for the unintended and unforeseen consequences of lawful actions, to wit, a self defense situation, where the individual actions were justified by the situation, but where the results were more severe than intended.



Depends.

For example, driving on the road is a lawful activity, but if a child shoots in front of it and gets killed, the driver can still be blamed, even if he was driving withon the legal limits if the event could have been anticipated. The reasoning that if the driver is in a situation where he cannot react in time if such a thing happens, he should have slowed down in anticipation. Ok this was a bit of a tangent. But if there was a foreseeable complication, then it could be ruled that it was negligent on the part of the young guy.


----------



## MJS (Dec 12, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Yes, it'd still be homicide. Further classifications of homicide would include but not be limited to accidental, negligent, or murder. In this case, my guess is that he'd be looking at either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter depending on the totality of the circumstances and the mood of the prosecutor.
> 
> Oh -- and for those questioning a young lad attacking a pensioner... Take a look at Bob's Portraits of the Masters. Several of them would qualify as pensioners, in any sense of the word... And I know for a fact that at least one would likely have tucked the "youngster's" hand somewhere anatomically unlikely... and that's if the youngster were lucky!


 
So even if the defense was perfectly legal, the person is still going to be charged?  There was a case in New Haven Ct a while back.  I believe I linked the article on the forum.  Guy was in the park, eating lunch.  Was approached by the badguy, who IIRC, pulled a knife and attempted to rob the victim.  Victim pulled a gun, which he was legally allowed to carry, and shot the guy twice.  I do not believe he was charged with anything.  I dont believe the badguy died.  Lets say that he did.  Would the victim be charged with murder?


----------



## MJS (Dec 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Depends.
> 
> For example, driving on the road is a lawful activity, but if a child shoots in front of it and gets killed, the driver can still be blamed, even if he was driving withon the legal limits if the event could have been anticipated. The reasoning that if the driver is in a situation where he cannot react in time if such a thing happens, he should have slowed down in anticipation. Ok this was a bit of a tangent. But if there was a foreseeable complication, then it could be ruled that it was negligent on the part of the young guy.


 
How could something like that be anticipated?  If I'm driving on a road, driving the posted speed limit and a kid darts out between 2 parked cars, and gets hit and killed, how was that avoidable?  Lets say the posted speed limit is 30mph.  Is the driver supposed to drop down to 20mph, and assume that someone may dart out, because if thats the case, then IMO, there'd be alot of paranoid drivers out there. LOL.  Now, if I saw the kid running towards the road, showing no sign of stopping and totally clueless to oncoming traffic, then yeah, common sense should tell the driver to be more alert.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Reagrdless, punching a pensioner is hardly an appropriate response by a young and, presumably healthy, man.  I don't know the story so I shall restrict myself to that, rather than launching into a "What is wrong with people!?" spiel.



I don't think Age should really be much of a factor.  I've read stories of kids 10-14 years old killing adults during assaults, and yet we are still told "The Adult should know better and not lay a hand on the 'child'"

Really?

I think the same thing goes for an old guy.  a 67 year old commited to doing violence can kill me as dead as that 14 year old in the previous example... I wont stop to say "hey there retiree, could you stop hitting me, because I as a younger guy I know better than to fight back"


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 12, 2010)

I disagree but clearly I live in a more sheltered and less violent world where men old enough to know much better do not require me to kill them in case they kill me - for which status I am grateful.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> How could something like that be anticipated?  If I'm driving on a road, driving the posted speed limit and a kid darts out between 2 parked cars, and gets hit and killed, how was that avoidable?  Lets say the posted speed limit is 30mph.  Is the driver supposed to drop down to 20mph, and assume that someone may dart out, because if thats the case, then IMO, there'd be alot of paranoid drivers out there. LOL.  Now, if I saw the kid running towards the road, showing no sign of stopping and totally clueless to oncoming traffic, then yeah, common sense should tell the driver to be more alert.



Yes, you should have dropped your speed because you were in a situation where you know you had no good overview of the situation. You can't just hope that nothing will happen. It is up to you to drive safely, which can mean more things than only minding the speed limit.


