Your a member of the jury

Posted by: drgndrew

Your a member of the jury - 01/13/07 10:11 PM

Imagine you view footage: one man is constantly moving into the personal space of another, his body language is aggressive and domineering. the other man is backing up with his hands raised in as passive posture. After a moment the second man suddenly strikes the aggressive one with the heel of his palm straight into his chin, knocking him off his feet. The striker quickly backs away moving off camera.

There are witnesses most of them say there was an argument and that guy knocked the other down. but one or two of them said they heard the man, who struck, say several times that he didn't want to fight.

You're a member of the jury, keeping in mind reasonable doubt, do you vote the man guilty of assault, or do you except his claim the he acted preemptively in self defence.
I'm just curious as to the results.

Feel free to remain anonymous, but please be honest in your choice.
.
Posted by: Mr_Heretik

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/13/07 10:25 PM

I voted not guilty. I am a bit biased, but from what the witnesses said and what is shown... the second man was defending himself.
Posted by: Midnightcrawler

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/14/07 07:33 PM

Looks like you are getting the results which could be statistically expected on an MA forum. It might be more interesting, and accurate to ask the same question of the 'general public' rather than on a MA forum as there will be a tendency towards less bias.

You know my thoughts anyway

MC.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/14/07 08:24 PM

Interesting poll, Drew. I admit with my SD training and the evidence as presented, I would vote "not guilty". That might change if -

* I didn't know anything about SD

* Lawyers or witnesses seemed to prove otherwise.
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/14/07 10:14 PM

Thanks for the responses so far.

More information would be needed and provided in an actual court case, but Base your judgement on just the info provided, it is true that in an actual court case you will be presented with a couple of hours of testimony. But I thought I'd save you from that.

Quote:

Looks like you are getting the results which could be statistically expected on an MA forum. It might be more interesting, and accurate to ask the same question of the 'general public' rather than on a MA forum as there will be a tendency towards less bias.

You know my thoughts anyway

MC.




exactly what I thought
so I've posted it on 3 other SD/MA forums on a dog breeders forum, an aussie car forum and the Traci Harding "Trazling" site (fantasy/scifi readers may know who that is)

let you know what happens
Posted by: schanne

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 12:29 PM

Voted not guilty, he warned the attacker twice and felt he was going to be assaulted, a threatning situation.

I have jury duty 2/26/07 !!
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 02:27 PM

Not guilty. Firstly, he backed off. Secondly, he put up a fence, indicating he did not want a confrontation. Thridly, he stated (by some accounts) that he did not want to fight. Fourthly and most importantly he did not indicate that he wanted to fight or harm his opponent by continuing to fight after the initial strike. If he had wanted to fight or harm his opponent, he would have kicked him while he was lying on the floor. Finally, he left the scene after the incident, indicating that he was concerned primarily about his personal safety and not about causing harm to other people.

I want to see the results of this poll when you get them back from the other forums.
Posted by: Eternal_Student

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 02:54 PM

I have heard from many a martial arts instructor that you should ALWAYS loudly yell out "I don't want to fight" when in an altercation (in order to get the witnesses to report this in the event of an actual fight). I should also note that a bully who starts fights could do the same thing (so, saying "I don't wanna fight is NOT always definitive when assessing one's true intentions).

In order to vote on this fact pattern, I need more info (such as whether either of those involved has a history of violent acts/ fights, the level of fight training the striker has- is he a martial arts master, where he may have had more options other than a palm-heel strike, and the amount of damage done to the other party)
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 03:13 PM

Bear in mind that during an altercation, we can not expect even the most experienced martial arts master to have the time to weigh the level of force required precisely. Hence, some leeway should be given to account for the threatening nature of the situation. In UK self defense law, the general principle is:

Quote:

If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.




http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c.html#14
Posted by: Dedicated1

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 05:14 PM

If this case ended up in a court room, then the man defending must have seriously injured or killed the aggressor. If your pre-emptive strike leaves no long lasting effects, you won't be in a court room. So don't kick out their knee, and don't punch them in the throat. If your trapped with no where to go, and the aggressor is not responding to verbal communication, a groin strike or a front kick to the stomach to gain access to safety would suffice. You would never see a court room with a jury.
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 05:42 PM

Quote:

...You would never see a court room with a jury.




