FL teen boy wins SYG appeal- punching girl was self defense

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 14, 2013 14:20:43 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Aug 14, 2013 9:43:17 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Y- I am criticizing him punching a girl.  Cowardly- like shooting an unarmed kid would be......SYG is a coward's law- at least as it is being used in FL.

So you are arguing that women get to beat the shit out of any man and the man has to sit there and take it?

Actually, what evt1 is saying is essentially, "LOOK I THINK I FOUND AN EXAMPLE OF A STUPID APPLICATION OF THE SYG LAW IN FLORIDA SO I'M GONNA HURRY UP AND POST THIS AND THEN READ IT.  CRAP.  I JUST READ IT AND NOW I LOOK LIKE A FOOL, BUT I'M NOT BACKING DOWN.  NO WAY.  TRAYVON MARTIN WAS MURDERED BY A RACIST BECAUSE OF SYG, AND NOW SYG IS LETTING GUYS BEAT UP GIRLS."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 14, 2013 14:45:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 14, 2013 14:22:56 GMT -5 jkapp said:

They were on a bus...did you expect the boy to jump out the window?

it has been a while since i used a bus, but i seem to remember other ways of moving around than that.

Seems to me like he WAS leaving, and he was dragged back.  That act alone gives him the right to defend himself.  He has a right to get off that bus, he has a right to carry on without being unlawfully detained and assaulted and battered by some bully on the bus- girl, or not.

By the way, my first school bully (I had about five of them) was a girl.  I did NOT kick her ass because of conventions, but if I had it to do over, I would have beat the living snot out of that kid who took advantage of the fact that I refused to fight back.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 14, 2013 14:51:50 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Stand your ground removed the duty to retreat in public places.  A school bus is a public place, so prior to that a judge could have ruled that he had a clear path of escape, since the incident happened right next to the open bus door, and his use of force was excessive.  With stand your ground the duty to retreat is gone, so the only question is who started the fight.  The bus driver says the girl was the aggressor, so he can clearly hit her back.  He could have argued it was self defense either way, but the duty to retreat would make the whole thing a judgment call on the judge's part.

He can argue his path to retreat was blocked when she grabbed him and pulled him down into a seat.

[Opti]

Interesting Sroo. Its not clear to me whether AF is lying or she just couldn't articulate well what happened. While there are definite drawbacks of a survellience state, there are potential positives too. If there had been several cameras on the action in question the court might have been able to tell how the incident happened.


When I read the first couple URLs Sroo posted , I made the mistaken assumption that AF
was sitting and had grabbed TP as he went past. The court URL posted states she was ahead of him, waiting to get off the bus. Being taller and ahead of TP would also screen anything TP might have done initially from the bus driver. So did he hit her on the cheek first and then she grabbed him and punched him? I expect like most news stories we will never know. Its annoying.


No way to know whether justice was served or whether she told the truth and the court didn't believe her. It is interesting though that Grandma punched her instead of grabbing her hands. I would have chosen the latter instead of punching a kid if I could do it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Have to agree with virtually everyone else in this thread.

Legitimate application of self-defense. The fellow is lucky the law was there.

You shot yourself in the foot with this one, evt. Do it 20-or-so more times and you'll be in a position to challenge Paul's NMSNM world record for "Blind-Firing Articles that Inadvertently Undermine the Argument You're Trying to Make".

[Opti]

He can argue his path to retreat was blocked when she grabbed him and pulled him down into a seat.

Read Sroos's link. His path was blocked by AF before the incident even started.
The seat she pulled him into was likely behind her instead of ahead.

[hurley1980]

I don't see a problem with this.  Even if he had bumped into her, it may have been an accident, and he was leaving, so I think the girl is still the aggressor here, and she is in the wrong.  The boy fought back, and if she didnt like it, then she shouldn't have punched him.

I got in a fight with a boy once, when he pushed me down at the bus stop.  I whooped him pretty good for a 10 year old. After that our dads wouldn't let us play together anymore, which sucked cause he was one of my best friends, but I felt pretty good knowing that I won the bus stop territory, since his dad started driving him to school everyday.  After than none of the other neighborhood boys bothered me. I guess you could say I Stood My Ground!

[Opti]

Legitimate application of self-defense. The fellow is lucky the law was there.

Virgil, do you stand by this assessment if what she stated in court was true? That he bumped her, they exchanged words and he punched her in the cheek first? (Then she followed with the coat yanking and punch.)

