This is kind of piggybacking off that “Fighting a crackhead” thread or whatever, where people were saying all sorts of shit they would do, like magic throat punches and all, to fend off a would be attacker, under the assumption that it’d be justified.
This is a sad story- because even though this guy got off on self-defense, look at the comments from the douchebags on the bottom. Remember- THESE are the morons that will be judging you should you punch someone in the throat.
The times they have a changed. I read “Unforgiveable Blackness” a while back. It was a biography of boxer Jack Johnson. At one point Jack had an altercation with another man - words were spoken, and Jack whoped his ass. It went to court. Now I forget exactly what the Judge said, but it was along the lines of…
“If he called me a prick, I would have whoped his ass too!”
McGunigle hit Cherry first. Various witnesses said McGunigle was the aggressor in the altercation, with another stating Cherry lead off with a chest bump.
At least he can stick his Father of the Year Award on his mantle along with his championship belt… because calling a lady a fat bitch in front of your 11-year old daughter is pure class.
Then again, so is making no effort to extract yourself from a situation where you are jawing off with a stranger while your daughter is nearby. In fact, not only did he NOT just hop in his car and drive off, he “hobbled over” to Cherry to exchange words before deciding Cherry was a little to big to scare off.
Guy sounds gay, though without knowing any more of the facts I can’t say for sure what my position on the verdict is.
That’s impressive, being as in those days, a black guy whipping anybody’s ass was likely to get him lynched…especially Jack Johnson who was not…well liked…by the white community.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s impressive, being as in those days, a black guy whipping anybody’s ass was likely to get him lynched…especially Jack Johnson who was not…well liked…by the white community.[/quote]
Aye.
I was taking this piss a bit when I said “better times”.
Interesting book though. And plenty of great stories.
I used to be big fan of the ole’ ass whooping, but sometimes shit goes too far, and when it does, you don’t have control over the outcome. You don’t know which punch is going to be the one that sends a guy to the emergency room or worse. You also don’t know when the other guy wants to draw the line. Maybe you’ve had enough- but he hasn’t. Now you’re down and the other guy is just getting started.
To take it to another level, there are people out there that are sadistic and twisted enough to bait someone into a fight just so that they can justify hurting or killing them. I’ve know 2 people who have done exactly that a number of times, resulting in at least 1 homicide that I know of and one attempted murder.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is kind of piggybacking off that “Fighting a crackhead” thread or whatever, where people were saying all sorts of shit they would do, like magic throat punches and all, to fend off a would be attacker, under the assumption that it’d be justified.
This is a sad story- because even though this guy got off on self-defense, look at the comments from the douchebags on the bottom. Remember- THESE are the morons that will be judging you should you punch someone in the throat.
This is what “Winning a fight” gets you.
Thankfully the jury selection process is aimed at weeding those people out.
I don’t know much of this but I think the court made a good decision. The man received unsolicited aggression, felt threatened, and he didn’t go beyond defending himself. It’s unfortunate that the other man died, but that’s just a risk you’ve to accept while trying to attack other people.
The jury selection process only weeds out those people who are so far out of the norm that they would be considered extremists, in one way or another.
One thing I have learned in 18 years of police work is that juries are unpredictable. (And you can read the word “stupid” into that on some occasions.)
A “jury of your peers” does not mean a bunch of people who think JUST LIKE YOU when it comes to defending yourself, or anything else. If only things were that simple. It means 12 people who answered a series of questions the way the lawyers liked.
Self-defense, in this day and age, is EXTREMELY tricky business. I cannot stress enough how important the concept of avoidance is to the everyday person. When I am off-duty, I go OUT OF MY WAY to avoid conflicts with others…even to the point of having people threaten me verbally. As long as there is no physical attack, I let it go.
I am NOT going to trust my freedom to the people they put on juries these days. It’s just not worth it.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
The jury selection process only weeds out those people who are so far out of the norm that they would be considered extremists, in one way or another.
One thing I have learned in 18 years of police work is that juries are unpredictable. (And you can read the word “stupid” into that on some occasions.)
A “jury of your peers” does not mean a bunch of people who think JUST LIKE YOU when it comes to defending yourself, or anything else. If only things were that simple. It means 12 people who answered a series of questions the way the lawyers liked.
