Provoking?

[ap3572001]

Is standing Your ground (not taking any sxxt) equals provoking?

Want to hear some opinions.

[Falconis]

want to give us some context to that question? I don't know what you are getting at.

[Roddd]

Huh?

[bohoki]

is it really "your ground"

[Notorious]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

... 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?