Woman put in coma over parking space.

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Not necessarily champ, for all we know he could have been getting out of his car to ask for directions, or ask where the nearest McDonalds is, who knows....

.  Then all of sudden the chick goes crazy and starts swinging on the guy.   

the brain processes of the NT alpha male.

had he not got out of his car he wouldnt have gotten hit, right? i mean, im using you guy's 4-year-old brain logic.....since it wasnt the punch, it was the pavement...and had she not hit him, the pavement wouldnt have put her in a coma, right? so had he not gotten out of the car in the first place, he wouldnt have gotten punched, right?

even by you guy's flawed, peigeon-brained logic, it still falls back on dude.

yall keep being tough guy alpha males on niketalk, tho...

Much like a a neutered dog you simply don't get it do you champ.  In a court of law it's going to take more the woman saying......."well he got out of his car so I was PROVOKED to punch him".  The key word being "provoked".  From the defendants point of view he can say he swung back at the woman in self-defense.  No court is going to convict the guy of wrong doing simply for getting out of his car, especially depending on his excuse for getting out of the car. 

She crossed the line and broke the law when she swung on him, if YOU didn't know before now you know.  Even by him getting out of his car it's not like she could have called the cops at that moment in time for him simply getting out of his car.  What would the cops then arrest him on.........nothing??  Now had he called the cops on her when she threw the first punch on him he could have her arrested for battery.  So again, she was the first person to break the law.  There are cases where a person who initially breaks the law has physical harm done to them or even worse but the defendant is not convicted by the court system simply because of self-defense.    

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Not necessarily champ, for all we know he could have been getting out of his car to ask for directions, or ask where the nearest McDonalds is, who knows....

.  Then all of sudden the chick goes crazy and starts swinging on the guy.   

the brain processes of the NT alpha male.

had he not got out of his car he wouldnt have gotten hit, right? i mean, im using you guy's 4-year-old brain logic.....since it wasnt the punch, it was the pavement...and had she not hit him, the pavement wouldnt have put her in a coma, right? so had he not gotten out of the car in the first place, he wouldnt have gotten punched, right?

even by you guy's flawed, peigeon-brained logic, it still falls back on dude.

yall keep being tough guy alpha males on niketalk, tho...

Much like a a neutered dog you simply don't get it do you champ.  In a court of law it's going to take more the woman saying......."well he got out of his car so I was PROVOKED to punch him".  The key word being "provoked".  From the defendants point of view he can say he swung back at the woman in self-defense.  No court is going to convict the guy of wrong doing simply for getting out of his car, especially depending on his excuse for getting out of the car. 

She crossed the line and broke the law when she swung on him, if YOU didn't know before now you know.  Even by him getting out of his car it's not like she could have called the cops at that moment in time for him simply getting out of his car.  What would the cops then arrest him on.........nothing??  Now had he called the cops on her when she threw the first punch on him he could have her arrested for battery.  So again, she was the first person to break the law.  There are cases where a person who initially breaks the law has physical harm done to them or even worse but the defendant is not convicted by the court system simply because of self-defense.    

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

nah, dirty, we gonna have to prosecute this pavement because we don't understand logic.


  

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

nah, dirty, we gonna have to prosecute this pavement because we don't understand logic.


  

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Not necessarily champ, for all we know he could have been getting out of his car to ask for directions, or ask where the nearest McDonalds is, who knows....

.  Then all of sudden the chick goes crazy and starts swinging on the guy.   

the brain processes of the NT alpha male.

had he not got out of his car he wouldnt have gotten hit, right? i mean, im using you guy's 4-year-old brain logic.....since it wasnt the punch, it was the pavement...and had she not hit him, the pavement wouldnt have put her in a coma, right? so had he not gotten out of the car in the first place, he wouldnt have gotten punched, right?

even by you guy's flawed, peigeon-brained logic, it still falls back on dude.

yall keep being tough guy alpha males on niketalk, tho...

Much like a a neutered dog you simply don't get it do you champ.  In a court of law it's going to take more the woman saying......."well he got out of his car so I was PROVOKED to punch him".  The key word being "provoked".  From the defendants point of view he can say he swung back at the woman in self-defense.  No court is going to convict the guy of wrong doing simply for getting out of his car, especially depending on his excuse for getting out of the car. 