It really depends on whether the person struck tries to press charges or if the incident is reported to the police as a fight by bystanders. Even a non-lethal strike can be taken as assault. As always, the law has plenty of grey area.
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 09:29 PM

It certainly depends (regardless of how some of you said you would vote) on how convincing your witnesses, complainant and defendant are. There might be someone who you are inclined to side with but their courtroom demeanor may push you the other way.

The truth is only half of it.

p.s. I didn't vote.
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/15/07 11:46 PM

hey guys

Don't get to carried away what if and more info etc, only from what is provided what would you vote.

Obviously this is a very simplified "case", real court will provide various arguments for and against and the judge will provide an overview of the laws being decided upon, and any other definitions that are required to perform your task as a Jury.

Basically all we have is the silent footage. It's good that we are bringing up things that will/could effect the decision, it broadens all of our knowledge bases and offers much food for thought. but for the actual vote just work of the video evidence.
Posted by: IRKguy

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/16/07 12:30 AM

I voted self defense because I have seen a man in court found not guilty of assault after slashing a man eight times with a knife in a similar situation. His attorney argued that the eight slashes were all done in one second (and demonstrated it with a pen--many juries would consider each slash a separate act without the demonstration) and were done while retreating, not advancing. The knifer continued to retreat and did not do what an assailant would do--take the easy kill in front of him. Once the guy stopped advancing, the knifer ran away. The jury decided that he was acting in self-defense. This was not a middle-aged Causasian in a three-piece suit with a Swiss Army knife. This was the kind of knifer juries love to convict: young and a minority. He was found not guilty. However, his lawyer was good and the knife was legal for carry. I think the constant backward motion was a deciding factor, but you can never know what a jury will do.

BTW, a verbal threat is an assault in most states, so if there is audio on the hypothetical video, the striker might have a better case for self defense. Saying you don't want to fight is one thing. Being threatened with witnesses present is another. Of course, these things tend to happen in bars and witnesses tend to disappear.
Posted by: Midnightcrawler

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/16/07 08:59 PM

IRKguy,

Why on Earth didn't the guy without the knife run like the damn wind? I would have voted the same as the jury, if only on the basis that the guy with the knife was retreating, or to put it another way trying to get the hell out of there.

MC.
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/18/07 01:23 AM

I voted defense.
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/18/07 02:09 AM

Ok time for some results.

SD forums
forum -- guilty No/% -- not guity No/% -- TOTAL NO OF VOTEs

Aussie car -- 5/71% -- 2/28% -- 7

dog forums -- 1/14.% -- 6/86% -- 7

Trazling --- 2/50% -- 2/50% -- 4

Subtotal -- 8/44% -- 10/56% -- 18


sd/ma Forums
forum -- guilty No/% -- not guity No/% -- TOTAL NO OF VOTEs

Senshido -- 1/6% -- 14/93% -- 15

SP.com -- 1/5% -- 16/94% -- 17

fightingarts-- 1/4% -- 23/96% -- 24

Subtotal -- 3/5% -- 53/95% -- 56


total -- 11/15% -- 63/85% -- 74



Legal considerations

Reasonable doubt= you must find some one guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Reasonable force= you may use reasonable force to prevent harm occurring to yourself or another

Preemptive strike= you do not have to wait to be physically attacked before acting in defence, providing you have a honest and reasonable expectation that an act of violence is about to occur to you. ie it is legal to preemptively strike someone whom you honestly and reasonably believe is about to harm you.

Excessive force*= Force used must parallel the danger incurred; force must be proportionate to the force used or danger presented; force must be equal to or less then the attackers.
* excessive force is not part of Australian law as it is considered in the reasonable force test, but i have included it as many countries do have this in part or full and many people consider it a test for reasonableness.

Reasonable is defined as what a person of the community would consider reasonable given the situation and circumstances (including location, level of intimidation or levels of aggression etc ) and likely state of mind of the person in question.

There may also be other laws involved but these are the basic ones

Any thoughts on the results??
Posted by: Midnightcrawler

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/18/07 06:22 AM

Good morning Drew. (11:12 with me)

Surprised that the 'general public' would overall be quite that generous. Although in fairness the results from the MA/SD forums was to be expected. Incidentally, the only forum which I voted in was this one, which must mean that there are at least two other MAist's who think along the same lines as me, or have arrived at the same conclusions as me.

Good of you to put that together for us. Thank you.

