In Kalifornia - You Have A Right To Be Punched In The Face

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In order for your attacker to be prosecuted for assault, you must:

-Declare your intention to stop fighting.
-Attempt in good faith to stop fighting.
-Give your opponent a chance to stop fighting.

and then, on top of this, your attacker must continue the assault in order for him to be prosecuted for assault.

You're reading way more into this, than what is actually there. If you are assaulted, you have the right to defend yourself. That does not equate to mutual combat and the assaulter is subject to prosecution. The law does not protect him from his initial action. Now, if he assaults you, then finds his alligator mouth has overloaded his hummingbird ass, he is allowed to retreat or curl up in the fetal position crying. From that point, any further physical force by you is considered assault and he now has the right to defend himself.

reply to post by WTFover


after further review, I concede this is the correct interpretation of the law and I am in error.

The cop releasing the the guy in the bar fight must have been due to "mutual combat" where by the they both agreed to fight each other, and one got his butt kicked in the process.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I find that many adherents to statism argue that we need the State to save us from violent criminals, such as thugs, rapists, murders, and other such ilk.

I'd like to shatter the myth that the State actually provides you protection from these people.

One great example of how the State forces you into a situation where you must give up your right to self-defense can be found in Kalifornia's "Mutual Kombat" law, which reads as follows:

A person who engages in mutual combat or who is the first one to use physical force has a right to self-defense only if:

1. (he/she) actually and in good faith tries to stop fighting;

[AND]

2. (he/she) indicates, by word or by conduct, to (his/her) opponent, in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that (he/she) wants to stop fighting and that (he/she) has stopped fighting(;/.)


[AND
3. (he/she) gives (his/her) opponent a chance to stop fighting.]

If a person meets these requirements, (he/she) then has a right to self-defense if the opponent continues to fight.

That is to say, in order for police to arrest someone for assaulting you, you must first give up the right to defend yourself against that assault.

Only then will the State interpose and arrest the person who hit you.

If you fight back and manage to kick the crap out of the person that assaulted you in the first place, the State deems this mutual kombat and will not arrest your aggressor.

The first time I heard about this law I thought it was a joke - but no no no - not in the great state of KA, where you must be a victim at all times.

We could apply this to attempted rapists and murders as well. For example, if you are a female that is assaulted by a man who intends to rape you, yet you manage to fight back and subdue your aggressor, the State could in fact deem this mutual kombat and not prosecute the attempted rapist.

Again, since no one (unless you are the president) has a personal police force following them around at all times, we can say the State deems you NOT protect yourself before it will help you. The State's interest is in maintaining its monopoly of force, not in ensuring you are protected from violent aggressors.








[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Not to be rude, as I usually enjoy your posts, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. As far as I can tell, such a law is a reasonable means of denying the defence of self-defence to those who initiate fights or aggression against another. Whilst I think that to deny anyone an inherent right to self-defense if they are being attacked, regardless of it was their provocative behavior that began the tussle, I suppose it is not altogether too horrible to say that if A attacks B who then fights back in self-defense and A then kills B in response to B's self-defense, then A should not be allowed to plead self-defence and be exonerated for his crimes (as self-defence is a total defense...at least, in the UK).

Perhaps I've missed something? Also, I don't think the police would simply refuse to arrest someone if they were seen fighting... as it is for the courts to determine guilt or innocence and not the police.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

You aren't following all the "OR"s and "AND"s in the law.

The law is defining exactly what mutual kombat is.

Mutual kombat IS defending yourself if you were hit first.

That is to say, if someone hits me and I hit them back, I am now engaged in mutual kombat and neither of us will be arrested. The law stipulates that if I chose to exercise my right of self-defense, the State will not arrest my aggressor.

Indeed the law states that if I kick the crap out of my aggressor, I am the one who could be charged with a crime, not the aggressor.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

This has always been the case. Even if someone puts a knife to your throat and tells you they are going to rape your wife and children, you are only allowed to use the amount of force proportionate to the immediate threat to your life or safety. i.e. killing a person who smacks you in the face cannot be self-defence as the amount of force used in response is grossly disproportionate to what would be necessary to defend yourself from further harm

reply to post by mnemeth1

In many cases involving bar fights, the wisest action for the LE to take is to send both actors away with instructions on how to follow-up the next day, if either or both want to pursue a ciminal complaint. It is damn near impossible to get a clear picture of the facts from "witnesses", at the time.

Here is what a lawyer told me.

If you are attacked (assault or battery) the first thing you tell the attacker is that he is under citizen's arrest.

Then if he continues the attack you have the right to use force to protect yourself.
This does in no way restrict what "physical force"(no guns no knifes unless he pulls one) you have to use as long as he is still standing, not fleeing. Not trying to get up to continue the attack.

Kick to the b**l, Kick to the kneecap, ECT, ECT, ECT.

If you are attacked without any provocation on your part you do not have to fight fair. In fact never fight fair.

The great part about using this method is if the cops don't arrest the attacker and you are injured you still can take him to civil court for your injuries.

If you are at work and attacked by another employ and the company has a policy of firing both parties you must do this.
You may still be fired but it leaves you the resource of suing both the company and the attacker.
Suing the company for not maintaining a safe working environment and the attacker for the assault and loss of job.

It turns a "fight" into a assault and a arrest. Lawyers can work with this and make both the company and the attacker look like the bad guys in court

Make sure the cops are called so that there is a police report with your statement that you were attacked, you made a citizen's arrest,
and you acted in self defence.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by ANNED]

Originally posted by duality90
Also, I don't think the police would simply refuse to arrest someone if they were seen fighting... as it is for the courts to determine guilt or innocence and not the police.

Actually, your last sentence explains why it is perfectly appropriate for an arrest to not be made, in the case of a fight. It is appropriate to separate the combatants, gather evidence in the form of witness statements, etc. and present that evidence to a court.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 24-8-2010 by WTFover]

Come on ats do a lot of spamming, get your face kicked in...metaphorically speaking. basically same title, same rhetoric. 1h.) Spamming: You will not post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

OP's problem is that he thinks it is "Mutual combat" if someone outright attacks him for no reason.

Seriously, that is not mutual. Since when do you agree to combat if someone attacks you?

If someone attacks you out of the blue, and you engage... it is most certainly not mutual combat... it is self-defense. And it is as such under California law.

This law makes it so that if you are engaged in a, "MMA street fight", for example, that you can tell your opponent that you don't wish to continue the competition while in the midst of it. If they continue, then they are to be held for their actions under law.

Is this law really so wrong? Should you be forced to endure bodily injury if you realize you made a huge mistake while fighting the champion of 31nd and 1st street?

The law also ALLOWS people to compete in physical combat in the first place without being charged by the state ( that is, unless one of them backs off in the middle of the fight and the other guy still continues to fight).

This is an excellent law in my opinion.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Haaaa, this is cool with me, no matter how you look at the law.
I spent enough time bouncing at a bar in an environment where "hitting" the customers who were generally also friends is a big no no.
In a situation as such where there is an aggressor i will inform individuals in a very condesending fashion that I in no way advocate fighting but will defend myself to the best of my abilities.
They are generally enraged as to my childish tone and do the stupid thing.
They then sleep for a few seconds and wake up face down cuffed.
My advise to anyone is learn to wrestle or learn judo.
They are both non hitting forms of fighting that are a real boon in any fight as I have never been in a fight where it didn't go to the ground, usually I fall on top though, but ouch not always.
I'm too old for this spit!

Isn't it funny that the original poster overlooks replies that incontrovertibly contradict the innuendo presented in the thread's opening post yet finds time to entertain those that somewhat subscribe to the allegations of the opening post?

mnemeth1- Your interpretation of "juror instructions" (read and contemplate the text in your own OP link KOMRADE) has been proven several times to not be what you claim. What you claim as "law" are simple directions to be given by the judge to the jury in order for the jury to understand the criteria required for an accused individual to be able to claim "self-defense".

For what it's worth, these "jury instructions" are generally given only when the accused is charged with killing another person and is using "self-defense" as an alibi / justification.

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by duality90
Also, I don't think the police would simply refuse to arrest someone if they were seen fighting... as it is for the courts to determine guilt or innocence and not the police.

Actually, your last sentence explains why it is perfectly appropriate for an arrest to not be made, in the case of a fight. It is appropriate to separate the combatants, gather evidence in the form of witness statements, etc. and present that evidence to a court.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 24-8-2010 by WTFover]

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean it's appropriate to not make an arrest in the case of potential assault/battery in order to gather evidence? I am not necessarily well-acquainted with criminal procedure, but I was always under the impression that an arrest was always necessary in order to charge someone with a criminal offense, such that the defendant may be brought before an arraignment and formally indicted before he has the chance to flee?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, genuinely just curious haha.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by duality90
Also, I don't think the police would simply refuse to arrest someone if they were seen fighting... as it is for the courts to determine guilt or innocence and not the police.

