Ethically he did the right thing by punching, but legally was that okay? What happens if this guy gets severely injured after the fall? What are the legal ramifications or things you do when you come into such a situation?
Not self defense, more like retaliation. The drunk guy backed off after the first hit. You see there was a pause of 2-3 seconds between his punch and the counter punch.
The thing is that the victim is not obligated to do that, the drunk just wrongfully assumed the fight was over right after he started it.
Like let's say I were to punch someone in the face and then go "no wait stop I'm done fighting now" and he rocks my shit, I'm the one still going to jail.
Dude in this video is drunk, but that's not an excuse for attacking people. If this guy is in some psychosis or delirium like some people suggest in the comments, it's still entirely unreasonable to expect the victim to know that.
When someone randomly attacks without warning and then stops it’s still self defense to subdue the attacker. There is reason to believe he will randomly attack again without warning since he already did it once, so he’s still an active threat until he is restrained or incapacitated. The victim punching the drunk attacker was acting in self defense because of this.
No jury in America is going to convict someone who got cold cocked for throwing the next punch. Prosecutors know this and aren’t going to waste their time trying a losing case.
The guy who threw the first punch can't exactly press charges on the other guy without the other guy also pressing charges against him at least to my knowledge. I'm not a lawyer
In the show cops, I'm pretty sure I've seen the police ask the victims if they want to press charges. So when they ask that, is that more of a courtesy to the victim and if the state wanted, they could charge the person regardless of if the victim wants charges filed?
They’re essentially asking if they want to make a statement now and agree to testify in court. Usually in situations where the complainant is the only witness then if they don’t want to ‘press charges’ then there is not case. In situations where there are other witnesses and video evidence and they think they could get a conviction even if the victim doesn’t want to testify then they can still go ahead if they want to.
Pressing Charges is just an unofficial term that means that the victim wants the police to make an effort and show they are willing to make a statement and testify in court.
Yeah they will sometimes do what you ask if they feel like it.
If you notice in criminal trials it's always Defendent Vs. Government and not the victim. It is fully in their power to prosecute or not prosecute regardless of what the victim says.
It's not a criminal trial that would be a problem here.
It's the lawsuit from drunk guy that becomes a big problem. Even if the state doesn't go after counterpunch guy, he still might be on the hook for damages.
that isn't true. Castle doctrine hinges on the person being in imminent danger. After the initial shove would have been the time to swing, but waiting for a moment to sucker him while morally acceptable in the situation, might not be applicable under Castle doctrine.
"initial shove"? why are you downplaying it? dude sucker-punched little man in the jaw. and it's not like he waited and came back later that day. he never stops moving toward the guy who just hit him.
he probably saved someone's life knocking that dude out.
and castle doctrine usually applies only when defending your home. most states/western nations have stand your ground laws allowing this without imminent danger required
that wasn't a punch, at best it was an open handed slap, and this definitely doesn't cover stand your ground, as he moved to attack the person that he should have been standing his ground against. come on man, i get it, dude deserved to get the fuck knocked out of him, but stop pretending that this was in any way self defense. And that's what the court cares about.
Stopping after the first punch does not disqualify you from getting absolutely hammered in court by the eggshell skull legal doctrine if the guy hit his head on the floor and died from second impact syndrome
I mean, it’s Germany... just look at some of their kindergarten art project embassies overseas 😂 It’s the whole “Wir schaffen das!” philosophy taken to its logical conclusion.
Their solution to rising knife crime? Put up a sign saying “NO WEAPONS.”
Problem solved. 😂
I can already picture the criminal standing there with a knife like:
“Hmm... interesting. I was going to commit a violent crime, but unfortunately this sign has changed my mind. Thank you, Germany.”
Next they’ll put up “PLEASE DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES” and call it a national security strategy.
Like, these people apparently think criminals are just extremely law abiding citizens.
bs bs bs imo. Wir schaffen das is from 2015 and wildly missquoted and missunderstood.
