Do you owe a criminal assailant a fair fight?

[RoadkingLarry]

All it takes is one punch and it can be lights out. Of course this also illustrates why it is not a ba idea to stay way from the bar scene.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070303_Ne_A1_Juror2034

Jurors find defendant not guilty of throwing fatal punch
By BILL BRAUN World Staff Writer
3/3/2007
Tulsa County jurors who deliberated for 11 hours Friday found Jason Nicholson not guilty of first-degree manslaughter in the death of a man who was hit in the head in a downtown Tulsa parking garage.

Nicholson, 35, was charged almost two years ago in the death of Scott Bolton, who prosecutors say sustained a deadly head wound when he was punched and fell to the concrete floor of a garage at First Street and Detroit Avenue about 2 a.m. Sept. 11, 2004.

Bolton, 23, died five days later.

Jurors began deliberating about 12:45 p.m. and returned the verdict shortly before midnight.

After the verdict was announced, Nicholson stood up and embraced his attorney, Zach Smith, and his private investigator, Eric Cullen.

"I'm just glad," Nicholson said later outside the courtroom. "We couldn't have had a better jury."

Nicholson said that "I did not see how they could not acquit me."

He thanked God and the people who supported him.

Nicholson, a former club security worker who has boxed professionally, had testified that he did not hit Bolton. He said it was his former co-defendant, Clay Spicer, who punched Bolton after Spicer and Bolton argued and cursed at each other.

Spicer, 24, testified Thursday after District Attorney Tim Harris agreed to grant him immunity that protects him from any future prosecution related to the Bolton homicide.

Taking the stand as a rebuttal witness, Spicer said Nicholson "popped" Bolton in the mouth and that Bolton fell down and struck his head.

Smith, the defense attorney, argued Friday that "the elected DA granted immunity to Clay Spicer, the man who committed this crime."

In March 2005 -- six months after Bolton's death -- prosecutors jointly charged Nicholson and Spicer, alleging that Spicer distracted Bolton and that Nicholson hit him.

District Judge Clancy Smith ruled in 2005 that the evidence was insufficient to hold Spicer for trial, and Spicer's manslaughter charge was dismissed.

Prosecutors asserted that Nicholson saw a chance to fight when he interjected himself into a dispute between Adam Buchert, a bouncer at a now-closed First Street club, and Bobby Standley, an intoxicated club patron and friend of Bolton's.

Assistant District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said that even after Standley apologized to Buchert and Buchert left the garage, Nicholson, Spicer and Doug Johnson hung around because "they were there for a fight."

A surveillance videotape -- which shows activity in the garage but with some brief time gaps -- shows Nicholson "steamrolling" toward Bolton before subsequent images show Bolton on the floor, Kunzweiler told jurors.

A detective said no video image showed the punch.

Harris said Spicer's position in the garage just before the punch was thrown was not close enough to Bolton for Spicer to have hit him.

Zach Smith said the case against Nicholson relied on "guilt by association, assumptions (and) stereotypes."

Prosecutors sought "to bash him for being a boxer," he said, arguing that Nicholson's boxing history was irrelevant.

Nicholson went to the garage "to see a fight," Harris said. " 'Don't screw with us' -- that's what that punch said. Poor Scott Bolton didn't have a clue."

Bolton's mother, Debbie Henry, said early Monday that "I do not agree with this verdict. I do not understand it."

Henry said family members will live with the verdict, because "that's the law, and we are law-abiding citizens."

"I completely stand behind Tim Harris and his office," she said.

Earlier, Henry, who lives in Argyle, Texas, talked about the person her son was.

"He always had a smile on his face," she said. "He always had an extended hand. He enjoyed life."

Nicholson has been free on bond in the case since March 2005. Had he been convicted, he could have faced four years to life in prison.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Usually when you hear a story of someone being killed by a single punch, it is not the punch that kills them, it's the concrete floor. When people fall they reflexively tense up and tuck their chin and take the blow across the back and shoulder. An unconcious person has the constitution of a rag doll and the head bounces violently off the floor causing a potentialy lethal closed head injury. The ground can be a deadly. Boxing ring floors are padded for a reason.The martial arts of Judo and Jujitsu teach specific techniques for throwing an enemy so that they land on their head or neck. Such techniques are highly illegal in even the most extreme fighting sports like the UFC. We all know of someone who was killed or paralized simply by falling and breaking their neck. The ground is a deadly weapon that is present in nearly every criminal attack.

