Well fair enough on the using a knife sanely -- I really can't argue with that at all.
Agreement on the internet! *keels over in shock*
The reason I mention the specific stand your ground law of Florida is because it does allow for unequal force in self defense cases.
"if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
See the edit above. Whether you can reasonably conclude that you're going to suffer great bodily harm from fists seems a bit open to interpretation. The prosecution said no, the judge said yes.
I suppose the "forceible felony" part is a lot more lenient, but i don't think thats what the judge ruled on.
Like i said last time... it really, really all depends on the individuals involved.
1. The previous showing of the knife to people could have been construed as a threat. However the potential of attack here is low enough that the aggressor would have lost a 'self defense' case for attacking the kid with a knife.
I really don't see how this is supposed to work. Grrrr.. he has a knife, i must follow him down the street and attack him!
2. The point the threat ends is when self defense normally ends -- as such the twelve wounds could have been considered excessive.
Almost any use of a knife is going to seem excessive then. When you've been hit in the head, are pumped full of adrenaline, and getting chased by people they are NOT Precision instruments.
3. The very use of lethal force (and for the viewers at home the use of a knife construes lethal force regardless of what you intend to do with it) in a fist fight could have been considered inappropriate and caused the self defense case to be lost (however this isn't a guarantee depending on if the aggressor had stated a purpose of killing, maiming or seriously injuring the defender before actually attacking him).
This is what the prosecution argued.
4. Possible 'fighting words' laws could mean something that the defender said before the actual fight could have negated his self defense case (though I personally don't have any information on what was or was not said before the fight -- I'm simply pointing out the possibility).
If the person had smacked him in the face then and there, yes. I don't think fighting words let you chase someone down though.
Well I have much more agreement with you in general -- I'm simply trying to point out what can and does exist in other places.
On #1 I'm not saying the aggressor would win a self defense case, but it could have ruined the defendants self defense case in other places.
On #2 The using of a knife is a really sloppy thing I fully agree -- this is why I have argued in the past to not carry a knife with the intent to use it for self defense. At best it is suspect (since a knife is a poor tool for preventing attack -- meaning it has little blocking power and little stopping power) and at worse (especially if the person insists on carrying on of those ridiculous 'tactical/combat' knives) it sets you up for failure in court.
On #4 In some states simply saying the incorrect thing will comes with the assumption you mean to fight -- fighting isn't self defense, ergo you were not defending yourself. It goes back to self defense not being provoking an attack.
Personally I do understand where you are coming from, and again I am not arguing what is morally right, only some of the many legal issues that come up with self defense.
Ultimately self defense is an ugly situation legally for most people. Precisely because they don't realize what it means legally and what it involves legally.
The possibility of dying, or at least getting grievously injured, from an unarmed attacker is NOT remote - not when the unarmed attacker is intent on causing such damage.
As predicted above... how many fistfights are there every year? How many result in serious injury vs how many involve some Advil and an ice pack?
To take an example, how hard do you think the suprasternal notch would have to be struck to cause serious damage?
The pressure is minimal. Getting the angle right on a moving object that is trying to bash you in the head is a pain.
Its important to note that ultimate fighting is NOT street fighting.
Why are you bringing this up?
And while I'm not a legal expert, I can say that from a pure physics perspective 'equal force' when two people are of different sizes, is not having both of them fight unarmed.
The two boys were roughly the same size.
From a legal argument lethal force is about weapons, although an obvious size discrepency can be considered a weapon. If a 300 pound brute is pounding on a 90 pound grandma no ones going to cry if she pulls out a 45 and blows him away.
Well I have much more agreement with you in general -- I'm simply trying to point out what can and does exist in other places.
On #1 I'm not saying the aggressor would win a self defense case, but it could have ruined the defendants self defense case in other places.
The only way I can see that remotely working, even by the inane rules of law, is if the person with the weapon isn't leaving. Sure, someone pulls a knife and now my option of turning around to run away is pretty much gone. But I'm not seeing any connection between "he showed a knife" and "we can chase him down the block now"
On #2 The using of a knife is a really sloppy thing I fully agree -- this is why I have argued in the past to not carry a knife with the intent to use it for self defense. At best it is suspect (since a knife is a poor tool for preventing attack -- meaning it has little blocking power and little stopping power) and at worse (especially if the person insists on carrying on of those ridiculous 'tactical/combat' knives) it sets you up for failure in court.
Legally, if you can use lethal force then you can use lethal force. Knife, gun, bat.. it doesn't matter. Legally you can carry an instrument of deadly force for the legal purpose of self defense.
Carrying a knife with the intent of stabbing mr jones is illegal because stabbing mr jones is illegal. Carrying a knife with the intent of defending yourself if defending yourself with lethal force is necessary is legal because defending yourself with lethal force is legal. You can also carry a knife to sharpen pencils, cut sandwhiches, tighten screws etc, open letters, open boxes. I prefer a multitool because i need to use pliers far more often than i need to stab someone.