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Yes, you should have dropped your speed because you were in a situation where you know you had no good overview of the situation. You can't just hope that nothing will happen. It is up to you to drive safely, which can mean more things than only minding the speed limit.


 

 I'm going to disagree, because this sounds like its a case of someone not taking responsibility for their actions.  If I walk into a store, on a wet, snowy day, ignoring the "Wet Floor: Caution" signs, and land on my ***, thats my fault, IMO.  I need to take responsibility for that.  But on a normal day, I should be able to go as normal.  I dont ease my way into the store, looking above, out of fear that one of the lights may fall on my head. LOL.  

On a normal day, while driving, a dog may shoot across the street.  Should I also drive 10mph below because of that?  If I'm not breaking any traffic laws, its an accident, not negligence.  Something like this happened a while ago while a postal truck.  Kid shot out, got hit.  Witnesses provided accounts that the driver was not going fast, and that the kid came out from 2 parked cars.  No charges.  

Seems to me that there will be alot of people who're very paranoid, walking around.  I mean, any time we get into our cars, we could get into a crash.  That doesnt mean that I should never drive, drive 10mph below because I may crash.  I may slip and fall in the shower.  I use caution to prevent a fall, but sometimes things are unavoidable.    In the case of this article, IMO, I dont think that I or anyone else should be so paranoid that we never defend ourselves.  I mean, we may as well not even touch the guy and do nothing but avoid.  How productive it that?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'm going to disagree, because this sounds like its a case of someone not taking responsibility for their actions. If I walk into a store, on a wet, snowy day, ignoring the "Wet Floor: Caution" signs, and land on my ***, thats my fault, IMO. I need to take responsibility for that. But on a normal day, I should be able to go as normal. I dont ease my way into the store, looking above, out of fear that one of the lights may fall on my head. LOL.
> 
> On a normal day, while driving, a dog may shoot across the street. Should I also drive 10mph below because of that? If I'm not breaking any traffic laws, its an accident, not negligence. Something like this happened a while ago while a postal truck. Kid shot out, got hit. Witnesses provided accounts that the driver was not going fast, and that the kid came out from 2 parked cars. No charges.
> 
> Seems to me that there will be alot of people who're very paranoid, walking around. I mean, any time we get into our cars, we could get into a crash. That doesnt mean that I should never drive, drive 10mph below because I may crash. I may slip and fall in the shower. I use caution to prevent a fall, but sometimes things are unavoidable. In the case of this article, IMO, I dont think that I or anyone else should be so paranoid that we never defend ourselves. I mean, we may as well not even touch the guy and do nothing but avoid. How productive it that?


 
MJS,

Just let me say I have this very same discussion with some local police who think that you need to go 5 mph or less in all situations to be safe. Many times they are also the ones who think they should be the only ones armed. 

I do not think it is right as you say. Common Sense and responsibility should take its due course but it does not.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> So even if the defense was perfectly legal, the person is still going to be charged?  There was a case in New Haven Ct a while back.  I believe I linked the article on the forum.  Guy was in the park, eating lunch.  Was approached by the badguy, who IIRC, pulled a knife and attempted to rob the victim.  Victim pulled a gun, which he was legally allowed to carry, and shot the guy twice.  I do not believe he was charged with anything.  I dont believe the badguy died.  Lets say that he did.  Would the victim be charged with murder?


Sorry, not what I meant to say.  He COULD be charged, if the prosecutor decides it's appropriate (or, sometimes, politically expedient).


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Sorry, not what I meant to say. He COULD be charged, if the prosecutor decides it's appropriate (or, sometimes, politically expedient).


 
AFAIK, unless I missed any other info on that case, there were no charges filed against the guy who shot.  So in a nutshell, you're basically screwed no matter what you do.  Defend yourself, get screwed.  Dont defend yourself, get screwed.  Sounds like a no win situation to me. LOL.  Yet we hear from people all the time, who've defended themselves, and nothing happens to them.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 13, 2010)

Rich Parsons said:


> MJS,
> 
> Just let me say I have this very same discussion with some local police who think that you need to go 5 mph or less in all situations to be safe. Many times they are also the ones who think they should be the only ones armed.
> 
> I do not think it is right as you say. Common Sense and responsibility should take its due course but it does not.


