Man Hits Woman, Gets KTFO By Roger Huerta

Off Topic
121

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Oh, and by the way, a civil jury may never even hear about the attack on the victim. A judge could very well decide it had no legal bearing on the question of the legality and reasonableness of the assault on the big guy. Even if a judge permitted it, he could choose to sanitize it by only telling a jury that an assault occurred, and was committed by the victim of the beating. But there is a very real chance a jury never hears of the assault on the woman. It’s simply not a defense and the whole thing is on tape.[/quote]

The only thing I saw on the tape, is the black guy hitting the girl, and an unidentified shirtless assailant stomping him in the head or at least doing something that looks like a stomp to the head. I think if they throw the tape out, it would give roger an even stronger defense.

Yea I saw this guy drop a girl with a sucker punch, after that he was walking around looking very angry and he didn’t just leave, I thought he was going to attack another person very soon so I went over and tried to calm him down and put myself in between him and the defensless public. (then even if the tape is admissable, since the camera pans away during the beginning of the confrontation).

When I tried to isolate hit he took his shrt off and shoved me and took a swing at me. I then decided I needed to incapacitate him otherwise more people could be hurt by this man.

As I was starting to go after him, another random guy who must have seen him hit the girl also runs in and takes a swing at him and then the guys starts running away. I took chase and tackled him to the ground. A couple of other angry guys then started stoming the guy. At that point I walked away from the fight.

Seriously, He is going to have as many if not MORE whitneses than the big black guy. Video or not.

V

122

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
The jury selection process is actually intended to weed those out who make decisions off of emotion, your decision as a juror should be built solely on the law[as explained to you] and the ability of the prosecutor to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, one of the first questions which will be asked is probably if you’ll be biased towards the defendant since he essentially assaulted a man for his assault on the woman.

Criminal charges against Huerta depend entirely on the extent of the injuries on the person he supposedly assaulted. If he caused no serious injuries then under Texas law he’d be looking at a maximum of one year in county jail and possibly a fine, with a plea bargain he’d be looking at less time.

[/quote]

Uh Yea, I know that, thats why you say, Oh no I won’t be biased at all, I am only interested in handling this case according to the letter of the law. I believe in the justice of the system, I believe in the value of a lawful society.

Then I go in and say he was defending the public from an unstable man who just attacked a defensless woman. (in the jury deliberation room or whatever)

V

123

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
The jury selection process is actually intended to weed those out who make decisions off of emotion, your decision as a juror should be built solely on the law[as explained to you] and the ability of the prosecutor to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, one of the first questions which will be asked is probably if you’ll be biased towards the defendant since he essentially assaulted a man for his assault on the woman.

Criminal charges against Huerta depend entirely on the extent of the injuries on the person he supposedly assaulted. If he caused no serious injuries then under Texas law he’d be looking at a maximum of one year in county jail and possibly a fine, with a plea bargain he’d be looking at less time.

[/quote]

I think most are talking about the civil suit, more than the criminal suit. I doubt he’ll get anything for defending that girl. However he might have to fork over some money because the civil suit.
[/quote]

He was not defending anyone. The crime occurred, the attack ceased. He issued street justice. You can agree with his instance justice, but the law would not. If his injuries were severe enough, he’s looking at agg assault. Kicking and/or stomping someone about the face, head and neck area and you very well may be looking at attempted murder. You cannot even argue this.

I know use of force and continuum of force inside out. This was not a legal use of force. This was an assault. I don’t have a moral opinion on what occurred mind you, but I do have a legal one :slight_smile: Now, if he attempted to intervene in an attack, in an attempt to defend someone being attacked, he’s permitted to use REASONABLE force to defend himself and the victim. You are NOT permitted to run someone down and administer a beating - no matter how much we enjoyed it :)[/quote]

I’ve always kind of wondered how much the likelihood of him (the big guy) attacking someone else would matter. If I see a guy blindside sucker punch a woman in a crowd like that and then wonder off, isn’t it reasonable for me to assume it’s very likely for him to assault someone else. Is it then okay for a guy to “neutralize” that threat to the public.

It seems to me its a reasonable thing to initiate the fight with him and end the threat to the people there (this excludes the face stomp).

As a more extreme example, say a guy were to pull out a 9mm and shoot someone in the knee, then re-holster the weapon. Would it then be okay for me to tackle/knock him out? I would be assaulting him after the crime had ended.

I think that the big guy, even after the crime, still posses a reasonable threat to others.

If there is a threat to the public, people have the right to stand up. I would think that the previous assault demonstrates that threat and should be factored into the second assault. (I know the law may not work this way, but this is my take)

Second, I’ve always kind of wondered how assault laws work with 2 willing participants. If 2 guys willingly confront and fight one another, who gets assault charges? No one? both? the winner?

Whatever it is, I’d say that in this case they were both willing participants. The big guy was looking for a fight and he got it. I have a hard time seeing an “assault” in that.

