US Law: protects the innocent or the weak?

[SanHeChuan]

If there are no witnesses and I'm attacked by someone with no history of violent crime, and beat them unconscious and maybe they get seriously hurt. Crack their scull when they fall or what not. Whose going to get charged with assault? It's my word against his that he attacked me. Maybe criminal charges get dropped but then there's a million dollar civil suit for the guys injuries.

Police officers have to follow a continuum of force, Use their commanding voice, then pepper spray, then their gun. They have color coded body charts to tell them what areas are OK to hit at certain levels of force. This makes sense because they are given weapons and expected to use them responsibly, and they are expected to assume a certain about of risk.

But like we saw in the one video of the cop who got his ass beat while following that chain, by the time he got to the point of using he gun he was already overwhelmed by his attacker.

Civilian self defense is held to similar if not the same standards, in that we have to use the minimum amount of force to defend our selves. And that minimum standard is determined by a jury of our peers after the fact, who were not even there.

If we are attacked we are expected to put our selves at greater risk to prevent the possibility of hurting our attackers too much?!

"Well did you tell him the man beating you to Stop?"
"Did you try pushing him away?
"After you hit him the first time did you wait to see if he'd give up?"

Our laws are heavily based on a religion or at least the moral frame work stemming from it, that says not the innocent, or the just, or the righteous, but he the meek will inherit the earth.

In schools don't they suspend both kids, for fighting, regardless of the circumstances?

[SevenStar]

you both go to court. your attorney has to convince the jury beyond shadow of a doubt that you acted with reasonable force in self defense. his prior record is not necessarily an issue. If he chooses not to testify, then your attorney cannot ask him about his background and it therefore will not be permissible in court. it is literally just your word against his if there are no witnesses. If criminal charges get dropped, what are the chances he will win a civil suit? (that question is not meant to be rhetorical; I really do not know)

No, both kids do not always get suspended - it depends on the factors involved.

[Chief Fox]

My old Sifu used to say, "If you're in a situation like that, kill the guy, stab yourself in the arm a few times, and put the knife in his hand."

If there are still no witnesses, just get the f@ck out of there.

[Yum Cha]

Wow, is that really true? Is somebody has a criminal record for assualt, its not admissible evidence, unless the person testifies and the attorney can ask?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"If criminal charges get dropped, what are the chances he will win a civil suit? (that question is not meant to be rhetorical; I really do not know)" (7*)


***I was in this situation many years ago here in NYC. I was arrested for assault - the charges were dismissed by the judge and the DA when we went to trial (his word against mine)...and his civil suit for One Million Dollars in damages against my employer went nowhere (I was the manager of an AAMCO transmissions at the time).

If I were convicted of criminal charges - his lawsuit may have succeeded - since the fight took place right outside the storefront - and hostile words were exchanged between this guy and the AAMCO owner a week earlier.

But then again - there's O.J. Simpson. He beat the criminal charges - but he lost the civil ($) suit brought against him for wrongful death.

I think we can safely agree that his situation was pretty unique - since just about everybody knows he's guilty as sin of the murders. That must have swayed the judge in the civil suit, I dare say.

The glove shrunk from the blood - and everyone pretty much knew that.

[Samurai Jack]

A Kungfu Master I know in San Francisco (who will remain nameless) was going to be mugged by three men outside his apartment in the early 80's. He pulled a knife and cut the throat of his first attacker, who died at the scene. The other two were hospitalized.

The Kungfu Master spent a brief stint in jail while awaiting trial for second degree murder. The jury found him not guilty because his attackers outnumbered him to the extent that they were deemed to be using lethal force (even though they were unarmed).

So in this case, I'd say justice was served.

Be careful who you try to mug in the wee hours at Golden Gate Park. He's still training there.

[Ben Gash]

I can't really speak about the states, but here it's not minimum force, it's reasonable force, and you don't have to prove beyond reasonable it was self defence, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

[Liokault]

I can't really speak about the states, but here it's not minimum force, it's reasonable force, and you don't have to prove beyond reasonable it was self defence, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't.



And its not reasonable force for the actual situation, its reasonable force for how you perceive the situation!

[SevenStar]

Wow, is that really true? Is somebody has a criminal record for assualt, its not admissible evidence, unless the person testifies and the attorney can ask?

yeah, it's true - at least in my state. I served jury duty on an aggravated assault case and the guy chose not to testify. The lawyers told us afterward that he chose not to testify because he didn't want the fact that he had priors brought up into the case, as that may have affected our decision. He actually made a good choice, as we found him innocent and he really was innocent. Had we known he had a prior for stabbing and the case was for him stabbing someone....we may have sent an innocent man to prison for 20 years.

[xcakid]

Here in TX we have the Castle Doctorine. Whereas we can use deadly force if:




Under the "castle doctrine" bill passed by the Senate on Monday, a person who believes his or her life is threatened could use deadly force against an intruder or attacker if he or she:

•Has a right to be present at the location – habitation, motor vehicle or place of business – where the deadly force is used.

•Has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used.

•Is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used.



We also have a Shall Issue Concealed Handgun Licensure. Providing you pass an FBI background check and show handgun handling and safety proficiency. Deadly force is based on "perceived threat"
We also have the death penalty and actually USE it.

Basically, the laws in TX is biased towards protecting their citizens and not the bad guys. Wish the rest of the country was like TX.

Now although anyone of these laws or a combination would let you off in criminal court. You still can be sued in civil court and be found guilty.

[Golden Spider]

The "letter" of the law has only one purpose; to preserve itself via the judgement and interpretation of it's agents.
The sanctity of human life, or, it's relative worth, is open to opinion based on accepted social norms. Which of course, effect how the "law", is exercised.