Blue Order

Offhand, I don't know what the rule is in NY, but in some states, you are indeed required to retreat if you can.

abstractform20

for some crazy reason, the penal code for each state can be found on the internet. hmm.

its almost as if responsible and interested citizens have the right and ability to educate themselves so as to be able to have informed opinions on such subject.


and again, perhaps the video clip has a lapse which makes it impossible to fairly judge?

Sec. 53a-19. Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he is in his dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he is a peace officer or a private person assisting such peace officer at his direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person, or (2) he is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but such other person notwithstanding continues or threatens the use of physical force, or (3) the physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

Sec. 53a-21. Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.

Blue Order

Very good. Now show us the part that says you can "one up" the other person in self-defense.


EDIT: So it turns out you used a code (anonymously) from Connecticut to back up dubious claims about California law made in support of an incident that happened in New York. Is that how they teach law in interwebz expert school?

Blue Order

There's no doubt that it's difficult to see what happens in part of the clip. But just taking the part that we can clearly see, the guy with the bike is using a weapon, the other guy isn't. Given the circumstances of the incident (two guys of approximately the same size, no deadly force threatened by the guy without the weapon), the use of the weapon is disproportionate to the threat, and therefore, not "self-defense." There's more. Once the guy with the bike has hit the other guy a few times, the other guy stops fighting. Then the guy with the bike charges him again. Even if everything that happened before was self-defense, at the point that he hits the other guy again, after he's stopped fighting, the guy with the bike has committed assault.

And then there's the question of who hit who first. It's somewhat difficult to see, but it's not impossible to see. I had to play it repeatedly before I saw the first blow, and it came from the cyclist. They're both walking, the cyclist suddenly swings and cold-cocks the pedestrian, the other guy charges into the cyclist, and then the cyclist really starts hitting him. It wasn't self-defense, at any point in the incident--it was assault.

CB HI

Blue Order has had some college courses and is a guy who does law library research for real lawyers. You would think if he really knew what he was taking about, he would take the bar exam.

But no surprise he comes on as the internet lawyer expert.

PS: I am not a lawyer, but have actually argued and won more legal cases than Blue Order has.

abstractform20

shockingly "one up" isnt a legal term. its almost as if people on forums will use colloquial context with formal context...

hm.

unshockingly, you somehow have the ability to see through brick walls, like the the one that blocks the camera view for a second or two.

please...please let me be your concubine oh wise one of wiseness and oneliness.

Blue Order

Blue Order took some college courses. Then he got his B.A. Then he went to law school and got his Juris Doctor. Now he works for a law firm.

Some fools think that their lack of legal expertise somehow trumps that.



EDIT: BTW, bar exam courses cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 dollars (guesstimate), and take two months of full-time study. The bar exam alone costs in the neighborhood of $750 (guesstimate). Bar dues are $3,000 annually. I see no need to spend that kind of cash (assuming I even had that kind of cash) just to demonstrate to some fool on the internet that my Juris Doctor represents years of legal study that he doesn't have, especially when I consider that after passing the bar exam, I will be doing the exact same job I am doing now.

2nd EDIT: My firm regularly receives letters of inquiry from newly-minted attorneys who have been admitted to the bar, and who would give their right arms to have my job. Strange, isn't it, that my boss keeps me on when he could have a "real lawyer" at the same pay level? Stranger still that he hasn't hired a "real expert" from the interwebz.

Blue Order

Just quoting you. I got your meaning, and didn't see any need to be an azz and point out that your terms are not legal terms. Would you have preferred that I just understand your choice of words, or would you have preferred that I make a pedantic argument about "one up" not being a legal term?

Actually, I have the ability to see through clear air. Not as exciting, but it does the job. Like I said, it took a lot of playbacks, but it is possible to see what happened if you look at the clear air between the impenetrable objects.

Luddite

Exactly, cyclist was trying to leave, stupid fat guy was all up in his grill, if the cyclist was telling fattie to back off / GTFO and the fat guy was being aggressive he got what he deserved.

Digital_Cowboy

Fortunately here in Fl we have the stand your ground law which allows us to use deadly force if we honestly feel our lives are in danger.

Blue Order

You can use lethal force in any state if you have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat to your life.

The difference between your state and certain other states is that in those states, you have a duty to retreat if you can. This means that in those states, if it is possible for you to retreat without endangering yourself, you must retreat. If it is not possible for you to retreat without endangering yourself, you may defend yourself.

