so im being charged with assault causing botily injury

[JerryLove]

what would you have done?

Same thing I've always done in similar events. I leave immediately.

[Pacificshore]

I know snowballs can hurt, but not like a rock or brick. Once you walked up to them, you've engaged them for something to happen. I agree with the pre-emptive strike, but at the same time, the need to use it could have been avoided from the outset. Would be different if they approached you after pelting you with the snowballs. That would have shown their intentions towards you. Good luck to you in your court hearing. Seems like the smart thing here was to walk away. If they continued to follow you/harass you, then you'd be able to articulate the need to defend yourself against 3 attackers.

[krunchyfrogg]

You could have avoided using a freakin' elbow strike! Those things are meant to really hurt somebody!

 

It's in the past now, and you can't go back and change it. If I were you, I'd just get a good lawyer, and stop discussing your legal troubles on a message board.

[Rich67]

Well, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing...I have (without the battery charge). When you're young, it's important (to you) to defend your character and not appear afraid. The problem is, one day you may stand up to the wrong guy and get your clock cleaned...severely (been there too). To approach 3 guys and confront them for simply chucking snowballs at you seems petty. But I have to say, I'm impressed with the way you stood your ground. You're just lucky his 2 buddies didn't grow a pair and wallop on you. I don't care how tough you think you are, 3 on 1 is a bad proposition in a street fight. Unfortunately, you learned the hard way that what you did was wrong. Self defense is not when you approach someone even if they battered you with ice first. If the scenario was: the guys threw snowballs at you, you told them to stop, they cussed at you then approached you and you tried to back up but couldn't, then you would be justified in self-defense. The law always looks at your ability to retreat. If it is a possibility, the law wants you to do it. Better to walk away than to try to satisfy your ego. In your case, they could be going to court and you'd be the victim had you just let them pelt you and walked away.

[CPU]

I've read somthing on this already for a similar case like this and how to handel it, going up to them and asking what there problem is ok, but this magazene article outlined what you should do. Basicly you let them make the first move and respond with only as much force as there using - example: they push you, you are then allowed to push them back, if they punch you - your allowed to punch them back - if they start beating on you as hard as they can the your allowed to without using any lethal techneques - if they pull out a gun or knife or other weapon that could theorecticly kill you then your allowed to pull out all the stops. The point of this is that in court you can always say THEY were the one that started it and that you weren't the one that escalated the fight and made it more deadly. If you can prove that you were not the one that threw the first blow the you should be fine. Thats just my two cents on the issue.

[White Warlock]

Disagree CPU. Directing someone to lie in court is the quickest way to have them get tripped up and be found guilty.

 

There are a few factors which bring this into a different light than a mere "he hit first" argument. First off, they were throwing snowballs and he asked them to stop. They did not. Although snowballs aren't deadly, they could be.. if a rock is hidden in one. The argument could easily be posed that he was being attacked first. Assault and battery.

 

More to the point, however, is the fact there were more of them then there were of him. They also stated their intent to harm. At this point, he was within his rights to take whatever was 'reasonably' necessary to end the confrontation before it escalated. If this meant that the most reasonable means was to strike the most aggressive in the group before they built up enough confidence to attack him as a group, then so be it.

 

The things that go against him are, they were younger (if they were also smaller, this would really go against him), he had the option to enter the mall to avoid further confrontation, snowballs are generally not considered deadly weapons, he left the scene without contacting authorities immediately after, and... well... there were no 'corroborating' witnesses.

[Looneyas]

As I said im my post before, "DONT BE A THUG"

 

I have walked away from many a fight, Even tho I know i could kick there * all the way to hell and back. But why im the better man walking away.

 

Hitting first is acting a THUG simple. If one of my students told me he did that i would not teach him no more. I dont teach aggression or Thuggary. I teach Self Defence and respect

[delta1]

Hitting first is acting a THUG simple.

 

Not so simple. If you face multiple opponents, weapons are evident, he's bigger,stronger, or a better fighter, and you know within reason he's going to get violent (and there are reliable signs to make this judgement), I'd say you had better strike first and hardest. Even if you don't know any of these things, but violent conflict is apparently imminent, you are justified in hitting first.

 

The difference in thuggery and self defense is that the thug is the one initiating the conflict. He preys on those he thinks are weaker, and he gives you no choice. The person useing a pre-emptive strike in self defense would not have hit anyone had he not thought his safety was in question. The thug is the recipient of the upward elbow- an excellent opening gambit in the actual assault phase of the confrontation, in my opinion. The only real mistake here was going over to the thugs instead of removing himself from the conflict when he had the chance. Legally, that put him at fault. Morally, which has nothing to do with our current system of justice, he was entirely in the right. Defense of honor, if that is the course you choose, is not wrong. Pride, maybe argueably an immoral act, you'll have to ask the Christians. Common sense, it is generally not a good idea to walk up to three belligerant people when you can walk away. But if anyone finds it dishonorable, I'd question their judgement more than his.

[Karateka]

Assault cannot exist if both parties agree to fight. I personally wouldn't have fought them but I'm glad you didn't give them a chance to fight back and seriously hurt you. I have heard of many situation where someone who has an MA background waits for the person to amke the first move and gets swarmed. It could have ended a lot worse for you. Good luck with the future.

[CPU]

@White Warlock - maby i should have clerified what i said earlier, what i said is what you should have done had you had a chance to do the whole situation over again, not to use it in THIS court case. I never ment for anyone to lie in court, that's possibly the worst thing to do in a case.

 

CPU