[Virgil Showlion]

No way to know whether justice was served or whether she told the truth and the court didn't believe her. It is interesting though that Grandma punched her instead of grabbing her hands. I would have chosen the latter instead of punching a kid if I could do it.

According to Sroo's link, her testimony changed between direct examination and cross-examination.

As for granny punching the girl: don't mess with granny.

Virgil, do you stand by this assessment if what she stated in court was true? That he bumped her, they exchanged words and he punched her in the cheek first? (Then she followed with the coat yanking and punch.)

If her testimony was true.

But true testimony doesn't tend to collapse under cross, and it tends not to be refuted by direct eye-witness accounts from objective witnesses.

[Opti]

But true testimony doesn't tend to collapse under cross

Not true when children are involved. Its the reason child abuse cases are handled the way they are. From watching the Zimmerman trial I can tell you lawyers used to doing cross can make people say things they don't want to or agree to things they don't believe in. Sixth to Eighth grader versus adult lawyer? Advantage - lawyer.

it tends not to be refuted by direct eye-witness accounts from objective witnesses.

My read of Sroo's last URL doesn't show if there was any eye witness testimony besides
the bus driver, AF, and TP. Witnesses might not be objective especially if they are children behind both AF and TP. Think of sibs pointing to each other he did it/ she did it.
You have a bus driver, TP, and TP's Mom and grandmother then AF. If AF did distract boys behind TP from an after school fight, they might not care about the truth or side with TP just because. Maybe AF is a bully. Maybe she just over-reacted to a bump or a bump and a punch. I'll expect I'll never know unless some kid used their smartphone to capture it on video. When it goes viral on Youtube it will all be clear.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 14, 2013 17:12:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

But true testimony doesn't tend to collapse under cross

Not true when children are involved. Its the reason child abuse cases are handled the way they are. From watching the Zimmerman trial I can tell you lawyers used to doing cross can make people say things they don't want to or agree to things they don't believe in. Sixth to Eighth grader versus adult lawyer? Advantage - lawyer.

it tends not to be refuted by direct eye-witness accounts from objective witnesses.

My read of Sroo's last URL doesn't show if there was any eye witness testimony besides
the bus driver, AF, and TP. Witnesses might not be objective especially if they are children behind both AF and TP. Think of sibs pointing to each other he did it/ she did it.
You have a bus driver, TP, and TP's Mom and grandmother then AF. If AF did distract boys behind TP from an after school fight, they might not care about the truth or side with TP just because. Maybe AF is a bully. Maybe she just over-reacted to a bump or a bump and a punch. I'll expect I'll never know unless some kid used their smartphone to capture it on video. When it goes viral on Youtube it will all be clear.

...or...

the bus driver isn't a liar, the lawyer did his job, up is up, down is down, the girl hammered the guy in the face and he reciprocated.

Do we know this with certainty? No.

Should this guy be convicted of battery given what we do know? No.

Q.E.D.

[zibazinski]

Ooh, Mr. Hates Florida with mud on his face. Just lovin' it!

[djAdvocate]

Aug 14, 2013 16:33:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 14, 2013 14:45:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it has been a while since i used a bus, but i seem to remember other ways of moving around than that.

Seems to me like he WAS leaving, and he was dragged back.  That act alone gives him the right to defend himself.

i totally agree, and never said otherwise.  what i was asking was whether or not SYG was even required, here.  i think Dark answered that.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 14, 2013 17:26:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Ooh, Mr. Hates Florida with mud on his face. Just lovin' it!

who hates Florida?

[kent]

Aug 14, 2013 10:59:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 14, 2013 10:41:43 GMT -5 kent said:

...Don't treat a man like another man would ...

BS IM(not so)HO - Human Beings shouldn't hit other Human Beings

And you also posted this:

This ruling makes perfect sense to me. The right to defend yourself against an aggressor should apply to students on a school bus.

I think there's a bit of discrepancy here.  Either it's NOT OK to hit someone or it is.  If it's NOT OK then you're supposed to just let somebody beat the carp out of you?  On the other hand you have a right to defend yourself?  Which is it?  

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 14, 2013 18:01:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 14, 2013 17:26:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Ooh, Mr. Hates Florida with mud on his face. Just lovin' it!

who hates Florida?

Evt. But specifically he hates the "bastion of SYG" part of it.

[billisonboard]

Aug 14, 2013 18:13:14 GMT -5 kent said:

Aug 14, 2013 10:59:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

BS IM(not so)HO - Human Beings shouldn't hit other Human Beings

And you also posted this:

This ruling makes perfect sense to me. The right to defend yourself against an aggressor should apply to students on a school bus.