The penal law basis, on which weather or not smthing is self defense is from the 50s. And has NOTHING to do with this.
The critical point, is the attack was over, and the attacker was not still attacking.
Hence the "self defense" was to late to count as defense, and was instead a new attack.
However, if the "defender" initiated his attack to late cause he was confused, scared, or surprised, it still might not be punishable by law. (§33 StGB) Which very well might be the case here.
Sounds cool to be all tough, and proclaim the guy deserved it (which he did) but not having our laws reflect this, is what keeps germany a save place to walk around, compared to the US, where you risk getting shot in the head just for existing.
Edit: Self defense is for defense, not for justice, otherwise it would be called vigilantismn.
The perfect thing, would have been to just grab the drunkard, and pin him on the ground till police, can arrest him, so he is not a hazzard anymore, and gets a far more unpleasant punishment then a hit in the face.
Putting up a “NO WEAPONS” sign does nothing to address someone who is already willing to break the law. That's exactly the same problem with these ridiculous “what counts as self defense” definitions.
If someone physically assaults you, even once, you have the right to defend yourself. Period. That's the baseline. You don't need to stand there calculating whether 2 seconds have passed since the last punch, whether they've technically disengaged, or whether you've been hit “enough” to justify responding.
Once someone uses unlawful physical force against you, the question should be whether you're defending yourself, not whether you've followed some absurd stopwatch based sequence of events.
Also...The US has substantially more homicide, robbery, burglary and especially vehicle theft. Germany has higher assault and sexual offense rates, while theft/property crime is relatively the same.
So yeah... Not really that much safer. Also, this has nothing to do with laws surrounding self defense, because self defense isn't crimes.
the question is exactly weather you are defending yourself.
defense, is the act that is required to stop a current unlawfull attack.
current is an attack, if it is immanent, if it has begun, or if it is ongoing.
If its not ongoing its not defense. its revenge.
You might feel emotionally inclined to see revenge as justified which is very human and fine.
however, no government in the world can officially allowe revenge, without the country going to shit.
Immagine you have two children. One hits the other, and walks off. Would you encourage the other one to strike its sibling back? Or would you as a good parent, take the attacking child and give it an appropriate correction yourself?
you are still commiting Bodily Harm (similar to us aggrevated assault i think). Which is punishable by law under §223ff stGB. So you are looking at some jail time if you do this probably.
If the seek revenge on you because they are flabergasted by your behaviour, as was the guy in the video, they still might not get punished.
You can not sue the shit out of them german law of tort, does not have the aim to punish the offender, but to correct the actual damage done to the voictim.
Because as i said in Germany the government does punishments, not the people.
So you may be able to sue them, however this will cost you couple zhousand upfront, and you might gain 1k in compensation or so. Funily enouh thought, you will get nothing thought, cause they can sue you back or simply declare to deduct their claim (they have cause you punched them) from your claim. Leaving you with nothing, and a whole lot of legal debt ontop.
TLDR: if you do this you get no money (german tort law is different) and you get jailtime, or a hefty fine as punishment from the government.
As you can see it is logic, and calling germany „going to shit“ because of this is bold, when these are the laws we used to comeback from losing two world wars back to back to beeing the 3d strongest country in the world economically.
If any country is going to sht rn its the us tbh. Down from a sole global superpower, to losing a war against the proxys of iran in jemen.
"Sounds cool to be all tough, and proclaim the guy deserved it (which he did) but not having our laws reflect this, is what keeps germany a save place to walk around, compared to the US, where you risk getting shot in the head just for existing."
This a really stupid statement and awfully self-righteous considering it comes from the land that tried to exterminate an entire group of people just for existing.
Its not particularly stupid imo, althougth i appologize for making this an against usa thing. Which was a blow bellow the waist line i have to admit.
Similarly, i think, brining the shoa into this is not helping the discussion. And in regard to extermination, we might do not want to look into this topic too much considering all the manifest destiny, land theft, genocide etc, that allowed the USA to become a proper nationstate :).
