When "Anti Bullying Laws" Go Too Far...

[Anthony W.]

I'm a victim of the law gone wrong tonight.

Where I am, it is illegal to hit someone - which isn't a problem. The problem is that it is also illegal to fight back in self defense.

I was in a horrible situation earlier tonight.

I was in a group of people and some kid about my age just came up and for no reason kicked me between the legs.

I got him back, but then he came back again twice as hard - and other people were now involved.

Basically, it was me on the ground getting kicked between the legs over and over by a group I could have beaten to hell on my own.

Did I fight back? No. I didn't want to get arrested.

Did the other kids get arrested? No. You know how it goes - the one that hits first is seen last.

One kid on the ground being kicked over and over is easy to miss.

That kid then getting up and beating the crap out of them is a spectacle not to miss.

What do you think of the protectionist laws?

[Armistead]

I know of no state that says you can't defend yourself. Anti bullying laws have nothing to do with self defense. The issue here is he said she said if you had no witnesses on your side. Any cop should clearly see the group was friends and you were the loner.

Me, I ain't taking a arse kicking from anyone without fighting back. This is a case of self defense and for a silly reason you decided not to defend yourself.

Is there a point you would?

[CCIP]

Report it. That's the best thing to do right now.

Otherwise in my experience, it's sometimes better to take it and then have the authorities deal with it. Not always, and sometimes you just have to sock one to prevent things escalating completely out of control, but occasionally taking a few kicks and punches like a man and not going into rage mode is the best thing you can do. Having seen people beaten to near-death over nothing and coming close to it several times in my life myself, I'd much rather do everything to stay out of fights period. Police can and do deal with it later, and far fewer people end up in hospital or worse as a result. Doesn't matter whose fault it is or who thought could win the fight. It's just not worth it - no amount of manly pride will heal broken bones, stab wounds, or worse things that you can come out with from a fight.

BTW, thinking about laws when you're getting kicked in the crotch is the least smart thing you can do, to put it mildly. That should have nothing to do with that. Assess what you're really getting yourself into, and realize that no amount of law will save you - or hamper you from saving yourself - in that 5 or 10 minutes before help might arrive. You do what you need to in that time. Ain't about pride. If you feel your life's in enough danger, sock a good one and hope they bug off. If you feel your pride's in some sort of danger - forget it, swallow it and take it like a man, and be happy you came home that night. Nothing else is worth it on a night out.

[PapaKilo]

I think the author of this thread is trying to cover his weakness of incapability to defend himself by turning this humiliating event to some laws that probably not even exsist or works absolutely different :yawn:

There is a thread about kids cage fighting. Majority posters wanted to see it as some sort of scandal, but on the other hand, when it comes to situations like this you must learn to stand for yourself or else you gonna be humbled into the dust by your contemporarys.

Law, cops, mom and dad not always gonna be around when situation is getting hot and when you must take decisions fast concerning your safety in your own hands..

[MothBalls]

What do you think of the protectionist laws?If someone kicks me in the nuts they are going to get an ass whoopin they'll never forget. I'll worry about the law when I'm done with that.

[Tribesman]

The problem is that it is also illegal to fight back in self defense.

Is A.W up with the usual bull again?
I would be very interested in this strange law that says you cannot defend yourself.
I would also be interested in why this group he was in seems to have joined in kicking him in the nuts after someone did it "for no reason".

[Betonov]

Is A.W up with the usual bull again?
I would be very interested in this strange law that says you cannot defend yourself.


Come to Slovenia. Our laws don't know self defence. You kick someone back you're as liable to prosecution as the one who attacked first.

We had an incident just a few years prior. A local bar owner, Roman Velikonja, was threatend by a group of local ''mobsters'' with a gun. He managed to grab the gun from their leaders hands and point it towards them. He was then attacked by knives and he shot one of them. Textbook selfdefence. He got 8 years for murder, they got a compensation for traumatical experiance.

So no, A.W. isn't talking BS, there are places with screwed up laws where it says you cannot defend yourself

[Hottentot]

Come to Slovenia. Our laws don't know self defence. You kick someone back you're as liable to prosecution as the one who attacked first.

Basically works like that in here too. But "self-defence" is, at least by the cases I've seen, a term that is considered individually on each case. I think the rule of the thumb is, that you are allowed to get someone down on the ground, but as soon as you kick his head when he is there, the tables are turned and you are very much liable for prosecution. And of course common sense, such as if a drunken idiot comes run his mouth at you and threatens to kill you, you are not allowed to shoot him "in self-defence."

Basically it's all about what can be reasonably considered self-defence. Usually breaking bones of people is not necessary to make someone harmless, so that could be considered too excessive use of force by the court, whereas simply punching back wouldn't necessarily be.

