|
If anyone has seen the story of the incident in the Ohio Pizzeria, where the
lowlife woman and her 300lb ape boyfriend smacked a guy around because he
took exception to her cutting the line, I'm curious as to your thoughts.
A lot has been made about noone jumping in to help. Would any of you have?
This clown was so slow and clumsy and left openings you could drive a
freight train through, no doubt someone moderately skilled could have put a
serious hurtin' on him. He only got away with it because the fool just stood
there and played punching bag. He insisted he didn't hit women even after
she punched him a few times and jumbo sucker punched him.
I wonder about legal repercussions. In a situation like that, if you jump
in, it's not going to be to just restrain them. You already know these are
dirtbags, if you commit, you're going to need to go in to finish him/them
off. Anyone have any experience regarding how the courts would likely view
it if they hadn't been attacking you directly but you were coming to the aid
of someone who was clearly being seriously injured?
And what if the guy had clobbered them? As it is, Big Boy has been sent up
for 4 years for felonious assault, but "street" self defense methods I've
seen emphasize not waiting for the first blow from the other guy. He gets in
your face, you turn him into a grease stain, preventing what occurred here,
but then how does the law view it? Would the fact that the wench had already
put hands on you (or even if she hadn't) and he was menacing you be
sufficient?
|
| |
| |
Doc wrote:
If anyone has seen the story of the incident in the Ohio Pizzeria, where the
lowlife woman and her 300lb ape boyfriend smacked a guy around because he
took exception to her cutting the line, I'm curious as to your thoughts.
[wonders about intervening in a fight one is witnessing]
The judge turned to the witness who had seen a fight and didn't get
involved. He asked, "Why didn't you intervene to help the defendant?"
The witness replied, "At the time, I didn't know which one would be the
defendant."
-paul
|
| |
| |
Doc wrote:
A lot has been made about noone jumping in to help. Would any of you
have?
This clown was so slow and clumsy and left openings you could drive a
freight train through, no doubt someone moderately skilled could have
put a
serious hurtin' on him. He only got away with it because the fool
just stood
there and played punching bag. He insisted he didn't hit women even
after
she punched him a few times and jumbo sucker punched him.
I wonder about legal repercussions. In a situation like that, if you
jump
in, it's not going to be to just restrain them. You already know
these are
dirtbags, if you commit, you're going to need to go in to finish
him/them
off.
I can't say I've heard about this incident. It's not necessarily all
THAT foolish to let the "dirtbags" win, especially if your goal is to
avoid trouble. That actually is about as sensible strategy as any
other: let them vent for a little while and let them have their stupid
place in line and let them get their stupid pizza a little while
earlier (assuming they don't busted before they get to the front of the
line) and just forget about it once it's over. It's generally more
sensible to let them win than to pre-emptively and aggressively go in
to to finish them off.
This incident took place in a restaurant, so there in most cases there
will be a manager who has a device called a "telephone" which he/she
can use to call in a group of roving law enforcement officers known as
"the police." The staff of the pizzeria may also have some experience
in breaking up disputes between customers. So it may not necessrily be
up to the victim to finish off the dirtbags all by himself.
Lgeally, it is true that you are allowed to defend yourself when
dirtbags assault you. As a practical matter, it is not always a good
idea to use force against them: sometimes avoidance and/or letting a
third party handle things are better options. Aside from the
possibility of getting hurt, you run the risk when you use force of
being falsely accused of assaulting your opponents.
|
| |
| |
Doc wrote:
If anyone has seen the story of the incident in the Ohio Pizzeria, where the
lowlife woman and her 300lb ape boyfriend smacked a guy around because he
took exception to her cutting the line, I'm curious as to your thoughts.
A lot has been made about noone jumping in to help. Would any of you have?
This clown was so slow and clumsy and left openings you could drive a
freight train through, no doubt someone moderately skilled could have put a
serious hurtin' on him. He only got away with it because the fool just stood
there and played punching bag. He insisted he didn't hit women even after
she punched him a few times and jumbo sucker punched him.
I wonder about legal repercussions. In a situation like that, if you jump
in, it's not going to be to just restrain them. You already know these are
dirtbags, if you commit, you're going to need to go in to finish him/them
off. Anyone have any experience regarding how the courts would likely view
it if they hadn't been attacking you directly but you were coming to the aid
of someone who was clearly being seriously injured?
<snip>
So far as I can tell, Ohio doesn't go into detail on self defense and
defense of third persons but speaks generally to issues of
justification. (Or I may just not be finding it.)
Texas is more specific and probably along the lines of most states. You
are justified in using force to the degree necessary to protect against
the other's use of force or attempt to use force and no greater force
than necessary. In most situations, there's an obligation to retreat,
when retreat without using force would reasonably serve to protect.
Note that it's "use" or "attempted", not including verbal provocation.