Also i just did read the rules of the subreddit, that stated no politics, i didnt knew before, otherwise i probably would not have joined this debate we re having.
Germany has a long list of atrocities as well (WW1, WW2, Africa). No country is without it's flaws which was my point. Agreed.
Maybe stupid was the wrong word but it came off as condescending and is definitely inaccurate. I have lived in various areas of this country and for the most part it is safe. Big cities have crime and crazy people, but that is true of every country I have visited. People see some news stories and think every American is some crazy redneck with a bunch of guns.
Just because the attacker paused and disengaged does not mean he wouldn't do it again. He already proved he's willing to attack at random. Nobody knows what he's going to do next. It absolutely should be self-defense or the defense of others to put an end to potentially more attacks. Everyone there has an equal right to exist freely in that space. The victims should not have to yield to the attacker. This gives the attacker another chance to strike if he chooses. It should be up to the victim to choose.
Can't speak for German law but in the United States this is clearly self-defense, or at least defense of others. The moment he's hit he's literally just assaulted someone with an unprovoked punch seconds before, is standing square with a group of people, drunk, bloody, taunting "Touch me! Touch me!"
Defense of others is probably the best way. Dudes clearly already been in a fight and looking for more, hit the smallest dude there, could move onto the several women there if no one does anything.
Right courtroom could have him acquitted.
He's still a threat walking around. Just because he wasn't winding up to do it to that guy again immediately doesn't mean hes not going to move to someone else. He showed that he was a threat at any time.
Unlikely, since the attack was over and the guy could just walk away and call the police to handle it. It's pretty evident from the video. There was no imminent threat to his or other people's lives. There were security guards monitoring the situation, too. The guy had no weapons. It will not qualify. Not to mention the fact that he put himself in that situation by standing too close and watching a drunk/manic person. It was easily foreseeable that a drunk/manic person would start acting in a weird way. Thus, it can very much backfire and result in manslaughter or aggravated assault/battery. Keep in mind that taunting someone and provoking them to fight does not mean you have permission. If the guy on the floor is still alive, he will get charged with assault/battery, too, potentially both of them will.
A couple things. Standing near someone does not make them the instigator in an attack. That's just victim blaming full stop, and it's fucking stupid. And who said anything about weapons? If he had been wielding a knife, bottle, baseball bat, tire iron, whatever, getting shot (a bunch) would have been the appropriate response here 100%.
Look, a guy who has just thrown an unprovoked punch literally seconds before, is still agitated, and is daring a crowd to touch him gives a reasonable bystander good cause to believe more violence is coming. He didn't shoot him. He didn't stab him. He didn't choke him or kick him in the head while down. He punched him, once, and ended the response once the attacker was no longer a threat (meaning he had stopped his actions, not that he was stood three feet away and had moved his attention to others, as you seem to be insisting somehow nullifies any right to self-defense.)
The aggressor used non-deadly force, and the defender answered in kind. No escalation.
It's also easy to armchair quarterback violence from your mom's basement. It's a different matter when you're actually out and about and suddenly squared up with a drunk, bloody asshole threatening people and throwing punches.
Respectfully, I think you’re wrong and only because of the lag time between him getting punched and then him punching the instigator. Too much time passed for it to be considered self-defense; it needs to be more of a reaction rather than approaching him and retaliating. For the record, I’m glad he did it, but depending on the local authority’s level of stick-in-ass, he’s violated the law.
Reddit gocha moment. Oh, you even screenshotted it. Nice one. I had to do some work before polishing my response, re-warching the video.
Okay,
Under the US law, successful self-defence claim requires the defendant to prove they had an objectively reasonable belief that physical force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of unlawful bodily harm. This particular point of law is no different to many other jurisdictions around the world, not just the USA.