In the case of this video, if the law in NY is that there is a duty to retreat (just a hypothetical, I don't know what the rule in NY is offhand), then the cyclist would have had to retreat from the conflict, unless retreat was impossible (e.g. unless he was cornered), or unless retreat would have endangered him (e.g., unless retreat would have exposed him to certain attack). In Florida, on the other hand (I'll accept what you're saying as fact, although I haven't researched Florida law), the cyclist would be allowed to stand his ground, even if it means a certainty that the other guy would attack him.

This raises an interesting issue-- actions that constitute self-defense in one state may constitute mutual combat in another state. For cyclists whose own states grant wide latitude in self-defense, it's important to know what the law is when riding through other states.

Blue Order

Another interesting point-- "self-defense" includes the right to defend others. In the case of the incident in this video, if I witnessed the cyclist attacking the pedestrian with his u-lock, I would be legally justified in using whatever force is reasonably necessary to stop the attack, and I would also be legally justified in using whatever force is reasonably necessary to subdue the attacker until police arrive. This means that if reasonably necessary, I could match force with force. I could, for example, use "u-lock justice" to subdue him. He, on the other hand, would not be legally justified in fighting me off. This means that if he did attempt to fight me off, he could be charged with two counts of assault-- one against the pedestrian, and one against me, and he would not be able to defend his actions as constituting "self-defense." My actions, on the other hand, would constitute self-defense.

abstractform20

for the price of free i can search anything regarding any law on the internet and for the cost of riding my bicycle i can go to any library i choose and read the same books that cost money to have at these schools of law.

the education system, like much of social institutions, is bs.

funny thing when people must go in debt to be validated to have learned information; if they are not validated from such institutions then preexisting corporations and businesses will not view them as credentialed.

Blue Order

Wow.

And to think it took considerably more than that for my class to graduate. If only we had known.

mandovoodoo

Abstract seems to forget that law proves quite dynamic.

Something not generally pointed out is the vulnerability of a cyclist mounting. An attacker or potential attacker nearby effectively prevents a cyclist from safely mounting and riding off. True with motorbikes, too - just a little push and the rider ends up on the ground. Not quite cornered, but somewhat pinned. A man on foot can cover a few feet amazingly quickly when all charged up. Just another factor. Even getting into a car gives brief additional vulnerability.

From my perspective, the ped presented a reasonable threat. I would expect a reasonable person to defend if poked or prodded as likely happened here; the cyclist looks hassled. On the other hand, the U Lock looks to me to be unreasonable. A jury might differ in their opinion, of course. Here in rural TN I suspect an older Asian gentleman approaching and hassling someone could be met with a baseball bat and nothing would happen to the bat wielder, assuming the bat wielder was a middle aged white male in a nice pickup truck from a family long in the area. Know your jurisdiction.

The ped doesn't leave. He could much more easily leave than the cyclist.

We all know the real problem is the ready availability of assault U Locks.

Oh, and law. I wouldn't pretend to know NY statutory or case law, the general approach of the typical NYC ADA, or the general behavior of NYC criminal and civil juries. Generally I use an expert to evaluate such things. I don't even play a lawyer on TV (although I do hold a JD magna *** laude).

phinney

The video does show how ineffective a u-lock is for self defense.

CommuterRun

So why, in this case, would you choose the pedestrian to defend, given that all we know of the incident is what we have seen in the clip? From my perspective I would choose to defend the cyclist, if I chose to get involved at all other than being a witness, given that I saw the cyclist attempt to walk away twice before the situation came to blows, and I saw the pedestrian throw the first blow with a kick. And given the situation that a third person did choose to get involved, what would prevent other bystanders from jumping in to "defend" the other side?

Just because the cyclist is using a weapon to defend himself does not automatically make him in the wrong.

This also raises the question that if someone does jump in to defend one side against the other, how does that automatically make the other side in the wrong?

A situation such as this could be a matter of multiple attackers working separately, but in conjunction with each other, with the goal of mugging the cyclist and stealing the bike.

Blue Order

My example of what the right of self-defense includes could be applied to either defending the pedestrian or the cyclist, depending upon which one was being attacked. Note that the right of self-defense would not include coming to the aid of the attacker-- it only includes coming to the aid of the person being attacked.

