durvasa, however utopian it seems, your heart is in the right place here, and in that regard I applaud your efforts. Trying to allocate blame on some type of "causal scale" can be done in any situation but can blur the line between victim and victimizer. A very common practice of defense attorneys. In this instance I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation, but I think I understand your position.
Let's see ... Jump out of moving bus or Don't reply in kind Tough choice there, but I think you know my answer. Done?
so replying in kind escalated it? when he got punched and he punched back to defend himself, did he escalate it? I agree that his additional punches were excessive thought
Replying in kind served no protective purpose, in my opinion. That's where we are reading the situation differently. Self defense is justified, and I've said it a number of times.
Santa moved away and Deejay still didn't stop. example: if you're out in public with your wife and someone calls your wife a *****. do you shut up put your head down or do you say something?
Read the statute bro, I'll post it again: It's very clear cut to any objective observer that he intentionally challenged someone to a fight in a public place in violation of the second half of Section 415(1). - you can't credibly say otherwise. You could also ARGUABLY say that he violated the first half of subsection (1) or subsection (3) by means of provocation/instigation though it's a closer call. It's irrelevant however as it's undeniable that he violated the second part of (1). In the law of the schoolyard/machismo/etc.... sure you say something - in the law of the state that you live in, you probably don't. That's the world we live in.
Wow, can we just lock this one up? At first it was funny as hell, now its all mushy mushy, politically correct, softies pretending we live in a utopia where you can just "hug it out" old man whooped some ass, end of story.
okay the law is the law but I'm sure durvasa is not talking about legality of it. I know I'm not. it's just not about schoolyard/machismo. it's about the streets. it happened in public transportation so I'm pretty sure they will meet again. if Santa simply shut up, he'll be Deejays and his friends and people who learns about it b**** until he dies.
Dude, I ride the subway every day, let me assure you that it's nothing like "Oz" or "The Wire" or "Locked Up" - there are crazy nutty people yammering stuff all the time, the best thing to do is move away from them - there's not really that much of a chance of repeat offense.
yah you don't want to jump out of a moving bus... just ask that girl the girl in Dallas that forced her way off the bus and got run over by it... Dead
I would take off my glove, slap him in the face with it, and proclaim, "A sabre duel at dawn, you ruffian!" Yourself?
I know just walk away if you're not directly involved in it. But he was being called out numerous times, being video'd, and being heckled. You can't put yourself in his shoes. You have a good life, good job, money,a family perhaps. Santa probably don't have anything but his dignity and his right to speak up.
In all seriousness, I'd probably say something to protect the feelings of my wife. But if it appears like it may escalate into a violent confrontation, I'll leave it. I don't know who this person is. He may be a lunatic (he probably his a lunatic for blurting out "b****" at a stranger) with a knife or gun, and now I've put both myself and my wife in danger. If he is someone I know, and I don't think a dangerously violent confrontation is likely, then I'd try to get him to apologize.
you are spending a hell of a lot more time criticizing him than the black guy, who was the one who threw the first punch. your posts seem to imply that you find the white guy to be more at fault than the black guy who again, was the one who did the physical assaulting. the white guy was the one who got up and moved to the front and the black guy continued to go at him, but you seem to be laying most of the blame at the white guy for responding in kind. bill should have known better and should have exercised more common sense, but this analogy you are trying to draw makes no sense. if bill had gone up to someone else and tried to rob them, but instead was robbed himself than the situation would be similar. but what bill did is in no way similar to what the black guy on the bus did, which is physically assault someone else and get his ass kicked for it.
Lighten the mood a bit.... Bringing back up a classic.... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1oVNPh3TX0Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1oVNPh3TX0Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
That's a great find Sam and I think under that law the old guy should be charged under 2 and 3. That said I would stand by a defense for the old guy under the principle of self-defense as he attempted to remove himself from the situation and didn't strike first. That is my understanding of the law from teaching self-defense and from what I have been told from those who work in law enforcement. I will admit though that I am not familiar with California law in this regard.
i think in principle it is clear that its self defense, but according to california law both guys could be charged. i dont think its fair, but thats the law. i dont know how after watching the video a cop could arrest white guy though. seems pretty clear that its self defense. im surprised that arnold hasnt nullified this girly-man law that prevents real men from fighting back.