Well, strictly speaking, the speed limit is the MAXIMUM safe speed for a given road under ideal conditions, and you should slow down if the conditions are less than ideal.

But let's be real...  Most folks view the speed limit as the speed you should drive the road at.  And that's kind of how it's been enforced... even to giving most drivers 5 to 10 mph over the limit.

Same thing with homicide laws.  We've made it (wisely, I think) illegal to kill another person.  But, we recognize that there are times when it may be appropriate or necessary or simply bad luck.  The prosecutor assesses the situation, and decides whether or not to charge the person.  If the circumstances support that the case was justifiable or just plain unpreventable bad luck -- no charges.  (Cynically, I must note that many chief prosecutors are elected, and politics can certainly shape that decision.)  

But there can be an upside to criminal charge here in the US...  Double jeopardy prevents charging someone for the same offense twice; if the case is clearly justifiable or truly accidental, and the charges are made, and the case progresses to the first hearing where jeopardy attaches and then the judge dismisses it for insufficient cause -- it can't go forward again.  Otherwise -- you could be sitting home minding your own business years later (there's seldom a statute of limitations on homicide), and find yourself charged because it became politically convenient!


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> AFAIK, unless I missed any other info on that case, there were no charges filed against the guy who shot.  So in a nutshell, you're basically screwed no matter what you do.  Defend yourself, get screwed.  Dont defend yourself, get screwed.  Sounds like a no win situation to me. LOL.  Yet we hear from people all the time, who've defended themselves, and nothing happens to them.


That's not what I said...  

There's nothing that says someone MUST be charged.  Only that the charges exist.  Self defense is a legal defense of justification; the defendant is saying, in essence, that yes I did break the law -- but I had a good reason and shouldn't be criminally liable for my actions.  Necessity is another defense of justification; the defendant wouldn't have broken the law but for urgent necessity -- like if you were in the wilderness somewhere and broke into a cabin on private property to stay warm when the temperatures fell below zero.


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> That's not what I said...
> 
> There's nothing that says someone MUST be charged. Only that the charges exist. Self defense is a legal defense of justification; the defendant is saying, in essence, that yes I did break the law -- but I had a good reason and shouldn't be criminally liable for my actions. Necessity is another defense of justification; the defendant wouldn't have broken the law but for urgent necessity -- like if you were in the wilderness somewhere and broke into a cabin on private property to stay warm when the temperatures fell below zero.


 
Ok, sorry...misunderstood ya.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Well, strictly speaking, the speed limit is the MAXIMUM safe speed for a given road under ideal conditions, and you should slow down if the conditions are less than ideal.
> 
> But let's be real...  Most folks view the speed limit as the speed you should drive the road at.  And that's kind of how it's been enforced... even to giving most drivers 5 to 10 mph over the limit.



He shoots, he scores!

This is not about foreesing every possible and impossible thing, but about driving safely.
Technically, the speed limit doesn't change if there is a thick fog or frost. But doing 50 mph through thick pea soup mist IS dangerous. And if you hit something, the fact that you stayed below the speed limit is no excuse. Our road laws specify that you should drive safely.

So if things are very busy and crowded, you should slow down until you know you're driving safely. As was already said, the speed limit is the maximum limit.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 14, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> He shoots, he scores!
> 
> This is not about foreesing every possible and impossible thing, but about driving safely.
> Technically, the speed limit doesn't change if there is a thick fog or frost. But doing 50 mph through thick pea soup mist IS dangerous. And if you hit something, the fact that you stayed below the speed limit is no excuse. Our road laws specify that you should drive safely.
> ...


 
In Michigan we have a couple of different citations we can write.  1) violation of basic speed law and 2)driving too fast for conditions.  Both cover that even though you were at the "legal speed limit" you were not driving safe for the conditions of the road, such as ice, snow, fog etc.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> That's not what I said...
> 
> There's nothing that says someone MUST be charged. Only that the charges exist. Self defense is a legal defense of justification; the defendant is saying, in essence, that yes I did break the law -- but I had a good reason and shouldn't be criminally liable for my actions. Necessity is another defense of justification; the defendant wouldn't have broken the law but for urgent necessity -- like if you were in the wilderness somewhere and broke into a cabin on private property to stay warm when the temperatures fell below zero.