Self-defense, in this day and age, is EXTREMELY tricky business. I cannot stress enough how important the concept of avoidance is to the everyday person. When I am off-duty, I go OUT OF MY WAY to avoid conflicts with others…even to the point of having people threaten me verbally. As long as there is no physical attack, I let it go.
I am NOT going to trust my freedom to the people they put on juries these days. It’s just not worth it.[/quote]
It’d be pointless to have jurors that were carbon copies of you, that would hardly be objective. However, after being sworn in you can’t exactly get past the selection process while feeling a strong bias against self-defense… Or if you’re wearing formal dress. Taking what the courts have to work with into consideration it really isn’t as bad as you make it sound.
I think the biggest problem would have to be the wannabe Magnum P.I.s trying to research law and information which is irrelevant to them.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
The jury selection process only weeds out those people who are so far out of the norm that they would be considered extremists, in one way or another.
One thing I have learned in 18 years of police work is that juries are unpredictable. (And you can read the word “stupid” into that on some occasions.)
A “jury of your peers” does not mean a bunch of people who think JUST LIKE YOU when it comes to defending yourself, or anything else. If only things were that simple. It means 12 people who answered a series of questions the way the lawyers liked.
Self-defense, in this day and age, is EXTREMELY tricky business. I cannot stress enough how important the concept of avoidance is to the everyday person. When I am off-duty, I go OUT OF MY WAY to avoid conflicts with others…even to the point of having people threaten me verbally. As long as there is no physical attack, I let it go.
I am NOT going to trust my freedom to the people they put on juries these days. It’s just not worth it.[/quote]
A jury of your peers, isn’t a jury of your peers. It’s a jury of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
You never really “win” a fight in 2010. One person goes to the hospital and the other to jail. And the winner also gets an extra pat on the back when he’s served a subpoena for civil court.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is kind of piggybacking off that “Fighting a crackhead” thread or whatever, where people were saying all sorts of shit they would do, like magic throat punches and all, to fend off a would be attacker, under the assumption that it’d be justified.
This is a sad story- because even though this guy got off on self-defense, look at the comments from the douchebags on the bottom. Remember- THESE are the morons that will be judging you should you punch someone in the throat.
This is what “Winning a fight” gets you.
truth. We live in a society that glorifies “victims”. that is, if you get your ass kicked, or bullied, or whatever, everybody bends over backwards to make you some sort of hero, you get to write a book, you get a tearful interview on Oprah, etc. No mercy is shown for the people who fight back and defend themselves ever.
well at least he’ll be spending his time in the Plymouth HOC which is basically full of drunk drivers because of all the micks around there. and theres a wonderful farm!
one thing you learn from any martial art is…killing people is easy. Fucking someone up for life is even easier. A side kick to the knee and you could cause them to limp for the rest of their life. A quick punch…the guy breaks his head open and you are about to go to prison. I don’t think hitting someone is worth it unless they are actively attacking you. Hell even if someone is mouthing off and pushes me, I hesitate to escalate a situation. Walking away is much less complicated.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
The jury selection process only weeds out those people who are so far out of the norm that they would be considered extremists, in one way or another.
One thing I have learned in 18 years of police work is that juries are unpredictable. (And you can read the word “stupid” into that on some occasions.)
A “jury of your peers” does not mean a bunch of people who think JUST LIKE YOU when it comes to defending yourself, or anything else. If only things were that simple. It means 12 people who answered a series of questions the way the lawyers liked.
Self-defense, in this day and age, is EXTREMELY tricky business. I cannot stress enough how important the concept of avoidance is to the everyday person. When I am off-duty, I go OUT OF MY WAY to avoid conflicts with others…even to the point of having people threaten me verbally. As long as there is no physical attack, I let it go.
I am NOT going to trust my freedom to the people they put on juries these days. It’s just not worth it.[/quote]
if you werent such an asshole people wouldnt be threatening you verbally. file that under avoidance techniques.
[quote]Petermus wrote:
one thing you learn from any martial art is…killing people is easy. Fucking someone up for life is even easier. A side kick to the knee and you could cause them to limp for the rest of their life. A quick punch…the guy breaks his head open and you are about to go to prison. I don’t think hitting someone is worth it unless they are actively attacking you. Hell even if someone is mouthing off and pushes me, I hesitate to escalate a situation. Walking away is much less complicated.[/quote]
True. Even though it’s hard to have your conscience eating at you and calling you a pussy - you still avoid a potentially life changing situation.