She crossed the line and broke the law when she swung on him, if YOU didn't know before now you know.  Even by him getting out of his car it's not like she could have called the cops at that moment in time for him simply getting out of his car.  What would the cops then arrest him on.........nothing??  Now had he called the cops on her when she threw the first punch on him he could have her arrested for battery.  So again, she was the first person to break the law.  There are cases where a person who initially breaks the law has physical harm done to them or even worse but the defendant is not convicted by the court system simply because of self-defense.    
no.

that dog line didnt even make sense.

you're beyond wrong.

the woman is obviously not going to testify seeing how shes braindead. even if she did, her defense isnt going to be 'he got out of the car" its going to be "the offensive response in 'self-defense' was outside of a reasonable response to protect your own life" or something along those lines...

Now had he called the cops on her when she threw the first punch on him he could have her arrested for battery. 
which is the only course of action that could be justified...NOT assulting her back and putting her in a coma. I've said this about 20 times in this post. IF dude called the police and reported being assulted, they woulda came out. They woulda looked at her, then at him, then asked him "sooooo she really had you fearing for your life, eh? you have no visible marks. if you want to press charges, we can" and she prolly woulda been taken into custody.

INSTEAD, he took the matters in his own hands, and you guys are justifying HIM breaking the law and nearly killing a woman because he was "assulted" by a 4'11" woman....

yall are the funniest toughguys ever..."im so tough i even beat women up"

"cause they think they can put their hands on me, which im so tough, bothers me, for some reason"

you so tough but you up in arms about a FEMALE swinging on you?

she's the size of a child....if a male child swung on me, i'd LAUGH

if anything 4'11" swung on me I WOULD LAUGH AT THEM

not because im tough, but because i'm positive my life wouldnt be in danger...

   So again, she was the first person to break the law
and he was the second. he will see jailtime, she will probably get off scot free...her "breaking the law" resulted in not so much as a fingernail scratch on a MANS face...whereas his "breaking the law" resulted in someone layed up in a coma....

 There are cases where a person who initially breaks the law has physical harm done to them or even worse but the defendant is not convicted by the court system simply because of self-defense.  
to prove self defense, you have to prove that your life was in danger....THEN you have to prove that your "offensive assult" was within the means and reason of getting you back to safety...

i.e. if someone breaks into my house, unarmed, and i shoot him in the leg, im good. that's reasonable. but, if i then unload a clip into him, killing him, i go to jail...see, its not reasonable...i was safe when i shot him in the leg...

if i get in a street fight, even if he throws the first punch, and i knock him out...THEN start to stomp him, i go to jail....if i throw ONE more punch than neccesary to get my life out of danger, i can be convicted and jailed.

likewise, even if i didnt mean to shoot my next door neighbor with a stray bullet while protecting myself during a home invasion, i go to jail...(so to say "he didnt mean to put her in a coma" is irrelevant...she is in a coma by way of his actions...period)

you dudes is madd funny.....

"hell yeah im an alpha male cause i stomp women out"

and, again, for the upteenth time, STOP TRYING TO USE A SELF-DEFENSE ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE DEFENDENT HIMSELF ISNT. HE SAID HE PUNCHED HER WHEN HE SAW HER HUSBAND AND RAN.

what kinda toughguy punches the woman and runs from the male?

NT Alpha Males, that's who!

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Not necessarily champ, for all we know he could have been getting out of his car to ask for directions, or ask where the nearest McDonalds is, who knows....

.  Then all of sudden the chick goes crazy and starts swinging on the guy.   

the brain processes of the NT alpha male.

had he not got out of his car he wouldnt have gotten hit, right? i mean, im using you guy's 4-year-old brain logic.....since it wasnt the punch, it was the pavement...and had she not hit him, the pavement wouldnt have put her in a coma, right? so had he not gotten out of the car in the first place, he wouldnt have gotten punched, right?

even by you guy's flawed, peigeon-brained logic, it still falls back on dude.

yall keep being tough guy alpha males on niketalk, tho...

Much like a a neutered dog you simply don't get it do you champ.  In a court of law it's going to take more the woman saying......."well he got out of his car so I was PROVOKED to punch him".  The key word being "provoked".  From the defendants point of view he can say he swung back at the woman in self-defense.  No court is going to convict the guy of wrong doing simply for getting out of his car, especially depending on his excuse for getting out of the car. 

She crossed the line and broke the law when she swung on him, if YOU didn't know before now you know.  Even by him getting out of his car it's not like she could have called the cops at that moment in time for him simply getting out of his car.  What would the cops then arrest him on.........nothing??  Now had he called the cops on her when she threw the first punch on him he could have her arrested for battery.  So again, she was the first person to break the law.  There are cases where a person who initially breaks the law has physical harm done to them or even worse but the defendant is not convicted by the court system simply because of self-defense.    
no.

that dog line didnt even make sense.

you're beyond wrong.

the woman is obviously not going to testify seeing how shes braindead. even if she did, her defense isnt going to be 'he got out of the car" its going to be "the offensive response in 'self-defense' was outside of a reasonable response to protect your own life" or something along those lines...