The other weapons you recommend (stun guns, extending batons) on the other hand are illegal in many states. Carrying them and using them indicates a desire or at least willingness to break the law, and using them is illegal. COngradulations, you've just used a weapon to commit the crime of using an illegal weapon. Thats another crime.
Personally I do understand where you are coming from, and again I am not arguing what is morally right, only some of the many legal issues that come up with self defense.
Ultimately self defense is an ugly situation legally for most people. Precisely because they don't realize what it means legally and what it involves legally.
I don't think the legality is actually that important. What seems to matter most is how the individual judges and prosecutors see it. The judge could have easily ruled the other way despite the laws on the books and he could have been right. The individuals involved have a lot of leeway, and its sort of a crap shoot no matter what happens.
I don't remember ever recommending a weapon to carry, especially not batons or stun guns. I have recommended looking at non-lethal options, and have always stated you should know the laws in your community regarding self defense (because like you said some means of non-lethal self defense are illegal in some areas).
I have pointed out that being able to use a club like object for defense (or stick like if you prefer) can be advantageous since you can usually find something that matches such a description easily without having to carry one on you. But even then I generally wouldn't suggest grabbing a weapon if you can instead escape.
To say legality isn't important because you might get a judge (or prosecutor) that isn't going to follow the law is a bit disingenuous -- it's kind of like invoking rule zero in the rules forum -- sure it can happen but you shouldn't plan your legal self defense around it.
Why don't you tell me? And give a source.
As predicted above... how many fistfights are there every year? How many result in serious injury vs how many involve some Advil and an ice pack?
point 2 percent of people that wound up in the hospital from beatings died- that doesn't include (whats probably the majority) of people who just put an ice pack on it and called it a day.
In adolescence, guns were the leading cause of both fatal and severe nonfatal assault injury, and were the most lethal method of assault (case-fatality = 18.5% for gun vs. 1.2% for all non-gun assault injury). The 1.2% includes non gun weapons, so the highest lethality for unarmed assault could possibly 1.2% here
Its likely much lower.
And I'm bored of looking. It really should be obvious that people get in fistfights all the time and don't die from it.
The pressure is minimal. Getting the angle right on a moving object that is trying to bash you in the head is a pain.
Or, the attacker could grab the victim by the throat while grappling or pinning him and the thumb would go right to the point with little difficulty.
And, of course, this is just one of a very large number of points where severe harm could be caused.
There's reasons this is in the advanced courses... they're very hard to do in a real situation.
The victim didn't know if any of the other boys were going to jump in at any moment.
Which is a reasonable concern.
I don't remember ever recommending a weapon to carry, especially not batons or stun guns. I have recommended looking at non-lethal options, and have always stated you should know the laws in your community regarding self defense (because like you said some means of non-lethal self defense are illegal in some areas).
Besides fists what are you considering non lethal? While i know you're pretty unlikely to do someone in with a chair leg as far as the law is concerned you're just as armed as if you'd snagged a claymore.
To say legality isn't important because you might get a judge (or prosecutor) that isn't going to follow the law is a bit disingenuous -- it's kind of like invoking rule zero in the rules forum -- sure it can happen but you shouldn't plan your legal self defense around it.
Its not that they're not following the law, its that the law is so vauge it lets them do pretty much what they want in either direction and they're STILL following the law. As mentioned above. legally in NY you have to retreat even in your own house, as a matter of reality its open season once the burglar is in the door. In the other direction I've read about prosecutors ruling shoes as lethal weapons. Even with the castle law there the prosecutor had a point with regards to what kind of defense was allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well since no one else will say it, I will. Usually the way it goes.
I'm glad the bully is dead.
I hope the victim (Jorge) can get on with his life, be successful, and somehow end up a well rounded and decent human being with the knowledge that he ended a life, even if in justified self-defense.
I'm sorry the boy is dead, but the anger I feel about the situation is directed towards his parents. This could have been avoided if they'd taught him civility.
at 16 the kid was pretty much an adult and any lessons the parents were going to teach had either already been passed on or were in place.
Not to mention the 16 yr old could have and most likely did act entirely different around family than when he was on his own. i know I did at that age. After all at 16 I went out drinking with my buddies, caused some property damage here and there, and basically did stuff that my mother would have never pegged me as doing. My dad was like go out and have your fun just don't gett'em pregnant. My parents were very permissive(I love'em) all kids at that age do dumb stuff. Heck I was even a high school bully myself but I never continuously picked on one person for a whole year that was just boring. I didn't even get expelled for dumping a freshmen into the school lunchroom garbage can head first( he really shouldn't have started it)
Could the parents have done better I honestly don't know. The bully had been picked on and bullied at a different school and maybe he wanted to be the one in power for a change so that could have been a major factor.
My conclusion, parents do the best they can and some times they still produce bad people due to outside influences.