I don't remember if this was discussed fully on the forums before, but anyways...
I was watching the news and they had a sigment about when the hockey dad took the chair. If you don't remember, there were two dads at a children's hockey game. They got into a fight and one got killed. One was 150 pds & the other was 270 pds. Well, the smaller guy was killed.
The killer (this part is not disputed) claims he did it in self defense. This is of course hard to claim, coming from such a large man, from a legal stand point. I guess I could be considered a large guy, though there is quite a bit of fat on me, and I find the fact that this is a hard argument to make, because of his size, ludicrous.
How many times have you lost in a fight or sparring session to a smaller apponent? I have and it's usually because they're more agressive or quicker.
Disgusted and disgruntled,
Adam
Hockey dad trial
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Hockey dad trial
Adam
Incidents like this one are difficult to judge by the drivel you get from the sensationalist press. Often people are tried and convicted by reporters or news editors with their own political agendas long before the facts come out.
I am familiar with this trial and actually have been following it with more than a little bit of interest. When the first news reports came in, it looked like this 270-lb. truck driver was clearly a bully and a bad guy. But as the facts have been coming forward, I find that the situation isn't so black and while. Consider:
* The 150-lb. victim in this situation was once tried and convicted for assaulting a police officer. It's my understanding that this evidence will not be admitted in the trial.
* EVERYONE agrees that the 150-lb. victim threw the first punch. Pictures of the 270-lb. defendant clearly show bruises and scratches all over him.
* The son of the 270-lb. defendant testified that he told his dad to "Stop!" when he was hitting the victim. However...there isn't a clear consensus from witnesses as to how many punches were thrown (anywhere from 3 to over a dozen).
* A live presentation of the victim's brain to the jury demonstrated significant bruising on the left side, likely indicating that the defendant threw at least one pretty nasty right hook to the side of the victim's head. No kyusho here, folks, just good-old-fashion brute force.
* The defendant comes across as a pretty scary guy. He's only 6 feet tall, but he is thick and wide. His hands are wide and short, with thick fingers. In his testimony yesterday he was innocently gesturing with his hands, and smacked the microphone silly with a wave of the right hand.
* The prosecuting attorney asked him why he couldn't walk away from this smaller fellow (in spite of the fact that he was hit by the victim, and the victim was grabbing hold of his left wrist while on the floor when the fatal blow was likely delivered).
I have to tell you that I'm more than a little concerned about the whole situation. First of all, both dads are in the wrong for taking a kids' hockey game and turning into a nasty altercation. That is indeed the point of the media attention. Somehow the meaning of parenting and child development is completely lost in this deadly melee. That aside, I look at this trial and feel concerned that many situations that the average Joe might consider justification for self-defense and deadly force are a jail sentence waiting to happen.
How many situations have we talked about on these web pages where folks have felt badly about "almost" getting into a serious physical encounter? Think about the alternative. Then again, think of the deadly hesitation that may result from being concerned about the consequences of one's actions when facing someone that clearly doesn't have your best interests in mind.
It isn't an easy situation by any stretch of the imagination. I think the jury has a difficult decision ahead of them.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited January 10, 2002).]
Incidents like this one are difficult to judge by the drivel you get from the sensationalist press. Often people are tried and convicted by reporters or news editors with their own political agendas long before the facts come out.
I am familiar with this trial and actually have been following it with more than a little bit of interest. When the first news reports came in, it looked like this 270-lb. truck driver was clearly a bully and a bad guy. But as the facts have been coming forward, I find that the situation isn't so black and while. Consider:
* The 150-lb. victim in this situation was once tried and convicted for assaulting a police officer. It's my understanding that this evidence will not be admitted in the trial.
* EVERYONE agrees that the 150-lb. victim threw the first punch. Pictures of the 270-lb. defendant clearly show bruises and scratches all over him.
* The son of the 270-lb. defendant testified that he told his dad to "Stop!" when he was hitting the victim. However...there isn't a clear consensus from witnesses as to how many punches were thrown (anywhere from 3 to over a dozen).
* A live presentation of the victim's brain to the jury demonstrated significant bruising on the left side, likely indicating that the defendant threw at least one pretty nasty right hook to the side of the victim's head. No kyusho here, folks, just good-old-fashion brute force.
* The defendant comes across as a pretty scary guy. He's only 6 feet tall, but he is thick and wide. His hands are wide and short, with thick fingers. In his testimony yesterday he was innocently gesturing with his hands, and smacked the microphone silly with a wave of the right hand.