Now had he called the cops on her when she threw the first punch on him he could have her arrested for battery. 
which is the only course of action that could be justified...NOT assulting her back and putting her in a coma. I've said this about 20 times in this post. IF dude called the police and reported being assulted, they woulda came out. They woulda looked at her, then at him, then asked him "sooooo she really had you fearing for your life, eh? you have no visible marks. if you want to press charges, we can" and she prolly woulda been taken into custody.

INSTEAD, he took the matters in his own hands, and you guys are justifying HIM breaking the law and nearly killing a woman because he was "assulted" by a 4'11" woman....

yall are the funniest toughguys ever..."im so tough i even beat women up"

"cause they think they can put their hands on me, which im so tough, bothers me, for some reason"

you so tough but you up in arms about a FEMALE swinging on you?

she's the size of a child....if a male child swung on me, i'd LAUGH

if anything 4'11" swung on me I WOULD LAUGH AT THEM

not because im tough, but because i'm positive my life wouldnt be in danger...

   So again, she was the first person to break the law
and he was the second. he will see jailtime, she will probably get off scot free...her "breaking the law" resulted in not so much as a fingernail scratch on a MANS face...whereas his "breaking the law" resulted in someone layed up in a coma....

 There are cases where a person who initially breaks the law has physical harm done to them or even worse but the defendant is not convicted by the court system simply because of self-defense.  
to prove self defense, you have to prove that your life was in danger....THEN you have to prove that your "offensive assult" was within the means and reason of getting you back to safety...

i.e. if someone breaks into my house, unarmed, and i shoot him in the leg, im good. that's reasonable. but, if i then unload a clip into him, killing him, i go to jail...see, its not reasonable...i was safe when i shot him in the leg...

if i get in a street fight, even if he throws the first punch, and i knock him out...THEN start to stomp him, i go to jail....if i throw ONE more punch than neccesary to get my life out of danger, i can be convicted and jailed.

likewise, even if i didnt mean to shoot my next door neighbor with a stray bullet while protecting myself during a home invasion, i go to jail...(so to say "he didnt mean to put her in a coma" is irrelevant...she is in a coma by way of his actions...period)

you dudes is madd funny.....

"hell yeah im an alpha male cause i stomp women out"

and, again, for the upteenth time, STOP TRYING TO USE A SELF-DEFENSE ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE DEFENDENT HIMSELF ISNT. HE SAID HE PUNCHED HER WHEN HE SAW HER HUSBAND AND RAN.

what kinda toughguy punches the woman and runs from the male?

NT Alpha Males, that's who!

 

[deuce king]

the woman is obviously not going to testify seeing how shes braindead. even if she did, her defense isnt going to be 'he got out of the car" its going to be "the offensive response in 'self-defense' was outside of a reasonable response to protect your own life" or something along those lines...

 

 Again, no court of law is going to find her innocent or not at fault for throwing the first punch or the first one to cause physical harm.  Self-defense for her??.........for what him jaywalking out from his car.  

  IF dude called the police and reported being assulted, they woulda came out. They woulda looked at her, then at him, then asked him "sooooo she really had you fearing for your life, eh? you have no visible marks.
Fearing for your life and assault is two different things champ.  Nice try though. 

INSTEAD, he took the matters in his own hands, and you guys are justifying HIM breaking the law and nearly killing a woman because he was "assulted" by a 4'11" woman....

Her height or her gender doesn't disregard the fact that she assaulted him, not even just assaulted him but was the first to assault.  If that were the case we would have a different court system for set laws based upon gender, or even height since you keep saying she's 4' 11".  Assault applies across the board, be it male or female...........even height. 

to prove self defense, you have to prove that your life was in danger....THEN you have to prove that your "offensive assult" was within the means and reason of getting you back to safety...
Actually, self-defense as described in the court of law is the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant:  So again, your "life was in danger" statement doesn't apply.  Your life doesn't have to be in danger in order for self-defense to occur.
  

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible
  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 

 

[deuce king]

the woman is obviously not going to testify seeing how shes braindead. even if she did, her defense isnt going to be 'he got out of the car" its going to be "the offensive response in 'self-defense' was outside of a reasonable response to protect your own life" or something along those lines...

 

 Again, no court of law is going to find her innocent or not at fault for throwing the first punch or the first one to cause physical harm.  Self-defense for her??.........for what him jaywalking out from his car.  