[HunterICX]

Come to Slovenia. Our laws don't know self defence. You kick someone back you're as liable to prosecution as the one who attacked first.

for a kick or a punch? I doubt even the court or police will make a serious proesecution out of that...comon not even Slovenia is that backwards.
If it's true...well make sure you floor the bastard with one good kick or punch and just walk away.

I'm from Holland myself and the laws work pretty much the same if someone breaks in your house to intend to murder or rape you should allow him and you should consider to offer him coffee while he's doing your wife because if you prevent him doing that by knocking him down with a frying pan and give him a bump on his head...you're screwed.

HunterICX

[Tribesman]

Come to Slovenia. Our laws don't know self defence. You kick someone back you're as liable to prosecution as the one who attacked first.

No cases are dealt with on their merits, self defence is something that is weighed.

Textbook selfdefence. He got 8 years for murder,
Thats a very short sentance for murder, isn't it 15-30?
Perhaps self defence was a factor even though the homicide itself was ruled illegal.
So that case, that was one murder, one attempted murder , two counts of assualt with intent..... 8 years is a bloody short term for conviction on that pile isn't it
Dragged out quite a bit didn't it, lots of convoluted legal processes....and self defence was claimed by the defence wasn't it. How did they manage to claim self defence in court if self defence is illegal?



Basically it's all about what can be reasonably considered self-defence.
Same everywhere, local example.
An old man shot a burglar, justifiable defence of property and person.
The burglar then got up so the old mad beat him with a stick, justifiable defence of person, though the degree of the beating he gave could make it questionable.
After breaking the arms and legs and fracturing the skull the old man notices that when he dumps the burglar over a wall he isn't actually dead.
So when he then goes back into the house to get more shells so he can go to the field and kill the now thoroughly incapacitated burglar he commits murder and it isn't self defence.

[Betonov]

No cases are dealt with on their merits, self defence is something that is weighed.

I guess that's true. But it scares me even more. Laws should be specific about self defence. It should all come down on proving I was attacked first and then automaticly dropping charges and even getting legal imunity from being sued for personal injury. I knock out someone before someone tries to knock me out and it's all down to the whim of a judge/jury, how they themselves see the case. God forbids I defend myself against a minority, the legal system will eat me alive.

Thats a very short sentance for murder, isn't it 15-30?

Nobody gets more then 10 for single homicide. Only two got 30 years as I recall, both were multiple killers. We have a very leniant penal system. But a very unforgiving public :nope: Once in jail and you're branded.

for a kick or a punch? I doubt even the court or police will make a serious proesecution out of that...comon not even Slovenia is that backwards.
If it's true...well make sure you floor the bastard with one good kick or punch and just walk away.

They won't actually. The police will do their duty, detain both parties, file the papers, some time in the cooler and then off you go. If there was no property damage or inocent bystander injury you won't even be fined. It's the law-suits that follow. You'll get persecuted even if you were the attacked. I know I know, it happens everywhere, there's no doubt, but the legal system is seriusly screwed up if the attacker sues their victim and wins.

I miss the old Yugoslav system. If you got into a fight and the police came, they thrashed both parties and the case was settled.

[Castout]

Wow sorry to hear that Anthony.

Sucks but some people are just broken I guess.

Are you alright?

[HunterICX]

I miss the old Yugoslav system. If you got into a fight and the police came, they thrashed both parties and the case was settled.

Aye,

when both parties are fighting both parties are to blame :03:

HunterICX

[Tribesman]

I guess that's true. But it scares me even more. Laws should be specific about self defence. It should all come down on proving I was attacked first and then automaticly dropping charges and even getting legal imunity from being sued for personal injury. I knock out someone before someone tries to knock me out and it's all down to the whim of a judge/jury, how they themselves see the case. God forbids I defend myself against a minority, the legal system will eat me alive.

Betanov, it probably would have helped in the claim of self defence (which of course does exist despite what you said) if the person he killed had died differently.
The lawyers and their experts in several fields tried to paint a picture of how the death didn't really occur how it occured, but despite that and all the appeals the specifics were clear and it couldn't be ruled as justifiable homicide.
As for the whims of judge and jury in matters of self defence, always go for the jury option if available as they will likely have a more reasonable view of what is reasonable.

[Betonov]

Betonov, it probably would have helped in the claim of self defence (which of course does exist despite what you said) if the person he killed had died differently.


The killed one (I refuse to call him a victim, he was known around here and not for his charity) did draw a knife when Roman snatched his gun, but it's not known if he then charged him or backed off. The media are everything but informative on this.

Roman should have let himself be stabed first and even then he would do time, if not for shooting his attacker than for robbery for stealing someones gun.

