lol @ "Satan" being blamed @ 3:05
lol @ "Satan" being blamed @ 3:05
in close quarter fighting like that fast hands and elbows always win....
I think Aikironin21's analysis was fantastic.
Baldy definitely has the right to tell Crazy Lady to STFU, however:
I can't make out most of the speach, but Crazy lady kept repeating "no threats" immediately before Baldy stepped around Kung Fu guy. He was speaking to her in what to me looked like a threatening manner given the context, following an apparent exchange of threats with Kung Fu guy. He then stepped around her 'defender' to approach her directly and speak to her directly - she was clearly afraid of this, as she shrank back when he leaned in. Could well count as assault in my view:
"Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat......The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account."
Keep in mind after the fight she was screaming that Baldy was trying to attack her. To her, the apprehension was real.
Kung fu guy touching Baldy was a mistake, could be argued as assault or even battery, but I rekon it might get kicked based on defending another from assault (the crazy lady).
Baldy's delay after the push, coupled with the fact that Pink Hat lady had already intervened and stood between them, means that in my view he could also easily be charged with battery based on the video, even if Kung Fu guy got charged with Assault.
A battery may be justified as a necessary means of defence. 1. Against the plaintiffs assaults in the following instances: In defence of himself, ... Care, however, must be taken, that the battery do not exceed the bounds of necessary defence and protection; for it is only permitted as a means to avert an impending evil, which might otherwise overwhelm the party, and not as a punishment or retaliation for the injurious attempt. Str. 953. The degree of force necessary to repel an assault will naturally depend upon, and be proportioned to, the violence of the assailant; but with this limitation any degree is justifiable"
However, the (little) law I've studied at Uni is Australian Law, not American Law, so yeah. I reserve the right to be an ignorant, wrong fool.
I think FrogButtonMan should either tear-up his RLSH membership card or move and go patrol the mean streets of Boca Raton.
Here in California, the I believe the law is similar. There is such a thing as parody of force. Yes the young guy touched the old guy first and pushed him back. In California, you don't need to back up to your last stand, but young guy had no where to back up to. When old guy leaned in, he was within arms length of young guy. Young guy stopped his forward progress by extending his arm and then reclaimed his personal space by following through with a push, not a thrust. The time it took old guy to respond, means any perceived threat that may have existed with the contact is no longer valid to claim self defense. His opportunity to react in self defense essentially expired. Add to that, pink hat intervening, makes old guy the aggressor and guilty of battery, regardless of any of the preceding events.
The mean mugging young guy was doing was no different than a form of being passive aggressive, or akin to some civil disobedience tactics. This does two things, one it allowed him to protect the crazy lady without being the aggressor (which he ultimately accomplished despite getting his own ass handed to him), and two the old guy must move into young guy's space in order to escalate the situation. Claiming self defense is difficult when you have moved into someone else's space.
I don't think young guy should be able to sue old guy for injuries, because he basically got what he asked for and in my opinion assumed the risk of getting his ass kicked when he inserted himself in the situation. The courts here in California, however would probably reward him for any medical bills he incurred as a result of the exchange.
The issue I was originally bringing up, was how the witnesses twisted the facts of actually happened based on bias against the crazy lady. You can clearly hear a lady say that the young guy hit the old guy first which, honestly, I'm not even sure if he even through a punch or landed one in the whole exchange. Yet you have witnesses saying the young guy started the fight.
My point was that, all of us need to remember this example when conducting ourselves in public. Witness accounts won't always convey facts of the actual event. This could very well mean the difference between going home and going to jail.
The young guy could have mean mugged the old guy from his original position in the car. He didn't need to move to better do that. This move simply shows the young guy was trying to protect the crazy lady, passively. The old guy attempted a ruse to force the young guy to play a hand, the young guy fell for this and pushed the old guy back with very light contact. The old guy's reaction to this was to stop what he was doing, which was being aggressive to the crazy lady again, and back up. Pink hat steps in, and old guy punches the young guy, unprovoked at this point. I think if the PD sees this video on the seen at the next stop, old guy is going to jail for sure. Young guy may possibly, cause old guy will push the issue, and the PD can always release the young guy later.
I think the Old guy, if he has a clean record, which by his demeanor I kind of doubt, would probably end up with some kind of probation and/or community service. Once he backed away from the young guy's wimpy push, and did nothing, that exchange was over. Young guy made no attempt to pursue old guy. Old guy would have been better off if he had just punched young guy at first contact right before the actual pushing motion or during the push. He didn't. He waited, he premeditated, he acted.
Touching equals assault? American law is weird.