 
Thanks you beat me to it. Everyone tends to forget that self-defense is a legal concept excusing the reason you did what you did. It still can mean that you are charged and it is up to the judge/jury to interpret your actions as justifiable or not.

In Michigan here are the jury instructions to decide a case of self-defense. Read through them and see how you would decide based on what you now of the case and not what you THINK it should be. (Taken directly from Steffel on Michigan Criminal Law and Police Procedures, 2007 pg. 21, also noted that I did not include he/she pronouns since it is a male in this case)

1) The defendant claims that he acted in a lawful self-defense. A person has the right to defend himself under certain circumstances. If a person acts in lawful self-defense, his actions are justified and he is not guilty of (stated crime).

2) You should consider all the evidence and use the following rules to decide whether the defendant acted in a lawful self-defense. Remember to judge the defandant's conduct according to how the circumstances appeared to him at the time he acted.

3) First, when he acted, the defendant must have HONESTLY and REASONABLY believed that he had to use force to protect himself. If his belief was honest and reasonable, he could act at once to defend himself, even if it turns out later that he was wrong about how much danger he was in.

4) Second, a person is only justified in using the degree of force that seems necessary at the time to protect himself from danger. The defendant must have used the kind of force that was appropriate to the attack made and the circumstances as he saw them. When you decide whether the force used was what seemed necessary, you should consider whether the defendant knew about any other ways of protecting himself, but you may also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice the defendant made.

5) Third, the right to defend oneself only lasts as long as it seems necessary for the purpose of protection.

6) Fourth, the person claiming self-defense must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault. [However, if the defendant only used words, that does not prevent him from claiming self-defense if he was attacked]

IMO the reason this is being charged is there is enough doubt as to whether his actions for justifiable or not in the circumstances as they are known. You have a case where two people are escalating an argument and the 20 year old never made any attempt to leave (Duty to Retreat). Also, if it was an irrate customer, this should be handled by the manager and not the employee getting into an argument back and forth until it escalated into violence. Also, consider the jury instructions say that *appropriate *force was used. An old man swings and misses and you hit him as hard as you can to knock him out will leave doubt into many jurists minds if that was appropriate to protect yourself.

Self-defense does not offer a blanket protection for people. It isn't a protection to get into an argument and escalate it and then pull the "well he swung first" card when there were times when you could have left safely or got intervention before it happened. I have spoken with prosecutors in our county and this would be viewed as a mutual combat issue, not a criminal assault so a S-D excuse wouldn't work and it would be charged and sent to a judge/jury (not this particular case, but most fights in general that start with back and forth exchanges).  Their view of S-D is when someone starts trouble and you attempt to walk away and they prohibit you from leaving and/or attempt to assault you as you are trying to leave).


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Well, strictly speaking, the speed limit is the MAXIMUM safe speed for a given road under ideal conditions, and you should slow down if the conditions are less than ideal.
> 
> But let's be real... Most folks view the speed limit as the speed you should drive the road at. And that's kind of how it's been enforced... even to giving most drivers 5 to 10 mph over the limit.
> 
> ...


 


Bruno@MT said:


> He shoots, he scores!
> 
> This is not about foreesing every possible and impossible thing, but about driving safely.
> Technically, the speed limit doesn't change if there is a thick fog or frost. But doing 50 mph through thick pea soup mist IS dangerous. And if you hit something, the fact that you stayed below the speed limit is no excuse. Our road laws specify that you should drive safely.
> ...


 
For clarification, what is everyones interpretation of 'ideal'?  I ask, because it could vary from person to person.  Yes, in snowy conditions its common sense to slow down.  I drove with extra caution on my way home the other night, because the roads were a bit slick.  But on a perfectly clear day, if there are 2 cars parked on the side of the road, no, I dont drop my speed down 10mph from the posted.  

But anyways, back to the story...

know your SD laws for your state, and use good judgement.


