Man Dies After Being Punched

[jks9199]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!

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.

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.