In this example, I said "If I witnessed the cyclist attacking the pedestrian with his u-lock, I would be legally justified [to defend the pedestrian]." The key here is the phrase "If I witnessed..." That is, if is am standing there and see one of them attack the other, I can legally defend the person being attacked. On the other hand, if I don't really know who started things, I'd better not take sides, because i could end up being charged with assault myself if I exercise my right of self-defense against the person being attacked. In that situation, the best I can do is try to break up the attack without taking sides. Note, however, that if I know the person being attacked, and if I know that it's not in the nature of the person being attacked to start things-- say, for example, that it's my elderly mother being whacked in the head-- I'm going to come to the defense of that person, because I know with virtual certainty that the other person started things, even if I didn't actually see it happen.

Note that despite the legal issues involved, none of the above speaks to the wisdom of stepping into the middle of a street brawl.


The cyclist is waking away from what? A scolding? Somebody he collided with (i.e., a hit & run)-- for example, the pedestrian, or his young child, or his wife, or his elderly mother? Note that the pedestrian keeps pointing down the street as he ******* the cyclist in that direction. Did something happen further down the street, and he wants the cyclist to return? As has been pointed out, we only know that the two are having some sort of confrontation in the crosswalk. We don't know what happened to initiate the confrontation, so the fact that the cyclist is "attempting to walk away" doesn't really mean anything. And in fact, it doesn't really mean anything in terms of self-defense-- he's not under attack, so he's not trying to retreat from an attack.

What you "saw" regarding the who threw the first blow illustrates the danger of acting without knowing what happened. You say the first blow was a kick from the pedestrian, but that kick occurred AFTER the cyclist cold-cocked the pedestrian as the two were walking down the street. From the video evidence available, the cyclist threw the first blow. And note that I said "from the video evidence available." I wouldn't defend one or the other unless I had a clear view of the encounter, and was watching attentively enough to clearly see who threw the first blow. In this case, I had to play the video back multiple times to see what happened, and can only see what's happening in the space between the telephone and the building. If I were there, and standing where the cameraman is positioned, it's not likely I would have seen what happened, unless perhaps if I was carefully watching the two.


Nothing, but we're talking about what constitutes self-defense here. People jumping in at random do so at the risk of being charged as mutual combatants.


Your statement pre-supposes that the cyclist is "defending himself," when in fact the video evidence indicates that he threw the first blow. But in order to address what it is I think you're saying about the use of a weapon in this encounter, let's assume that instead, you said:

The fact that he's using a weapon doesn't mean he threw the first blow (although the available video evidence does indicate that he threw the first blow), so the fact that he's using a weapon in and of itself does not make him in the wrong.

If he did throw the first blow, then he's in the wrong, regardless of whether he's using a weapon or his body.

On the other hand, if he's defending himself from an attack, the question raised is whether his defense falls within what is allowed for self-defense. A weapon against an unarmed opponent would be outside the bounds of what is allowed in some circumstances, and acceptable in other circumstances. It would depend upon whether the weapon was a reasonable use of force under the circumstances. The mere fact that somebody wants to use a weapon doesn't make its use reasonable. Circumstances that might make the use of a weapon "reasonable" might include factors such as the relative sizes of you and your assailant, the relative ages of you and your assailant, the temperament of your assailant (i.e., is he in a murderous rage and intending to kill you?), whether your assailant is on drugs that make him impervious to pain, the the number of assailants, and so on.


It doesn't. The person jumping in is only engaging in "self-defense" if the person he is assisting is being assaulted (i.e., if the person he is assisting has the right to defend himself).


If they're working in conjunction with each other, then they're not working separately. That aside, again, it's only self-defense if the cyclist is assaulting somebody. In that case, a bystander has the legal right to defend the person being assaulted. If instead, the cyclist is being assaulted, bystanders have the legal right to defend the cyclist. Nobody has the legal right to "defend" the person carrying out the assault (unless his victim shifts from "assaultee" to "assaulter"-- for example, if the assaulter is knocked out and the victim of the assault continues to kick him in the head after he's unconscious).

What you're describing is a gang of criminals attacking one person, not a bystander coming to the aid of a crime victim.

Digital_Cowboy

Here is a site that explains Florida's Stand Your Ground law:

Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law: Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way

CommuterRun

Good answer, thanks.

Thanks for the link, DC.

alhedges

1. It is kind of pointless to argue too much about this given that the key second or so is obscured, and that there is, in any event, no sound.

Because reasonable self defense is allowed if the person feels threatened, to analyze this we would really need to know what the people were saying to each other - this is more important than who actually threw the first punch/kick. If the pedestrian was reaching toward the biker while saying, "You ran into me in the crosswalk; stop and give me your ID," there is no self defense.

