Self Defense Scenario - Who is guilty? Of What?

[Caine]

It was to Joe, was it not?

It was the fall that killed Joe...

Re-Read the scenario.

 

[Dragonfly]

The question comes down to who is the aggressor, and who is the defender?

Who can claim self defense, who is the victim, and who is to blame?

Both people were aggressive. Both could have walked away or changed what they were doing.

 

[Dragonfly]

It was the fall that killed Joe...

Re-Read the scenario.

You can't determine exactly what killed Joe.

Could easily have been the combination of hits.
And certainly the second blow to the head was a direct result of the first and intended blow to head.

 

[Caine]

The question comes down to who is the aggressor, and who is the defender?

Who can claim self defense, who is the victim, and who is to blame?

Both people were aggressive. Both could have walked away or changed what they were doing.

Bob is the aggressor.

He communicated a threat, and then acted upon that threat.
Joe was defending himself against an imminent attack intended to make him lose some teeth. He chose a pool cue to do this.
Introduction of a weapon by the party defending itself does NOT change who the aggressor is.
Bob never ceased his attack, so the "aggressor" never changed hands.

 

[Goshin]

The question comes down to who is the aggressor, and who is the defender?

Who can claim self defense, who is the victim, and who is to blame?

Both people were aggressive. Both could have walked away or changed what they were doing.

In my state this would probably be considered Mutual Combat and the self-defense legal claim would be disallowed. Bob would be charged, probably with manslaughter.


Many states have a mutual combat provision, or something similar. When two men engage in a violent encounter, and both have indicated by word and deed that they wish to thus engage, both are considered in the wrong, and self-defense is typically not allowed, unless and after one tries to retreat or stop.

NOW.... that pool cue. A pool cue is a "bludgeon" (blunt impact instrument), and swung at the head can be an instrument of lethal force like any blunt instrument.

Bob having made threats figures into it, but Joe was the first to introduce a weapon, and attempt to use it in a manner known to be consistent with grave bodily harm or death.

Also, Joe was causal in the initiation of the incident... perhaps criminally so, as his behavior towards the YL may have been construed as sexual harassment of a criminal nature, or otherwise some breach of the peace.

Odds are this won't keep bob from being charged with Manslaughter... but it might get him acquitted, and it would probably get him a plea-bargain offer to a lesser charge with little or no prison time.


That's my sorta-professional opinion, based on my OWN state's law.... but state law does vary, so YMMV too.

 

[Goshin]

In my state this would probably be considered Mutual Combat and the self-defense legal claim would be disallowed. Bob would be charged, probably with manslaughter.


Many states have a mutual combat provision, or something similar. When two men engage in a violent encounter, and both have indicated by word and deed that they wish to thus engage, both are considered in the wrong, and self-defense is typically not allowed, unless and after one tries to retreat or stop.

NOW.... that pool cue. A pool cue is a "bludgeon" (blunt impact instrument), and swung at the head can be an instrument of lethal force like any blunt instrument.

Bob having made threats figures into it, but Joe was the first to introduce a weapon, and attempt to use it in a manner known to be consistent with grave bodily harm or death.

Also, Joe was causal in the initiation of the incident... perhaps criminally so, as his behavior towards the YL may have been construed as sexual harassment of a criminal nature, or otherwise some breach of the peace.

Odds are this won't keep bob from being charged with Manslaughter... but it might get him acquitted, and it would probably get him a plea-bargain offer to a lesser charge with little or no prison time.


That's my sorta-professional opinion, based on my OWN state's law.... but state law does vary, so YMMV too.

Now to expand on that just a bit.... as someone who is prone to lean libertarian on some issues, I think Mutual Combat should not be illegal, and whatever happens to those who willingly engage in it is "on them". At worst, it should be "disturbing the peace" for doing it in public, and liability for any extraneous damage caused... but offhand I don't know of any state that treats it that way in the actual written law.

 

[Sisyphus]

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?

Neither.

Joe harassed a woman sexually
Bob threatened a man physically
Both were aggressors, resulting in one dying.

Dead guy won't be charged with his crimes.

Live guy will be charged with his crimes.

 

[MaggieD]

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?

If it happened as you say, I would say no crime was committed. I would also sue the bar for over-serving Joe and not providing proper security. It's time bars took responsibility for this ****, in my opinion.

 

[Dragonfly]

Live guy will be charged with his crimes.

And what would those "crimes" be?

What is he guilty of?

 

[Caine]

And what would those "crimes" be?

What is he guilty of?

Bob would be charged with Manslaughter.

 

[Sisyphus]

And what would those "crimes" be?

What is he guilty of?

Assault (threat of harm)
Battery (maybe, due to hitting a guy with a cue)
Involuntary manslaughter since the dude died as a result of the blow to the head in above crime

 

[Sisyphus]

And what would those "crimes" be?

What is he guilty of?

Emphasis. Nothing. Only charges filed.

 

[Bodi]

"Heads straight for Joe" meaning just walking quickly? Is he saying anything? Was his arm cocked back? Did Joe offer a warning? If nothing more than what you say happened Bob is guilty. Joe acted in self-defense and Bob is either guilty of manslaughter or no crime is committed and it was an unfortunate accident that Joe hit his head...

 

[Sisyphus]

]"Heads straight for Joe" meaning just walking quickly?[/B] Is he saying anything? Was his arm cocked back? Did Joe offer a warning? If nothing more than what you say happened Bob is guilty. Joe acted in self-defense and Bob is either guilty of manslaughter or no crime is committed and it was an unfortunate accident that Joe hit his head...