* The prosecuting attorney asked him why he couldn't walk away from this smaller fellow (in spite of the fact that he was hit by the victim, and the victim was grabbing hold of his left wrist while on the floor when the fatal blow was likely delivered).
I have to tell you that I'm more than a little concerned about the whole situation. First of all, both dads are in the wrong for taking a kids' hockey game and turning into a nasty altercation. That is indeed the point of the media attention. Somehow the meaning of parenting and child development is completely lost in this deadly melee. That aside, I look at this trial and feel concerned that many situations that the average Joe might consider justification for self-defense and deadly force are a jail sentence waiting to happen.
How many situations have we talked about on these web pages where folks have felt badly about "almost" getting into a serious physical encounter? Think about the alternative. Then again, think of the deadly hesitation that may result from being concerned about the consequences of one's actions when facing someone that clearly doesn't have your best interests in mind.
It isn't an easy situation by any stretch of the imagination. I think the jury has a difficult decision ahead of them.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited January 10, 2002).]
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6070
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Hockey dad trial
We've been discussing this case on the "Legal" forum for the past couple weeks. Please drop in and reproduce your questions and comments there.
Interesting discussion and should be of interest to those of us who practice martial arts.
------------------
GEM
Interesting discussion and should be of interest to those of us who practice martial arts.
------------------
GEM
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Hockey dad trial
This is a link to the thread in that forum. I've also done the same over there.
Thread in Martial Arts & The Law Forum
- Bill
Thread in Martial Arts & The Law Forum
- Bill
Hockey dad trial
I have not been following this as closely as Bill has, but I did notice on the Headline News last night that the defense is also trying to emphasize something about arthitis in the defendants knees being a major factor in what he did. The way it sounded from what I heard: In the scuffle the defendant ended up on top of the victim with the victim holding on tight to the defendant's wrist while still hitting the defendant, but the defendant was claiming that his bad knees did not enable him to use his size/strength advantage to just pull himself away to get up and walk away from the victim...so he hit the victim instead.
I agree about the difficult decision for the jury. If the stories are correct that the victim "jumped on" the defendant and started hitting him, and then the scuffle ended up on the floor with the defendant still being hit, I can see someone lashing out to try to stop it...and not really caring at that moment how many times he hits or how hard he hits. Those seem to be considerations that are only thought about after the fight, when you try to figure out what you could have done differently.
Two questions I have:
1. The defendant is adament that he only threw 3 punches, but I wonder if he can truly remember from the heat of the moment how many punches he actually threw. Anyone who has been in some sort of fight care to comment on your ability to remember after the fight how many punches were thrown?
2. Actually the thing that amazes me most about this is that apparently no one had camcorders at this game (was it a game or a practice?) and nothing was caught on tape. At least I have not heard anything about video evidence. That seems incredible given how at least one parent is always recording at events like this.
Right-on about both of them ultimately being in the wrong here, and correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the altercation start over one of them complaining to the other about the roughness with which the other's son was playing! Definitely not a way to set a good example to kids!
One other comment, his legal troubles are likely far from over even if he is found not guilty by the jury. Having use of self-defense upheld in a criminal court does not protect the defendant from a lawsuit filed by the family in a civil court.
------------------
Glenn Humphress
Lincoln, NE
I agree about the difficult decision for the jury. If the stories are correct that the victim "jumped on" the defendant and started hitting him, and then the scuffle ended up on the floor with the defendant still being hit, I can see someone lashing out to try to stop it...and not really caring at that moment how many times he hits or how hard he hits. Those seem to be considerations that are only thought about after the fight, when you try to figure out what you could have done differently.
Two questions I have:
1. The defendant is adament that he only threw 3 punches, but I wonder if he can truly remember from the heat of the moment how many punches he actually threw. Anyone who has been in some sort of fight care to comment on your ability to remember after the fight how many punches were thrown?
2. Actually the thing that amazes me most about this is that apparently no one had camcorders at this game (was it a game or a practice?) and nothing was caught on tape. At least I have not heard anything about video evidence. That seems incredible given how at least one parent is always recording at events like this.
Right-on about both of them ultimately being in the wrong here, and correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the altercation start over one of them complaining to the other about the roughness with which the other's son was playing! Definitely not a way to set a good example to kids!
One other comment, his legal troubles are likely far from over even if he is found not guilty by the jury. Having use of self-defense upheld in a criminal court does not protect the defendant from a lawsuit filed by the family in a civil court.
