Use of Force Law

[Paul_D]

No excuses. She was unconscious..

Hi Tez, it wasn't presented as an excuse, it was merely a response to the inappropriate use of the word predator, which gives completely the wrong impression to people unfamiliar with the incident in question.

 

[Juany118]

Hi Tez, it wasn't presented as an excuse, it was merely a response to the inappropriate use of the word predator, which gives completely the wrong impression to people unfamiliar with the incident in question.

First please familiarize yourself with Laws (again) before you say a term is inappropriate Home

It does NOT require multiple offenses, you can be evaluated as one from a single incident. Second I only said it because of your shenanigans regarding "walking away holding hands". The only person to say that was the defendant.

Every other witness describes him as being aggressive at the party and basically forcing himself on women. He was even rebuffed by the rape victim according to witnesses. If you read the statements he is seen to go up to her, try to start making out with her and she pushes him away pretty much disgusted. This was a clear case of a horned up guy who got pissed off that he was rebuffed multiple times, how you read this Complaint Brock Turner in its entireity and came to your conclusion is beyond me tbh.

He also says that she was somehow consensual while passed out and that he had just decided to get up and leave her lying there because it was getting late and that for NO REASON two random guys just tackled him.

 

[PhotonGuy]

But the thing is the level of force must be "objectively reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances, not simply the use and this is what gets people in trouble.

Alright so another words, if a little child whacks at you with a waffle bat you can't shoot him and call it self defense. Shooting a child in a case like that would be an extremely excessive level of force. I take it that's what you're saying.

 

[PhotonGuy]

She was unconscious and in no position to give consent. The victim does not say she left with him and even if she had that doesn't give or imply consent to sexually molest her while she was unconscious. He had tried to get off with the victim's sister and has admitted he was looking to get off with someone that night. I hope you have also read her impact statement. Here's The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker
The judge let him off because he was in the judge's words a talented swimmer, hence my comment.
There is no excuse for anyone whether drunk or not to sexually molest an unconscious person, it was a lapse in judgement, it was sexual assault.

Well if a person is unconscious they are considered incapable of giving consent and so he obviously acted without her consent with her not being able to give consent. A person certainly shouldn't be let off just because they're a good swimmer or whatnot so this judge should be disbarred. Hopefully this case can be appealed and he can be convicted to the full extent of the law.

 

[Tez3]

Hi Tez, it wasn't presented as an excuse, it was merely a response to the inappropriate use of the word predator, which gives completely the wrong impression to people unfamiliar with the incident in question.

He was being predatory though, he's the only one, obviously, who said they left together etc. to make his defence sound better. All the other witnesses said he was, as Juany posted, being aggressive and looking to have sex with someone, willing or unwilling as it turned out.

 

[Juany118]

Alright so another words, if a little child whacks at you with a waffle bat you can't shoot him and call it self defense. Shooting a child in a case like that would be an extremely excessive level of force. I take it that's what you're saying.

Precisely, or if a guy "simply" pushes you and you respond with a buffalo punch to the throat, "simply" punches you and you wack them other the head with a baseball bat etc. You basically have to be able to justify the level of force you use in return was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Now some people object to this saying "how can we suspect an average person to do that kinda math". Thing is the courts recognize that and base the reasonableness on a fictional construct of a person in like circumstances with similar training and experience.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Precisely, or if a guy "simply" pushes you and you respond with a buffalo punch to the throat, "simply" punches you and you wack them other the head with a baseball bat etc. You basically have to be able to justify the level of force you use in return was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Now some people object to this saying "how can we suspect an average person to do that kinda math". Thing is the courts recognize that and base the reasonableness on a fictional construct of a person in like circumstances with similar training and experience.

Well I can see how that makes sense up to a certain point. It definitely wouldn't be acceptable to shoot a little child for whacking you with a wiffle bat but when we're talking about situations when the difference isn't so obvious that's when it causes problems. A friend of mine who has a background in martial arts got beaten up by this little guy when he was in Oklahoma. He didn't fight back because with his larger size and his background in the martial arts he could've killed his attacker and being from NJ he was used to living in a place where fighting back is frowned upon. Yes in NJ you can defend yourself within reason but you cannot use deadly force except as a very last resort, such as if your own life is in danger. Supposedly OK is more lenient about that but if he had fought back and killed his attacker and had he been in NJ he would've been charged with manslaughter. Now, a small child whacking at you with a wiffle bat is one thing but I find it absurd that you should let a grown man beat you up. Somebody shouldn't be punished for refusing to be a victim.