If the pedestrian was saying "I'm going to break your ******** neck you stupid punk" and reached toward the biker, the biker would be entitled to use reasonable self defense.

Note that in determining whether the amount of self defense was reasonable, you look at the amount of force actually used (and the conditions under which it was used). It doesn't really matter *what* was used in self defense; what matters is how it was used.

If it was justified in the first place, the self defense was reasonable in this case. Although inflicted with a U-Lock, the peds injuries don't seem any more severe that what he could have received if he was hit with fists. (The *fight* may have been more "fair" without the U-Lock, but the force applied would be about the same). The ped was never even knocked down, he did walk away from the fight, and his bloody nose is a relatively minor injury.

*Maybe* the biker could have stopped hitting the ped one or two hits earlier, and he *may* have been trying to leave then. But no one really looks at self defense on a punch by punch basis.

So the only real question is the one to which we don't know the answer - was the biker threatened?

CB HI

Too bad your post on BFs do not reflect such an education!

CB HI

And as the cyclist tried to leave 2 or 3 times while crazy ped pursued the cyclist, it is quite possible that both you and crazy ped would be the ones charged with battery.

Blue Order

You say that as if you would be able to tell the difference.

Has my boss called you for an interview yet?

Blue Order

Not true. Self-defense is (generally) allowed when the person defending him/herself is under attack, or has a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent.

If self-defense were allowed on something so subjective as “feeling threatened,” persons acting on unreasonable beliefs would have the protection of the law—and that is clearly not (usually) the law.


It would help.


Yes—although see below about prosecution.


Both true.

If the cyclist is using a u-lock, that may be true. If the cyclist is using a submachine gun, that would not really be true. Even if the use of the submachine gun met the legal standard for self-defense (i.e., if it was used in a way that the force used was “reasonable”), its use would still be in violation of federal law. Same thing for other outlawed weapons.

But getting back to the point, if the use of a u-lock was a reasonable use of force against the threat posed, then yes, the use of the u-lock would meet the standard for self-defense (I argued in the not-too-distant past in this forum that a cyclist in a real-life incident who was unexpectedly knocked off his bike by a teen gang who then surrounded him while he lay on the ground made a reasonable use of force by pulling his gun and warning “gun!”).


That doesn’t seem true from an intuitive perspective, and my guess is it wouldn’t be true if subjected to some simple physics calculations.


He stopped, and then he waded back in to take a few more whacks after the pedestrian had stopped engaging with the cyclist. Even assuming that the cyclist had been defending himself previously—an assumption that would only be true if his first swing of the u-lock was in response to an attack or threat of imminent attack from the pedestrian—his self-defense ended when he waded back in, and what occurred after that point was assault.

Yes, people lose their cool in the heat of conflict, but if that were a defense to assault, prosecutors would never get convictions, except in the case of premeditated assaults.


That’s a good question, but it’s not really the only real question. If a prosecutor had this video as evidence, he/she could file charges against the cyclist based solely upon the video evidence. The prosecutor would not be hamstrung by the lack of audio; in fact, quite the contrary.

Of course, the cyclist could argue that the pedestrian threatened him with imminent attack, but where’s the evidence for that? There’s no audio to indicate that the cyclist was threatened, and the pedestrian’s actions just prior to being hit don’t indicate that the cyclist was being attacked, or even under imminent threat of attack. So all the cyclist would have in support of his argument would be his claim that he was threatened—and that would be countered by the pedestrian’s denial and the lack of any corroborating evidence on the video. Because there’s no evidence that the cyclist was threatened, but there is evidence that the cyclist threw the first blow, the cyclist’s (hypothetical) uncorroborated claim that he was threatened would be unlikely to counter the evidence against him.

Because of this, if he truly was threatened, it would be virtually essential to have any witnesses to the altercation testify that they heard a credible threat made against the cyclist just before he struck the first blow (or alternately, to testify that the pedestrian attacked, unseen by the camera, just before the cyclist struck his first blow).

The cyclist could also argue that the video doesn’t show what happened just prior to the cyclist swinging his u-lock, but I think a simple frame-by-frame analysis of the video would demolish that argument.

The prosecution and defense is mostly theoretical, however. What would most likely happen in the real world is the prosecutor would charge the cyclist with the most serious charge he could press, and then would offer to let the cyclist plead down to a lesser charge. In some states—Oregon, in particular—the attacker would be facing serious prison time for using a deadly weapon, and the defense would have very little room to bargain. As a consequence, defendants regularly plead to lesser charges, because the alternatives are so much worse.