Self Defense Scenario - Who is guilty? Of What? (1 Viewer)

[Dragonfly]

Joe and Bob are playing pool at a bar in AnyCity, USA.
They are playing at different tables with other people. Not playing each other.
Being in a bar, everyone is drinking.

Joe spots a very sexy and very scantily dressed female and promptly starts hitting on her.
Over time the “hitting” on the girl becomes lewd and slightly offensive as the girl does her best to ignore Joe.

Turns out the girl is Bob’s fiancé and at some point Bob tells Joe he needs to shut up and leave the girl alone.

Joe does not heed any warnings and keeps making offensive comments and gestures.

Bob’s next move is to rather forcefully and aggressively tell Joe if he doesn’t stop with the harassment Joe’s going to lose some teeth.

Joe, being drunk and rather strong, tells Bob to “F OFF” and says he’s just having some fun with the “skank in the hooker outfit”.

Bob has had enough. He quickly and efficiently pushes his way past another pool player and heads straight for Joe. Joe grabs a pool cue, and with both hands swings the pool cue at Bob’s head. Bob ducks, he’s not drunk, but Joe certainly is. Joe swings again, but this time Bob has grabbed his own cue and uses it to deflect Joe’s second attack. Joe stumbles off balance and before he can turn around Bob uses his cue to bash Joe on the back of his head.

Joe falls unconsciously to the floor, and smashes head-first onto the bar’s hard tile floor.

Fight’s over.

On the way to the hospital Joe dies from blunt force trauma to head.

Who was acting in self defense?
Is Bob guilty of a crime? Manslaughter?

Plenty of witnesses. Bob could have simply left the building. Bob could have called the bouncers or management of the bar.

Bob was “original” aggressor? Or was he?

Remember, Bob was empty handed on initial approach, and only picked up cue (weapon?) after Joe swung at his head.

Who was original aggressor? Who is, or was guilty of a crime?

Or - is it just a tragic end to a sad situation, but there's been no crime committed?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

He (Bob) quickly and efficiently pushes his way past another pool player and heads straight for Joe.

Joe, 100%.

Bob may have made some aggressive gestures, but he didn't commit to violence first. Legally, he should be completely innocent. He was attacked by a drunk, aggressive bar patron, and he defended himself accordingly.

On a personal level, not a legal one, Bob should've been able to knock him the **** out a lot earlier than that, but I can understand that the law draws the line earlier.

In the end, Joe swung first, and that's all that counts. It might have been a better "what-if" scenario if Joe was the aggressor but Bob swung first. Having Joe be both the aggressor and the attacker makes it quite open and shut.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Joe and Bob are playing pool at a bar in AnyCity, USA.
They are playing at different tables with other people. Not playing each other.
Being in a bar, everyone is drinking.

Joe spots a very sexy and very scantily dressed female and promptly starts hitting on her.
Over time the “hitting” on the girl becomes lewd and slightly offensive as the girl does her best to ignore Joe.

Turns out the girl is Bob’s fiancé and at some point Bob tells Joe he needs to shut up and leave the girl alone.

Joe does not heed any warnings and keeps making offensive comments and gestures.

Bob’s next move is to rather forcefully and aggressively tell Joe if he doesn’t stop with the harassment Joe’s going to lose some teeth.

Joe, being drunk and rather strong, tells Bob to “F OFF” and says he’s just having some fun with the “skank in the hooker outfit”.

Bob has had enough. He quickly and efficiently pushes his way past another pool player and heads straight for Joe. Joe grabs a pool cue, and with both hands swings the pool cue at Bob’s head. Bob ducks, he’s not drunk, but Joe certainly is. Joe swings again, but this time Bob has grabbed his own cue and uses it to deflect Joe’s second attack. Joe stumbles off balance and before he can turn around Bob uses his cue to bash Joe on the back of his head.

Joe falls unconsciously to the floor, and smashes head-first onto the bar’s hard tile floor.

