He had BOTH! And from what I hear, it was a good lawyer. All his lawyer did was drop the original $1,200 in damage to $600… He said that if I didnt agree to $600 he would press charges on me for assault. District attourney said it would never stick in a million yrs but it would be a pita to have to go to court and I probably would end up spending more then $600 on lawyer fees so I was like fuck it.
idk what thug law is but I DO no that “real” law doesnt exsist anymore. Would I have PERSONALLY thrown this kid in jail?? Hell fuckin yes. I fight for my LIFE and my POSSESSIONS… I dont fight for cool points or bragging rights like this guy obviously did… He WONT get in trouble though with everything that was layed out is all I was saying
Well I’ll be monkey’s uncle, learn something new every day.
“Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all. … The defense of justification (NY Penal Law art. 35) affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances. … The defense does not operate to ‘excuse’ a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful (see, People v. Taylor, 177 N.Y. 237, 245, 69 N.E. 534). … In this regard, the current statutory defense reflects the common-law “right” of an individual to repel a threat to life or limb. Defense [was] deemed a natural, inalienable right at common law.” People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 496 N.E.2d 202, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1986).
“‘Property’ is more than just the physical thing-the land, the bricks, the mortar-it is also the sum of all the rights and powers incident to ownership of the physical thing. [T]he right to use the physical thing to the exclusion of others is the most essential and beneficial. Without this right all other elements would be of little value.'” Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330, 336 (1984).
“The ownership and possession of property confer a certain right to defend that possession, [including] a defense of it which results in an assault and battery, and that which results in the destruction of the means used to invade and interfere with that possession.” People v. Kane, 131 N.Y. 111 (142 N.Y. 366, 37 N.E. 104).
These two quotes show us that “self defense” includes the right to defend possessions.
However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn’t yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one’s own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium” i.e. Latin for “and one’s home is the safest refuge”).
Not only does this quote show that the kid was acting outside the law when he continued to attack a fleeing or otherwise restrained/surrendering person; it also shows that you acted illegally when you assaulted that individual on his own property thus he was not able to retreat from his own home.
Justification for self-defense usually cannot be applied to actions committed after a criminal act has taken place. A rape victim who, after the rape is committed and the rapist leaves, subsequently finds and shoots the rapist, is not entitled to claim self-defense. Most other victims of assaultive offenses are similarly not entitled to this defense if they act in revenge. In many U.S. jurisdictions, using deadly force against a burglar/thief who is attempting to escape with stolen property is likewise not justifiable. (Texas law holds the defendant to a high burden of proof that the deadly force was the only means available to recover the property without a serious risk of death or serious injury). However, the Common Law and the Model Penal Code makes a distinction between mere thieves and those who are guilty of “robbery”. Many states apply the Common Law’s “fleeing felon” rule as a justification for private persons to use deadly force necessary to “arrest” violent criminals.
While this is specifying deadly force, it actually includes any actions under the umbrella of self-defense. It states clearly that after the criminal act has taken place you cannot claim self-defense (of that property) especially if the criminal is in the act of fleeing.
Defense of possessions. One may justify an assault or battery committed in the defending of his possession of property, either personal or real, subject to the same restriction that he must not employ excessive force. One may not only resist an aggression upon his property, but if his possession is actually invaded he may employ forces to remove the intruder, if the latter fail to go on request. In the language of the law, his defense will be, that he laid his hands gently on the trespasser and removed him by the employment of so much force as was necessary and no more. and what one may do himself his servants may do in his behalf. but if one in resisting aggression or removing an intruder exceeds the bounds of reasonable force he will be guilty of an assault
again. Try fighting that in court. :pop
Sounds like the kid was all roided out, good thing he didn’t get tased
Dude, are you just argueing to argue or because you really think your right?.. You just waisted however long it took you to research that info and write this up… The kid can say whatever the fuck he wants and theres nothing in the world the other guy can do lol… The kid had another kid with him and as long as there stories match the fate of that vets life in his there hands!!! lol… If those kids SAID that old man had a gun and tried to shoot them, then handed the gun to some 1 arm bum with aids and he ran away the vet would still be charged with attempted murder!!! Would he get convicted? NO, but hed def be in $20k+ debt after the trial was done.
Not sure if you have a girlfriend but tell her to call the cops and tell them she hit you when you really didnt… Guess what buddy, i dont give a fuck if you hit her or not, your going to jail… I’ve seen this happen a half a dozen fuckin times.
This guy assaulted someone too, is he on roids too? Chill out with the roids shit, its kinda annoying… Expecially when 90% of people dont even know anything about them and how they can actually calm you down more then make you rage out of control.
Licensed fighter, what the hell are ya talking about?! Just because he’s done a couple of fights in a cage does not mean he’s a “licensed fighter”. There isn’t even such a thing as that.
Lmao at dave on the video yelling.
Thought someone said he was a professional mma fighter?..And are you saying theres no such thing as a licensed fighter?? lol… I used to be one lol…
It said he fought, didn’t say he was professional. Where did you train?
Weren’t there cases where a fight between professional fighter and Joe Shmoe, where judge ruled that fighters hands are considered a weapon and he should have had better judgment on “assaulting with weapon”?
Maybe an urban legend for all I know.
These stories make me laugh hard. The other ones that get me rolling pretty good too are the guys that say they have to go get their hands registered as weapons or already have them registered.
Thanks. Had a feeling it was just that, an urban legend.
Edit: while hands don’t have to be registered or anything like that, fighters are indeed held to a higher standard in the eye of law.
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f44/professional-fighters-registering-lethal-weapons-415418/
I didnt see that part, I saw a pic of him in the ring fighting, I thought he was at least an Amatuer and i trained in Yonkers Ny with Doug Dewitt, the last white middleweight champion.
No, your 100% right, jrubino has no clue what hes talking about.
You’re right, I have no idea what I’m talking about when it comes to mixed martial arts. 
Carry on.
Furthermore, I was wondering if you could provide some of the info regarding the licensing on being a fighter and the rules they are to abide by in said licensing because as far I know there is no license you carry around in your wallet. You obtain a license only for a fight.
But like you said, I have no clue what I am talking about.
I love how your argument changed from “I know someone told me” to “You spent too much time copying/pasting to prove your point”
I just figured it was about time we brought some actual information into the conversation rather than the hearsay revolving around previous personal vigilante experiences.
Same goes for the trained MMA fighter=weapon thing. I’m sure a judge could take into account someone’s fighting inclination, training, and experience in determining the correct amount of force for self defense. However, I don’t know the legality of it all and it might be worth looking it up before I get arrested con-air style.
Couldnt tell you man, its been 4 years, but no it wasnt like a license you carry around with you lol. I remember signing paperwork and people telling me that fighting outside of the ring would be double the punishment and some other shit…
The paper work you would have had to have signed for a license would have been for a fight. The fighting outside the ring and the double the punishment is a crock of shit.