Woman put in coma over parking space.

[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.

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by 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.

HE was driving.
she wasn't.

by that logic.. he shouldn't have gotten out of the car to confront her

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by 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.

HE was driving.
she wasn't.

by that logic.. he shouldn't have gotten out of the car to confront her

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by 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.

HE was driving.
she wasn't.

by that logic.. he shouldn't have gotten out of the car to confront her

yo, dirty, dont argue with him. i posted the LAW. whatever opinion he thinks he has on the matter is irrelevant.

ninjahood used to be my favorite NTer too....

these last three weeks have shown me the error in my ways....

besides, your argument back that he was driving and she wasnt doesnt make sense, he was using that as an example of how this woman should have been practicing "defensive living" techniques every waking second she's alive.


again, we have no idea what dude said to ole girl when he got out of the car....being that she began to "assult" him, im going to assume they were PROVOKING or INSULTING comments...which, by law, make him forfeit his ability to claim "self-defense"

not saying she isnt at fault for assulting dude (cause i know someone will post after me saying that), she is. But you can't claim self-defense if you get out of the car and talk %@## to the girl before she hits you...

likewise, you cant claim self-defense when you werent in danger of bodily harm...

you also cant claim self defense when your OFFENSIVE action was DISPROPORTIONATE.

so whatever opinion you manly tough guys have on the situation is irrelevant...that is the law.


  

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by 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.

HE was driving.
she wasn't.

by that logic.. he shouldn't have gotten out of the car to confront her

yo, dirty, dont argue with him. i posted the LAW. whatever opinion he thinks he has on the matter is irrelevant.

ninjahood used to be my favorite NTer too....

these last three weeks have shown me the error in my ways....

besides, your argument back that he was driving and she wasnt doesnt make sense, he was using that as an example of how this woman should have been practicing "defensive living" techniques every waking second she's alive.


again, we have no idea what dude said to ole girl when he got out of the car....being that she began to "assult" him, im going to assume they were PROVOKING or INSULTING comments...which, by law, make him forfeit his ability to claim "self-defense"

not saying she isnt at fault for assulting dude (cause i know someone will post after me saying that), she is. But you can't claim self-defense if you get out of the car and talk %@## to the girl before she hits you...

likewise, you cant claim self-defense when you werent in danger of bodily harm...

you also cant claim self defense when your OFFENSIVE action was DISPROPORTIONATE.

so whatever opinion you manly tough guys have on the situation is irrelevant...that is the law.


  

 

[budweiser]

Ninjahood:da as Deuce King:champ

 

[budweiser]

Ninjahood:da as Deuce King:champ

 

[BranchLifestyle]

Agree to disagree guys?!?!

 

[burgundyaltima]

is that real?

 

[BranchLifestyle]

Agree to disagree guys?!?!

 

[burgundyaltima]

is that real?

 

[ninjahood]

Dirtylicious wrote:

---

ninjahood wrote:

---

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.

HE was driving.
she wasn't.

by that logic.. he shouldn't have gotten out of the car to confront her

 

She felt obligated to hold a parking space for someone so in essence she was also "driving"

everything would've been cool had she not touched duke. she did, now she's fighting for her life....doesn't matter how ya frame da arguement, once u lay a hand on someone u elevate da situation

to a place you better be ready to handle...money got outta his car for w/e reason but didn't hit her until she started it....obviously duke shouldn't of MK uppercut her but thats da decision he made which

basically was retaliation for what she started....she doesn't lift a finger up and none of this happens.

 

[ninjahood]

Dirtylicious wrote:

---

ninjahood wrote:

---

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.

HE was driving.
she wasn't.

by that logic.. he shouldn't have gotten out of the car to confront her

 

She felt obligated to hold a parking space for someone so in essence she was also "driving"

everything would've been cool had she not touched duke. she did, now she's fighting for her life....doesn't matter how ya frame da arguement, once u lay a hand on someone u elevate da situation

to a place you better be ready to handle...money got outta his car for w/e reason but didn't hit her until she started it....obviously duke shouldn't of MK uppercut her but thats da decision he made which

basically was retaliation for what she started....she doesn't lift a finger up and none of this happens.

 

[ninjahood]

a kite from




TheBachellor

First off, I find that LarryDavidSwag's argument is contradictory, and while his stance on the issue remains the same, the reasons that he supplies are often self-defeating.

In particular, he fails to realize the difference between intent and causation.

"Deadly force" is referred to in the law in the context of intent. A [correct] consensus has been reached by all parties involved deeming that the intent of the single punch thrown by Fuller was not to kill Rosas.

According to a quote that you posted:

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....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. 