 

[oakme2]

Oh

You have to face the fact that the US is filled with flaky liberal people. They become judges, voters, and other law makers. There are lots of good folks that know what is going on too. Wake up while we still have some rights. There lots of liberals that want good people to be like them. This country is SLOWLY going to pieces, because of this. You can go to jail for doing the right thing in this modern age. That being said it will be a cold day in hell before I stand down to any attacker.

 

[jerkyman45]

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you aren't armed well enough.

 

[Crimp]

I'm in my mid 60s, well beyond the years where I might have been able to hold my own against some street thug. If I'm attacked by some 20-something creep, then I'm in fear of my life. My reaction to that is obvious.

 

[ozwyn]

No, but even if you are armed, the assailant chose the time/place of the fight.

that means regardless of any tools available, it is already an unfair fight against you.

they choose the ground, you choose the tools or lack thereof.

 

[Cosmoline]

They figured many of these were instances of defensive gun use - illegal, but with the dead guy being a bad guy, they really didn't look too hard for who did it.

I've heard of this as well. The "three S" approach to self defense. Only these days I wouldn't count on the cops letting such matters drop. It's a heck of a dice roll, and there's no SOL on murder.

 

[Cosmoline]

This country is SLOWLY going to pieces, because of this. You can go to jail for doing the right thing in this modern age. That being said it will be a cold day in hell before I stand down to any attacker.

The self defense provisions we're talking about here are not new. They date back a very long time, to before the founding of the Republic. Indeed in many cases the law is being expanded to allow you to use deadly force more often.

What do you mean "stand down"?

 

[up_onus]

whats the definition of fair?
if fair is him holding a knife 20 yard away, and me holding a gun? then yes, i think its fair

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

In my house??? Ain't no thing as a fair fight. Heck---anywhere for that matter.

 

[Elza]

HankB: You might also look at the case of "Paul Saustrup" which shows what can happen when the local DA is a purely poltical animal like Ronnie Earle in Austin, TX.

No kidding! Welcome to Austin, the “Liberal LaLa Land of Texas”. I think that some one smuggled a precisely tuned ‘liberal magnet’ into Austin. That seems to be where they flock to these days. Although when it comes to guns or self-defense there are several spots in Texas to stay away from.

 

[3 gun]

No. I'm a big guy, not what you'd call an easy target. I have a handicap that's not easily seen that puts me at higher risk. If I am attacked I am in fear for my life and will end the attack ASAP using ANYTHING I have at hand. Many people have been killed by falls, heart attacks, strokes, etc caused by an attack. I don't plan on being one of them.

 

[scout26]

whats the definition of fair?

Fair = I win.

 

[mike101]

"Fighting fair" is fine if you're in fifth grade. When you're an adult, the idea is to disable them, before they disable you. You're bones are more brittle. What would have been a black eye when you're ten, becomes a broken orbit when you're thirty-five.

Do unto others before they do unto you.

 

[Rachen]

NO

Sorry, I decided to delete my message. I guess I was too angry and emotional when I wrote it.

Sometimes, I do think like an armchair warrior, I admit that. But we are all human beings and we always learn new things. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes Cosmoline

 

[Cosmoline]

popping a round into the ground next to them might get them to change their mind.

No no no. BAD IDEA!! MUY FRICKING MALO! Warning shots like that may be OK when you're trying to scare off a black bear, but they're all kinds of wrong when it comes to a human attacker. If deadly force is required, you need to be shooting COM. If deadly force is NOT required, you'd better not be shooting anything. Otherwise you run the very real risk of causing the situation to escalate. And YOU DREW FIRST and FIRED FIRST, before you saw any weapon from him. That's all kinds of wrong.

If all negotiation fail, shoot to wound.

No! NO NO NO. A handgun is not to be used as some form of less-than-lethal force. If deadly force is required, you can't afford to shoot to wound. And if deadly force is not justified, you'd better not try to use a handgun as non-deadly force.

scumbags do not deserve to live, and it would be really good if federal laws can be passed that would bring the death penalty for these types, no matter what jurisdiction they live in. Crimes like these should be classified as crimes against humanity, or terrorist acts.

Great. Then we'd have a "war on babyshaking." And maybe a "babyshaking czar."

 

[Manan]

Deadly force may only be used if "a reasonable person" would feel that under the same circumstances that their life was in danger or that their body was in danger of great bodily harm.

Then do as you may.

 

[iiranger]

silly question...