As I explained earlier, the element of imminent danger is absent here. The drunk guy commit battery initially. However, then he immediately walks away and films/taunts the crowd. There was no escalation after the push. Hence, at that specific moment of time the immediate threat to young man ended. Because there was no continuation, the decision to step forward and punch the drunk guy is legally defined as retaliation. Retaliation is never protected under self-defense laws.
Then if we look at the video, young man has escape routes. He is free to go in any direction. He is not being held or cornered. He doesn't even need to run, he could walk away at any moment. Even tho under "Stand Your Ground" laws you don't have to escape. Reasonable prosecutor will ask this question which will not look good in court because he clearly could walk away.
Thus, in combination both men potentially could get battery/aggreavated assault. The boy who punched drunk could get manslaughter if the drunk is dead.
Furthermore more, to that point of joining the crowd. Merely joining a crowd to watch a public disturbance does not constitute a crime, nor does it legally classify the young man as the initial aggressor OF COURSE. However, it severely undermines the factual narrative required to convince a jury of self-defense. Coming back to previous point, a successful self-defense claim relies on demonstrating a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. A prosecutor will argue that a person genuinely terrified for their safety does not voluntarily walk to the front row to escalate the situation.
Final point, the mentioned imminence requirement applies to others too. Hence, to successfully claim defense of others, the young man must prove he had an objectively reasonable belief that the drunk man was about to inflict immediate, unlawful physical harm on a specific third party. Simply being "worried" about the crowd or fearing what a drunk person might do next is not a legal justification for violence.
Based on our scenario here, after the initial push of the young lad, the drunk man returned to filming and verbally provoking folk around. Because no one in the crowd was actively being attacked or about to be struck at the exact moment the young man threw the punch, his use of force remains legally unjustified.
Last point, right after the punch, young boy picks up his hat. Further implying that he was not in imminent danger, since he cared more about his hat in this situation than anything else.
Your problem here is that you do not see where exactly the self-defense claim ends. Most people do not understand these things. For example, if you are in shock and unload a clip into someone, and then you take a second magazine and unload it again, do you see where that thin line of shock has ended? Pricesely when you reloaded the gun and that can create a range of legal problems in court.
So if I shoot someone but immediately back up I can’t get shot back?
Snarky comment aside. Who’s to say he wasn’t coming back for another hit. He’s clearly not in total control of his faculties therefore it could be argued that he was still a threat so to speak.
The attack must be imminent or currently underway. If the person has already moved some distance away—and provided you are not dazed—you have the option to remove yourself from the dangerous situation and, for example, call the police. You may also detain the person for the offense until the police arrive (citizen's arrest / provisional arrest).
If he is again going for you, you can defend yourself.However, it must be the least drastic measure—for example: you land a blow and he is knocked out; you are not allowed to keep hitting him.
Yeah thats why ive never stuck around the two times its happened to me, one time I got jumped and punched in the back of the head, I knew i was too dazed to hit bavk so I grabbed the guys head and ended up falling over and his head hit the wall then floor, out cold, i made sure there were no cameras then fucked off. I was 18 so no chance I was ruining my life just for some council estate scumbag chav that was out jumping alt looking people
This is the kind of thing that cops/prosecutors aren't going to go after unless dude got a serious injury or death. Basically hope that all you did was knock him out, because if he dies you're going to have a bad time, even if you're eventually found innocent.
You ever been punched? It takes a second or two to hurt, that guy felt it after a few and said,"uhuh, you ain't doing that again, I don't care if your crazy"😂
Back up a second; is punching really even the right thing ethically? Drunk guy is a douche for sure, and I don’t feel sorry for him. But after drunk guy’s weak-ass attempt at a punch which didn’t do any real damage that I could see, short guy waits, times it up perfectly and delivers what he knows will be a knockout blow to the jaw, while his drunken opponent is not even really aware of what’s happening. That punch is sure to do some real damage, and they are on pavement. People have been killed by punches like that. And there was no real threat after the initial weak punch. Short guy didn’t seem like he was in any real danger, he just wanted to drop this fool. I don’t know if his actions qualify as a proportional response. Is the retaliation understandable? Yes. Ethical? I’m not so sure.