Getting even is not delf defense. "Getting in your face" is not
justification. He has to be attempting the use of physical force against
you, and there must be no other reasonable way out. The law cares not
about macho notions of not running away
Defense of third person works the same way. You can act as the person
being attacked could act. If you can restrain, if that's sufficient,
that's the limit of justified force.
In practice, it's not so rigorous. Prosecutors take note of what juries
are likely to do. But if you agree to the fight by engaging when you
could have disengaged, it's not well regarded. And, if you keep using
force after you've repelled the attack, finishing him off, so to speak,
you're definitely in the wrong.
--
Gerald Clough
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
|
| |
| |
I can't say I've heard about this incident. It's not necessarily all
THAT foolish to let the "dirtbags" win, especially if your goal is to
avoid trouble. That actually is about as sensible strategy as any
other: let them vent for a little while and let them have their stupid
place in line and let them get their stupid pizza a little while
earlier (assuming they don't busted before they get to the front of the
line) and just forget about it once it's over.
This was at a place called Davinci's in Akron, OH. The actual incident
occured last July, he was just sentenced and she goes to trial this month.
The thug couple were a Prestina Sims and Mark Jones, the beatee was Joseph
Scarpino. You should be able to find numerous accounts and even video with a
quick search. He didn't initiate any kind of physical confrontation with
her, he was talking to his fiance on the phone that some woman had just cut
in line and this lowlife wench went off her nut. The ape walks in and beats
this guy half to death, most likely because he was white and seemed like
easy pickin's. The racial angle isn't mere speculation, the phrase "white
ass m*****" was used a time or two. As it turns out, not surprisingly both
of these charmers have danced with the legal system before, apparently Sims
had just gotten out of the pokey and Jones was on probation. I'm kind of
surprised he only got 4 years.
It's generally more
sensible to let them win than to pre-emptively and aggressively go in
to to finish them off.
You weren't following what I was saying. The "pre-emptive" physical angle I
referred to was if Scarpino had torn into Jones before Jones sucker-punched
him. Find the complete video, you'll see what I mean. They both had Scarpino
backed against the wall and Jones pushes her aside and after a moment of
being in his face, punched him while he was on the phone. While Scarpino was
a fool to let his guard down to this degree, the fact is with anything
resembling civilized human beings, it wouldn't have been an issue.
Further, if you were to come to Scarpino's aid, this would mean fighting at
least Jones. Intelligent self defense dictates that you hurt the other guy
before he has a chance to hurt you, and you certainly don't depend on
someone following Marquis of Queensbury rules. "I say there you bounder, I
inisist you desist immediately and leave that poor chap in peace" isn't
gonna cut it.
|
| |
| |
In practice, it's not so rigorous. Prosecutors take note of what juries
are likely to do. But if you agree to the fight by engaging when you
could have disengaged, it's not well regarded. And, if you keep using
force after you've repelled the attack, finishing him off, so to speak,
you're definitely in the wrong.
The concept of simply "repelling the attack" is a ludicrous one. Just
stunning him momentarily or putting him on the ground isn't enough. You can
be assured that he very likely is going to try to get back up and clobber
you if you don't thoroughly incapacitate him.
|
| |
| |
Doc wrote:
The concept of simply "repelling the attack" is a ludicrous one. Just
stunning him momentarily or putting him on the ground isn't enough.
You can
be assured that he very likely is going to try to get back up and
clobber
you if you don't thoroughly incapacitate him.
It gives you a good head start so you can run away. If you're in
your home, the attacker has not been repelled until HE runs away.
--
FF
|
| |
| |
fredfighter@spamcop.net wrote in news:31in21t7hnoaafsba4pmdab10s84rss0h8
@4ax.com:
Doc wrote:
You can
clobber
It gives you a good head start so you can run away. If you're in
your home, the attacker has not been repelled until HE runs away.
A large man may be stronger but usually his stamina is poor and his
reflexes and speed are not as good. If you want to be able to defend
yourself, I suggest going to the gym 4 times a week AND taking up a
grappling martial art -- Judo, Sambo, Jiu-Jitsu (Brazilian or the
traditional Japanese kind), Roman-Greco wrestling or Freestyle
wrestling. You'll also learn a bit of striking in most of these arts.
That's why these grappling arts are better than Karate or Tae kwon Do.
In Karate and TKD, you simply train in striking, but it doesn't take
long to learn striking. Grappling is more effective. If a large man
swings at you, you can duck and wrap them up in a clinch and then
perform a Kimura lock on them and break their arm. Or put them in a
variety of different chokeholds. Or my favorite, wrap them up in the
clinch and then move towards their back and get a rear naked choke on
them. People who aren't familiar with martial arts assume they're not
effective, but they are. Especially since you're training against other
experienced fighters, not Joe 6 Pack off the street. When you've ridden
the mat in a gym during sparring for a few years and have pumped some
iron at the gym, THEN it makes coming up against some schmuck whose
exercise regime consists of lifting the TV remote and chips to his fat
face seem like child's play.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
| |
|
