The Daniel Penny case could get interesting.

You can easily cause permanent bodily harm with just a fist…

Now I agree situations matter. Not every fist punch would equate to aggravated assault. But absolutely it could be argued based on the circumstances.

 

Well, that didn't work out to well for the now dead attacker. Is that just a New York law? It seems if a person is making threats and punches you, should have a right to protect themselves by any means

 

This is NEW YORK were talking about

 

When I mistakenly rode my bicycle into "the projects" and was sucker-punched off my bicycle while riding I can guarantee you the intent was to cause "great bodily harm"...and it did.

Glad I survived the initial punch and the other handful of kicks, punches and attacks from the other people involved. If I had a CCP someone would have died, possibly me included, as I have no idea what weapons my attackers had.

So it goes. Situational awareness > weapons. But, if someone is threatening my person or my family I'm going all in to protect myself and those I care about. It's easy to keyboard QB an incident; but, as Mike Tyson is credited with saying "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

 

Generally speaking (not familiar with this case), shooting or stabbing someone to death in response to a punch seems pretty disproportional to me. Practically, I have wondered whether the right to reasonable escalation of force can or should depend upon who initiated the altercation. I don't like the idea of someone starting a fight and then shooting someone if they start losing the fight. On the other hand, I don't think an innocent person should have to wait until they're being pummeled into the ground to take serious measures either. These sorts of events are so factually and contextually specific regarding things like reasonableness that I think it's tough to create some sort of formula.

 

See post 14. I directly copied and pasted Florida law and bolded portions to make it easier to sort through.

 

You have your crimes confused. Battery is the actual touching/punching, etc., assault is putting you in fear of imminent violence. Tilly raised the point you did in your first
sentence. I addressed in in post 39.

 

Depends on what state you're in. In many, you have the right to stand your ground and not retreat. if someone bigger and stronger than me hits me in the face and is preparing to keep it up, am I obligated to turn and run, or can I stab/shoot the sob? I know which I'd do.

 

Yes!

 

FWIW - there is a company that provides “pre-paid” legal if you’re involved in an incident defending yourself or being accused of attacking another.

For my wife and me it’s about $350/year and I buy it for peace of mind. Sounds like a number of folks on this thread might be advised to consider it. If there’s interest I’ll look up the service and post it.

 

Doesn’t the defense get to be part of jury selection and disqualify anyone they don’t like? As can the prosecutor? Or can the prosecutor select a jury without interference?

 

Both sides participate in jury selection. In Florida state court each side gets an unlimited number of challenges for cause...the juror can't be impartial, is ill, can't sit in judgment of another , etc. Each side gets a set number (depending on the charge) of peremptory challenges...I don't like the guy, etc.

 

No. I don’t. I have even addressed the idea that the situation is what matters.

I just get the feel you lean to always giving the bad guy the benefit of the doubt. A sucker punch and attack on a loved one unprovoked will get aggravated assault the vast majority of the time with a normal jury I suspect. Now…if both sides have some sort of responsibility with the altercation that changes.

It is the situation that matters. And I think we agree there.

 

You still have the crimes confused. Battery is the touching, assault is putting someone in apprehension of the touching. A sucker punch with a bare fist will generally result in a misdemeanor battery charge. I don't "favor" the bad guy. I am analyzing the situation from a legal perspective, not an emotional one. I'm not "what "iffing" it was my girlfriend." I understand the duty to retreat in NY, you don't. I understand the application of the law to the facts, you most definitely don't.

Look, I know enough from your Covid posts that facts don't matter, science doesn't matter and here it would be naive to think the actual law matters. So just keep doing whatever it is you do in your head and think whatever you want.

Bless your heart.

 

You have trouble allowing your bias about me to get out of your way lol.

Sad par for the course. I have said the situation is what matters. You kindly did not bold and continue to ignore the generalized portion of it depends on the circumstances. You find one line and hang onto it and refuse to take in the general point.

And no doubt you have been wrong on Covid.

Bless your heart.

 

Yeah, I’ve taught this very concept to HS kids. THEY understand it.

 

Battery is touching.
Assault is the attempt.

 

Not quite

784.011 Assault.— (1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

 

Actually what I posted is right. Add in the threat for assault and it becomes complete.

let me put it this way,,,
no touching = no battery.