PDA

View Full Version : Provoking?


ap3572001
06-14-2011, 7:42 PM
Is standing Your ground (not taking any sxxt) equals provoking?

Want to hear some opinions.

Falconis
06-14-2011, 10:08 PM
want to give us some context to that question? I don't know what you are getting at.

Roddd
06-14-2011, 10:32 PM
Huh?

bohoki
06-14-2011, 10:42 PM
is it really "your ground"

Notorious
06-14-2011, 11:52 PM
CA doesn't have the "Castle Doctrine" as it relates to standing your ground and fighting. In a public setting, you really don't have anything to stake your claim that you are standing your ground.

Usually, the first question out of any opposing lawyer would be if you had a chance to avoid the fight, by turning around and leaving or just not engaging. If the guy cornered you or attacked straight out without you doing anything, then you have no other choice but to defend yourself and you are copacetic.

ap3572001
06-14-2011, 11:53 PM
For example. Someone is being rude, makes disrespectfull remarks,threats etc. You are not taking it it well. Situation escalates and You end up having to defend yourself. Did YOU provoke them? Did YOU start the whole thing?

Notorious
06-15-2011, 12:01 AM
You did not provoke it but you also did nothing to avoid it if that makes any sense.

If you walked away at the first provocation and the guy ran after you and kept it up and then physically assaults you, and then you defended yourself, then you are in a lot cleaner state when you get interviewed by the cops then if you stood your ground and got into a fight. Not to say you are in the wrong either way but who knows how it gets twisted in a court with scumsucking lawyers?

Falconis
06-15-2011, 12:06 AM
For example. Someone is being rude, makes disrespectfull remarks,threats etc. You are not taking it it well. Situation escalates and You end up having to defend yourself. Did YOU provoke them? Did YOU start the whole thing?

What do you mean not taking it well? What caused the situation to escalate? There is a huge gap between disrespectful and threatening remarks. Even with threatening remarks, how imminent and immediate was the threat? Those questions are gonna have to be answered as well. Given the answers, whatever they may be, your defense may look offensive. That give you a clearer picture?

9mmepiphany
06-15-2011, 9:10 AM
Everything hinges on the details.

It is like standing in the path of someone trying to leave an argument, you may have a right to stand there, but you are actually provoking an situation which did not need to occur

ap3572001
06-15-2011, 11:33 AM
Everything hinges on the details.

It is like standing in the path of someone trying to leave an argument, you may have a right to stand there, but you are actually provoking an situation which did not need to occur

Ok. Its like this ( a recent real life event)

Two guys and girl sitting in a cafe one SAT. afternoon.
4 guys parked their bikes and set on the bench right next to the cafe.
They started to make offensive remarks about the guys and a girl.
One of the guys tells them to stop , in a nice way.
The guys did not take it very well and decided to get physical .....and lost BADLY.
The two guys had to DEFEND themselves. Right?
They did not start anything. Who is REALLY to blame? They could have just left or not said anything . But ALL they did was asked to be left alone.

My friend was the first unit on the scene and did the report.
We talked about it.

Falconis
06-15-2011, 3:21 PM
Assuming there were independent witnesses to support the story my personal gut feeling is that the 4 guys were the primary aggravation.

Politely asking someone to knock something off isn't a provocation. If the 4 guys got up and threw the first punch from that point, I would think that would be the primary starter of the incident. Depends if the 4 guys ever gave the other guy a chance to walk away or immediately started wailing on him.

Depending on all the details it could go one of 3 ways

Against your friends
Against the bikers
Mutual Combat - This is where nobody goes to jail or everybody is appearing in court as both the plaintiff and defendant (Cross Complaint).

ap3572001
06-15-2011, 3:35 PM
Assuming there were independent witnesses to support the story my personal gut feeling is that the 4 guys were the primary aggravation.

Politely asking someone to knock something off isn't a provocation. If the 4 guys got up and threw the first punch from that point, I would think that would be the primary starter of the incident. Depends if the 4 guys ever gave the other guy a chance to walk away or immediately started wailing on him.