Moot. Going to and not from a potential altercation (not SYG) is an aggressive act unto itself. Ditto on some guy you flip off, who then gets out of his car. That's walking into danger, and neither standing ones ground nor fleeing to safety.

 

[Bodi]

Moot. Going to and not from a potential altercation (not SYG) is an aggressive act unto itself. Ditto on some guy you flip off, who then gets out of his car. That's walking into danger, and neither standing ones ground nor fleeing to safety.

Until a person commits to or shows that physical force is on the agenda the other person has no right to respond with physical force. Bob could have been walking towards Joe to have a word with him, warn him that his girlfriend is a ninja and about to pop him or to buy him a beer to calm him down. I have gone to an asshole and bought him a beer to turn the events around and make it calm. It worked. If he had swing a pool cue at me he would have been guilty.

 

[Caine]

Until a person commits to or shows that physical force is on the agenda the other person has no right to respond with physical force. Bob could have been walking towards Joe to have a word with him, warn him that his girlfriend is a ninja and about to pop him or to buy him a beer to calm him down. I have gone to an asshole and bought him a beer to turn the events around and make it calm. It worked. If he had swing a pool cue at me he would have been guilty.

The manner in which he walked to Joe was aggressive, after already aggressively threatening him with bodily harm....... a reasonable person would believe that Bob meant to attack Joe to carry out that threat.


Also, for those who claim that the female was sexually assaulted. Sexual Assault requires physical contact...... one cannot get arrested for speaking to another in a lewd or lascivious manner.

 

[Sisyphus]

Until a person commits to or shows that physical force is on the agenda the other person has no right to respond with physical force. Bob could have been walking towards Joe to have a word with him, warn him that his girlfriend is a ninja and about to pop him or to buy him a beer to calm him down. I have gone to an asshole and bought him a beer to turn the events around and make it calm. It worked. If he had swing a pool cue at me he would have been guilty.

Going toward a person with whom you're having an argument is an act of aggression. Ask any cop.

 

[Caine]

Going toward a person with whom you're having an argument is an act of aggression. Ask any cop.

Not just going towards....

moving people out of your way to get there also shows aggression.

 

[Bodi]

Going toward a person with whom you're having an argument is an act of aggression. Ask any cop.

I actually completely skimmed past this line:

" 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. "

I stand correct. Bob is guilty.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Who was acting in self defense?

Joe was acting in self defense. Given Bob's prior statement that he intended to commit assault if Joe did not stop his behavior, a reasonable person could easily conclude Bob's charging of Joe and his manner of approach (pushing people out of the way) conveyed an intent to carry out his threat of assault, and preemptive action on Joe's part was justified.

Is Bob guilty of a crime? Manslaughter?

No one is guilty until convicted, but were I a prosecutor, I'd see enough evidence here to convene a grand jury and proceed to trial if Bob is indicted. There, the burden would be on me to prove Bob initiated the physical confrontation and therefore surrendered any claim to self defense. It could go either way.

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

Both of these are reasonable responses to Joe's crass but non-violent and non-threatening behavior. Joe was simply being an ass. Nothing Joe did warranted a physical response.

Bob was “original” aggressor? Or was he?

Yes.

 

[Dragonfly]

Joe was acting in self defense. Given Bob's prior statement that he intended to commit assault if Joe did not stop his behavior, a reasonable person could easily conclude Bob's charging of Joe and his manner of approach (pushing people out of the way) conveyed an intent to carry out his threat of assault, and preemptive action on Joe's part was justified.


No one is guilty until convicted, but were I a prosecutor, I'd see enough evidence here to convene a grand jury and proceed to trial if Bob is indicted. There, the burden would be on me to prove Bob initiated the physical confrontation and therefore surrendered any claim to self defense. It could go either way.


Both of these are reasonable responses to Joe's crass but non-violent and non-threatening behavior. Joe was simply being an ass. Nothing Joe did warranted a physical response.


Yes.

So in your mind, a trial would not be an absurd outcome to this scenario, with Bob facing some kind of charge? Perhaps manslaughter?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So in your mind, a trial would not be an absurd outcome to this scenario, with Bob facing some kind of charge? Perhaps manslaughter?

With the facts of this case as presented, no it would not be an absurd outcome.

I imagine at this point there's going to be some George Zimmerman tie in, to which I can only offer a preemptive snort of derision, given that the facts of that case are nothing like the facts of your case.

*snort*

If no comparison was to be coming, ignore the above.

 

[Dragonfly]

There is a slight tie-in based on the concept of who was the one acting in self defense? Who was the aggressor? Who was the one who felt threatened first?

Obviously we will NEVER know since Zimmerman is the only one who can talk about what happened.

Snort all you like, but I don't think the Zimmerman/Martin case is as black & white as some people seem to want to make it.

I agree that there was no murder. I could even understand a "not guilty" of manslaughter.

I do think Zimmerman is guilty of instigating the whole situation, and that isn't something that should be ignored completely.

I also understand that Zimmerman will never be "free" again regardless of what any court decides.

Ultimately - I'm glad there was not a 100% consensus on who was guilty in my scenario.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Going toward a person with whom you're having an argument is an act of aggression. Ask any cop.

Why, you could be walking over to shake hands and call a truce.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

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.

Doesn't that depend on the state? New York State requires that when confronted with force the person involved has a duty to retreat. Did Bob retreat? I don't think so. Bob would be arrested and charged with manslaughter.

I can see that Bob defended himself, in any state but a Duty to retreat state Bob would walk. That is if Bob is an African American and Joe was white. If it was reversed Bob would definitely go to jail.