So, currently, we have someone who is using unlawful force on another person. The genders of the people involved are a non-factor. It is well within the realm of plausibility that a single punch would be thrown by a sizeable portion of population in order to defend oneself. Again, the danger (which, is a "dangerously" subjective term) that the person who is being attacked is in is not of concern (according to the quotes that you've posted). Transposing this hypothetical scenario to the real event, we have Rosas, who (according to witnesses and Fuller) hit him multiple times (unlawful force), and Fuller, who responds with a single punch (the intent of which is a necessary and proportionate reaction to the unawful force that was exercised on him, and the impending unlawful force that was about to be exercised by her boyfriend).

That is where Fuller's responsibility ends. Rosas's fall to the curb and eventual entrance in to a coma has nothing to do with the intent of the force behind Fuller's punch. It is asinine to even attempt to relate the two. Rosas's fall was a consequence of the punch, which the law does not hold anyone responsible for in the case of self-defense.

Your quote on causation was picked from the section concerning "battery and assault", most of which I have posted here for convenience:

Battery and assault:

In virtually every jurisdiction (including Pennsylvania), to make out a case for battery, the plaintiff must show that the aggressor made harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person, that the aggressor intended to bring about such contact, and that the aggressor’s actions in fact caused the contact. While harmful contact is easily determined from the specifics of the situation, offensive contact is judged by the objective, ‘reasonable person standard’. As a prominent Philadelphia law professor explains, "tapping a person on the shoulder is not reasonably ‘offensive’ whereas, tapping someone ‘considerably lower’ would be." ‘Plaintiff’s person’ means in general anything connected to the plaintiff’s body. This would include a hat, a cup in plaintiff’s hand, and on a recent bar exam, even the car in which the plaintiff was sitting! Thus, snatching a book from a person might well constitute a battery.

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.


Upon reading the first sentence, it becomes apparent that this entire section does not apply to this event.

I anticipate, that despite my logical and beautifully laid out argument, you will retort: "Wow it dOESnT mAttER iF hE dIdnT mEAN to PuT hEr iN a cOMa HE DID sO He IS A mUrdereR!".

If that's the case, what would occur in the example that you posted:

i.e. if someone breaks into my house, unarmed, and i shoot him in the leg, im good. that's reasonable. 

....if the shot in the leg causes the suspect to die (not uncommon, I might add)? Would you take the manslaughter charge in stride like you're suggesting Fuller should do? Or are you going to argue that the suspect was in the wrong in the first place, and that you cannot be held responsible for any events that may occur as a result of action that you take to defend yourself within reason?

There is only one logical answer to this question. Don't be an imbecile and choose the other one. 

And yes, one punch in result to a sustained attack by Rosas, and an impending attack by her boyfriend is a "reasonable" action.

My argument is based upon the assumption that the statements made by Oscar Fuller and his lawyer are truthful.

 

[ninjahood]

a kite from




TheBachellor

First off, I find that LarryDavidSwag's argument is contradictory, and while his stance on the issue remains the same, the reasons that he supplies are often self-defeating.

In particular, he fails to realize the difference between intent and causation.

"Deadly force" is referred to in the law in the context of intent. A [correct] consensus has been reached by all parties involved deeming that the intent of the single punch thrown by Fuller was not to kill Rosas.

According to a quote that you posted:

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....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. 

So, currently, we have someone who is using unlawful force on another person. The genders of the people involved are a non-factor. It is well within the realm of plausibility that a single punch would be thrown by a sizeable portion of population in order to defend oneself. Again, the danger (which, is a "dangerously" subjective term) that the person who is being attacked is in is not of concern (according to the quotes that you've posted). Transposing this hypothetical scenario to the real event, we have Rosas, who (according to witnesses and Fuller) hit him multiple times (unlawful force), and Fuller, who responds with a single punch (the intent of which is a necessary and proportionate reaction to the unawful force that was exercised on him, and the impending unlawful force that was about to be exercised by her boyfriend).

That is where Fuller's responsibility ends. Rosas's fall to the curb and eventual entrance in to a coma has nothing to do with the intent of the force behind Fuller's punch. It is asinine to even attempt to relate the two. Rosas's fall was a consequence of the punch, which the law does not hold anyone responsible for in the case of self-defense.