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> Thanks you beat me to it. Everyone tends to forget that self-defense is a legal concept excusing the reason you did what you did. It still can mean that you are charged and it is up to the judge/jury to interpret your actions as justifiable or not.
> 
> In Michigan here are the jury instructions to decide a case of self-defense. Read through them and see how you would decide based on what you now of the case and not what you THINK it should be. (Taken directly from Steffel on Michigan Criminal Law and Police Procedures, 2007 pg. 21, also noted that I did not include he/she pronouns since it is a male in this case)
> 
> ...


 
Well, going on what you said here....

the counter was between the clerk and the customer.  The customer missed with his punch.  Unless the customer went around or climbed over the counter, the threat was pretty much gone.  Technically, the clerk didn't have to do anything.  This is akin to doing techs. in the dojo, where the attacker throws a punch, but its 5in away from the other guys target.  You dont even have to move.  

Would the level of force used differ if the attacker were younger?  I'm assuming we're taking the customers age into consideration here as well.  Again, what is reasonable?  It'll probably vary from person to person.  A punch for a punch IMO, isnt unreasonable.  But as I've said before, assess the situation.  We as martial artists should have hundreds of methods of dealing with a punch, all ranging from mild to extreme.  

I'm surprised that nobody called the police.  I take numerous calls from passerby, for MVAs.  Seems like everyone grabs their phone and calls in the crash.  That being said, I find it hard to believe no customers thought to call 911, no workers called.  Where was the supervisor of the restaurant?  

All things considered, I'm going to say the worker was in the wrong here.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 14, 2010)

MJS said:


> For clarification, what is everyones interpretation of 'ideal'?  I ask, because it could vary from person to person.  Yes, in snowy conditions its common sense to slow down.  I drove with extra caution on my way home the other night, because the roads were a bit slick.  But on a perfectly clear day, if there are 2 cars parked on the side of the road, no, I dont drop my speed down 10mph from the posted.
> 
> But anyways, back to the story...
> 
> know your SD laws for your state, and use good judgement.


For driving, we're talking a clear day, with dry roads in reasonably good repair and with no foreign objects (oil, sand, gallons of Slurpee concentrate, etc) on the roadway that could affect your control or stopping distance.  Add in "normal" sight lines, in other words no unusual signs, illegally parked cars, etc. that might obscure your vision were someone to step into the roadway -- and no fog or smoke limiting those sight lines.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Depends.
> 
> For example, driving on the road is a lawful activity, but if a child shoots in front of it and gets killed, the driver can still be blamed, even if he was driving withon the legal limits if the event could have been anticipated. The reasoning that if the driver is in a situation where he cannot react in time if such a thing happens, he should have slowed down in anticipation. Ok this was a bit of a tangent. But if there was a foreseeable complication, then it could be ruled that it was negligent on the part of the young guy.


 
Criminal guilt requires intent or careless indifference. Otherwise legal actions that were justified that resulted in an unintended and unforeseen consequences are not criminal acts. 

Mens Rea.......'Guilty Mind' is a necessary component of a criminal act..........'_actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'........_ "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty".

'Negligence' is a civil liability term, not a criminal one........one could be found negligent in a civil tort, but that is a far cry from criminal liability...........lots of folks confuse the two, but there is a vast gulf of difference...........one can cause you to lose money and property, the other can cause you to lose your freedom.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Dec 15, 2010)

If the old man pucnhed first than it is a great wrong to charge the other man with murder for defending himself.

 This comes down to where you live, another reason I avoid Liberal jurisdictions.
A. They usually know nothing about the dymaimics of a fight. B. They are allways trying to put blame on someone. Add to this that many Prosecutrors are trying to stack their conviction rates at the expensse of what is right and wrong and you can be screwed for exercising a God givien right of Self Defense.

 The fact that he hit a man and the man died is punishment enough, he killed a man unintentionally and unless he is a socialpath it's going to leave mental aqnd emotional scars.

 The situation is a trajidy but no one else needs to pay for it. **** happens and it was this old man's turn in the Barrel. It Sux but life is like that sometimes.

  This also goes to my beleif that a man swinging his fist at me is using potential deadly force and I should be allowed to respond in kind. If he has 50-100#s on me, I might deploy a weapon. I go home to my kids, no matter what. Cops get no monopoly on tyat one.

