highorder
Member
Not to mention dragging the thread off course.
Dealing with non-continuing assaults
- Thread starter DickP
- Start date
- Status
Not to mention dragging the thread off course.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Battery, not assault. Assault is the credible threat to commit harm. Battery is the physical act. Assault requires specific intent, meaning the intent to commit the action and the desired outcome. Battery does not require specific intent. You can even accidentally batter someone. If I yell at you "I'm gonna break your nose, and pull my fist back", I have committed assault, even without hitting you. If I swing, you duck, and I hit the guy standing behind you, I have committed battery against him, even without the assault. In this case, the thug committed battery when he accidentally struck the woman. Without intent or a threat directed against the woman, there was no assault.
/Because knowing is half the battle.
Which is why I said assualt.
If you "batter" my wife because you're drunk and can't stand up straight and are flailing your arms for balance. I'll probably assume you had no ill intent and let it go with nothing more than a, "Hey buddy, be careful." I might even help you stand up.
On the other hand, if you assault my wife - regardless of whether or not you also commit battery - we're probably going to have a little different discussion and, most likely, I won't be helping you stand up.
NMGonzo
Member
It was an accident on that video.
There was a case in the news a few months ago, of a guy walking around a Georgia Walmart slapping kids as hard as he could. He was charged with felony cruelty to children (don't know if/how his case turned out).
I'd say it would be legally justifiable to have shot this guy, because violence by an adult stranger against a 2-year old is presumptively life-threatening.
I'd say it would be legally justifiable to have shot this guy, because violence by an adult stranger against a 2-year old is presumptively life-threatening.
FourteenMiles
Member
Real simple, call the police. If they try to leave perform a citizens arrest until the cops show up.
If it was an accident like some of the posts seem to suggest I would probably just use some harsh words to let them know what happend and to watch what they're doing.
If it was an accident like some of the posts seem to suggest I would probably just use some harsh words to let them know what happend and to watch what they're doing.
Before you consider doing that, make sure you understand the following:
- The offenses for which a citizen may lawfully make such an arrest in your jursidiction;
- the circumstances in which a citizen may make such an arrest in your jurisdiction;
- the exposure to civil liability inherent in making a citizen's arrest; and
- the limitations on the use of force that can be employed in making such an arrest in your juridiction.
Not for me, thanks. Not lawful in my state for the offense described.
Not worth the hassle anyway...
Thank you for that considered advice. If someone assaults my wife or child I'll most likely forget it.
Webbj0219
Member
For me it would depend if I was carrying or not. If not. Then Id probably wait a moment for the guy to turn back to his buddy. Then just as casually jab him in the lower back and continue walking like nothing happened. If carrying. Then Id probably be best leaving it alone.
And you might end up OK--if you are in a jurisdiction in which a citizen may arrest another for simple assault and if you can produce evidence showing that the arrest was lawful and if you do not end up on the short end of the stick in civil court and if you do not get seriously injured in the process.
Otherwise, you could lose your clean record and right to own firearms, your personal freedom, and/or everything you own.
For what gain? The emotional satisfaction of having tried to detain someone for charges when a simple phone call would effect the arrest, if arrest is in fact appropriate?
Sworn officers are trained to make sure that an arrest will stick, they are trained to detain lawfully, they can bring in assistance if required, they can produce a weapon when others may not, and they are indemnified against civil suits. They will also be compensated for medical expenses and loss of income.
But--suit yourself.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
When "dance time" could result in the lose of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, yes, we absolutely worry about this kind of thing. YOu being emotionally right does not mean your will be legally right. I hope "game on" is super satisfying, because it may be the last thing you do as a legal gun owner.
Someone accidentally bumping into you? More than remote. Someone striking you on purpose? Less than remote, depending upon where you are. Someone striking you once on purpose and then disengaging as if nothing had happened? Much less than remote.
My assessment, anyway,
I'm curious...If someone was to walk up to you and slap you in the face would you give them time to see if they're going to continue or withdraw? If someone hits me I'm going to assume that I'm under attack and fight back, I will not give them time to gain an advantage by waiting to see if they want to continue.
In the video the BF's reaction was immediate, there was no pause to see if the guy that hit his girlfriend was going to apologize or strike her again. I think the slap was accidental, the reaction from the boyfriend was a little overboard since he continued the attack even after it was obvious that neither of the guys wanted any part of him.
The other link provided about the guy abusing the toddler.....I'd probably be in prison if that was my child he hit.My reaction would be absolutely instinct, no thought about legalities and consequences would enter my mind. I know it's not the right thing to do, I know it's not HighRoad but I'd take my chances and pray for a sympathetic jury. I'm not advocating unlawful aggression, I'm just being honest.
