10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stevenson
Stevenson's picture
High Kick Drops Drunk Guy

I post this here for general amusement. I suppose if you:

- are facing a drunk guy with the reflexs of a large whale (check),

- have plenty of room (check),

- dressed in loose clothing (check),

- the steps right in your ma ai with his guard down (check)....

...you might as well have a crack. smiley

OTH if the guy had cracked his head after being dropped and died you'd probably feel differently about it. I can't find any context for this online. It would be interesting know some of the details.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Technically, it’s a reasonable kick … but absolutely terrible self-defence!

I would suggest that the threat posed by this clumsy drunk did not warrant a physical response and could have been dealt with far more effectively in other ways. There is ample opportunity to escape here, but instead he “squared off”.

The “pre-emptive strike” was way too high risky and could easily have gone wrong if the other guy had anything about him.

This was caught on film and the whole thing makes the “defender” look very bad: he sticks around when he could have escaped, a clear demonstration of skill and confidence (he does not look like a victim fearing for his safety but instead a skilled martial artist showing off against a clumsy drunk … and if that’s the view the jury take he’s no legal right to claim self-defence), the swagger away when the guy is KO’d, etc. are all incredibly bad!

Legally, this would be a nightmare as it could easily be portrayed as consensual fight (albeit a short one) as opposed to someone legitimately trying to protect themselves from unprovoked criminal assault. If the guy on the ground was injured (and a kick to the head and bad fall could easily result in severe injury or death) then the “defender” could find themselves facing a long time in prison for manslaughter … and for what gain? Lives ended and ruined because of an inability to control ego!?!

I’d have been infinitely more impressed if he’d simply created space and ran.

All the best,

Iain

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

I agree - it didn't come across brilliantly for self-defense for all the reasons you give, but that's why I went looking for more context. We don't see very much on the short clip, the provocation, much of the enviornment, the events leading up to it etc etc. The kick itself was pretty light, but as you rightly say, the fact that it dropped the drunk who could easily have split his head open makes it perhaps not a clever move. In terms of context, I note the guy goes back inside - it might be that he was trying to get inside because he lived there, trying to lawfully go about his business there. There might have been some history between these two we don't know about, that would have supported or undermined his case for the reponse. We can't see what is behind on the camera - perhaps there was no place for him to retreat.

What really doesn't look good for the kid is that after felling the drunk, he didn't check that he was alright. That is the biggest problem from the point of view of self-defense in my opinion.

Steve Gombosi
Steve Gombosi's picture

Even if he avoided criminal charges, here in the States the kicker would probably find himself tied up in civil litigation practically forever (particularly if he had any assets worth pursuing). Whether he had a legal duty to retreat varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction here, but a civil jury might still find him liable for damages.

Scott McCallum
Scott McCallum's picture

I think the biggest question for me as an investigating officer would be reasonableness.  Was that response appropriate in the circumstances? I wouldn't be satisfied that it was on the view of the video alone.  The male appeared assaultive initially and that opens the way for a reasonable physical response but not to the degree observed, but i'd certainly be willing to charge the kicker and let the court decide.  Even if the court found in the kicker's favour I bet there would still be a few moments of sphincter clenching going on throughout the process. No doubt a disturbing process for family and friends at the very least.  If one has sufficinet time to swagger off nonchalantly then a quick check of the downed male and a roll into the recovery position would look remarkably different in the eyes of a jury or judge viewing this.

The use of force might very well pass the court test, though the lack of concern would add several zero's onto the civil payout if found against you.  It can take the shine out of the day having to deal with a drunk ass...e, but your day sparkles even less when your forced to sell your home to pay for their medical bills.

Scott

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

Well I think this all took place in Poland with different civil laws and consequences than the States.

I think something to bear in mind is the relative sizes of the two dudes. The kicker could probably argue that he was out-sized and took what he felt was the best strategic response in the circumstance - a well aimed high kick. I'm not saying it was, just that might be his view.

I do really think the biggest problem is not coming to the aid of the knocked out guy. Again the video is too short - perhaps he went for help?

Edit - probably stretching credulity a bit there - he didn;t walk inside, that was clearly a 'swagger'.

Alex.M
Alex.M's picture

I just wanted to say "thank you" for this response. Because based on the video as only available evidence, I can in no way judge the drunk guy to be the attacker in the actual fight. Drunk guy pursues kicker but doesn't actually attack, they square off, and the kicker attacks. After which he walks away with no discernable concern or thought for the well-being of the man he just knocked out cold. I cannot say what the consequences would be in the UK or the US, but here they would be severe and frankly I don't see why not.

Steve Gombosi
Steve Gombosi's picture

[Stevenson]: Well I think this all took place in Poland with different civil laws and consequences than the States.

I understand that - I was merely pointing out that the legality or illegality of the response probably varies from country to country (and indeed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction inside some countries, like the United States). I don't know how this situation would have been viewed legally in Poland or the UK (where I think most of the forum subscribers are located). Even if the kicker is legally innocent of a crime, he might still incur other consequences as the result of the incident (including civil penalties in my own very litigious country).