  IF dude called the police and reported being assulted, they woulda came out. They woulda looked at her, then at him, then asked him "sooooo she really had you fearing for your life, eh? you have no visible marks.
Fearing for your life and assault is two different things champ.  Nice try though. 

INSTEAD, he took the matters in his own hands, and you guys are justifying HIM breaking the law and nearly killing a woman because he was "assulted" by a 4'11" woman....

Her height or her gender doesn't disregard the fact that she assaulted him, not even just assaulted him but was the first to assault.  If that were the case we would have a different court system for set laws based upon gender, or even height since you keep saying she's 4' 11".  Assault applies across the board, be it male or female...........even height. 

to prove self defense, you have to prove that your life was in danger....THEN you have to prove that your "offensive assult" was within the means and reason of getting you back to safety...
Actually, self-defense as described in the court of law is the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant:  So again, your "life was in danger" statement doesn't apply.  Your life doesn't have to be in danger in order for self-defense to occur.
  

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible
  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 
yes, intent matters, but that doesn't completely absolve him of the the consequences of him throwing a haymaker....esp on a woman who is 4'11 and prob weights 100lbs soaking wet.

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 
yes, intent matters, but that doesn't completely absolve him of the the consequences of him throwing a haymaker....esp on a woman who is 4'11 and prob weights 100lbs soaking wet.

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Deuce King

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 

yes, intent matters, but that doesn't completely absolve him of the the consequences of him throwing a haymaker....esp on a woman who is 4'11 and prob weights 100lbs soaking wet.




No doubt.  I'm not absolving him of the consequence of his actions which is her being in a coma.......it happened.  However, lets be careful with the words or language we use here such as "haymaker".....and "100lbs soaking wet".  A punch and a haymaker in my book are two different things, with the term haymaker being used a punch with great force, or more than a normal punch.  Also, again her size in a court of law means nothing.  At the end of the day she's an adult and should be looked at as such, not a kid.  Although she may look like one given her height and description since that seems to keep being repeated.  She didn't say to herself "I'm only 4' 11" and 100lbs soaking wet" .............BUT I'm going to go ahead and hit this guy anyway, nor should he or a jury say to themselves othewise. 



Edit--  When I say I'm not absolving him of his actions, I'm acknowledging that he will probably have to pay her medical expenses. 

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Deuce King

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 

yes, intent matters, but that doesn't completely absolve him of the the consequences of him throwing a haymaker....esp on a woman who is 4'11 and prob weights 100lbs soaking wet.




No doubt.  I'm not absolving him of the consequence of his actions which is her being in a coma.......it happened.  However, lets be careful with the words or language we use here such as "haymaker".....and "100lbs soaking wet".  A punch and a haymaker in my book are two different things, with the term haymaker being used a punch with great force, or more than a normal punch.  Also, again her size in a court of law means nothing.  At the end of the day she's an adult and should be looked at as such, not a kid.  Although she may look like one given her height and description since that seems to keep being repeated.  She didn't say to herself "I'm only 4' 11" and 100lbs soaking wet" .............BUT I'm going to go ahead and hit this guy anyway, nor should he or a jury say to themselves othewise. 



Edit--  When I say I'm not absolving him of his actions, I'm acknowledging that he will probably have to pay her medical expenses. 

 

[larrydavidswag]

the funniest thing is, you actually believe what you are saying

 Again, no court of law is going to find her innocent or not at fault for throwing the first punch or the first one to cause physical harm.  Self-defense for her??.........for what him jaywalking out from his car.  

she is guilty of assult. i said that off top. you're not even making intelligent responses at this point.

when did i say self defense for her? they will prosecute the man by saying the force he exerted in "self-defense" was excessive.

i dont see how you read what i posted then respond in this fashion.

i give up.

you're way too tough for me to comprehend.

Fearing for your life and assault is two different things champ.  Nice try though. 
 

Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.


The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.

 The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack.
again, he got out of his car, they exchanged words. im going to go ahead and assume whatever he said to her prompted her to assult him. HER ASSULT WAS ILLEGAL, however, the language is "substantially encourages or provoked an attack" and we have no idea if he said "lady please move" or "move $+%## before i drop you, fat #$@", right? right.

all we know is he got out of the car, and words where exchanged, which resulted in her assulting him, then him assulting her...

In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.
just for the record.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

Deadly force may never be used in defense of uninhabited property.
like a parking space.