In the video the BF's reaction was immediate, there was no pause to see if the guy that hit his girlfriend was going to apologize or strike her again. I think the slap was accidental, the reaction from the boyfriend was a little overboard since he continued the attack even after it was obvious that neither of the guys wanted any part of him.
The other link provided about the guy abusing the toddler.....I'd probably be in prison if that was my child he hit.My reaction would be absolutely instinct, no thought about legalities and consequences would enter my mind. I know it's not the right thing to do, I know it's not HighRoad but I'd take my chances and pray for a sympathetic jury. I'm not advocating unlawful aggression, I'm just being honest.
Agreed, this is a very unlikely scenario to occur. 99 times out of 100 if someone even remotely touches you they apologize. You may get a thug from time to time who bumps you and says nothing or looks to see your reaction but thats about the worst of it that I've ever encountered or even heard of.
After watching the video, I tend to agree with highorder. The guy in the black and white jacket looks back at the couple immediately before swinging his arm backward and smacking the woman in the face.
It's impossible to know what was going through his head. However, he was in a pushing match with the other guy immediately before hand. Both appear to be operating at some level of diminished capacity (somewhat drunk or high). Likely, he didn't make any sort of logical decision before he swung.
Without the back story, it's impossible to know why he swung his arm.
So, absent the back story ... and after observing the reaction of the man walking with the woman ... what happened appears to have been assault to me (1st Degree Assault as defined by my state's statute).
So, was it intentional, or not? We seem to have two camps here. I do not know the answer, but I will opine that the disagreement among those who have seen the same video might well make it very difficult to make any kind of arrest stick.
The evidence would be (1) an inconclusive video, should one like the one referred to happen to exist, (2) the testimony of two people that one of them had been struck, and (3) the testimony of two people that the contact had been completely accidental. Room for reasonable doubt, I think.
However, that wasn't the question at the outset. The OP posed the question of what to do, given that....
The citizen has the right to use necessary force to defend himself or a third person from imminent danger of serious injury or to prevent some kinds of serious felonies against persons, but the danger is no longer imminent here, nor is there a felony to be prevented. The citizen has the right to detain individuals and turn them over to the police for some transgressions under some circumstances depending upon the jurisdiction, but (1) he has neither the duty of the sworn officer to do so nor the protections afforded to the sworn officer, and (2) he is very limited in what he can do should the alleged attacker choose to depart. And in no jursidiction in the county is he empowered to punish the alleged attacker without exposing himself to serious criminal charges and civil liability.
So, what to do? Personally, I think I would get away from the place, and, even though prosecution of either one of the passers-by for the hit per se might be very unlikely, I would call and report the incident immediately. Could well be that the pair would be taken in for public drunkenness or disorderly contact.
The evidence would be (1) an inconclusive video, should one like the one referred to happen to exist, (2) the testimony of two people that one of them had been struck, and (3) the testimony of two people that the contact had been completely accidental. Room for reasonable doubt, I think.
However, that wasn't the question at the outset. The OP posed the question of what to do, given that....
The citizen has the right to use necessary force to defend himself or a third person from imminent danger of serious injury or to prevent some kinds of serious felonies against persons, but the danger is no longer imminent here, nor is there a felony to be prevented. The citizen has the right to detain individuals and turn them over to the police for some transgressions under some circumstances depending upon the jurisdiction, but (1) he has neither the duty of the sworn officer to do so nor the protections afforded to the sworn officer, and (2) he is very limited in what he can do should the alleged attacker choose to depart. And in no jursidiction in the county is he empowered to punish the alleged attacker without exposing himself to serious criminal charges and civil liability.
So, what to do? Personally, I think I would get away from the place, and, even though prosecution of either one of the passers-by for the hit per se might be very unlikely, I would call and report the incident immediately. Could well be that the pair would be taken in for public drunkenness or disorderly contact.
The operative phrase in the OP's description is "is not continuing." No justification for deadly force, or force, for that matter. Period.
One cannot ever know that an attack will not resume. One may not use force because that might happen, but should that happen, one must be ready to avoid, evade, or escape, or if that is not possible, to use force as immediately necessary to defend.
Deadly force may be used if immediately necessary to defend against imminent danger of death or serious injury. Neither a serious danger that has dissipated nor a threat of danger in the future is considered imminent.
This is true in every conceivable self defense situation (other than perhaps some involving defense within the home), and it has been since the origins of our legal constructs many centuries ago.
To get a favorable jury instruction in a self defense case, one will have to present some evidence on each of the following points:
This is a good read and should prove helpful:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=
Whether one thinks that his belief was reasonable is but a small part of the problem. Others will consider the evidence presented and determine whether a "reasonable person", knowing what the actor knew at the time, would have believed those things.
