Provoking?

[Falconis]

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]

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]

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]

Yes. Sweet revenge plays well in the movies and feels good but justice under the law doesn't care about that.

[Doheny]

Make sense?

Yup...thx!

[kheiney]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

[9mmepiphany]

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]

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.