Edit: V beat me to some of this.

124

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
The jury selection process is actually intended to weed those out who make decisions off of emotion, your decision as a juror should be built solely on the law[as explained to you] and the ability of the prosecutor to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, one of the first questions which will be asked is probably if you’ll be biased towards the defendant since he essentially assaulted a man for his assault on the woman.

Criminal charges against Huerta depend entirely on the extent of the injuries on the person he supposedly assaulted. If he caused no serious injuries then under Texas law he’d be looking at a maximum of one year in county jail and possibly a fine, with a plea bargain he’d be looking at less time.

[/quote]

I think most are talking about the civil suit, more than the criminal suit. I doubt he’ll get anything for defending that girl. However he might have to fork over some money because the civil suit.
[/quote]

He was not defending anyone. The crime occurred, the attack ceased. He issued street justice. You can agree with his instance justice, but the law would not. If his injuries were severe enough, he’s looking at agg assault. Kicking and/or stomping someone about the face, head and neck area and you very well may be looking at attempted murder. You cannot even argue this.

I know use of force and continuum of force inside out. This was not a legal use of force. This was an assault. I don’t have a moral opinion on what occurred mind you, but I do have a legal one :slight_smile: Now, if he attempted to intervene in an attack, in an attempt to defend someone being attacked, he’s permitted to use REASONABLE force to defend himself and the victim. You are NOT permitted to run someone down and administer a beating - no matter how much we enjoyed it :)[/quote]

I’ve always kind of wondered how much the likelihood of him (the big guy) attacking someone else would matter. If I see a guy blindside sucker punch a woman in a crowd like that and then wonder off, isn’t it reasonable for me to assume it’s very likely for him to assault someone else. Is it then okay for a guy to “neutralize” that threat to the public.

It seems to me its a reasonable thing to initiate the fight with him and end the threat to the people there (this excludes the face stomp).

As a more extreme example, say a guy were to pull out a 9mm and shoot someone in the knee, then re-holster the weapon. Would it then be okay for me to tackle/knock him out? I would be assaulting him after the crime had ended.

I think that the big guy, even after the crime, still posses a reasonable threat to others.

If there is a threat to the public, people have the right to stand up. I would think that the previous assault demonstrates that threat and should be factored into the second assault. (I know the law may not work this way, but this is my take)

Second, I’ve always kind of wondered how assault laws work with 2 willing participants. If 2 guys willingly confront and fight one another, who gets assault charges? No one? both? the winner?

Whatever it is, I’d say that in this case they were both willing participants. The big guy was looking for a fight and he got it. I have a hard time seeing an “assault” in that.

Edit: V beat me to some of this.[/quote]

I’ll try to address some of this. V’s post, no disrespect to V, is just conjecture. Whether the big guy is a threat to others is a jury question. The tape doesn’t suggest it. Either way, you still have to get around a continuum of force standard. Even if you think he’s a threat, you just can’t start by beating and stomping him. You have to apply REASONABLE force. I don’t know about you, but I want to be on the conservative side of REASONABLE if I’m going to be charged or sued. By the way, that tape don’t get thrown out in a criminal case. It likely gets edited or thrown out of civil case. What he did, based on the tape, is pretty much legally indefensible.

If it was RH, he became the aggressor. If he attempts to attack someone else, acts agitated, issues threats, is in proximity to the victim or another possible victim, you’re legally okay to exercise REASONABLE force. That force starts with instructions to stop, and escalates to restraining him. If someone illegally shot someone, you’re welcome to use whatever force to disarm the assailant, should you choose to do so :slight_smile: If he shot someone and holstered his weapon, again you’re looking at reasonable force standards, keeping in mind a local prosecutor will likely look the other way as long as you didn’t go ape shit wild and kill the guy or put him in a coma. I’ve seen prosecutors decline to prosecute where street justice was used if the criminal did something particularly heinous. We had a recent case in Philly where a crowd apprehended a wanted rape suspect that brutally attacked a young girl. He was given a good beating and the law looked the other way. I still wouldn’t risk it. I don’t want to be on trial for my freedom except for a very good fucking reason. There are laws for a “mutual fight” but I’m sure it varies from state to state. Generally, if you have two willing participants and someone didn’t suffer some grave injury, both combatants are likely to just get a disorderly charge at best. Any assault charge would just disappear by both parties refusing to testify against the other. Case gone. Anyway, none of this is legal advice. Each case is legally and factually sensitive. I’m just sounding a warning to any would be heroes that you could be facing serious consequences for using what could later be deemed illegal force.

125

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
The jury selection process is actually intended to weed those out who make decisions off of emotion, your decision as a juror should be built solely on the law[as explained to you] and the ability of the prosecutor to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, one of the first questions which will be asked is probably if you’ll be biased towards the defendant since he essentially assaulted a man for his assault on the woman.