The causation requirement can also be deceptive. Not only would a thrown projectile which strikes the plaintiff constitute a battery, but ducking to avoid such a projectile, and hitting one’s head would also be actionable. Moreover, no actual damage need occur to bring an action for battery. The offensiveness of a non-harmful contact will support an award of nominal damages.

In general, self-defense is valid when a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is about to be attacked. Under these circumstances, he may only use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against the potential injury.


as a wrap up, cause i know you're not going to read it all

 Avoid physical confrontation. If there is a safe avenue of retreat, use it (regardless of jurisdiction). At a minimum, retreat to the wall.
• If confrontation is inevitable, give a warning when defending property, unless doing so would be dangerous or futile (which is often the case). This does not mean that you should list your qualifications, as the samurai of old were wont to do. Rather, you should simply give the aggressor notice that you intend to use force against him, in order to allow him to reconsider his position.

• Ensure that you are not seen as the aggressor. This does not require ‘taking the first hit’, but it does require being certain that physical contact is imminent prior to reacting (for an in-depth examination of the danger here, see the Goetz case).

• Be aware of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Is there a size, age, or ability differential? Are you or the attacker armed or trained? All of these factors will help you determine the appropriate level of force.

• Use only the amount of force necessary to deter the attack. This does not require the use of ineffective technique, but rather mature reflection prior to a confrontation about what technique (including flight) is appropriate in which situation. It would be wise to introduce this as part of training.

• Once the initial threat is neutralized, stop. This does not mean that you must give your opponent a fighting chance. Rather, you may immobilize the attacker while awaiting the police, but do no further damage.

• When intervening on behalf of a third party, ensure (as much as possible) that the intervention is justified and necessary. As a rule, interference in domestic disputes is unwise. Reconciliations can mean trouble for the would-be rescuer.

• Remember that, in this country, human rights are superior to property rights. The use of force in the protection of property is very risky



that is the law.

the force he used to "defend" himself from a child-sized assailant was not proportionate, not non-deadly, and certainly wasnt neccesary.


dudes always wanna cry the police or justice system is crooked and you dont have the foggiest clue as to what the law actually is....

so yall keep stomping women out for slapping you, thinking you're good because its "self-defense"

ALPHA MALE FOR LIFE, CUH


oh, yeah, since i'm sure someone will discredit this post by saying "source?"

DISCLAIMER: This analysis is not intended as a comprehensive statement of the law, or a legal opinion. It represents a general overview of the law, accurate to the best of my knowledge, at the time of publication. It is not intended for public consumption, and should not be relied upon as a defense to any criminal or civil charges or complaints.

Peter Hobart is a prosecuting attorney. Currently a member of the Itten Dôjô, Mr. Hobart has trained for many years and is a licensed instructor of Santo Niten Ichi Ryû kenjutsu and kempo, and holds black-belt rank in aikijutsu. He can be reached via e-mail addressed to “[email protected].

 

[larrydavidswag]

the funniest thing is, you actually believe what you are saying

 Again, no court of law is going to find her innocent or not at fault for throwing the first punch or the first one to cause physical harm.  Self-defense for her??.........for what him jaywalking out from his car.  

she is guilty of assult. i said that off top. you're not even making intelligent responses at this point.

when did i say self defense for her? they will prosecute the man by saying the force he exerted in "self-defense" was excessive.

i dont see how you read what i posted then respond in this fashion.

i give up.

you're way too tough for me to comprehend.

Fearing for your life and assault is two different things champ.  Nice try though. 
 

Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.


The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.

 The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack.
again, he got out of his car, they exchanged words. im going to go ahead and assume whatever he said to her prompted her to assult him. HER ASSULT WAS ILLEGAL, however, the language is "substantially encourages or provoked an attack" and we have no idea if he said "lady please move" or "move $+%## before i drop you, fat #$@", right? right.

all we know is he got out of the car, and words where exchanged, which resulted in her assulting him, then him assulting her...

In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.
just for the record.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

Deadly force may never be used in defense of uninhabited property.
like a parking space.

The causation requirement can also be deceptive. Not only would a thrown projectile which strikes the plaintiff constitute a battery, but ducking to avoid such a projectile, and hitting one’s head would also be actionable. Moreover, no actual damage need occur to bring an action for battery. The offensiveness of a non-harmful contact will support an award of nominal damages.

In general, self-defense is valid when a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is about to be attacked. Under these circumstances, he may only use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against the potential injury.


as a wrap up, cause i know you're not going to read it all

 Avoid physical confrontation. If there is a safe avenue of retreat, use it (regardless of jurisdiction). At a minimum, retreat to the wall.
• If confrontation is inevitable, give a warning when defending property, unless doing so would be dangerous or futile (which is often the case). This does not mean that you should list your qualifications, as the samurai of old were wont to do. Rather, you should simply give the aggressor notice that you intend to use force against him, in order to allow him to reconsider his position.