Fight’s over.

On the way to the hospital Joe dies from blunt force trauma to head.

Who was acting in self defense?
Is Bob guilty of a crime? Manslaughter?

Plenty of witnesses. Bob could have simply left the building. Bob could have called the bouncers or management of the bar.

Bob was “original” aggressor? Or was he?

Remember, Bob was empty handed on initial approach, and only picked up cue (weapon?) after Joe swung at his head.

Who was original aggressor? Who is, or was guilty of a crime?

Or - is it just a tragic end to a sad situation, but there's been no crime committed?

Your story makes it quite clear, as Bob merely approched Joe, made no verbal/physical threat and Joe made the first "armed" attack. Nobody is guilty, but Joe will never do that again.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Your story makes it quite clear, as Bob merely approched Joe, made no verbal/physical threat and Joe made the first "armed" attack. Nobody is guilty, but Joe will never do that again.

What about the fact that Bob said that if he, Joe, didn't, "stop with the harassment Joe’s going to lose some teeth." Sounds like a verbal threat to me. I agree that Bob had made no specific physical threat as portrayed in this telling.

 

[Lutherf]

Since Joe's dead it doesn't make any sense to charge him with a crime and Bob acted in self defense so he didn't commit a crime either. Per usual, Darwin wins.

 

[lizzie]

Bob was acting in self-defense, and should not be charged with anything at all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Your story makes it quite clear, as Bob merely approched Joe, made no verbal/physical threat and Joe made the first "armed" attack. Nobody is guilty, but Joe will never do that again.

Fine charge Bob and try to convince a jury that lose some teeth was a threat of great bodily harm or death.

EDIT: woops, I meant to reply to another post.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What about the fact that Bob said that if he, Joe, didn't, "stop with the harassment Joe’s going to lose some teeth." Sounds like a verbal threat to me. I agree that Bob had made no specific physical threat as portrayed in this telling.

Fine, then charge Bob and try to convince a jury that lose some teeth was a threat of great bodily harm or death.

 

[lolabird]

Where were the bouncers? Isn't the establishment's responsibility to oversee such actions?
Where were Bob's friends? Someone should have stepped forth to enlighten Bob that the women he was sexually harassing was Joe's fiancé.
This scenario seems to be a bit hypocritical; i.e., saying Bob was drunk, therefore, he didn't really know what he was doing. Remember Mel Gibson?

 

[CRUE CAB]

If Bob were any kind of man, he would pay the tab and take his girl to a different bar or home. Period, end of discussion.
Short of that, he is in the wrong if he were carrying a gun.
Disgression is the better part of valor.

 

[Lutherf]

Where were the bouncers? Isn't the establishment's responsibility to oversee such actions?
Where were Bob's friends? Someone should have stepped forth to enlighten Bob that the women he was sexually harassing was Joe's fiancé.
This scenario seems to be a bit hypocritical; i.e., saying Bob was drunk, therefore, he didn't really know what he was doing. Remember Mel Gibson?

Why is it that liberals have such a hard time sorting out facts in a case even when they are available at the top of the page for quick reference if necessary?

 

[Caine]

Joe and Bob are playing pool at a bar in AnyCity, USA.
They are playing at different tables with other people. Not playing each other.
Being in a bar, everyone is drinking.

Joe spots a very sexy and very scantily dressed female and promptly starts hitting on her.
Over time the “hitting” on the girl becomes lewd and slightly offensive as the girl does her best to ignore Joe.

Turns out the girl is Bob’s fiancé and at some point Bob tells Joe he needs to shut up and leave the girl alone.

Joe does not heed any warnings and keeps making offensive comments and gestures.

Bob’s next move is to rather forcefully and aggressively tell Joe if he doesn’t stop with the harassment Joe’s going to lose some teeth.

Joe, being drunk and rather strong, tells Bob to “F OFF” and says he’s just having some fun with the “skank in the hooker outfit”.