Your quote on causation was picked from the section concerning "battery and assault", most of which I have posted here for convenience:

Battery and assault:

In virtually every jurisdiction (including Pennsylvania), to make out a case for battery, the plaintiff must show that the aggressor made harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person, that the aggressor intended to bring about such contact, and that the aggressor’s actions in fact caused the contact. While harmful contact is easily determined from the specifics of the situation, offensive contact is judged by the objective, ‘reasonable person standard’. As a prominent Philadelphia law professor explains, "tapping a person on the shoulder is not reasonably ‘offensive’ whereas, tapping someone ‘considerably lower’ would be." ‘Plaintiff’s person’ means in general anything connected to the plaintiff’s body. This would include a hat, a cup in plaintiff’s hand, and on a recent bar exam, even the car in which the plaintiff was sitting! Thus, snatching a book from a person might well constitute a battery.

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.


Upon reading the first sentence, it becomes apparent that this entire section does not apply to this event.

I anticipate, that despite my logical and beautifully laid out argument, you will retort: "Wow it dOESnT mAttER iF hE dIdnT mEAN to PuT hEr iN a cOMa HE DID sO He IS A mUrdereR!".

If that's the case, what would occur in the example that you posted:

i.e. if someone breaks into my house, unarmed, and i shoot him in the leg, im good. that's reasonable. 

....if the shot in the leg causes the suspect to die (not uncommon, I might add)? Would you take the manslaughter charge in stride like you're suggesting Fuller should do? Or are you going to argue that the suspect was in the wrong in the first place, and that you cannot be held responsible for any events that may occur as a result of action that you take to defend yourself within reason?

There is only one logical answer to this question. Don't be an imbecile and choose the other one. 

And yes, one punch in result to a sustained attack by Rosas, and an impending attack by her boyfriend is a "reasonable" action.

My argument is based upon the assumption that the statements made by Oscar Fuller and his lawyer are truthful.

 

[importking]

goya b

 

[importking]

goya b

 

[deuce king]

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



Yeah I understand that, but as far as him being liable for anything here it should be her medical expenses.  Jailtime or prison sentencing for this case to be is not going to be as easy as you try to make it seem IMO.

 

[deuce king]

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



Yeah I understand that, but as far as him being liable for anything here it should be her medical expenses.  Jailtime or prison sentencing for this case to be is not going to be as easy as you try to make it seem IMO.

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

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

Yeah I understand that, but as far as him being liable for anything here it should be her medical expenses.  Jailtime or prison sentencing for this case to be is not going to be as easy as you try to make it seem IMO.




  

, you serious?

she could die. she's never even gonna have the same quality of life ever again...

half her skull was taken out of her head...

he's most certainly going to be prosecuted criminally and will probably end up with a decade, unless he takes a plea.....

i know HS kids who got 6 months off hitting another kid with a desk....the kid that got hit came to school the next day, fine...

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

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

Yeah I understand that, but as far as him being liable for anything here it should be her medical expenses.  Jailtime or prison sentencing for this case to be is not going to be as easy as you try to make it seem IMO.




  

, you serious?

she could die. she's never even gonna have the same quality of life ever again...

half her skull was taken out of her head...

he's most certainly going to be prosecuted criminally and will probably end up with a decade, unless he takes a plea.....

i know HS kids who got 6 months off hitting another kid with a desk....the kid that got hit came to school the next day, fine...

 

[antonlavey]

I can tell some people in here don't know how the American justice system works.

 

[antonlavey]

I can tell some people in here don't know how the American justice system works.

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Originally Posted by Deuce King

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

Yeah I understand that, but as far as him being liable for anything here it should be her medical expenses.  Jailtime or prison sentencing for this case to be is not going to be as easy as you try to make it seem IMO.

  

, you serious?

she could die. she's never even gonna have the same quality of life ever again...

half her skull was taken out of her head...

he's most certainly going to be prosecuted criminally and will probably end up with a decade, unless he takes a plea.....

i know HS kids who got 6 months off hitting another kid with a desk....the kid that got hit came to school the next day, fine...

My argument is based on current events as it stands today.  From what we know right now, she is still alive......yes in a coma, but still alive.  All the "she could die" or any other hypotheticals such as that don't apply right now. 
  

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Originally Posted by Deuce King

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

Yeah I understand that, but as far as him being liable for anything here it should be her medical expenses.  Jailtime or prison sentencing for this case to be is not going to be as easy as you try to make it seem IMO.

  

, you serious?

she could die. she's never even gonna have the same quality of life ever again...

half her skull was taken out of her head...

he's most certainly going to be prosecuted criminally and will probably end up with a decade, unless he takes a plea.....

i know HS kids who got 6 months off hitting another kid with a desk....the kid that got hit came to school the next day, fine...

My argument is based on current events as it stands today.  From what we know right now, she is still alive......yes in a coma, but still alive.  All the "she could die" or any other hypotheticals such as that don't apply right now.