Self Defense Scenario - Who is guilty? Of What?

[Lutherf]

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.

It probably does. I'm not even going to pretend to know the nuances between different states laws on self defense but I'm just suggesting what's fair and reasonable....it's also why, farther along in the thread, I mentioned him defending his GF from a psycho with a pool cue.

This is just a guess on my part but I'd be willing to bet that if Bob was even halfway liked in that bar there's be no prosecution......unless Obama and Holder got involved.

 

[Dragonfly]

That is if Bob is an African American and Joe was white. If it was reversed Bob would definitely go to jail.

Why make anything racial out of this?

 

[Caine]

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.

Bob started the fight.....Bob was the aggressor.

Introduction of a weapon into the fight does not change who the aggressor is.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Why make anything racial out of this?

Hasn't the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case been made a racial thing by Progressives. Specifically Obama, Sharpton and Jackson including the rest of the racial baiting hustlers of America?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Bob started the fight.....Bob was the aggressor.

Introduction of a weapon into the fight does not change who the aggressor is.

One word. WRONG!

 

[Dragonfly]

Hasn't the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case been made a racial thing by Progressives. Specifically Obama, Sharpton and Jackson including the rest of the racial baiting hustlers of America?

What was the verdict? Not guilty right?

So drop that please.

In my scenario there was no mention of race.

So who's the "race baiter" in this thread?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

It probably does. I'm not even going to pretend to know the nuances between different states laws on self defense but I'm just suggesting what's fair and reasonable....it's also why, farther along in the thread, I mentioned him defending his GF from a psycho with a pool cue.

This is just a guess on my part but I'd be willing to bet that if Bob was even halfway liked in that bar there's be no prosecution......unless Obama and Holder got involved.

You just won the $64.00 "Eversharp" prize

 

[Caine]

One word. WRONG!

So you are ignoring the fact that Bob aggressively communicated a threat....... then shoved past other people (i would say that is aggressive) to get to Joe..... Joe had every right to defend himself as he was defending himself against an imminent attack, which was previously threatened. A reasonable person would believe that Bob intended to carry out that previous threat of making him lose some teeth. Joe had every right to defend himself and the introduction of a weapon to one's self defense does not make them the aggressor.

You has nothing.

 

[joko104]

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?

As a legal question, it would depend upon the particular state's laws and the attitudes of the prosecutor and judge/jury.

In terms of ethics? I don't think Bob (or Joe) is guilty of doing anything immoral or wrong. However, Joe was an ass who got it all going, not Bob. Joe also is the one who brought a weapon into the picture.

I saw more bar fights, often over women, than I could possibly count. My view was however it turns out is however it turns out. Both did their part to get into it in the first place, such is the nature of men since the beginning of the homo sapien species and in virtually every species the males fight over the females.

Generally, I oppose laws that believe they can outlaw core human natures at certain emotional levels and generally I think the government should stay out of it when two men both walk into confrontation.

The irony is that it is people who are just tough enough to think they are tough - but really are not - that get hurt and hurt others. That is how GZ and TM were. Just tough enough to think they could handle eventualities of potential violence and absolutely couldn't.

Men who know they aren't tough avoid it even if needing to flee - which can be deeply humiliating to them at a core level. Men who truly are tough in a fighting sense and experienced at it know that there is no such thing as "just a fight" and anyone can be permanently crippled or killed in one, even if entirely inadvertent or just an unlucky/lucky blow or punch. Also, highly experienced and skilled fighters know how to NOT kill someone while otherwise breaking the other person up.

 

[joko104]

These questions get mixed up how people answer them. Is it a law school test in which your response is supposed to correctly say that the law is? That depends on each state and even local attitudes, as "reasonable" is subjective as are words like intent.

Or is it an ethical question? SHOULD Bob considered a murderer/manslaughter-er morally/ethically? The answer to that can be different that the legal theory test question of it. I tend to address these type questions for an ethical standpoint.

Society is increasingly rude, abusive and anti-social. I think part of that is children and adults both learn there is no repercussions for extremely rude, hateful and insulting words and actions.