Criminal charges against Huerta depend entirely on the extent of the injuries on the person he supposedly assaulted. If he caused no serious injuries then under Texas law he’d be looking at a maximum of one year in county jail and possibly a fine, with a plea bargain he’d be looking at less time.

[/quote]

I think most are talking about the civil suit, more than the criminal suit. I doubt he’ll get anything for defending that girl. However he might have to fork over some money because the civil suit.
[/quote]

He was not defending anyone. The crime occurred, the attack ceased. He issued street justice. You can agree with his instance justice, but the law would not. If his injuries were severe enough, he’s looking at agg assault. Kicking and/or stomping someone about the face, head and neck area and you very well may be looking at attempted murder. You cannot even argue this.

I know use of force and continuum of force inside out. This was not a legal use of force. This was an assault. I don’t have a moral opinion on what occurred mind you, but I do have a legal one :slight_smile: Now, if he attempted to intervene in an attack, in an attempt to defend someone being attacked, he’s permitted to use REASONABLE force to defend himself and the victim. You are NOT permitted to run someone down and administer a beating - no matter how much we enjoyed it :)[/quote]

I’ve always kind of wondered how much the likelihood of him (the big guy) attacking someone else would matter. If I see a guy blindside sucker punch a woman in a crowd like that and then wonder off, isn’t it reasonable for me to assume it’s very likely for him to assault someone else. Is it then okay for a guy to “neutralize” that threat to the public.

It seems to me its a reasonable thing to initiate the fight with him and end the threat to the people there (this excludes the face stomp).

As a more extreme example, say a guy were to pull out a 9mm and shoot someone in the knee, then re-holster the weapon. Would it then be okay for me to tackle/knock him out? I would be assaulting him after the crime had ended.

I think that the big guy, even after the crime, still posses a reasonable threat to others.

If there is a threat to the public, people have the right to stand up. I would think that the previous assault demonstrates that threat and should be factored into the second assault. (I know the law may not work this way, but this is my take)

Second, I’ve always kind of wondered how assault laws work with 2 willing participants. If 2 guys willingly confront and fight one another, who gets assault charges? No one? both? the winner?

Whatever it is, I’d say that in this case they were both willing participants. The big guy was looking for a fight and he got it. I have a hard time seeing an “assault” in that.

Edit: V beat me to some of this.[/quote]

I’ll try to address some of this. V’s post, no disrespect to V, is just conjecture. Whether the big guy is a threat to others is a jury question. The tape doesn’t suggest it. Either way, you still have to get around a continuum of force standard. Even if you think he’s a threat, you just can’t start by beating and stomping him. You have to apply REASONABLE force. I don’t know about you, but I want to be on the conservative side of REASONABLE if I’m going to be charged or sued. By the way, that tape don’t get thrown out in a criminal case. It likely gets edited or thrown out of civil case. What he did, based on the tape, is pretty much legally indefensible.

If it was RH, he became the aggressor. If he attempts to attack someone else, acts agitated, issues threats, is in proximity to the victim or another possible victim, you’re legally okay to exercise REASONABLE force. That force starts with instructions to stop, and escalates to restraining him. If someone illegally shot someone, you’re welcome to use whatever force to disarm the assailant, should you choose to do so :slight_smile: If he shot someone and holstered his weapon, again you’re looking at reasonable force standards, keeping in mind a local prosecutor will likely look the other way as long as you didn’t go ape shit wild and kill the guy or put him in a coma. I’ve seen prosecutors decline to prosecute where street justice was used if the criminal did something particularly heinous. We had a recent case in Philly where a crowd apprehended a wanted rape suspect that brutally attacked a young girl. He was given a good beating and the law looked the other way. I still wouldn’t risk it. I don’t want to be on trial for my freedom except for a very good fucking reason. There are laws for a “mutual fight” but I’m sure it varies from state to state. Generally, if you have two willing participants and someone didn’t suffer some grave injury, both combatants are likely to just get a disorderly charge at best. Any assault charge would just disappear by both parties refusing to testify against the other. Case gone. Anyway, none of this is legal advice. Each case is legally and factually sensitive. I’m just sounding a warning to any would be heroes that you could be facing serious consequences for using what could later be deemed illegal force.[/quote]

I wasn’t defending the head stomp, but I don’t see knocking the guy out as that unreasonable.

Oh, and I’m not a fighter. I’ve only really gotten in a fight once and because I didn’t have much choice. Either way, I don’t normally frequent localities where fights often happen. I’m no hero.

126

Is everybody a fucking laywer now? All this speculation of which way this incident will turn out is very funny!!! carry on students of the law…

127

Well just to put it out there, it is up to the District Attorney’s office to decide if they will press charges. There isn’t an absolute that they will. Not every crime is prosecuted.

Civil is another matter.

128

This is Texas y’all.

We can shoot folks attempting to steal tires in the dark and it’s legal.

Just say’in.

Unfortunately this was done in Travis County which is the most liberal part of the State. I’m sure there is an enlightened lawyer from the right or left coast that will make everything all square.