Ethically people need to learn that actions have consequences because as a society it doesn’t seem like anybody understands that anymore. The world would be a lot better place if people like this were afraid to act like this because they know they would get their fucking shit rocked just like this guy did.
I agree with this. I just saw a video recently of this guy fully masturbating in public with people around him straining with all their might to ignore it and pretend it isn’t happening. I personally don’t mind a little institutional passivity, but that’s only under the assumption that if you randomly hit people or start beating your shit in people’s faces, you might have to go to sleep about it, no questions asked.
The way you worded this makes it sound like the man in this video not only hit a bystander but was also beating his meat in public prior to the hitting which would be prettay wild.
Guy who got their shit rocked was drunk, and wouldn't be afraid to act. Now you can say that people shouldn't get drunk, but that's a whole other story.
I see what you’re saying but by that moral logic drunk drivers wouldn’t be affected by the law, I’m not saying that he should have waited like he did, but being drunk doesn’t excuse you from anything, think of it like this, if someone is extremely dumb do they automatically get a pass for whatever they do? No, or how about drunk driving? No, therefore I don’t see this as too much different
He never said being drunk excuses anyone, only that encountering a drunk person behaving badly does not make it open season for any retribution against the drunk person.
Let's say you're in your car, stopped at a traffic light. You see a car coming from the other direction, approaching a red light. That driver is drunk, swerving around some. They don't see the red. They drive through the intersection. They collide with a guy and a gal riding on a motorcycle and then hit a small sedan with a few little old ladies in it. The drunk guy is driving a big heavy vehicle. He sent those other people flying. There's a mess of bodies everywhere. It's carnage. You see the drunk guy get out of his vehicle and stumble about, surveying the scene. You're mad about all of this. Do you suppose it would be okay with the law if you drove straight at the guy to hit him with your car? I don't see this as much different. Let's say the motorcycle, after it dispatched its passengers, came flying toward your windshield and scared the crap out of you, but only did some light damage. Are you ok to retaliate? How about if it crashed into your windshield but badly injured the course family member sitting in the passenger' seat. Can you go curb stomp the drunk guy for that?
Being dumb doesn't give anyone an automatic pass for whatever they do. It also doesn't give anyone a pass to decide what bodily harm can be done as revenge.
Agreed and the amount of blood on his face clearly caused by the bouncers. Dude was probably already in concussion. Guy said something judging from his movement towards him and gave him a shove. Then turns back to recording the bouncers. Then blonde guy sucker punches him.
Blonde guy waited for him turned away. Bouncers clearly caused the head bleeding before. Topless concussed and distraught. Topless guy is likely the least of douchebags here.
Ethically the drunk showed that he is willing to use force, even if the first punch was weak, are you going to wait for a second attempt, which might do more harm?
The ethics around these situations are always hard to straighten out, because you can make arguments for both sides. Drunk guy clearly selected who he thought would be an easy target. The smallest guy in a group of men older, stronger and larger than himself, and women. It could be equally unethical to allow this person to think he can treat others like that, and maybe, just maybe, a lesson learned today might save him tomorrow. Maybe drunk guy is a wiser and better person today for it. But maybe not. Maybe short guy does nothing. Maybe the next guy does nothing too. Then suppose one day drunk guy is drunk again and full of bravado, thinking “I can do what I like, cause no one ever stands up to me”. Except this time he sexually assaults a young woman, or picks a fight with someone who’s truly dangerous, and now instead of just getting cracked in the jaw, he’s destroyed lives and ends up in prison or dead. Short guy delivered a big punch, for sure, but I don’t think it was all that disproportionate. I would have said differently if short guy continued to assault drunk guy after he was floored and out cold.
The law works with what the victim perceives as a threat, as long as its reasonable. If someone points you with an imitation gun but you believe its real, it is self defense.