 

[joko104]

It probably does. I'm not even going to pretend to know the nuances between different states laws on self defense but I'm just suggesting what's fair and reasonable....it's also why, farther along in the thread, I mentioned him defending his GF from a psycho with a pool cue.

This is just a guess on my part but I'd be willing to bet that if Bob was even halfway liked in that bar there's be no prosecution......unless Obama and Holder got involved.

At the bar I worked at for over a decade, nobody would have seen anything nor have any idea who Bob is or what his name is. Couldn't even really remember much what he looked like other than rather average looking.

 

[joko104]

Personally, in most issues of violence, I think it should be intent and motive more than effect that should be considered. Specifically, the level of deliberate brutality and sadism of the "assailant.'

To simplify the scenario, Bob slugs Joe just once who trips, hits his head and dies. Very likely a manslaughter charge.

But what, if instead Bob had studied martial arts all his life, in a sparing ring at least once a week, Golden Gloves champ 3 years in a row, 50 amateur MMA competitions, which he did quite well in, and even teaches martial arts. Bob, a sadistic brutal hothead, systematically breaks Joe's collarbones, dislocates both his knees, in-between turning Joe's face into black and blue... and then with people in the bar shouting "He's had enough Bob!" but all knowing not to physically try to stop Bob or he may turn on that person - as Joe desperately screams, sobs and begs - Bob slowly breaks or dislocates all of Joes' fingers and thumbs. That is a lesser criminal offense than if Bob was just a guy angry enough for a moment to slug a guy for incessantly harassing his wife.

Something seems wrong about that. Which of those 2 Bobs is more dangerous in the future? Which less justified? Which one more easily reformed? Which one more remorseful?

In fact, in practice, cops tend to take a totally different attitude based upon the life question. If the person dies, they will arrest and send it to the DA/Grand Jury as manslaughter/murder. If the person lives? Even if seriously injured the cops may do nothing on the exact same facts.

 

[joko104]

Let me be sure what you all are saying. You are at a restaurant with your family. And some drunk comes over calling your wife a whore, saying he ****ed her (true or not) and that all your kids were fathered by other men because your wife has always been a whore.

Even if you are certain you could deck him with one punch, instead you'd either 1.) stand up and tell you wife and children "we have to leave now" - throwing money on the table for food you haven't even eaten OR 2.) Furiously argue with him verbally in a contest of insults in front of your wife and children OR 3.) Tell your wife and child "Just ignore him" and stay as he raged away obscenities, accusations and insults at and about your wife and kids.

That IS what you ARE saying, isn't it?

Me? I would immediately stand and tell him "get from me or I will hurt you." And I would exactly mean those words. And, in my view, I acted very civilized because I warned him, I told him the future if he did not get away from me. That's both fair and correct when time allows it.

Maybe I just have a general violently criminal mind? And you, instead, are one of the good people who live in that white house on the hill? Where you may rage and harass at anyone - including spouses, dates, your children - any and all children too, old folks, your parents - with any insults, accusations and condemns as hatefully, rudely and obscenely at anyone anytime as you wish - because YOU are civilized enlightened person - and all may do so because at also is enlightened?

Sounds like cowards to me finding excuse. If you outlaw courage then cowardice is proper and even required conduct. Just how I sense it. I can understand a person not doing a duty-fight if you'll get the crap beat out of you. That'd be foolish and counter productive. Leave and let it go - or maybe figure a different way to get even another time if you're into that sort of thing. But if you are rather certain you will win this?

 

[joko104]

I ALSO question whether "who threw the first punch" is how it should be decided. Generally, if the two men know what they are doing (most don't but there is a chance still to just get lucky), usually who lands the first blow to the other wins. If the other one strikes first - jambing their fingers into your eyes, slugging you in the throat, breaks your collar bone, dislocates your knee, kicking you in the groin, or slams you in your face smashing your nose and knocking you to the ground - it is no longer even odds between the 2 of you.