Bob has had enough. He quickly and efficiently pushes his way past another pool player and heads straight for Joe. Joe grabs a pool cue, and with both hands swings the pool cue at Bob’s head. Bob ducks, he’s not drunk, but Joe certainly is. Joe swings again, but this time Bob has grabbed his own cue and uses it to deflect Joe’s second attack. Joe stumbles off balance and before he can turn around Bob uses his cue to bash Joe on the back of his head.

Joe falls unconsciously to the floor, and smashes head-first onto the bar’s hard tile floor.

Fight’s over.

On the way to the hospital Joe dies from blunt force trauma to head.

Who was acting in self defense?
Is Bob guilty of a crime? Manslaughter?

Plenty of witnesses. Bob could have simply left the building. Bob could have called the bouncers or management of the bar.

Bob was “original” aggressor? Or was he?

Remember, Bob was empty handed on initial approach, and only picked up cue (weapon?) after Joe swung at his head.

Who was original aggressor? Who is, or was guilty of a crime?

Or - is it just a tragic end to a sad situation, but there's been no crime committed?

Bob is guilty of Manslaughter.

 

[Caine]

Your story makes it quite clear, as Bob merely approched Joe, made no verbal/physical threat and Joe made the first "armed" attack. Nobody is guilty, but Joe will never do that again.

Nope... Bob is guilty of Manslaughter.

I think everyone failed to read how Bob relayed a verbal threat to Joe about "losing teeth"

Then when Bob came after Joe, Joe had reason to believe that Bob was coming over to him to carry out that threat, and thus was right to defend himself.

By Bob pushing past other people to get to Joe, it showed aggression, the same aggression that he showed in his previous threat.

 

[lolabird]

Bob is guilty of Manslaughter.

It's too easy to stand back and point fingers. Neither of the men acted responsibly, and unfortunately the outcome was tragic.
Again I ask, why didn't someone step forward to help prevent the death.
What happens the next time another Bob and Joe play out the same scenario?

 

[Caine]

Fine charge Bob and try to convince a jury that lose some teeth was a threat of great bodily harm or death.

EDIT: woops, I meant to reply to another post.

It doesn't have to be "great bodily harm or death" to defend yourself with a pool cue.

A pool cue is... by default... not a lethal weapon (as I said, by default).

 

[Caine]

It's too easy to stand back and point fingers. Neither of the men acted responsibly, and unfortunately the outcome was tragic.
Again I ask, why didn't someone step forward to help prevent the death.
What happens the next time another Bob and Joe play out the same scenario?

Bob attacked Joe after threatening him...... Joe was correct to defend himself...he lost.

 

[Lutherf]

Nope... Bob is guilty of Manslaughter.

I think everyone failed to read how Bob relayed a verbal threat to Joe about "losing teeth"

Then when Bob came after Joe, Joe had reason to believe that Bob was coming over to him to carry out that threat, and thus was right to defend himself.

By Bob pushing past other people to get to Joe, it showed aggression, the same aggression that he showed in his previous threat.

Unintentional homicide while committing a criminal act would be manslaughter. Unintentional homicide while committing self defense is...self defense. As soon as Joe swung that cue Bob had a right to defend himself by whatever means he had available.

 

[Caine]

Unintentional homicide while committing a criminal act would be manslaughter. Unintentional homicide while committing self defense is...self defense. As soon as Joe swung that cue Bob had a right to defend himself by whatever means he had available.

Bob started the fight..... never made an effort to retreat or call off the fight.
Joe swinging the cue was self defense. Bob threatened him and was moving aggressively past people (pushing them out of the way even) to get to him in order to carry out the threat......... Joe was defending himself against Bob's imminent attack. One doesn't have to wait to be bludgeoned before they can defend themselves.

When Joe stumbled after a swing, IF Bob was intent on retreating from the affray he could have used that opportunity to retreat, instead he used it to land the killing blow.

