Thomas Hauser Stories of Violence outside the Ring

The guy was much bigger than Rocky and talking smack as he was walking towards him. You never know if the guy has a knife or other weapon, IMO Rocky was justified in putting him out. There was no cordial conversation going on there, a fight was clearly brewing and Rocky decided to end it before it started. I can't fault him for his decision.

 

Charles Barkley had something like that come up when he threw a 5-4 guy threw a window. Charles not a fighter. I don't remember what happened with that.

 

I might have missed that--what exactly did he say to Rocky? Did he threaten him? Not that that's necessary but that would obviously make a really big difference.

For the record, I'm not criticizing Rocky or saying that he clearly wasn't legally justified--I'm just saying that we are missing contextual information that could make a big difference. If I were a police officer or prosecutor investigating an incident like this and deciding what kind of charges (if any) to file against Rocky, I would need to interview people to figure out what exactly was going on--the footage didn't seem completely self-explanatory to me.

 

Of course the law works like that in the books I used to have to hear my bro-in law while in law school give me the black and white version tell me that until he actually practiced law now he understands the not so plain truth of justice and how the world has gray areas. The reality is much different and given the amount of latitude given law enforcement and prosecutors to use judgement and factor in circumstances that tips the scales of justice if they do not laws evolve by citizen action and pressure. Tyson would be hard pressed to justify why he felt threatened by a normal looking 180lb guy vs the 5'6" banker who is not a trained fighter and unfamiliar with the violent world of fighting....and that is the point

 

You know there's actually a word for that action? It's "defenestrate". Isn't that the strangest ****ing thing? The English language has a specific word for tossing a person out a window, but no single word to denote dying of thirst that would be analogous to "starve".

 

Some further context would definitely be welcome, but the body language of the participants as well as the fact that someone clearly admonishes "Don't do it, champ!" is sufficient to convince me it was evident to most or all present that trouble was brewing.

 

My point is that you and others around here seem to be jumping to conclusions and generalizing based on your assumptions about certain types of neighborhoods and certain types of people. The bottom line is that any halfway decent prosecutor or police officer would want to know what happened in the minutes before the film starts before reaching a firm conclusion about whether the punch was justified. I've spent enough time in rough neighborhoods to know that a lot of people who seem tough or dangerous to outsiders really aren't at all--especially not wrt someone like Rocky, who has a reputation for being very, very good with his hands. Maybe the guy approaching Rocky was an imminent threat, maybe he wasn't. Seems at least just as likely to me that he was trying to show Rocky that he wasn't afraid of him than that he was actually approaching him for a head-up fight, but both interpretations are completely speculative. The people who were with the guy were pleading with Rocky not to hit him, meaning they knew what Rocky was about and what he was capable of, so I don't buy your take that Rocky would have marked himself some kind of soft punk/future victim by not punching him.

The knockout game hysteria was and is completely overblown."Myth" might be an overstatement but it definitely fits what social scientists call a "moral panic." I mean, we've been hearing vague reports about it for at least 5 years in newspaper reports all over the country, and how many documented incidents have there been around the country? This stuff spreads because it sells--it really taps into deep-seated fears a lot of people have about "inner-city" youth attacking innocent people.

Yeah, prosecutors and police officers have a LOT of discretion. Many of them have biases that lead them to jump to conclusions based on the identities and appearances of perpetrators and victims. Some guys get every benefit of every doubt; some get none.

Maybe I misunderstood your point re: Tyson vs. a banker. My point was just that just like the banker, Tyson can strike preemptively if it is reasonable for him to fear an imminent attack--even if his attacker is much smaller. Tyson doesn't have to stand there and wait for an angry little banker to swing on him first, if it seems reasonably likely that the guy is about to attack him.

Anyway, none of this really matters-- guess we'll all just have to agree to disagree.

 

The fact that they're saying "don't do it" to Rocky instead of the other guy also suggests that people thought it was more likely that Rocky was going to attack him than vice versa.

 

Wow I had no idea you were that cynical and inexperienced but we disagree I think this comes down to life experience....give us older guys a little more credit than not having seen enough in our lives to recognize the fact that we might need to consider everything leading up to that incident jeeeez talk about jumping to conclusions....and not in a million years do I think you have spent much time in rough neighborhoods to not understand what you were seeing and the fact that you ignorantly come to the defense of the instigator or the fact that the reason they were yelling at "champ" don't do it tells me they knew he was going to start trouble with him....but maybe in California????wait did you go the college at UC Berkley?