• Ensure that you are not seen as the aggressor. This does not require ‘taking the first hit’, but it does require being certain that physical contact is imminent prior to reacting (for an in-depth examination of the danger here, see the Goetz case).

• Be aware of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Is there a size, age, or ability differential? Are you or the attacker armed or trained? All of these factors will help you determine the appropriate level of force.

• Use only the amount of force necessary to deter the attack. This does not require the use of ineffective technique, but rather mature reflection prior to a confrontation about what technique (including flight) is appropriate in which situation. It would be wise to introduce this as part of training.

• Once the initial threat is neutralized, stop. This does not mean that you must give your opponent a fighting chance. Rather, you may immobilize the attacker while awaiting the police, but do no further damage.

• When intervening on behalf of a third party, ensure (as much as possible) that the intervention is justified and necessary. As a rule, interference in domestic disputes is unwise. Reconciliations can mean trouble for the would-be rescuer.

• Remember that, in this country, human rights are superior to property rights. The use of force in the protection of property is very risky



that is the law.

the force he used to "defend" himself from a child-sized assailant was not proportionate, not non-deadly, and certainly wasnt neccesary.


dudes always wanna cry the police or justice system is crooked and you dont have the foggiest clue as to what the law actually is....

so yall keep stomping women out for slapping you, thinking you're good because its "self-defense"

ALPHA MALE FOR LIFE, CUH


oh, yeah, since i'm sure someone will discredit this post by saying "source?"

DISCLAIMER: This analysis is not intended as a comprehensive statement of the law, or a legal opinion. It represents a general overview of the law, accurate to the best of my knowledge, at the time of publication. It is not intended for public consumption, and should not be relied upon as a defense to any criminal or civil charges or complaints.

Peter Hobart is a prosecuting attorney. Currently a member of the Itten Dôjô, Mr. Hobart has trained for many years and is a licensed instructor of Santo Niten Ichi Ryû kenjutsu and kempo, and holds black-belt rank in aikijutsu. He can be reached via e-mail addressed to “[email protected].

 

[serg812]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Deuce King

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 

yes, intent matters, but that doesn't completely absolve him of the the consequences of him throwing a haymaker....esp on a woman who is 4'11 and prob weights 100lbs soaking wet.


How do you know it was a haymaker? It could have been just a normal "get off me" jab. Seeing as "she's 4'11 and probably weighs 100lbs soaking wet", a normal jab would result in her stumbling backward, lose her balance and cracking her dome on the pavement.

 

[serg812]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Deuce King

What's the purpose in pointing out that the pavement did the damage? He still punched her.. his punch caused her to be knocked out and fall to the pavement...at the end of the day.. he's still going to be responsible

  .........because intent matters.  Which is why we have 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, etc.  At the end of the day, sure she's in a coma but we have to ask whether or not he intended for her to be in a coma. 

yes, intent matters, but that doesn't completely absolve him of the the consequences of him throwing a haymaker....esp on a woman who is 4'11 and prob weights 100lbs soaking wet.


How do you know it was a haymaker? It could have been just a normal "get off me" jab. Seeing as "she's 4'11 and probably weighs 100lbs soaking wet", a normal jab would result in her stumbling backward, lose her balance and cracking her dome on the pavement.

 

[serg812]

how can they prove that she was unconscious before she hit the ground? That's crazy. And even if she were knocked out by the punch, then everyone knows it just takes one well-placed jab to knock someone out. See Kimbo Slice.

 

[serg812]

how can they prove that she was unconscious before she hit the ground? That's crazy. And even if she were knocked out by the punch, then everyone knows it just takes one well-placed jab to knock someone out. See Kimbo Slice.

 

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by WITNESSkb24

Originally Posted by HighMan

Originally Posted by Demps

if she punched him first then she deserved to be punched.

100% truth…
I dont understand why some women feel they have the right to not be held accountable for their actions…

She started a fight and got rocked… maybe she shouldn’t try to be a tuff guy...

quoted for truth, some girls think they can talk ##@@ bc they know no one will do anything

 

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by WITNESSkb24

Originally Posted by HighMan

Originally Posted by Demps

if she punched him first then she deserved to be punched.