Is it only aggressive words that give warning and allow you to respond to the aggression in a way so that you aren't successfully violently assaulted.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

you might have an argument. It depends on several things that cannot be determined from the facts as given. On the other hand Joe's actions might well be considered "fighting words" and Bob's verbal threat might not be seen as fault.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

Its a gray area. Two experienced DAs could reach different conclusions. Two reasonable Grand Juries could reach opposite conclusions. I'd no bill Bob if I were the GJ, but I might well take it to the GJ if I were the DA

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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

Zimmerman was "guilty" of getting out of his car.

And since getting out of your car isn't at all illegal, that means he's not "guilty" of that, either.

There was no "situation" until (so far as the evidence tells us) Trayvon Martin jumped him and started beating him senseless.

Your assertion that Zimmerman "instigated" the encounter is as irrelevant as saying that stupid rape victim wore some clothes that were too revealing.

What a dumb slut she was, and that can't be ignored completely, right?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

you might have an argument. It depends on several things that cannot be determined from the facts as given. On the other hand Joe's actions might well be considered "fighting words" and Bob's verbal threat might not be seen as fault.

Fighting words is a doctrine of criminalizing certain speech, not an affirmative defense for assault.

 

[joko104]

Bob started the fight.....Bob was the aggressor.

Introduction of a weapon into the fight does not change who the aggressor is.

Joe was the initial aggressor. Joe's words and actions were aggressive. Joe started the fight. In the past I gave a recount of someone acting like Joe towards my wife. However, he also touched her. Many members didn't like my response - though I did warn him to leave first. He didn't. He should have. He must have felt he was safe behind the table of men I had shoved him over as he proceeded to instead of leaving to rages obscenities and insults at and about my wife.

My wife never dated and was very particular about certain traits she wanted in a husband and father of her children. Most men on this thread would not only have not been of interest, but fairly repulsive to her.

So... then, what do you "men" say you would do instead? Tell her "just ignore him?" Tell her, "Come-on, let's get out of here?"

Tell what you would do in the alternative, rather than just declare Bob a murderer. Each of you men are Bob, what would YOU do? Be precise.

 

[joko104]

Fighting words is a doctrine of criminalizing certain speech, not an affirmative defense for assault.

No it's not. It means the person of the "fighting words" also doesn't get to also physically assault the target of those words too. In fact, who first strikes out usually also wins. Fight words are a precursor warning that the person is likely to imminently try to physically assault you. You do not have to let yourself be hit or kicked before you can defend yourself. As the story is told, I also would sense he is a threat of physical assault against her too if he first takes out Bob with a sucker punch, slam or kick.

 

[joko104]

Suddenly those crying "murder!' have gone silent to the question of what would you do instead if you were Bob? Why is that?

 

[joko104]

LOL! No response? I guess that is what the "duty-to-run-away" guys might do.

 

[Dragonfly]

Are you suggesting that it would be somehow "wrong" for Bob to just walk away from the situation with his girl in hand?

Perhaps Bob fully understands that Joe is basically just a harmless drunk acting like a drunken idiot, and is really no threat at all to anyone other than himself?

Drunk guys doing stupid crap they'd not normally do happens all the time.

Isn't walking away and not threatening or causing a physical confrontation that better part of valor?
Isn't it the mature thing to do?
Isn't it the intelligent thing to do?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

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.

Yup. This is where I come down as well.

He relayed a threat. He approached in a manner that said he intended to carry it out.

Although ultimately, my true verdict on the situation is "stupid."

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

LOL! No response? I guess that is what the "duty-to-run-away" guys might do.

Are you suggesting that it would be somehow "wrong" for Bob to just walk away from the situation with his girl in hand?

Perhaps Bob fully understands that Joe is basically just a harmless drunk acting like a drunken idiot, and is really no threat at all to anyone other than himself?

Drunk guys doing stupid crap they'd not normally do happens all the time.

Isn't walking away and not threatening or causing a physical confrontation that better part of valor?
Isn't it the mature thing to do?
Isn't it the intelligent thing to do?

Yup. Honestly, I'd be sort of pissed if my man actually hit someone over some idiot talking trash.

He's supposed to be the bigger man. Bigger men don't risk jail time just to hit a drunken moron. I don't find that kind of behavior attractive.