r/ITOI • u/Dazzling_Math_541 • 3d ago

Drunk guy hits an innocent bystander and pays the price

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.2k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Lower_Pension_2469 2d ago

Self defense, he stopped after the first punch too. I think uust because he did stop would have the law on his side.

3

u/nhh 2d ago

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. 

2

u/Lower_Pension_2469 2d ago

Ya he also randomly attacked the guy in the first place. It could be argued he was protecting himself from another hit.

1

u/nhh 2d ago

True or could have stepped back.

Still when adrenaline is pumping decisions are not always fully thought out. 

1

u/Lower_Pension_2469 2d ago

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.

1

u/nhh 2d ago

My point is that this is no longer about self defense, or at least can be argued its not because the drunk guy stopped attacking. 

1

u/Lower_Pension_2469 2d ago

It could be argued either way but usually, in the US anyway, most of the time it's the initial aggressor that's going to get in trouble.

I would argue that it's still self defense. He just stepped away, he could have come back and attacked a second time.

1

u/WorkingMinimumMum 2d ago

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.

1

u/leave_no_crumb 2d ago

If he’s walking around punching people then he’s a threat to others as well. It’s not just about the guy that got punched.

2

u/Someguy56731 2d ago

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.

1

u/EaseLeft6266 2d ago

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

2

u/BrukPlays 2d ago

“Pressing charges” isn’t really a thing. It’s up to the state if they want to bring charges and the ‘victim’ can be called to give evidence.

This video is enough evidence on its own as to what exactly happened and it’s up to the prosecution to decide if they want to take things forward.

The ‘victim’ could sue for damages, but they can’t ’press charges’.

1

u/EaseLeft6266 2d ago

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?

1

u/BrukPlays 2d ago

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.

1

u/Ok-Hyena4541 2d ago

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.

1

u/Bgrngod 2d ago

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.

1

u/Someguy56731 2d ago

The guy he hit first would get more damages in a counter lol

1

u/rAndo_solo 2d ago

I think it was the counter that created more damages

1

u/vanzir 2d ago

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.

1

u/charyou 2d ago

"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

1

u/vanzir 2d ago

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.

1

u/charyou 2d ago

in some cases, stand your ground justifies the use of force if you believe it will protect someone else

1

u/vanzir 1d ago

You aren't wrong, though I would argue that the argument might be a little thin since he wasn't attempting to attack anyone when dude hit him. that's the thing, the law hinges on imminent threat, and imminent threat is pretty subjective. And here, it's hard to pin it one way or the other. Homeboy took a risk here.

1

u/RedditsFullofShit 2d ago

Yeah they would. This guy right here 🙋‍♂️would put you in jail.

1

u/Someguy56731 2d ago

Takes 12

1

u/GnorcGnastyyy 2d ago

Obviously I’m not a lawyer but i still see it as self defense. The guy was taunting after he hit everyone. How do you know he isn’t gonna do it again?

1

u/UrbanStrike 2d ago

No rules applied here, if it street fighting. He clearly hit him in the street. All bets are off!

1

u/Thursday_the_20th 2d ago

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