 

[Lutherf]

Bob started the fight..... never made an effort to retreat or call off the fight.
Joe swinging the cue was self defense. Bob threatened him and was moving aggressively past people (pushing them out of the way even) to get to him in order to carry out the threat......... Joe was defending himself against Bob's imminent attack. One doesn't have to wait to be bludgeoned before they can defend themselves.

When Joe stumbled after a swing, IF Bob was intent on retreating from the affray he could have used that opportunity to retreat, instead he used it to land the killing blow.

Joe is the one who was instigating the situation. Joe also had an opportunity to retreat when confronted by Bob and chose not to. Joe then escalated the situation by introducing a weapon to the altercation. At that point Joe was no longer acting rationally and had become a danger to not only Bob but to anyone else in his vicinity which includes Bob's GF who was the target of Joe's aggression before Bob came on scene. At that point Bob had reason to believe that both he and his GF were in danger of suffering great bodily harm and he took action to mitigate that possibility. It's self defense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope... Bob is guilty of Manslaughter.

I think everyone failed to read how Bob relayed a verbal threat to Joe about "losing teeth"

Then when Bob came after Joe, Joe had reason to believe that Bob was coming over to him to carry out that threat, and thus was right to defend himself.

By Bob pushing past other people to get to Joe, it showed aggression, the same aggression that he showed in his previous threat.

If you can convince a grand jury that the threat of "losing teeth" is sufficient to warrant deadly force then take Bob to trial and find out.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It doesn't have to be "great bodily harm or death" to defend yourself with a pool cue.

A pool cue is... by default... not a lethal weapon (as I said, by default).

It was to Joe, was it not?

 

[CRUE CAB]

I think the story would have been better if Joe found Bob with the old lady dancing for tips in the mens room.
Joe gets mouthy, Bob shoves him in a stall and gives him a swrily.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Fine, then charge Bob and try to convince a jury that lose some teeth was a threat of great bodily harm or death.

I would consider getting my teeth knocked out great bodily harm that I would not want inflicted. Besides, I am not arguing with you as to who is guilty, if anybody...just pointing out the threat was made.

 

[Caine]

Joe is the one who was instigating the situation.

There goes that again. You are not entitled to attack someone because you don't like what they say. Joe may have instigated, but that does not put him criminally responsible for Bob's action.

Joe also had an opportunity to retreat when confronted by Bob and chose not to.

It was kind of clear by the fact that he grabbed a pool cue to quickly defend himself that he didn't. Besides if we are going off of the idea that one does not have a duty to retreat.... and considering he is so drunk he can hardly swing a pool cue to start with, I'd say he was defending himself.

Joe then escalated the situation by introducing a weapon to the altercation.

To defend himself with against someone who was going to knock out his teeth. I'd say that is fair.

At that point Joe was no longer acting rationally and had become a danger to not only Bob but to anyone else in his vicinity which includes Bob's GF who was the target of Joe's aggression before Bob came on scene.

Wrong. Bob was the aggressor was he not? Not only did Bob communicate a threat, he acted upon it. Joe was defending himself. The introduction of a weapon into a scenario does not CHANGE who the aggressor is. Now had Bob ceased his attack and backed off and Joe continued to come at him, Joe would then have been the aggressor.

At that point Bob had reason to believe that both he and his GF were in danger of suffering great bodily harm and he took action to mitigate that possibility. It's self defense.

No.. It is not self defense.

Just because someone says some **** that pisses someone off does not give someone else the RIGHT to attack them.

Introduction of a weapon to use as self defense by a party does not turn them into the aggressor.

 

[Caine]

If you can convince a grand jury that the threat of "losing teeth" is sufficient to warrant deadly force then take Bob to trial and find out.

Under normal circumstances a Pool Cue does not constitute deadly force.

Even in this case, it was not the pool cue that killed Joe, it was the fall.