Plus, he's safe while in prison. I doubt he'll live long when he gets out

[Betonov]

I guess it all comes down to your lawyer. If he can make you the victim before the court

[Tribesman]

Betanov, the whole self defence angle hinged on one issue, it is a common issue which comes up again and again across many jurisdictions.
It came up in the local one I mentioned and it comes up in your local one, It is over the point in which the self defence justification is no longer in play.
In your case it came from the fact that he was shot in the back while leaving so no longer could be considered a threat in that instance, in mine it was where the person was incapacitated and was no longer a threat at that time.

Plus, he's safe while in prison. I doubt he'll live long when he gets out
That is where things differ, in the Irish case the person was deemed to be unsafe in prison because thats where lots of the scum who he had killed relatives were.

I guess it all comes down to your lawyer. If he can make you the victim before the court
A lot of it comes down to who the other party is, which is why a jury is always best. If you can paint the other party as despicable scum (or even better get themselves to do it) then you can walk free even if you are guilty as hell:03:

[Betonov]

In your case it came from the fact that he was shot in the back while leaving so no longer could be considered a threat in that instance, in mine it was where the person was incapacitated and was no longer a threat at that time.

He was no longer a threat because he was leaving, yes. At least that's what the witneses say. Even if, he was not running home to hide under his bed. There's no doubt that he would return with another gun and ''reinforcements'' one other day. Shooting him even while fleeing saved Romans life. The cops would file papers on the incident, gun would have been confiscated, no body would go in jail and when the dust settled Roman would be found dead somewhere. Self defence in a long run, crazy idea but true in this case. He was still a threat to him even while running away. Not counting his ''brothers'' will one day finish the job. While being a ''murderer'' Roman was placed in police protection and a safe jail cell. He even confesed because he knew he'll be safer inside than out.
Plus, as a bar owner he's been extorted daily by those thugs and he must have simly snapped.

Legaly he's a killer. He's doing time for it. I chose this case because it's the only one I can prove it happened, not just blab about some XY that went to jail because he killed a KM that tried to kill him first.

[Tribesman]

I chose this case because it's the only one I can prove it happened
So you chose this case to prove that you cannot use self defence in Slovenia as it is against the law to defend yourself...yet the case is he was found to have not been acting in self defence when he shot someone in the back and so was convicted of an unjustifiable homicide.

He even confesed because he knew he'll be safer inside than out.

Confessed????? he went for not guilty and fought the case all the way till the verdict and then launched numerous appeals after conviction and got a reduction in the jail term.

I do like your notion of self defence in the long run, pre emptive execution as someone may in the future pose a threat. I am sure Hollywood can make a film about instant "justice" for potential future crimes.

[Betonov]

He waited for the cops, turned himself in and told the he shot someone.
He told it as it happened, therefore he confesed. But he also tried to prove he was an extortion victim and got attacked first, not for the reduced sentence but to clear the rest of the scum of the street, which failed because of the roting system and then the media picked it up as an atempt to get himself aquited.

The fact still is the criminal law here doesn't recognize self defence. You'r only hope is judge/jury for letting you go for murder with intent but you still go in for involuntary murder.

I do like your notion of self defence in the long run, pre emptive execution as someone may in the future pose a threat. I am sure Hollywood can make a film about instant "justice" for potential future crimes.

That's why I said it's a crazy idea. Prone to abuse

[Tribesman]

He told it as it happened, therefore he confesed.
If he confessed then he would have been pleading guilty or would have retracted his confession.

The fact still is the criminal law here doesn't recognize self defence.
If it doesn't recognise self defence then why were the lawyers playing the self defence angle through the courts in the trial and appeals and why was the reason it failed due to the ballistics testimony that the fatal wound could only have been inflicted with a shot in the back?

That's why I said it's a crazy idea. Prone to abuse
That is also a common problem with self defence laws as they stand.
Do you recall that crazy coot in the States who decided defence of property meant he could shoot some kid in the street because someone had walked on his lawn?

[Betonov]

If it doesn't recognise self defence then why were the lawyers playing the self defence angle through the courts in the trial

They weren't. They tried to get him of murder with intent, but he would still be faced with charges of involuntary killing. It's just that reporters here watch Boston Legal and think that's how our legal system works. The only way you walk off of the jury finds you not guilty on all charges, there's no legal get out of jail because you defended yourself card. You don't go if you prove you were trying to save yourself.

That is also a common problem with self defence laws as they stand.
Do you recall that crazy coot in the States who decided defence of property meant he could shoot some kid in the street because someone had walked on his lawn?

I heard of many. And for even more trivial things. Some crazy old bugger in our village stabed the pizza delivery man about 10 years ago because he thought he's here to rob him (pizza was ordered by his grandson who lived in teh same house). He survived, some stiches to his hand. The old man was taken to an institution and found in sane mind, just paranoid.