Depending on all the details it could go one of 3 ways

Against your friends
Against the bikers
Mutual Combat - This is where nobody goes to jail or everybody is appearing in court as both the plaintiff and defendant (Cross Complaint).

From what I understood. The two guys and a girl ( they were not my friends) , never planned on leaving. They asked to be left alone , politely but FIRM. Once the FOUR guys walked up to TWO , it was on.
Mutual combat? I don't know..... 4 against 2 ?

Its almost like when someone is trying to steal Your car, You tell them to leave it alone and they jump You . Are You defending Yourself? Or Your car? :) ???

I did not see it happen, but the report was interesting.

Samuelx
06-15-2011, 4:58 PM
Someone attempting to steal your car is Not the same as someone calling you names/calling you out/verbally taunting you/whatever.

If you discussed this incident with an LEO friend, I hope he pointed out that there are MANY more negative possible outcomes (like a dozen or more) from a physical altercation than positive (like 1, MAYBE). Avoidance is usually your best bet, even if you have to swallow your ego, suck up your pride, and/or turn the other cheek - EVEN if you are Absolutely in the Right and the other party(ies) are Dead Wrong (think road rage).

If you or someone else gets seriously hurt because you "stood your ground", asserted your position, defended your/his/her honor, puffed your chest (whatever you want to call it) instead of taking the opportunity to leave/avoid the situation, etc, would it have been "worth it"? Btw, what was the other side's story of the incident (probably much different) - how do you know who was telling the truth? Also, if the 4 were legitimate POSes and were out looking for trouble, the 2 person side of the conflict was very lucky that they weren't seriously seriouly hurt/killed (stabbed/shot)...

socalphoto
06-15-2011, 5:17 PM
"From what I understood. The two guys and a girl ( they were not my friends) , never planned on leaving. They asked to be left alone , politely but FIRM. Once the FOUR guys walked up to TWO , it was on.
Mutual combat? I don't know..... 4 against 2 ?"

Mutual combat is just a term that means, no one wants to press charges, no one wants to do anything....which is good because it often means little (or no paperwork). For the most part at least. It is NOT a term to described a fair fight.

Doheny
06-15-2011, 5:37 PM
... 4 guys were the primary aggravation.

For my own edification, can you explain the concept of "primary aggressor/aggravation"?

Would it be the person/party that starts it, or the one who is more aggressive in an altercation?

Falconis
06-15-2011, 7:13 PM
For my own edification, can you explain the concept of "primary aggressor/aggravation"?

Would it be the person/party that starts it, or the one who is more aggressive in an altercation?

Courts describe the primary aggressor as the one who is MOST aggressive. It is mainly used in Domestic Violence cases. Example being guy starts a fight with his old lady for not giving him a beer. Words are exchanged for the better part of an hour and she goes and gets a baseball bat (nothing to warrant escalating the force) and starts pounding on him. Female is the primary aggressor.

Another one would be female starts pushing the guy around and guy pushes back. Female pushes back harder and the guy starts wailing on her. Guy is primary aggressor.

Make sense?

9mmepiphany
06-15-2011, 8:12 PM
One of the guys tells them to stop , in a nice way.
They asked to be left alone , politely but FIRM.
There is a world of difference between these two descriptions...as already said, it is all in the details

Without independent witnesses, I could see this going either way...as a matter of fact, I've seen cases like this where the officers had to get together...like the refs during a NFL game...to discuss who to charge. In a 4 on 2 fight, the side with only 2 players is at a disadvantage both during and after the fight. There are more variables than you'd think

It is NOT a term to described a fair fight.
It is also a term to describe equal culpability

ap3572001
06-15-2011, 9:47 PM
Saw the report. Witness statement . The witness described the two young guys as HIGHLY SKILLED AND AGGRESSIVE. But only AFTER they were pushed.
.I guess walking away would have been the best option.