I think there's a bit of discrepancy here.  Either it's NOT OK to hit someone or it is.  If it's NOT OK then you're supposed to just let somebody beat the carp out of you?  On the other hand you have a right to defend yourself?  Which is it?  

Human Beings should not hit other Human Beings but in the imperfect world in which we live we have the right to defend ourselves against an aggressor who has gone against the ideal.

[Opti]

Should this guy be convicted of battery given what we do know? No.

Agreed. I was just pointing out other possibilities. Maybe too much exposure
to Hoops and Cawiau. LOL.

[EVT1]

Aug 14, 2013 18:28:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 14, 2013 18:01:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

who hates Florida?

Evt. But specifically he hates the "bastion of SYG" part of it.

Yep- the FL legal system sucks- for many reasons.  SYG sucks because of how it is being used.

I brought this case up because it was on the front page- I didn't go looking for it- I could post numerous examples of the perversion of that law if that was the goal.  Just thought it was ridiculous.

So now anytime someone is charged with a battery, shooting, stabbing, whatever, in FL- they are going to claim self defense and unless the prosecutors can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt they walk.

It is a fantastic law for criminals, assholes, and cowards.  Start all the shit you want, punch someone in the face, shove someone- whatever- no more consequences.

[zibazinski]

Except no one does this really without provocation but, of course, some people don't want to hear that.

[billisonboard]

Aug 14, 2013 20:40:25 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Except no one does this really without provocation but, of course, some people don't want to hear that.

So what is the "this" in this statement.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 14, 2013 18:28:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 14, 2013 18:01:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

who hates Florida?

Evt. But specifically he hates the "bastion of SYG" part of it.

ah.  thanks, Virgil.

[Sum Dum Gai]

He can argue his path to retreat was blocked when she grabbed him and pulled him down into a seat.

He could argue that, but prior to SYG it would be a judgment call on the judges part.  If it had been an old school judge he might think the boy had the advantage because he's a boy, and he could have escaped without hurting the girl if he'd wanted too.  That's probably why they chose to cite stand your ground to begin with.  You want to take judgment calls out of it and stick to the facts, especially if you have an adult witness who says the girl started the fight.

[zibazinski]

I love the fact that the bully for what's coming to her. If more did right off the bat, maybe some bullies would think twice. Adult intervention rarely works but ass whipping does. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 15, 2013 7:40:57 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I love the fact that the bully for what's coming to her. If more did right off the bat, maybe some bullies would think twice. Adult intervention rarely works but ass whipping does. 

My kids are taught to notify us, a teacher, or an adult on the first offense, but that if it's not practical they can ALWAYS defend themselves, and that AFTER an adult has been involved, if there's another incident- you have to fight back and fight hard.  Because it is an undeniable fact that even if you lose, if you fight back- you get respect and people don't mess with you.  If you let it go on, there'll be blood in the water and every a**hole from a 100 mile radius will be picking on you.

EDIT: The main point of teaching my kids to notify someone is that I want them to be smart, and create a paper trail.  That way when they do finally mercilessly beat someone's ass, their own asses are covered.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 14, 2013 17:58:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 14, 2013 16:33:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Seems to me like he WAS leaving, and he was dragged back.  That act alone gives him the right to defend himself.

i totally agree, and never said otherwise.  what i was asking was whether or not SYG was even required, here.  i think Dark answered that.

Yeah- I don't think so.

EDIT- meaning, I don't think SYG is needed.  It's clear the first court didn't have a sincere interest in justice in this case.

[EVT1]

How do you know?  Long before SYG police/prosecutors/judges used a thing called discretion to handle self defense claims-and failing that it could be argued still in court.  So now, SYG comes along to do absolutely nothing except give defense attorneys another way to let guilty people go free. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 15, 2013 12:35:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 14, 2013 17:58:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i totally agree, and never said otherwise.  what i was asking was whether or not SYG was even required, here.  i think Dark answered that.

Yeah- I don't think so.

EDIT- meaning, I don't think SYG is needed.  It's clear the first court didn't have a sincere interest in justice in this case.

that is precisely why i asked that, Paul.  it seems to me that if this person was under attack in a bus, he had the right to defend himself.  it ended soon enough when he retaliated, and that seems about right to me.  no reason for it to ever go to court in the first place, imo.  should have been tossed out prima face.