I think most on here except pacifist are blown away by someone thinking Rocky was the instigator and had no reason to fight someone or defend himself from someone who invaded his personal space.....you think it was based off the socio economic pre judgement by the rest of us biased idiots?? you are goddamned right and if you are too stupid to see the issue to begin with I suggest you pull your head out of a liberal classroom and go back into the real world.....you say because we don't now what led up to it?.....we don't have to know or create a make believe scenario to justify either action because if Rocky did say something to him the guy had no more right to invade his personal space to try and possibly make a name off a near 60 yr old former homeless, drug addict ex world boxing champion than Rocky had to hit him. I trust since I know where Rocky grew up and his background in Tacoma area having lived there that he felt threatened enough to strike.....Rocky did not continue to beat the man while he was down nor punk him he knocked him out in my line of work we call this reducing the threat.

Holy crap who jumped to conclusions the guy who made assumptions that the rest of us were biased and prone to "jumping to conclusions" or the rest of us who knew what we saw and were discussing OUR opinions based on our experiences??? Rocky displayed no predatory behavior the other guy did....but hey don't let that or the fact that he walked up to Rocky instigating trouble get in the way of your superior intellect......jeeeeeez

 

Not sure of the big deal. A guy went looking for trouble and walked meters to get to it then got hammered. Don't mouth off then put yourself right in the face of someone.

 

Where do you get off calling me ignorant, cynical, or inexperienced? You have your education and your experiences with those kinds of neighborhoods and people, I have mine. I'm not going to get into my life story here but I'm not some naive suburbanite who needs someone like you to school him on "how those people are" and "the law of the jungle," etc. The anecdotal life experiences that you keep vaguely referencing aren't as important as you seem to think. Whatever they are, they damn sure don't make you some kind of unimpeachable expert on ghetto behavior. The fact that you can't even fathom that Rocky actually might not have been in danger suggests that you don't know those settings nearly as well as you've been letting on. You're confusing your fears and assumptions with wisdom and insight. But keep telling yourself that you know something that I don't.

You're conjuring up a story but you somehow think you've been sticking to the facts. All we know is that there was a very tense situation (causes unclear) in what appeared to be a rough setting between two men (relationship unclear, history unclear), where one man (intentions unclear, motive unclear, reputation unclear) approached another (well known as a former boxer) without putting down his canned beverage, stood before him with his hands low, and was knocked unconscious before committing any violent or unlawful act. And we know that the people who were with the man who got knocked out addressed the ex-boxer with a title of respect ("champ"), were afraid that the ex-boxer would attack him, and plead with him not to do it. Those are the only facts. That is all you know about what happened. Anything else that you claim to know is just story-telling.

PS -- Nice try. I never said Rocky was the instigator, never said he definitely had no right to defend himself, and I never defended the guy for approaching him. My original point was just that it's unclear that what he did is actually protected by self-defense law because it's not entirely clear what the hell was going on. I don't see how on earth this is at all controversial, let alone enough to get such an angry, emotional response from you.

 

No, not just by him invading your space per se, but this video goes beyond that. You have a much better self-defense case if someone says they are going to F you up and then walks over to you and gets in your face. The... I'm going to F you up and walking over to you can give a reasonable person the impression he's about to be attacked. Just invading space no, but threats, like the one in the video, much self-defense a very likely outcome.

 

Ahh, great point. I forgot about that somehow. Yeah, that makes a big difference. Whether or not the guy actually planned to throw a punch and whether or not Rocky actually thought he was going to punch him, that language would have been very helpful for Lockridge’s legal defense.

 

Sure you did by playing devils advocate and your fear to be pragmatic about what you can clearly see....telling the rest of us we were jumping to conclusions apparently none of the rest of us are as smart as you was the insinuation...more importantly your no blame stance except for your being appalled at Rocky hitting the manor clearly being unaware of the laws specifically the fact that many states have different laws....do you think no do gooder has turned this video in to a DA? you see it is your assumption that the rest of us are ignorant that provoked an irritated response...and apparently in the same way you view Rocky's response as inappropriate you view my response to your insulting response the same.....it seems the court of member opinion agrees that the guy who walked TO Rocky and invaded HIS personal space got what he deserved. In all your education you should study the FBI's criminal profilers the results proven over and over are terrifying and yet they still do not know behavior as well as people from those neighborhoods.