My impression is that legitimate self-defense is more restrictive in the UK than in many locations in the US. Here in Colorado, the relevant statute reads:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

Section (2) imposes some further restrictions on the use of deadly force, but specifically allows it to prevent the commission of certain crimes (even against a third person).  Section (3) eliminates the self-defense justification in cases where the defendant initiated the physical encounter  (unless he attempts to break off the fight peacefully) or in cases of mutual combat. There is no duty to "retreat to the wall" in this state, even in cases where deadly force is used.

We're missing a lot of information in the video, of course. We don't know if the two parties are threatening each other or if the kicker is trying to defuse the situation. We don't know if the kicker previously stated an intent to goad some drunken lout into an attack in order to use him as a human makiwara. As you quite rightly point out, we don't know who or what is behind the kicker.

[Alex M]: Because based on the video as only available evidence, I can in no way judge the drunk guy to be the attacker in the actual fight.

I suppose it depends on your definition of an "attack". He certainly doesn't seem to land any blows, but at least in my corner of the US that's not necessary for him to be legally the attacker. All that is necessary (per the above) is a reasonable belief that use of unlawful physical force by him is imminent.

We do see the him charge the kicker at about 0:03 with what certainly looks like a threatening gesture (or maybe even a terribly inept attack). Immediately before the kick, we see him advance on the kicker with his fists clenched. What you interpret as "squaring off" may be a simple unwillingness to turn one's back on a hostile assailant (who may or may not have a weapon on his person). I know I'd do my best to keep him in front of me.

Under those circumstances and without any other evidence, I think the kicker might very well be able to claim "reasonable belief" that there was about to be "unlawful use of physical force" against him. The only remaining issue would be whether or not he reasonably believed  a kick to the head was a necessary level of force. If not, it might well be considered disproportionate and he might be charged anyway. If he had launched any further strikes on his opponent after downing him, the situation would be quite different and I think he'd end up in jail for quite some time.

I don't think he could be charged with a crime for failing to come to the aid of his unconscious assailant, but it certainly doesn't speak well of him (and he would doubtless suffer severe repercussions from it in the inevitable lawsuits which would follow).

All of this could be quite different in Poland, Canada, the UK, or even in any of the states in the US with more restrictive self-defense law.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Lots of good stuff in this thread :-)

Steve Gombosi wrote:
My impression is that legitimate self-defense is more restrictive in the UK than in many locations in the US.

Generally, I would have thought differently based on my experience, but in this case the laws in Colorado seem very close to UK law: which I personally believe to be very good and totally inline with the reality of self-protection. There is no need to retreat in order to claim self-defence here in the UK either:

“Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat when deciding whether the degree of force was reasonable in the circumstances (section 76(6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: (R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110).”

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Retreating

So if he was in the UK the fact he did not retreat would be “a factor to be taken into consideration” when determining if the level of force was reasonable. If I were a jury member, I would conclude it was not reasonable when everything is considered.

Steve Gombosi wrote:
What you interpret as "squaring off" may be a simple unwillingness to turn one's back on a hostile assailant (who may or may not have a weapon on his person). I know I'd do my best to keep him in front of me.

He edges back in and, to me, he looks to be looking for an opening (one he found). He could have created distance while still facing the other guy. And in doing so it would have been safer tactically and legally.

Steve Gombosi wrote:
I don't think he could be charged with a crime for failing to come to the aid of his unconscious assailant, but it certainly doesn't speak well of him (and he would doubtless suffer severe repercussions from it in the inevitable lawsuits which would follow).

Good point. You’d not be expected to come to his aid in this part of the world either (as a civilian). In UK law we are also not expected to “judge to a nicely the level of force used” and if the level of force was thought to be “instinctive” then that is taken as strong evidence the level of force is reasonable. In this case, the looking for an opening and the calm walk away could be used by the prosecution to try to show that he this was a calm and calculated use of force that was beyond what was required, was not instinctive, but instead was a skilled and calculated kick to the head. If he’d chosen some other method, he would not have these potential legal complications. That’s a good point about lawsuits too.

Regardless of the above, my key point would be that, whatever the law of the land where he lives, his best option would have been to use some other method to facilitate escape. He then would not have the legal problems of trying to justify what he did … and even if unseen circumstances make it justifiable, what is in the clip is extremely likely used against him by the prosecution. He should have acted differently and not put himself in a very tenuous position legally.

Whatever way you look at it, and whatever decision a judge and jury ultimately come to, his actions were very poor self-defence. I would even go as far as to say his actions were reckless and extremely ill considered.

As well as being taught to kick, he also should have been instructed in legalities, the importance of “third party perceptions” and that a “fighting solution” to self-protection is most often extremely problematic.

All the best,

Iain

Steve Gombosi
Steve Gombosi's picture

All excellent points. Back in the late Pleistoscene, when men were men, the Internet was primarily a text-based medium, and the word "blog" had yet to be invented (1991, to be exact), a friend of mine named Jeff Pipkins wrote what I still consider the definitive internet post on this topic in the old rec.m-a newsgroup. It's entitled "The High Price of Living at Home". Here's a link: http://goo.gl/rCYZTq