I hope this proves helpful.
I am not, nor have I in the course of this thread, advocated deadly force in response to a simple assault like the one in the referenced video.
Your legal points are duly noted. I'm fully aware of the law in my state. Others may or may not be.
In all likelihood and attack on my wife would generate a response similar to the one seen in the video. There would be little, if any, time for witnesses to determine that it was a "non-continuing" assault. I realize that was the premise of the O.P. However, the problem with theoretical questions is that a "scientific" and detached analysis of a theoretical situation has very little to do with the concrete and visceral real world.
Your legal points are duly noted. I'm fully aware of the law in my state. Others may or may not be.
In all likelihood and attack on my wife would generate a response similar to the one seen in the video. There would be little, if any, time for witnesses to determine that it was a "non-continuing" assault. I realize that was the premise of the O.P. However, the problem with theoretical questions is that a "scientific" and detached analysis of a theoretical situation has very little to do with the concrete and visceral real world.
True.
The OP asked what to do if...
Your question, "how do you know that the assault will not continue..." seemed to bring up the possibility of using force.
The problem as I see it is half of the people do not see the event as an attack.
True, but if there is sufficient question as to whether there was an attack in the first place, what you have is a fight, which is unlawful as well as dangerous.
One law firm around here points our in their advertisement not only the seriousness of an assault and battery charge, but that the person charged is often not the apparent instigator.
I agree that if one were hit by someone on the sidewalk it would be aggravating at best, but as one who has a clean record, no outstanding suits against me, tendons that have not been severed, and arteries that have not been slashed, I choose to not engage in the use of force or to attempt to detain someone for law enforcement if I can avoid it.
Some may choose another road, but the risks, both legal (civil and criminal) and physical do not seem reasonable for me to assume. There's a lot of downside, and no upside that I can see.
I have seen people struck by accident by someone gesturing, and fortunately, no harm came out of it.
One of the things that one should keep in mind is that, if one does react violently or even with the treat of force to an accidental bump or hit, and if one is then killed or injured by the person whom he thought to have been an aggressor, said alleged aggressor may well be the one to succeed in a defense of justification. If the alleged aggressor had in fact attempted to withdraw, that would be the likely outcome.
Nothing like getting killed in self defense due to an ill considered response to an unexpected situation, eh?
One cannot and should not assume, as many people on the keyboard often seem to do, that when the dust settles after a violent encounter, he or she will have any more standing as a "good guy" than the other fellow(s), or that his or her version of events will be given any more credibility.
Assume that there were some witnesses; would they be split, as in the case of our viewers? Some people here see an intentional hit; others, including some with law enforcement backgrounds, do not. Unfavorable testimony could prove very costly.
Best to disengage. Here's another good read. Pay particular attention to the discussion of "ADEE".
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm
My point, and I'll agree that it has strayed from the O.P.'s question, is that if someone struck my wife, and I believed that they did it intentionally, I would probably react in a manner similar to the man in the video.
Would that, perhaps, be the wisest thing to do? Perhaps not. There's a whole lot of "who knows" in "perhaps" which brings us back to the impossibility of correctly answering a theoretical question such as the one posed in the O.P. There is, simply, too much "perhaps" in the theory of the question.
Apparently, the man in the video felt that the strike was intentional ... or maybe he was just spoiling for a fight and didn't care about the legal ramifications.
BTW, if only half the people on a given jury didn't see the original attack as purposeful, then you would have - I believe - what is called a "hung jury." I suppose it's possible that a jury of one's "peers" would convict a man of assault for defending his wife after she was struck by a large, inebriated man, but I hardly find it probable.
Would that, perhaps, be the wisest thing to do? Perhaps not. There's a whole lot of "who knows" in "perhaps" which brings us back to the impossibility of correctly answering a theoretical question such as the one posed in the O.P. There is, simply, too much "perhaps" in the theory of the question.
Apparently, the man in the video felt that the strike was intentional ... or maybe he was just spoiling for a fight and didn't care about the legal ramifications.
BTW, if only half the people on a given jury didn't see the original attack as purposeful, then you would have - I believe - what is called a "hung jury." I suppose it's possible that a jury of one's "peers" would convict a man of assault for defending his wife after she was struck by a large, inebriated man, but I hardly find it probable.
If some one bumps into me no problem. I am 6'4 and 300lbs so i have bumped a few people in my day. The scenario is the wife getting slapped. If that happens i would knock the snot out of them! Cops dont like it when women get hit. I was just protecting her. I would not shoot them just kick some butt. I am afraid the Marine in me would come out and i would open a large can of whoop ass
- Status