 

[Juany118]

Well I can see how that makes sense up to a certain point. It definitely wouldn't be acceptable to shoot a little child for whacking you with a wiffle bat but when we're talking about situations when the difference isn't so obvious that's when it causes problems. A friend of mine who has a background in martial arts got beaten up by this little guy when he was in Oklahoma. He didn't fight back because with his larger size and his background in the martial arts he could've killed his attacker and being from NJ he was used to living in a place where fighting back is frowned upon. Yes in NJ you can defend yourself within reason but you cannot use deadly force except as a very last resort, such as if your own life is in danger. Supposedly OK is more lenient about that but if he had fought back and killed his attacker and had he been in NJ he would've been charged with manslaughter. Now, a small child whacking at you with a wiffle bat is one thing but I find it absurd that you should let a grown man beat you up. Somebody shouldn't be punished for refusing to be a victim.

Oh I agree with the last bit. I am more thinking about a few people in this thread and the one about the UK where people were basically saying "if you are attacked it's game on and if you cripple the guy over just getting punched you're all good." That might not be you, bit I was just trying to make it clear that the force has to be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

 

[Tez3]

acceptable to shoot a little child for whacking you with a wiffle bat

what the heck is a 'wiffle bat'?

Oh I agree with the last bit. I am more thinking about a few people in this thread and the one about the UK where people were basically saying "if you are attacked it's game on and if you cripple the guy over just getting punched you're all good." That might not be you, bit I was just trying to make it clear that the force has to be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

Nope, reasonable force only.

A friend of mine who has a background in martial arts got beaten up by this little guy when he was in Oklahoma. He didn't fight back because with his larger size and his background in the martial arts he could've killed his attacker and being from NJ he was used to living in a place where fighting back is frowned upon. Yes in NJ you can defend yourself within reason but you cannot use deadly force except as a very last resort, such as if your own life is in danger. Supposedly OK is more lenient about that but if he had fought back and killed his attacker and had he been in NJ he would've been charged with manslaughter. Now, a small child whacking at you with a wiffle bat is one thing but I find it absurd that you should let a grown man beat you up. Somebody shouldn't be punished for refusing to be a victim.

Sorry but your friend is an idiot. If he has a background in martial arts he should know it's not all or nothing and he could have used force proportional to the danger, after all he doesn't kill people when training does he? does he not know how to defend himself without 'deadly force'?

if you mean the UK is more lenient with deadly force ( rather than OK) then you are completely wrong and have read nothing I've posted up before. the force used has to be reasonable preferably that isn't deadly force unless the situation calls for it and that had bloody well better be life or death, backs to the walls and last ditch not just because you feel you can.

 

[Juany118]

what the heck is a 'wiffle bat'?




Nope, reasonable force only.




Sorry but your friend is an idiot. If he has a background in martial arts he should know it's not all or nothing and he could have used force proportional to the danger, after all he doesn't kill people when training does he? does he not know how to defend himself without 'deadly force'?

if you mean the UK is more lenient with deadly force ( rather than OK) then you are completely wrong and have read nothing I've posted up before. the force used has to be reasonable preferably that isn't deadly force unless the situation calls for it and that had bloody well better be life or death, backs to the walls and last ditch not just because you feel you can.

A wiffle ball bat it a plastic bat used to hit plastic balls. The balls also have slits cut in them to slow them down and make their course less consistent so kids can get better at the mechanics of hitting a baseball

 

[PhotonGuy]

what the heck is a 'wiffle bat'?

Nope, reasonable force only.

Sorry but your friend is an idiot. If he has a background in martial arts he should know it's not all or nothing and he could have used force proportional to the danger, after all he doesn't kill people when training does he? does he not know how to defend himself without 'deadly force'?

if you mean the UK is more lenient with deadly force ( rather than OK) then you are completely wrong and have read nothing I've posted up before. the force used has to be reasonable preferably that isn't deadly force unless the situation calls for it and that had bloody well better be life or death, backs to the walls and last ditch not just because you feel you can.

If I ever see my friend again I will mention it to him about using proportional force. The fact of the matter is that you can do more damage that you intend to do even if you're really well trained. Its unlikely but possible to kill somebody with a punch when you only intend to stop them but not to kill them. And that's what I would use force for in such a situation, not to injure, not to kill, but to stop.

And by OK I mean Oklahoma which is more lenient with the use of force, including deadly force. I don't know much about the UK in regards to this.

 

[Tez3]

Its unlikely but possible to kill somebody with a punch when you only intend to stop them but not to kill them

In the 'one punch deaths' I've know about they have all been as a result of hitting their heads when they've hit the ground/road/whatever after they've been punched.
As for proportional force, training properly and regularly so that you don't panic and you do know how much force to use is the best thing. Too many people don't think about this when they train martial arts they just assume they can fight, unlikely though if all they do is touch sparring or worse non touch sparring.

 

[Juany118]

In the 'one punch deaths' I've know about they have all been as a result of hitting their heads when they've hit the ground/road/whatever after they've been punched.
As for proportional force, training properly and regularly so that you don't panic and you do know how much force to use is the best thing. Too many people don't think about this when they train martial arts they just assume they can fight, unlikely though if all they do is touch sparring or worse non touch sparring.