 Years ago in my old school we had a memebr of the DA's office training with us and Sensei possed the question "Knowing what I know about how easy it can be to kill and how many people die from punches and other blunt trauma to the head. If I am punched at, can I parry, enter and break his neck?"

 The guy took it back to his office and came back and said "You would have decent defense there, most of us if we were working the defense would probably use that."

 This is Virginia, I doubt you would hear that in Boston, New York or Madison.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 15, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Well, strictly speaking, the speed limit is the MAXIMUM safe speed for a given road under ideal conditions, and you should slow down if the conditions are less than ideal.
> 
> But let's be real... Most folks view the speed limit as the speed you should drive the road at. And that's kind of how it's been enforced... even to giving most drivers 5 to 10 mph over the limit.
> 
> ...


 
Yes it is the mxiumum, but there are also states with basic Speed Laws where one can go as fast as the road allows and traffic allows. If a state has multiple points that are confusing such as this then what should be done?

As you stated, the precedent of how it was and has been enforced is the answer. 

I understand that for a shooting you have to be arrested and processed and then released, and if the DA decides it was self defense and does not bring charges, you cannot have those charges brought at a later date as you stated. That is a good point to bring up.


----------



## Hapkidoman (Dec 15, 2010)

An old saying "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". The 12 of course referring to a jury, the 6 refering to those dear friends carrying your coffin. This is of course the extreme, but very much a reality. If you die in an attack, not much else matters, at least not to you!!!!


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> For driving, we're talking a clear day, with dry roads in reasonably good repair and with no foreign objects (oil, sand, gallons of Slurpee concentrate, etc) on the roadway that could affect your control or stopping distance. Add in "normal" sight lines, in other words no unusual signs, illegally parked cars, etc. that might obscure your vision were someone to step into the roadway -- and no fog or smoke limiting those sight lines.


 
So going with that, even if cars were legally parked on the street, do you feel that a driver should still slow down?


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2010)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> If the old man pucnhed first than it is a great wrong to charge the other man with murder for defending himself.
> 
> This comes down to where you live, another reason I avoid Liberal jurisdictions.
> A. They usually know nothing about the dymaimics of a fight. B. They are allways trying to put blame on someone. Add to this that many Prosecutrors are trying to stack their conviction rates at the expensse of what is right and wrong and you can be screwed for exercising a God givien right of Self Defense.
> ...


 
While I dont disagree, I think the main or at least one of the main focal points is whether or not the worker had to defend himself.  Given the fact the customer missed, there was a counter seperating the two, was there a need to do anything?


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 16, 2010)

Rich Parsons said:


> Yes it is the mxiumum, but there are also states with basic Speed Laws where one can go as fast as the road allows and traffic allows. If a state has multiple points that are confusing such as this then what should be done?
> 
> As you stated, the precedent of how it was and has been enforced is the answer.
> 
> I understand that for a shooting you have to be arrested and processed and then released, and if the DA decides it was self defense and does not bring charges, you cannot have those charges brought at a later date as you stated. That is a good point to bring up.


Speed laws are complicated; for that discussion, let's simply agree that if a limit is posted, it is what the state/municipality has decided is the maximum permitted speed for that road.  Officers enforcing the law still have the discretion to assess the circumstances, though...

As to a shooting -- you may or may not be arrested and booked.  Depends on a lot of things.  In what appears to be a pretty clear case of a justified self defense shooting, I may not hook you.  Yeah, you'll probably be "invited" to the station to talk about it -- but I could see where in a very straightforward situation with the shooter giving good info at the scene, the shooter may not be arrested.


----------



## chinto (Dec 16, 2010)

in my state once he stopped the attack, he would be liable if he had struck again.  any one who tries to put hands on you in public should be considered a real threat till stopped.

It is unfortunate that the man died.  but there is no way by what was published I would find him guilty of anything.  he stopped the attacker with minimal force. In this state that is self defense, and that is your right.  In fact the Supreme Court has found 5 times in the last 100 years that Police and other LEO agency have NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU!!!! they also said that in each decision your SELF DEFENSE was YOUR DUTY AND PROBLEM!!!  

So in the United States of America the law of the land that self defense is your problem.


----------