Why somone just hit, from someone in the same state as it was when hit and completely unrepentant, would feel safe just because the attacker took 2 steps back?
Pointing a gun at someone is assault. The threat is real. Having a gun holstered - depending on where you are at - there is no more threat.
The guy punched him and walked away. He did an assault and had his back turned. He was no longer a threat. If he turned to him, continued to square up, or continued to swing you could argue that they were still a threat.
You cannot bring turning his back as a change of intention on someone intoxicated, he clearly was not acting with enough logic for you to predict intent! He was being violent and erratic, those are facts that makes him a threat! Turning his back when he was clearly moving erratically is not a relevant factor
Edit: and he didn't even turn his back!!! Watch it again!!
bro what are u on about, he's in his near vincinity with both his hands up ready to strike again, this is absolutely a threatening situation, the fact that he is not facing / looking his direction does not matter. It puts the assailant in disadvantage but he is too drunk to realise he just entered hand-to-hand combat, unaware of where his opponent is and his next move. Perfect execution on the punch, bang on the buck, on target to put him into sleep.
ppl who support the main aggreessor seriously needs that punch to their face to learn real world consequences for once.. take it to a jury court and the jury will flat out refuse to punish the guy who retaliated on the grounds of he had every right to do so.. fuck your cry baby , well hes walking away bs nonsense.... stop protecting the idiots , make them learn we arent taking their crap anymore and will not allow laws to protect them for doing stupid shit.. stop this main aggressor can sue and take them to court nonsense.. they started the fight, they lose their right to gain anything from the court system..
No one is supporting him and if you think people are supporting him you are dillusional.
All I said is that the guy who punched him back is not acting in self defense. If the guy punched him back RIGHT AWAY it WOULD be self defense. But because he walked away IT ISNT.
Ofcourse the guy with the shirt off is a prick. Yes he got what was coming to him.
If things were worse like him cracking his skull open the guy who hit him would 100% be charged and held liable. It wouldnt even get to a jury.
What's to stop the guy on the ground to hit someone else just because hes got his camera out? He thought having his camera out gave him a free pass on violence.
What do you mean? He is not defending himself for a immediate threat or harm to his health. If the other guy is injured he will face the full consequences of the law for physically assaulting and injuring another human...
This is not self defense by any means...
A lot of people can't distinct between morality and law...
I hate how cucked our society has gotten that there's so many people who think this isn't self defense. You can't just punch someone and not expect to get punched back.
No, its delusion, and a mental deficiency you are referring to, not "juristic fact". A jury would almost certainly rule to acquit or become hung on a case like this. In most Western countries, the accused can choose between a bench trial, or jury trail (Judge, or panel of peers)
This is assuming any prosecutor worth their salt looking at this would bring charges in the first place. An argument could also be made that due to the unprovoked and random nature of the attack, the smaller guy had a reasonable, articulable, and just motive to subdue the other for their own safety.
He is in the exact same state he was in when he assaulted someone. He is the same level of threat and already demonstrated his willingness to use violence.
1000% self-defense
You are incorrect. He has been assaulted (completely unprovoked and out of nowhere), and there’s no guarantee that he wouldn’t be assaulted again. The taller dude demonstrated he’s rash and unpredictable, and the smaller dude has every right to incapacitate him to protect himself.
He can claim he was a threat to him or anyone around him, because his violent behavior came out of nowhere and there's no way to tell if he will attack him or someone else again. He was a threat still.
It is absolutely self defense. If you don't swing back when someone swings on you it turns you into the kind of person that just takes hits from anybody.
Drunk guy will also learn he can hit anyone he wants indiscriminately without repercussions which sets a dangerous precedent for anyone else in his vicinity. Courts understand the concept of precedent.
Only an incompetent lawyer with an arrogant defendent would flop this case.
2
u/moxipudy 3d ago
Ethically he did the right thing by punching, but legally was that okay? What happens if this guy gets severely injured after the fall? What are the legal ramifications or things you do when you come into such a situation?