100% truth…
I dont understand why some women feel they have the right to not be held accountable for their actions…

She started a fight and got rocked… maybe she shouldn’t try to be a tuff guy...

quoted for truth, some girls think they can talk ##@@ bc they know no one will do anything

 

[deuce king]

they will prosecute the man by saying the force he exerted in "self-defense" was excessive.

How would you or a jury convict him of exerting "excessive" force.  There better be some witnesses other than just the husband with some damaging evidence or testimony to back up your claim.

as a wrap up, cause i know you're not going to read it all
You shouldn't assume champ, it's makes you look bad

.  I actually read everything, and more importantly than that I appreciate you citing all that information.  Always good to have a spirited debate with folks here on the boards.  Some of the points you highlighted IMO could be used in this case depending on how the lawyers on both sides present their argument.  The one blaring point that we will probably continue to dispute over is "deadly force" or the attempt of "deadly force". 

 

[deuce king]

they will prosecute the man by saying the force he exerted in "self-defense" was excessive.

How would you or a jury convict him of exerting "excessive" force.  There better be some witnesses other than just the husband with some damaging evidence or testimony to back up your claim.

as a wrap up, cause i know you're not going to read it all
You shouldn't assume champ, it's makes you look bad

.  I actually read everything, and more importantly than that I appreciate you citing all that information.  Always good to have a spirited debate with folks here on the boards.  Some of the points you highlighted IMO could be used in this case depending on how the lawyers on both sides present their argument.  The one blaring point that we will probably continue to dispute over is "deadly force" or the attempt of "deadly force". 

 

[larrydavidswag]

he may not have intended deadly force, but like the example i posted "if you throw an object and the victim ducks the object, but the ducking causes inujuries, you are liable for those injuries"

he punched her, causing her to hit her head.

logically

his punch hit her head on the pavement. had he not punched her, she would not have hit her head. his hand is the direct action that resulted in her hitting her head.

this is going to be a very very very easy case for her lawyers, imo.

it sucks, cause like you said and like he said, he didnt INTEND for her to be in a coma from it...he prolly, like all you dudes are saying, just wanted to calm her down.....whenever i hit people smaller, younger(cousins, kids, chicks, etc.) than me, its ALWAYS open fisted....because of this very reason...

but just like me shooting a gun at someone breaking into my house and i shoot my neighbor dead...im liable for their death...sure, i didnt even mean to shoot AT that person, but MY bullet hit THEIR body...



i also found it interesting that size, weight, handicap etc where brought up by the law as well, i figured it was equal in the eyes of the law, and only a jury could find, say shaq, like DCs example, guilty because of his size.....but it says that the law can take all that in account too. I was prepared to give you guys that whole point, that her height, weight and gender mean nothing in the eyes of the law, but apparently, it does...and for good reason...



im not arguing that he used deadly force, i mean, thats an argument in itself, im just saying his punch, which sent her airborne, was not neccesary nor proportionate, seeing how the chick was 4'11" and left not one visible mark on dudes face...i could see, maybe, if the chick ran UP to his car, AS HE WAS INSIDE, UNABLE TO ESCAPE, and assulted him with AN OBJECT....sure, then it's open season on this chick.....but i'm sure the "flurry of punches" were like old lady slaps to his chest and neck (she WAS 4'11")

also, the fact that he got out of his car, according to the interpretation of the law i citied, he PROVOKED or ENCOURAGED violence, so EVEN THOUGH SHE HIT HIM FIRST, he got out of the car, spoke words.....not saying its right that she hit him, not saying she shouldnt have been held accountable for hitting him, im just saying....now that the incident escalated past "this woman assulted this guy", that argument CAN and probably WILL be employed in court...

moreover, he OBVIOUSLY didnt employ the "retreat to the wall" tatic, which, granted, isnt even accepted in every state and is open to interpretation, but still.....he wasnt placed in a position where he HAD to punch her to get himself to safety.....because he punched her and fled....he COULD HAVE just fled, right?

youre asking how a jury or judge could convict him for using excessive force? was a punch to a 4'11" woman the ONLY way to stop her from "assulting" you? no. he could have physically restrained her....hell, he coulda put his arm out and let her swing away like a foghornleghorn x chicken hawk collabo....he could have gotten back in his car and drove off....regardless, at the end of the day, assulting someone back in the name of self defense is supposed to be a "last ditch" effort, if not for human safety, then for legal defense of your actions...

alot of people think self defense is like "oh, you assulted me? whatever i do is justified, i have a green light"

and its not

i saw kids in HS get expelled and placed on probation and even charged with assult with a weapon, because, while getting jumped, they picked up a desk and served 3-4 dudes at once....

it sucks for people who are actually getting attacked and fear for their lives and retaliate to save themselves, this guy, tho, was being slapped by a child-sized woman, bro....that means something....

the "force" he used, a punch, no matter how light you guys supporting his actions are trying to debate it was or wasnt, sent her flying through the air, and left her in a coma....

that wasnt neccesary nor was it proportionate......

that fact alone looks like a quick conviction for dude...

again, OVER A PARKING SPACE....

(which is why i also included the whole "defending uninhabited space" or whatever....)

good to see you're not just mindlessly responding back, tho....i was seriously alarmed after you replied to my last post (before the law stuff) with the exact same responses...

 

[larrydavidswag]

he may not have intended deadly force, but like the example i posted "if you throw an object and the victim ducks the object, but the ducking causes inujuries, you are liable for those injuries"

he punched her, causing her to hit her head.

logically

his punch hit her head on the pavement. had he not punched her, she would not have hit her head. his hand is the direct action that resulted in her hitting her head.

this is going to be a very very very easy case for her lawyers, imo.

it sucks, cause like you said and like he said, he didnt INTEND for her to be in a coma from it...he prolly, like all you dudes are saying, just wanted to calm her down.....whenever i hit people smaller, younger(cousins, kids, chicks, etc.) than me, its ALWAYS open fisted....because of this very reason...

but just like me shooting a gun at someone breaking into my house and i shoot my neighbor dead...im liable for their death...sure, i didnt even mean to shoot AT that person, but MY bullet hit THEIR body...



i also found it interesting that size, weight, handicap etc where brought up by the law as well, i figured it was equal in the eyes of the law, and only a jury could find, say shaq, like DCs example, guilty because of his size.....but it says that the law can take all that in account too. I was prepared to give you guys that whole point, that her height, weight and gender mean nothing in the eyes of the law, but apparently, it does...and for good reason...



im not arguing that he used deadly force, i mean, thats an argument in itself, im just saying his punch, which sent her airborne, was not neccesary nor proportionate, seeing how the chick was 4'11" and left not one visible mark on dudes face...i could see, maybe, if the chick ran UP to his car, AS HE WAS INSIDE, UNABLE TO ESCAPE, and assulted him with AN OBJECT....sure, then it's open season on this chick.....but i'm sure the "flurry of punches" were like old lady slaps to his chest and neck (she WAS 4'11")

also, the fact that he got out of his car, according to the interpretation of the law i citied, he PROVOKED or ENCOURAGED violence, so EVEN THOUGH SHE HIT HIM FIRST, he got out of the car, spoke words.....not saying its right that she hit him, not saying she shouldnt have been held accountable for hitting him, im just saying....now that the incident escalated past "this woman assulted this guy", that argument CAN and probably WILL be employed in court...

moreover, he OBVIOUSLY didnt employ the "retreat to the wall" tatic, which, granted, isnt even accepted in every state and is open to interpretation, but still.....he wasnt placed in a position where he HAD to punch her to get himself to safety.....because he punched her and fled....he COULD HAVE just fled, right?

youre asking how a jury or judge could convict him for using excessive force? was a punch to a 4'11" woman the ONLY way to stop her from "assulting" you? no. he could have physically restrained her....hell, he coulda put his arm out and let her swing away like a foghornleghorn x chicken hawk collabo....he could have gotten back in his car and drove off....regardless, at the end of the day, assulting someone back in the name of self defense is supposed to be a "last ditch" effort, if not for human safety, then for legal defense of your actions...

alot of people think self defense is like "oh, you assulted me? whatever i do is justified, i have a green light"

and its not

i saw kids in HS get expelled and placed on probation and even charged with assult with a weapon, because, while getting jumped, they picked up a desk and served 3-4 dudes at once....

it sucks for people who are actually getting attacked and fear for their lives and retaliate to save themselves, this guy, tho, was being slapped by a child-sized woman, bro....that means something....

the "force" he used, a punch, no matter how light you guys supporting his actions are trying to debate it was or wasnt, sent her flying through the air, and left her in a coma....

that wasnt neccesary nor was it proportionate......

that fact alone looks like a quick conviction for dude...

again, OVER A PARKING SPACE....

(which is why i also included the whole "defending uninhabited space" or whatever....)

good to see you're not just mindlessly responding back, tho....i was seriously alarmed after you replied to my last post (before the law stuff) with the exact same responses...

 

[ninjahood]

bottomline is she started it...had she kept her hands to herself she's still be out and about.

when your taught to drive, you are told to be as defensive as possible, basically pretend that everyone is a crazed maniac...thats how she should've handled herself.