[Tribesman]

They weren't. They tried to get him of murder with intent, but he would still be faced with charges of involuntary killing.
Not in the slightest, all that would matter if that was the case is making an arguement that he shot him but didn't intend to kill him.
But the actual arguement was if he was shot in the back while leaving or not, nothing more was really attempted...well apart from the mental one which involved proving that he thought he was acting in self defence....which fell apart because a reasonable arguement would be that if someone is running away they are not at that moment threatening so you are not shooting in self defence.
Sorry Betanov but you chose an example to prove your case about self defence where the lawyers chose a defence of their client that shows you were incorrect, since then you have been backpedalling like mad while still trying to claim it still stands correct.

[Sledgehammer427]

Wow sorry to hear that Anthony.

Sucks but some people are just broken I guess.

Are you alright?

I second this. You guys can keep arguing. I've been in your situation once before, but I fought out of it and there weren't any laws against defending oneself.
How are you doing Anthony?

[Tribesman]

You guys can keep arguing. I've been in your situation once before, but I fought out of it and there weren't any laws against defending oneself.

Probably most people have been in situations where they have been in a fight.
The whole point is that there are not the laws he set out, in the US the right to self defence has been done and dusted all through the supreme court so it is of no matter what town city county or state you live in.
The only details differing on what you are or not allowed to do are in regards to levels of force, particularly deadly force, and the run away bits which some states don't have when it comes to deadly force.
The only other issues with the OP would be the actual details of the incident and of course his unfortunate habit of simply making things up.

[Betonov]

Ok, let's close this one, I was just trying to say that there are no laws which give you a free pass when you injure/kill someone in self defence. You might prove yourself not guilty on charges but the legal system is so messed up you'd probibly end up in jail for intent of mass murder because your fought back agains multiple attackers.
And even if you managed somehow to survive the persecution, you'd still be sued by the attacker for personal injury, because there are no laws which state that you injured someone in self defence and you are imune to a lawsuit.
I was just agreeing with Anthony here, if he fought back he'd probibly get sued. Plus multiple attackers also means multiple (false) witneses how Anthony started the fight. But then again, if he can afford a mustang, he can afford a good lawyer, sue them all.

[Tribesman]

Ok, let's close this one, I was just trying to say that there are no laws which give you a free pass when you injure/kill someone in self defence.
Like all laws, terms and conditions apply, self defence is always a tricky one, but that isn't the same as saying there is no allowance for self defence.

And even if you managed somehow to survive the persecution, you'd still be sued by the attacker for personal injury, because there are no laws which state that you injured someone in self defence and you are imune to a lawsuit
No, that also would be judged on its merits like any potential lawsuit is.
If you go back tothat example I used, the son who was accompaanying his father on the burglary spree tried to sue, it was judged on its merits and thrown out(he was also jailed for being a criminal scumbag). The wife who tried to sue on her own behalf and on the behalf of her 12 children for the murder of her husband tried to sue, she was laughed out of court

Plus multiple attackers also means multiple (false) witneses how Anthony started the fight. But then again, if he can afford a mustang, he can afford a good lawyer, sue them all.
It often happens that multiple witnesses can be far more of a hindrance than an asset, though it would be interesting in the OPs incident to get some of the views of the people he was with who attacked him for no reason as (even without his record of making things up) something just doesn't ring true there.

[Betonov]

Let him post, it's a free forum, even if he makes things up or doesn't show us the whole picture of the incident. He's not posting hate speech, he's not ranting about Obama, he's not calling us idiots, if there's no harm done it's OK to BS a little.

And to finish it off, a famous quote atributed to Otto von Bismarck:

Laws are like sausages, if you don't see them made you sleep better at night

[Hottentot]

Laws are like sausages, if you don't see them made you sleep better at night

"Boobs are like Christmas presents: you love them until you open one and see what is inside."
-A doctor.

[Betonov]

"Boobs are like Christmas presents: you love them until you open one and see what is inside."
-A doctor.

:k_rofl::Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

What would Dowly say on that :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

What would Dowly say on that
What's in the other one?

[Penguin]

Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 - nuff said. (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html)


That kid then getting up and beating the crap out of them is a spectacle not to miss.


If you had the chance to get up, why didn't you use it to get back onto your feet and gtfo?


"Boobs are like Christmas presents: you love them until you open one and see what is inside."
-A doctor.

:har:
still on my to-do-list: drinking with a surgeon

[Tribesman]

If you had the chance to get up, why didn't you use it to get back onto your feet and gtfo?

Because the local law says you don't have to gtfo it says you can stay and fight back:03:

[Penguin]

Because the local law says you don't have to gtfo it says you can stay and fight back:03:

Oh, I was referring to what would be the best and reasonable thing to do - not what a Monday morning quarterback would do, who gets beaten down by one, but of course would make a spectacle fighting off multiple attackers (including the first one). :know: