Man Dies After Cop’s Husband Puts Him In Chokehold Outside Denny’s

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Yep 16-17 is probably that minimum age for a legitimate black belt in most disciplines. Anything much earlier than that, the studio owner is just pandering to their customers to keep their business.

Jaden

a reply to: TinySickTears

No I don't carry a gun at this time. Although I believe most people should. I've studied martial arts for 35 years. I practice martial arts that most people don't know exist. Most recently I studied BJJ under Cadu.

Jaden

a reply to: BASSPLYR

This is the # I'm talking about. You don't know that he attacked the guy for pissing. The guy could've easily attacked him because he didn't like being confronted.

Again, I'm not saying this guy was in the right. I'm just saying there is a lot of conjecture about the reason for the death.

I'm also saying that the confronting him for pissing could easily have little to do with the final outcome and it's wrong for people to jump to that conclusion.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I'm just saying there is a lot of conjecture about the reason for the death.

No there isn't, one guy choked the other.

I'm also saying that the confronting him for pissing could easily have little to do with the final outcome and it's wrong for people to jump to that conclusion.

It's the only reason that stands out. Occam's razor and all that.

a reply to: daskakik

This is the # I'm talking about. You are basically saying all that matters is that the "cowboy" confronted the pissing guy.

That's NOT what matters. What matters are a couple of different things. Who physically assaulted who first. How reasonable was the amount of force used and at what point did the threat from the deceased end.

Without knowing those things, the fault of the death(let me correct this, the legal culpability of the death) cannot be determined and to try and claim that all that matters is "cowboy" confronted dead guy, and cowboy is alive and dead guy is dead is ludicrous.

Jaden

p.s. we do NOT know the answers to the important questions from the info that has been released thus far. For instance, we don't know what reasonable force was necessary because we don't know what physically occurred prior to the video. It is the threat that is posed that determines the amount of reasonable force. For all we know the dead guy said, I have a knife and I will cut you and then attacked him. That would authorize deadly force because the "cowboy" would have no way of knowing that it wasn't a valid threat and would need to ensure that the dead guy couldn't get to said weapon.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
This is the # I'm talking about. You are basically saying all that matters is that the "cowboy" confronted the pissing guy.

Him choking the guy to death is the only consistent fact throughout all the what ifs.

That's NOT what matters. What matters are a couple of different things. Who physically assaulted who first. How reasonable was the amount of force used and at what point did the threat from the deceased end.

I'm not on the jury so that doesn't matter to me.

Without knowing those things, the fault of the death(let me correct this, the legal culpability of the death) cannot be determined and to try and claim that all that matters is "cowboy" confronted dead guy, and cowboy is alive and dead guy is dead is ludicrous.

It is not ludicrous to think that if the guy had gotten of of him when others pleaded with him, to which he said no (and there is video) then the other guy may have lived.

p.s. we do NOT know the answers to the important questions from the info that has been released thus far.

They only seem important to you. What difference does it make to you if some people here believe it was over a piss?

a reply to: daskakik

Choking a guy to death is NOT illegal, so that is not relevant.
The questions that matter legally. It's not what's important to me. It's what's relevant and important legally. As I said, choking a guy to death is NOT illegal. You have to be negligent or criminal for it to be illegal and the questions I stated are what matter in determining legality. He could be criminally negligent and therefore ruled guilty of negligent homicide without being guilty of murder as well. That's a little more tricky to determine. I would be much more inclined to state he may very well be guilty of negligent homicide or reckless endangerment. Neither of those are murder though and the fact that he verbally confronted him for pissing in public has ZERO bearing on the case.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Whatever, Perry Mason.

This isn't a court of law. It's an internet forum.

a reply to: daskakik

Most of the people in this thread are yelling string this "cowboy" up already. So it sure seems like a court room or that no one seems to care about this guys legal rights.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
Most of the people in this thread are yelling string this "cowboy" up already. So it sure seems like a court room or that no one seems to care about this guys legal rights.