Notorious
06-16-2011, 12:56 AM
Yes. Sweet revenge plays well in the movies and feels good but justice under the law doesn't care about that.

Doheny
06-16-2011, 6:40 AM
Make sense?

Yup...thx!

kheiney
06-16-2011, 8:43 AM
CA doesn't have the "Castle Doctrine" as it relates to standing your ground and fighting. In a public setting, you really don't have anything to stake your claim that you are standing your ground.

Usually, the first question out of any opposing lawyer would be if you had a chance to avoid the fight, by turning around and leaving or just not engaging. If the guy cornered you or attacked straight out without you doing anything, then you have no other choice but to defend yourself and you are copacetic.

CALJIC No. 5.50, Self-Defense—Assailed Person Need Not Retreat, as given: "A person threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense need not retreat. In the exercise of his right of self-defense, a person may stand his ground and defend himself by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge; and a person may pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably necessary. This law applies even though the assailed person might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene."

I would say leaving is almost always your best option. But I don't think you have any legal requirement to do so.

ap3572001
06-16-2011, 8:45 AM
Yes. Sweet revenge plays well in the movies and feels good but justice under the law doesn't care about that.

Yep. Both guys as who were Defending themselves are are in trouble since two out of four "attackers" got seriously hurt. Sometimes its best to walk away.

Notorious
06-16-2011, 8:57 AM
CALJIC No. 5.50, Self-Defense—Assailed Person Need Not Retreat, as given: "A person threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense need not retreat. In the exercise of his right of self-defense, a person may stand his ground and defend himself by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge; and a person may pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably necessary. This law applies even though the assailed person might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene."

I would say leaving is almost always your best option. But I don't think you have any legal requirement to do so.

You would be right under the jury instructions for an affirmative defense of self-defense. That comes into play AFTER you have been charged and tried. Caljic is not law.

However, the CA law is not the equivalent of the Castle Doctrine or the Florida "stand your ground and fight" law. Those laws prevent you from being charged in the first place.

Also, reality hardly ever plays out in trials. I would not want to bet on the jury after some shyster lawyer had his way in court. I would rather avoid it in the first place.

Notorious
06-16-2011, 9:00 AM
Yep. Both guys as who were Defending themselves are are in trouble since two out of four "attackers" got seriously hurt. Sometimes its best to walk away.

Aside from the muddy mess of a criminal trial, your 2 heroes will also likely face court ordered restitution if they lose and then a civil lawsuit for other medical bullcrap.

ap3572001
06-16-2011, 9:12 AM
Aside from the muddy mess of a criminal trial, your 2 heroes will also likely face court ordered restitution if they lose and then a civil lawsuit for other medical bullcrap.
:). The way this is turning out, makes me wonder what is a TRUE self defense? The kind that wont even get you charged with anything. Or is it a grey area?

Notorious
06-16-2011, 9:16 AM
It works if you KILL the perp with justified use of deadly force and the scum doesn't have any family or race pimps like Sharpton taking up the cause. A white man victim against minority aggressors have an uphill fight. It's not fair but it's contemporary American society.

ap3572001
06-16-2011, 9:28 AM
It works if you KILL the perp with justified use of deadly force and the scum doesn't have any family or race pimps like Sharpton taking up the cause. A white man victim against minority aggressors have an uphill fight. It's not fair but it's contemporary American society.

I know........

motorwerks
06-16-2011, 1:36 PM
It works if you KILL the perp with justified use of deadly force and the scum doesn't have any family or race pimps like Sharpton taking up the cause. A white man victim against minority aggressors have an uphill fight. It's not fair but it's contemporary American society.

Lucky for me my dad is black, and moms white!! I can defend myself against most people (there's a little American Indian in there too someplace). :D

9mmepiphany
06-16-2011, 2:26 PM
My friend was the first unit on the scene and did the report.
We talked about it.
So tell us, whom did they charge and with what?

Fspeed
06-16-2011, 3:40 PM
I remember a police officer talking to our class in high school and someone asked a similar question. His answer was that in many cases someone defended themselves first and then turned it into assault by kicking them when they were down or "finishing" the fight.

Not worth it to teach some loser a lesson in manners.

tyrist
06-16-2011, 4:25 PM
Many times people who think they are just "defending" themselves press their advantage and actually become guilty of a felony crime.

It's best to avoid a fight even if you have to swallow your ego and just walk away. People say rude stuff to me all the time. I am not allowed to get in a fight with them because of it.

joepamjohn
06-16-2011, 5:17 PM
Not to say you are in the wrong either way but who knows how it gets twisted in a court with scumsucking lawyers?

LOL, the same "scumsucking" lawyers you will now need to pay big bucks to in order to keep your butt our of jail, right or wrong.;)

Notorious
06-16-2011, 6:06 PM
Whether or not I will need the lawyer later to save me doesn't change the fact that they are still lower than scumsucking catfish.

ap3572001
06-16-2011, 10:08 PM
So tell us, whom did they charge and with what?
I wont go into details. But from what I understand, an EXTREME skill of one of the guys who defended themselves is not playing in his favor. We will see what happens. I still think that the four guys are at fault.

9mmepiphany
06-16-2011, 10:59 PM
The problem with extreme skill is that there is the responsibility of being able to stop when the fight is won. That is where you get into the balance of force.

It is like having a CCW, there is an expectation you you'll not start fights as you have the advantage of knowing that you are armed while the other person does not...you can't bait them and then claim self defense

Notorious
06-17-2011, 12:17 AM
I wont go into details. But from what I understand, an EXTREME skill of one of the guys who defended themselves is not playing in his favor. We will see what happens. I still think that the four guys are at fault.

The tough part is knowing exactly when to stop. When you have a lot of training you have sequences planned in your head and doctrines you follow. So when faced with a threat, you go through what you know and you put down the threat.

But when you follow through and finish your opponent, sometimes that will get into making you the aggressor. Case in point, you are attacked by a guy throwing a random haymaker and you catch it and throw a body blow which knocks the wind out of him and he bends over. Now the natural thing is to follow up with another technique and put him down with a kick, an elbow, whatever. However, depending on what condition the guy is in when he doubles over, you can easily become the aggressor then and there.

The tough part which is totally unrealistic is that you have to counter one technique at a time and wait for the other guy's next move before you keep attacking in self defense.

9mmepiphany
06-17-2011, 8:25 AM
It is like my baton instructor said, "If he backs off after the first strike, don't chase after him yelling: Wait, I owe you two more to complete the technique"

Notorious
06-17-2011, 9:43 AM
It is like my baton instructor said, "If he backs off after the first strike, don't chase after him yelling: Wait, I owe you two more to complete the technique"

That is so wrong! Don't say it, just do it!!!

Falconis
06-17-2011, 11:15 AM
The tough part is knowing exactly when to stop. When you have a lot of training you have sequences planned in your head and doctrines you follow. So when faced with a threat, you go through what you know and you put down the threat.

But when you follow through and finish your opponent, sometimes that will get into making you the aggressor. Case in point, you are attacked by a guy throwing a random haymaker and you catch it and throw a body blow which knocks the wind out of him and he bends over. Now the natural thing is to follow up with another technique and put him down with a kick, an elbow, whatever. However, depending on what condition the guy is in when he doubles over, you can easily become the aggressor then and there.

The tough part which is totally unrealistic is that you have to counter one technique at a time and wait for the other guy's next move before you keep attacking in self defense.

If you were trained to do it as part of a kata or whatever other term you want to use, there is legal precedent to say you will be ok. So long as you don't do something like pound on his face for 10 minutes straight.

Notorious
06-17-2011, 4:51 PM
If you were trained to do it as part of a kata or whatever other term you want to use, there is legal precedent to say you will be ok. So long as you don't do something like pound on his face for 10 minutes straight.

What if your kata consists of beating on faces for 10 minutes straight?