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.

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.

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.

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.

I voted defense.

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??

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.

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.

Hello Drgndrew

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

J