------------------
Glenn Humphress
Lincoln, NE
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Hockey dad trial
I found it interesting that the prosecuting attorney stated the defendent slammed the victim's head into the floor before hitting him (the number of times still in question). Hmmm... I wasn't there, and neither was the prosecuting attorney.
I can see one scenario where one takes a head and smashes it into the ground - intentionally. I can see another scenario where the victim - on ice skates mind you, and likely not trained in falling techniques - fell back and hit his head on the floor.
In either case, the prosecuting attorney makes the hitting of victim's head on floor (presuming it happened) an intentional act designed to do damage. In her closing argument, she got down on her knees and acted out what she presumed the defendent did.
I find all this interesting because I remember that in the trial, the autopsy expert was pointing to damage on the left - and not the back - of the brain.
It's all how you spin it, and only one man really knows what the defendent intended to do (if even he knows...).
- Bill
I can see one scenario where one takes a head and smashes it into the ground - intentionally. I can see another scenario where the victim - on ice skates mind you, and likely not trained in falling techniques - fell back and hit his head on the floor.
In either case, the prosecuting attorney makes the hitting of victim's head on floor (presuming it happened) an intentional act designed to do damage. In her closing argument, she got down on her knees and acted out what she presumed the defendent did.
I find all this interesting because I remember that in the trial, the autopsy expert was pointing to damage on the left - and not the back - of the brain.
It's all how you spin it, and only one man really knows what the defendent intended to do (if even he knows...).
- Bill
Hockey dad trial
the damning bit of testimony here came from the rink manager in my mind.(True, I wasn't there and I do hate to second guess juries. Still don't know what the OJ and King juries were thinking though!) Junta left, came back in and pushed by the rink manager to get to Castin. It certainly doesn't sound like the guy was avoiding a confrontation at all.
Also as to who through the first punch. I don't really care much. Outweighing someone by a factor of 1.83 to 1 sort of eliminates most of that in my mind. If someone weighing 103 pounds attacks me I will not respond with a lot of punches I will attempt to restrain them. Also if some weighing 357 comes up to me again following a verbal confrontation and I think it's going to escalate, I may well throw a sucker punch and in my mind that would be self-defense. No it's not fair that large people have a greater responsibility to not hurt others but I think that they do. If you weigh 275 you had better realize what you are capable of and act accordingly.
And Adam, yes I have lost in sparring to a smaller person. Because I wasn't trying to hurt them. The best 106lb person I have ever faced is not going to beat me in a real fight more than 10-20% of the time(sparring she kicks my ass though). The power and mass discrepancy in this case was too great. If the 150lb guy had been assaulted by someone weighing 82 lbs and had killed them, how would you feel about the situation. Wait, who weighs 82lbs?? Oh, that's right. Children. Suddenly I find your argument that larger people don't have a greater responsibility to exercise restraint and that the standard of self-defense is higher for large people is ludicrous...well, I find it ludicrous.
Also as to who through the first punch. I don't really care much. Outweighing someone by a factor of 1.83 to 1 sort of eliminates most of that in my mind. If someone weighing 103 pounds attacks me I will not respond with a lot of punches I will attempt to restrain them. Also if some weighing 357 comes up to me again following a verbal confrontation and I think it's going to escalate, I may well throw a sucker punch and in my mind that would be self-defense. No it's not fair that large people have a greater responsibility to not hurt others but I think that they do. If you weigh 275 you had better realize what you are capable of and act accordingly.
And Adam, yes I have lost in sparring to a smaller person. Because I wasn't trying to hurt them. The best 106lb person I have ever faced is not going to beat me in a real fight more than 10-20% of the time(sparring she kicks my ass though). The power and mass discrepancy in this case was too great. If the 150lb guy had been assaulted by someone weighing 82 lbs and had killed them, how would you feel about the situation. Wait, who weighs 82lbs?? Oh, that's right. Children. Suddenly I find your argument that larger people don't have a greater responsibility to exercise restraint and that the standard of self-defense is higher for large people is ludicrous...well, I find it ludicrous.
Hockey dad trial
We discussed this incident when if first happened. Go to this link if you want to rehash the discussion.
Rage Rush topic in the Self Defense Realities Forum
------------------
Len
Rage Rush topic in the Self Defense Realities Forum
------------------
Len
-
Colin 8 of 8
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Portsmouth Hampshire UK
Hockey dad trial
I know this is not the point. But would we be having this debate if the big guy were a grappler.
Colin 8 of 8
------------------
My name is Colin 8 of 8, I am very much alive, and intend to stay that way.
Colin 8 of 8
------------------
My name is Colin 8 of 8, I am very much alive, and intend to stay that way.
