Thomas Hauser Stories of Violence outside the Ring

I'd never heard of this before.

 

I believe that the laws in most states only accept self-defense as a justification for the use of force in situations where a reasonable person would have considered it immediately necessary to protect one’s self or others from unlawful force.

So if someone only invades your space to disrespect, anger, or make a fool out of you, you don’t actually have a valid self-defense claim. According to the law on the books anyway. Prosecutors have a ton of discretion (more than judges even!) and often can simply choose not to charge someone if they sympathize with his predicament.

 

Interesting stuff thanks!

 

that Italian guy was a decent fighter. I think he fought for the Italian Olympic team if I am not mistaken. One of the guys he fought as a professional was Luigi Minchillo, who fought Duran,Hearns and McCallum as champ. So that was a case where even at 64 he outclassed a young kid. Not saying it is not impressive, but not as much to me as to others.

 

That's contingent upon what you mean by "invading your space". Of course you can't just hall off and slug someone for standing too close on a crowded subway, but in California (where I live) you have full warrant (at least on paper) to preemptively attack if you have good reason to fear that someone intends to inflict immediate, serious physical harm. That, of course, is far from a guarantee that a jury will have sensible notions of what is good reason or serious harm.

The real problem with pretty much all self-defense laws, much like pretty much all **** laws, is that courtroom epistemology is simply not equal to the task of determining what happened beyond a reasonable doubt in the great majority of cases. The laws must unavoidably err either on the side of letting aggressors/rapists go unpunished or letting legitimate defenders/**** victims be wrongly disregarded/imprisoned. And if not that, then they must be so imprecise as to be wide open to misapplication in both directions.

 

Yeah, the bottom line is that in California (as in most states) if and only if you reasonably believe that you are about to be subjected to immediate physical violence, you can strike first. As I wrote above though, if someone comes into your personal space merely to taunt you or to provoke you or whatever, and you strike them out of anger or to send a message that you are not to be trifled with--that doesn't cut it.

There are any number of serious -- and interesting -- problems with self-defense laws. The George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin) case highlighted several of them. Would gladly discuss but I wouldn't want to take this thread even further off track...whatever the point of this thread is.

 

This content is protected

 

Jock McAvoy The Rochdale Thunderbolt.

A seething mass of bad intentions who had a hair trigger temper, a punch that was dynamite, and a willingness to fight at anytime, any place and anywhere

After retiring from boxing McAvoy contracted polio, it is reported that when McAvoy entered a public house using sticks to aid his walking, a local 'tough guy' badmouthed Jock calling him amongst other things a cripple, in a instant the sticks were dropped and so was the tough guy, introduced to Jocks right fist and a little sleep in quick succession.

McAvoy was not the nicest of guys but by god i would want him on my side if a brawl occurred.

 

Bums fighting outside of the liquor store.
That's why I love this forum.

 

Rocky may have been a bum at one time. He was a full blown crack head but I think he found treatment. He couldn't have even defended himself had he still been on pipe.

 

The thread title should read violence in people not just fighters. Fighters can be some of the best most gentle human beings.

 

I don't think fighters are violent.

 

Well I can't quote state laws but I can say this...if a person feels threatened and can justify it law enforcement do take into consideration the area, the victim, the puncher and the situation their is no cut and dried scenario that does not have mitigating circumstances that is not normally weighed....for example the knock out game that is popular here is an example where if a stranger invades your space without provocation the threat of him waiting for you to look away is a legitimate self defense....for crying out loud the stand your ground laws for homeowners in many states or in North Carolina if the perp is physically larger than the defender lethal force is legal....in other words the smaller outsized person can use a weapon to defend himself and it has happened and the bigger man has been shot and killed by the smaller man. In Texas a man shot and killed a TX State Deputy a hunter who saw it shot and killed the criminal without punishment or the school shooters in the same state it was a armed citizen who stopped the massacre. IMO the guy that entered Rock's personal space was a threat and that no doubt was his interpretation. Obviously Mike Tyson can't make the same claim as a 5'6" banker in H2H but it depends on the situation and interpretation of threats

 

Most of the details you mention are relevant because they go directly to the question of whether the person reasonably feared imminent bodily harm before preemptively attacking others.

I've never heard of the "knockout game" (which was always an over-hyped myth) justifying people attacking others just for coming into their personal space, if they haven't given any other indication of imminent violence. Nor should it. The risk of innocent people (minority males, if we're being candid) being assaulted or hurt because of someone else's paranoia is just too high for that. (Not a perfect example, but it leads to situations like this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/detroit-area-man-allegedly-shot-at-black-teen-who-asked-for-directions/ )

I don't see how you could possibly know enough about the situation to determine whether the guy was actually a threat to Rocky, without jumping to a lot of conclusions about what was going on and the relationships of the people involved. Maybe the guy was a threat, maybe he wasn't.

And the way the law works (on the books, anyway), Mike Tyson actually would have the same ability to claim self-defense as a 5'6 banker, if he thought he was about to be subjected to imminent physical violence.