Bottom line, get a cop drunk or ask a prison guard with long service who has heard the convict war stories (not some wannabe who worked in a prison for 6 weeks or "the summer" or )... your opponent is 99% likely to be intoxicated. SEVERELY INTOXICATED. Formerly that meant alcohol only. Today? All bets are off. What is that animal tranquilizer. FORGET HOLLYWOOD. There is a good chance you can hit him a little off center with a 12 guage and buck shot and knock off pieces and he will still keep coming...

And you want to be "fair" to this poor misguided person??? FOOL???

The law is simple. If you are confronted with "reasonable threat" in YOUR mind of "great bodily injury" or "death" then you are authorized (BY YOUR CREATOR! the law "goes along" in this land... elsewhere and in history, by the king [or queen]) to meet this force with equal or greater force... He wants to kill you or hurt you seriously, you are empowered to kill him/her or hurt them seriously... a balance... BY LAW if YOU CAN! IF!

Of course no cop or free attorney wants you saying, "I shot him 'CAUSE that cop said I could," so they get real greasy or even forbid you to use self defense... Lying, mealy mouth, ... etc.

So if you want to do this "fairly" whatever that means... go ahead... "kill" or "wound" fairly...

The cliche' says it all, "better tried by 12 than carried by 6..." (And find an attorney who knows how to use the "tox screen" of the deceased to explain to the jury the necessity of your actions...)

In the old west, the killer of "Big Nosed Kate" was acquitted 'cause she had a bullet wound in her head. Jury figured that if he meant to kill her, he would have shot at her chest. It was close range (and she was not short on chest, they say). So when he claimed to be trying to warn her with the shot... jury bought it. Today? Start practicing to stick your head between your legs to be ready to kiss it good-bye.

At the same time, FORGET HOLLYWOOD and think about yourself. Your opponent is. Most fights are close up. Shootings at 7 feet. FEET. You are not supposed to shoot someone in the back. Oh well. Grab the SOB and turn him around so you can shoot him in the front. [HIDE THE GUN... surprise him/her.] Don't shoot once. You might miss. "Double tap." And if he don't go down, club him (her) a few times... (tell the jury you didn't want to kill anyone... and shooting didn't seem to work... REMEMBER the "tox screen" [blood test of what is in the perps blood at death...])

This is "mano a mano." You do not have the luxury of "manners." "Excuse me. I will go call the police." You WIN or you DIE!

"Die fairly?" Sure. The japanese do it all the time. Forms of "hari kari" or sepiku (sp?). Is he Japanese? He probably doesn't know any rules and if he does cannot remember them (and may be sure you are leading the Martians in an invasion of earth...) WASTE the sucker JUST AS SOON AS YOU THINK JUSTIFIED, or say your prayers... luck.

 

[The Cavalry]

Most relevant quote on this subject, from a USMC officer:

"My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals."

 

[imaghn]

no..

i owe criminals nothing

 

[gunsmith]

I may have missed it, but it is our repsponsibility to avoid killing if we can

I took a gun away from a drunk (female)that was trying to rob me.
I could have articulated a perfect case for lethal self defense, how ever
I would have KILLED someone, I was in fear for my life but I had the advantage of a clear mind and strength.
I read on thr one time that our studies here can give us the advantage in lethal and less then lethal situations. (and that)
We have a moral duty to save a life, ( a moral duty to avoid killing/maiming) if stopping a crime that may result in my own death or serious harm then the serious harm or death of my assailant may happen. Yet I can't help but feel that just because I may be legally able to justify shooting and perhaps killing my assailant that when I meet our Creator
it may not be justified in his eyes.

 

[Autolycus]

I am not John Wayne, so no I will not give a fair fight.

 

[kungfuhippie]

+1 gunsmith,
I'd never advocate shooting someone because a legal "opportunity" arose. However If I was in a situation where I feared for my life I would by any means necessary defend it. And I would pray that God is all-knowing and compassionate and would look on my heart and judge me justly.

 

[Jamie C.]

My "Moral Duty" only extends as far as keeping myself alive and my skin intact. I also believe that I should do the same for others who are being victimized, if the need presents it's self, or I find myself in that position. I don't believe that the strong have a "right" to prey on the weak, but I also don't recognize any moral or legal obligation to defend the weak. It's strictly my choice.

Having said that, I will not give criminals a "fair fight".


J.C.

 

[GeezerwithGuns]

I'm 60 years old and not as tough as I once was. I have a CCW and don't want, in the interest of "fighting fair" to give an assailant a chance to unarm and shoot me. Fair is something you see in the movies. I'm not gonna fight "fair."