larrydavidswag
Banned
- 1,767
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
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, you NEED a kite, bruh
he based his entire argument off me believing the dude acted with deadly force.
that's irrelevant....
she's in a coma. He cannot claim self defense as the law reads. his INTENT is irrelevant....
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).
opinion. this is what will be argued in court, and i believe the judge OR jury will side with the girl, who is 4'11" and left not a single mark on the man, whereas his "single" punch left her in a coma...that is not proportionate.....no injuries/coma....how is that proportionate?
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.
, again, if you dudes were representing this guy he would FRY like popeyes chicken batter
HE CANNOT USE THE CLAIM OF SELF DEFENSE, HE WAS IN NO DANGER OF BEING HARMED HE HAS NOT ONE INJURY, NOT SO MUCH AS A FINGERNAIL SCRATCH! HE CLAIMED HE PUNCHED HER BECAUSE HE SAW HER HUSBAND COMING, NOT BECAUSE HE FELT HIS WELLBEING WAS IN DANGER
you wonder how so many NYC knuckleheads get caught up in the system....lol you got ninjahood posting for a dude who cant even post....it was that serious for him to try to contradict me, he asked another NTer to post it....
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!".
that's cute. ninjahood is the one who types like a teenage drop out, not me, sir. please. that's not even my argument, but i wouldnt assume someone like you, who actually read my post and STILL try to contradict it, would understand exactly WHAT my argument is....
i'd call you a moron but meth is itching to ban me...
logical and beautifully laid out argument
complete with mocking me like i type like a 14 year old girl from da heightz....
....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?
sir, im glad you asked the question...there are MANY cases of home break ins where the person living there has shot, crippled, killed, mamed the guy breaking in AND GOT CHARGED AND CONVICTED
you OBVIOUSLY didnt read ANY OF THE LAW LANGUAGE I POSTED, because I ANSWERED ALL THIS MORON QUESTIONING
yo, duece king read it, and respected it....
you're just ignoring it.
And yes, one punch in result to a sustained attack by Rosas, and an impending attack by her boyfriend is a "reasonable" action.
and you pretend to be smart?
if the impending attack was from her boyfriend.....HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO ASSULT/DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE BOYFRIEND, NOT HER
sustained attack? so he was in bodily harm? a reasonable person would have acted in the same fashion?
all of this is irrelevant...i only even responded to you because you're a clown, intellectually....
when dude goes to trial and gets convicted, i will dig this post and post 100's in a row....
swear, i hope dude gets a halfway decent lawyer. if his counsel is talking even remotely like you geniuses in here, he will get the chair....
they will bring the chair out of retirement for him if his lawyer goes in court like "LOOK, THIS MAN HAD TO DEFEND HIMSELF FROM A 4'11" WOMAN BY PUNCHING HER. HE WAS RIGHT FOR DOING SO BECAUSE HER ASSULT WAS SO DAMAGING TO HIS BODY THERE IS NO PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO HIM. HE ALSO PUNCHED HER BECAUSE HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE HER BOYFRIEND WAS GOING TO ATTACK HIM. BEING THAT THE BOYFRIEND WAS COUNTLESS YARDS AWAY, HE PUNCHED WHO HE COULD, THE GIRL, TO STOP THE BOYFRIEND FROM ATTACKING HIM, PRE-EMPTIVELY. HE WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIS OWN SAFETY, THAT, AFTER HE KNOCKED A CHILD SIZED WOMAN UNCONSCIOUS, HE FLED THE SCENE IMMDIATELY. I MEAN, HE WOULD HAVE FILED ASSULT CHARGES ON THE WOMAN HAD HE NOT TAKEN MATTERS INTO HIS OWN HANDS AND GOT THAT GOOD OLE AMERICAN STREET JUSTICE, NAHMEAN, JUDGE? YOU LOOK LIKE THE ALPHA MALE TYPE, WONT LET A WOMAN WALK ALL OVER YOU, AM I RIGHT JUDGE?"
*holds hand out for dap*
i respect duece king's intellect soooooooooooooo much more now