Exactly. It takes about 1100 lbs of force to simply fracture the skull. Add in the fact it's mounted on a neck that will recoil from the blow and even if you could punch with that the chances of it being fully imparted on the skull are slim. However add the velocity imparted by a strike a drop from standing height and head hitting concrete can = death. We had one of those once. It was ruled good self defense because a reasonable person woukd not have know that A. The guy would fall like a chopped tree and B. That the guy had a plate in his head (weaker than skull) and a screw that would get launched into brain on impact.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I do know a case of somebody who was punched on the back of their head and they died. This was not a case of self defense and I couldn't imagine how punching somebody on the back of their head would be self defense but the point is it killed him. The back of the head is a spot where a punch can kill. There are other spots too such as the throat. And of course, as posted above a person can die from being punched if they fall and hit their head. It might not be the punch itself that kills in a case like that but the point is it was the punch that ultimately caused the death although indirectly.

Also, Im not sure about this but if you injure somebody to a certain extent supposedly you could be charged with using deadly force even if they live. As to what extent you would have to injure somebody for it to be considered deadly force I don't know but supposedly in some jurisdictions if you break any bones that would be considered grave bodily harm and thus you're considered to have used deadly force if you did break any of your assailant's bones.

 

[Juany118]

I do know a case of somebody who was punched on the back of their head and they died. This was not a case of self defense and I couldn't imagine how punching somebody on the back of their head would be self defense but the point is it killed him. The back of the head is a spot where a punch can kill. There are other spots too such as the throat. And of course, as posted above a person can die from being punched if they fall and hit their head. It might not be the punch itself that kills in a case like that but the point is it was the punch that ultimately caused the death although indirectly.

Also, Im not sure about this but if you injure somebody to a certain extent supposedly you could be charged with using deadly force even if they live. As to what extent you would have to injure somebody for it to be considered deadly force I don't know but supposedly in some jurisdictions if you break any bones that would be considered grave bodily harm and thus you're considered to have used deadly force if you did break any of your assailant's bones.

It actually takes a lot to do that on the back of the skull. Usually a fatal punch is to the brain stem which is more of a "neck" shot. But yes striking there and to the throat are kill shots so if you are intentionally making them you better be able to justify it.

As for whether that would be self defense remember two things. 1. You can use force in the defense of others. 2. Weird things happen in fights. I was in a fight once where the guy I was fighting overbalanced and I back elbowed him in between the shoulder blades to help him in his path to face planting.

 

[Tez3]

As to what extent you would have to injure somebody for it to be considered deadly force I don't know but supposedly in some jurisdictions if you break any bones that would be considered grave bodily harm and thus you're considered to have used deadly force if you did break any of your assailant's bones.

Deadly force would be when the person is dead.

You seem to be muddling up self defence and assault in such a way that who is assaulting who isn't clear.

 

[jks9199]

Extreme cases exist. That's true. They're called extreme cases because, while certainly possible, they are not likely. You are held to the reasonably foreseeable outcomes of your actions when you use force, not every possible one. You might punch somebody who has an unknown and undiagnosed closed decapitation, and literally knock their head off. It's damn unlikely. You might punch someone in the chest at just the moment to cause an arrhythmia and kill them. It's not very likely, though. You could have peanut dust on your knuckles and hit a stranger who is super highly allergic, and put them into anaphylactic shock -- but how would you know of their allergy? That's not a reasonably foreseeable outcome.

Photonguy, dude, you have a tendency to look for extreme situations/justifications and bright line rules or fixed answers. Reasonableness isn't a bright line -- it's an area. It's what a normal person would expect to have come about as result of your actions. There are lots of areas in life that are like that. You can certainly be charged with aggravated assault, malicious wounding or similar offenses even if you don't use a weapon. Can someone use lethal force without a weapon? Of course! Choke them out, punch them in the throat or in an area likely to cause serious bodily injury or death... Yep, that's lethal force. But that doesn't meanevery use of force is deadly force... It's just not that simple.

 

[Juany118]

For reference

Objectively reasonable is determined by looking at it from the perspective of... a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm.

Then it must be proportional force...The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.

 

[marques]

Then it must be proportional force...The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.

I should recommend this thread to some of our online colleagues, here. Peace.
Nothing personal. I even do not remember the (nick)name of the concerned people...

 

[Juany118]

I should recommend this thread to some of our online colleagues, here. Peace.
Nothing personal. I even do not remember the (nick)name of the concerned people...

Yeah, some of the responses I have read have reminded me of times at work when someone says "if they step into my unfenced yard I can shoot em" or "since this is a bad neighborhood and the guy arguing with me over a parking space says he will 'kick my ***' from 15 feet away but doesn't approach me I can shoot him right?". Then you have the almost as ridiculous...

Them-"well he started the fight by shoving me why am I arrested?"
Me-"ummm because you broke their jaw by repeatedly punching them face over a shove."