Regards.

MC.
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/18/07 08:05 AM

Interesting and understandable results, it would be nice to get results from a larger number of participants though perhaps I will repost your thread on a few other forums myself.

I would particularly be interested to see whether there are any forums specifically relating to criminal law which we could post this on.

Thank you for the update.
Posted by: Ronin1966

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/18/07 11:11 AM

Hello Drgndrew

How is/was assault defined? Was more testimony presented than merely the video one assumes?

J
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/18/07 11:47 AM

Drew -

Thanks very much for posting those polls and tabulating the results. Very interesting. I was a bit suprised how close the general public viewed those scenarios compared to martial artists - although I shouldn't be.

Starts to make me understand some of the idiotic jury results I have seen over the years.

Great job!
Posted by: IRKguy

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/18/07 11:22 PM

MC:
The guy without the knife didn't run for two reasons: he was angry, drunk, stupid, and aggressive, and he didn't see the knife until the trial had started. Maybe that's five reasons. Anyway, if I were defending my life and had a knife on me, the attacker would never see the knife either unless I left it in him. A threat is a gift to the enemy. The difference between me and the defendant is that in my case the state's witness wouldn't see the knife in court either. It would be in a river or a dumpster.

However, it could have gone another way. I've seen a jury convict a man of aggrivated assault for breaking a man's arm with a baseball bat and then running away. He broke the man's arm because it that arm was holding a machete that the state's witness was swinging at people while the state's witness' wife was throwing bottles at the defendant's friends. Of course, the defendant had an MS13 tattoo on his forehead, so that may have influenced the jury.

The definition of assault almost doesn't matter when you are facing a jury. Juries do strange things. When you face a judge, you are facing the law of your state. When you face a jury, you are dealing with what 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty think is a reasonable way to behave in your county. In the machete matter, one question that came up was how close the nearest baseball diamond was. One way to look good for a jury long before any SD situation occurs is to live a normal life. Just seeming like a decent person rather than a thug makes a huge difference. Also, think about what weapons you carry. Do any of them seem unnecessarily ugly or strange? If you zap someone with pepper spray, your odds will be much better than if you knock him out with chucks. If you slash someone with a Buck knife in the South, your odds will be much better than if you whip out a balisong or gravity knife, though with practice a Buck knife is faster than either of those. Juries are not rational, and my vote took that into account.

BTW, if you warn him that you have a knife, you have threatened him, which is already assault. If you even try to cut him after that, it is aggrivated assault with a deadly weapon. If you show it to him, you are brandishing, another felony. If you just whip it out and get slashy, you are defending yourself in a panic situation, if you have the right lawyer, which this guy had.

Your milage may vary.
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/19/07 02:23 AM

Quote:

Hello Drgndrew

How is/was assault defined? Was more testimony presented than merely the video one assumes?

J




This was purely a hypothetical scenario, any similarity between it and another real life or fictional is purely coincidental. Do they still put that on the end of movies?

The definition of assault can vary from state to state and even within the law of the state there will be different kinds of assault so it may vary depending where you are and what kind of assault is being charged. One of the reasons I didn't provide a specific definition or any more info was to allow people to use the meaning they have at the moment. Ie it allowed an indication of the current level of understanding of the law pertaining to the situation ( I'm sure i could have said that in a more concise way.

Either way prior to the jury go off to deliberate the judge will address the jury and provide definitions and explain any laws that are relevant to the case.
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Your a member of the jury - 01/21/07 05:20 PM

My point since I deal with criminal complaints all the time, is based on the knowledge that even video can be misleading. You can't "know" what actually happened and what someone's intentions were in spite of their actions seen on a "video".

I still say "it depends".

I'm no fun. I know. Sorry.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Your a member of the jury - 02/05/07 02:24 PM

So if you saw "I do not want to fight!", keep backing up, then when they pursue, nail em out of nowhere good and hard, and then leave, you are good to go most likely?
What if you say something like "if you attack me i will hurt you"?
Posted by: Dedicated1

Re: Your a member of the jury - 02/05/07 06:17 PM

That would most likely be taken as a challenge, or a threat. Your better off saying " I am not looking for trouble", or something along those lines.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Your a member of the jury - 02/05/07 06:30 PM

What a screwed up justice system, sheesh, it's a warning to enable self protection. Oh well, they got issues.