Is he not getting his day in court?

Besides, their words and opinions are not legally binding because this isn't a court of law.

Also, all your what if's are just guesses as well but one thing is true and known, he refused to get off the guy when others told him to.

a reply to: daskakik

true and like I said he may very well be guilty of negligent homicide. I haven't once defended the actions of this guy. The ONLY thing I've defended are the rights of individuals to call out others on their behavior and the right to defend oneself if attacked after doing so.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
The ONLY thing I've defended are the rights of individuals to call out others on their behavior

And others pointed out that exercising that right can land you in an unwanted situation. This case is proof of that. What is there to argue?

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Cops shouldn't even be able to use chokes. It's way more dangerous when a cop does it for the simple fact that if you're in a bjj class youre one on one and can feel when the guy passes out and goes limp plus you have an instructor close by. In the cage youve got a ref. On the ground with a bunch of other cops restraining various limbs with knees in backs etc they're not going to feel anything and the guy is likely to pass out far quicker.

They shouldn't do a lot of these idiot "holds" they're taught.

It's really easy to hurt someone on accident. Quite significantly too.

My asshole brother in law tore ligaments in my wrist trying to "demonstrate" a self defense technique with a kubotan. That was a year ago. It's still not right. And there is still inflammation and nerve issues associated with that inflammation. (Yes, I went in and had it diagnosed). If physical therapy doesn't work, then it's surgery.

He put me in a chokehold immediately after he screwed up my wrist. I started to get dizzy but he let go. Nice guy, just like most of the power tripping, violent-tendencies-looking-for-an-excuse, assholes that do this crap.

Oh, and brother-in-law is a huge proponent for law enforcement. Go Team Blue! And he has lots and lots of cop buddies. I think he wants to be one. He was super stoked about a potential job with the TSA (which didn't pan out thank god). I think the reason why he did what he did was to put me in my place because I dared disagree with him about police brutality.

Im not a cop or a lawyer. But we have a few here who might be able to answer this question.

But from my understanding the use of lethal force is not legal in situations where you or someone elses life is not in imminent danger. The drunk pissing guy was not a life thretaning danger to the guy especially once hes half unconscious unarmed and has a 300 lbs whale laying on top of his neck.

The guy commited manslaughter at the least. Im sure he didnt think his botched blood choke would kill the guy. But if prosecution can bring up facebook records or witnesses that show he was bragging about his martial knowledge then one can easily argue he had the means and the intent to commit murder after he subdued the guy....for peeing. Personally i do say string him up. Hes a danger to society. And as for his wife. I say fire her. Deny her any pension earned. And charge her with an accessory to murder. Shes seen on video kicking the guy while hes being choked to death. Let bonnie and clyde there rot to death in prison. Theres no place in society for people who feel entitled to being able to rough up, manhandle and commit manslaughter or outright murder of other people.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Hey i practice martial arts not many have even heard of. Curious to hear about the ones you study. Ill share if you do. If you want via PM for privacy.

And its not he may be guilty of negligent manslaughter. He is guilty of that at the least.

a reply to: redhorse

Most cops arent well trained either in those locks and restraints. The obes that are proficient at them in a less than clumsy way are those who develop a personal interest in the subject and continue their studies on their own.

You should see the eyes widen on leos when they come in to train for the first time with folks i know who are hired to re educate them. They find out just how vulnerable they are during the arrest proceedure of having the tables turned. How their weapons retention techniques need to be midified to work for them better. And just basics on human anatomy and how to properly immobilize a suspect with restraint and lock techniques.

Thanks for the trigger warning on that.

So gross. Fatso snuff porn in dolphin shorts and a "muscle" tee.

Nasty. Hopefully he gets the chair. :p

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: daskakik

Choking a guy to death is NOT illegal,

Jaden

hahahahah

they teach you that at cobra kai dojo john kreese?

what a tool