Actually, your last sentence explains why it is perfectly appropriate for an arrest to not be made, in the case of a fight. It is appropriate to separate the combatants, gather evidence in the form of witness statements, etc. and present that evidence to a court.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 24-8-2010 by WTFover]

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean it's appropriate to not make an arrest in the case of potential assault/battery in order to gather evidence? I am not necessarily well-acquainted with criminal procedure, but I was always under the impression that an arrest was always necessary in order to charge someone with a criminal offense, such that the defendant may be brought before an arraignment and formally indicted before he has the chance to flee?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, genuinely just curious haha.

oops. nevemind

[edit on 8/24/2010 by abecedarian]

Originally posted by duality90

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean it's appropriate to not make an arrest in the case of potential assault/battery in order to gather evidence?

There are numerous circumstances where it is not only appropriate to not make an arrest, but is not permitted. As related to this thread, I will limit my response to an arrest for "fighting".

Let's say an Officer happens to drive in front of a bar and observes two people involved in a "fight". More times than not, they stop when they know the Officer is present. Equally as often, if it was "mutual combat", neither actor wants to complain on the other. End of story. If you have no victim, you have no assault to prosecute.

In the event one or both does want to complain, you are going to get at least two different versions of what went down, from the actors and witnesses. If they go their separate ways, the best course of action is to gather evidence, witness statements, etc. and present the case(s) to a magistrate who will, if sufficient probable cause exists that an "assault" has occurred, issue an arrest warrant. Then, once the warrant is served, court proceedings will begin.

In the case of a felony assault (one resulting in serious injury or when a weapon is used), which is observed by the Officer, an arrest should be made. If it is not observed by the Officer, the most likely course of action is for the case to be presented to a Grand Jury, who will either indict or no-bill the defendant. Many felony offenses are handled in this fashion and an arrest is not required prior to an indictment. In those cases, the indictment itself is considered the warrant and the arrest follows.

Your use of the phrase "potential assault/battery" is the key. An arrest should never be made for a "potential" crime. Now, "Family Violence" is a whole different monster, but we're talking about "fighting".

I'm sure I have given a completely confusing brief explanation. If I can clarify anything, please drop me a U2U.

Disclaimer: None of this information should be considered as legal advice. Only your attorney can provide that.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by WTFover]

That is to say, in order for police to arrest someone for assaulting you, you must first give up the right to defend yourself against that assault.

Well, eh..striking someone in Cal isn't an assault (240PC).. it's battery (242PC)

Being a misdemeanor police cant make an arrest unless it's committed in their presence.. it's up to those involved to arrest each-other per 837PC, citizens arrest.

Once in court they can argue it was self defense..

If you fight back and manage to kick the crap out of the person that assaulted you in the first place, the State deems this mutual kombat and will not arrest your aggressor.

Not so.. the police CANT arrest misdemeanors not committed in their presence.. the DA/city attorney can decide to drop charges.. or the state can charge one person, or both.. all depends. Sometimes both get charged with 415.1PC

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

240PC An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

242PC A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
upon the person of another.

415(1) PC Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.

reply to post by duality90


No arrest is needed, people can be charged "by way of filing"..

Cops respond to a fight, upon arrival contact 2 combatants slightly injured.. neither wants to peruse a citizens arrest 837PC. Being a misdemeanor not committed in the officer presence.. cops can't make an arrest.. but they can take relevant statements and pen a 242PC battery report. Everybody goes home.

Detectives will, err might lol..., follow up and submit all reports to the DA/city attorney... if the DA decides to file any charges, they'll send the suspect(s) notice of pending charges via registered mail demanding a court appearance. If they can't deliver said mail.. detectives or officers will go find & arrest.. if they cant find the suspect(s), a warrant is issued.

Sometimes when the suspect arrives for court they are arrested, booked then taken before a judge.. or AFTER appearing before the judge & entering a plea.. the judge orders the suspect(s) to report for booking and return relevant booking paperwork to the clerk.

Courts & police agencies have vastly different policies & rules.. mileage varies from place to place

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by WTFover

 

after further review, I concede this is the correct interpretation of the law and I am in error.

The cop releasing the the guy in the bar fight must have been due to "mutual combat" where by the they both agreed to fight each other, and one got his butt kicked in the process.

mnemeth1,

I star you for admitting your error. The first time in any posts of your's I've read. You are growing. I am completely sincere.