Comments by "Iazzaboyce" (@Iazzaboyce) on "FOX 13 Seattle" channel.

@CedricWinston You are not getting it are you? The law does not allow you to 'retaliate' - the law allows you to use reasonable force to prevent yourself getting injured. You have to show you believed you were about to get injured and you used necessary force to stop your attacker. You seem to think if a 90 year old lady hit Mike Tyson with her umbrella, he can give his best punch to the head and claim self-defence - why would any society allow Mike Tyson to do this? Instead of calling BS - why don't you go learn something about what you are telling everyone?
4
@flakesinyershoe8137 The law states he must prove he believed he was about to get injured.
4
@JericoGoods She is the victim because the amount of force used was unnecessary.
3
@bobbysanders6452 The point is Washington is 'stand your ground' state which means you don't have to run from threat of injury before acting in self-defence. However, you must have reasonable grounds to believe you (or another person) will be injured, before you can use necessary force. In this video it doesn't look like he believed he was about to be injured and it looks like the punch was unnecessary and excessive force in response to grabbing his phone.
3
@AbcDino843 Attempting to grab and then knocking a phone from his hand is not reason for him to believe he was about to get injured. He was the aggressor whose provocative parking created the problem. Instead of moving his car forward he went to and created the altercation and caused injury. Self-defence is protection against injury. There is nothing to suggest he was about to get injured. The video shows him attacking 3 people for no reason other than him being angry and violent.
3
@chrispy211 Self-defence from what? To claim you acted in self-defence you must show you had a reasonable belief you were about to be injured. Do you think the woman or others looked like they were about to injure him?
3
@bentwookie2099 He could say that, but the test is 'reasonable' and a jury would probably not believe that was a reasonable belief of fear of injury.
2
@flakesinyershoe8137 There must be reasonable fear of injury and a reasonable amount of force used. We don't see this in the video.
2
@flakesinyershoe8137 Sorry to hear about your cousin, but that is different circumstances.
2
@flakesinyershoe8137 A man hitting (punching) a person is a different level of threat of injury than a small woman hitting/grabbing/knocking a man's phone. In self-defence law a hit is not a hit - it's about level of force. He could have hit her five times if he didn't injure her and he would likely not be charged because she was hitting him first. His hit was way too much force.
2
@flakesinyershoe8137 What you are leaving out is none of them give him any reason to think he was about to be injured. The woman knocked his phone out of his hand and that was it.
2
@tacottogetherness7604 Yes, what she did was assault, but that is not the issue. The issue is did he have a legal right to knock her out? The force he used was clearly far greater than she used on him and she had showed no intent to injure him. After he had used this excessive force and injured the woman the other 2 people were entitled to act in self-defence to defend the injured women from further injury and themselves from potential injury. This is because there was good reason to believe they were about to be further injured and their actions were more defensive than aggressive. The point is the guy in orange had no good reason to believe he was about to be injured. You have to think about what the word 'defence' actually means.
2
Slapping the phone out of his hand was technically assault, but he would have show some physical injury or distress to be able to prosecute a crime (very unlikely). If the phone was damaged and it was proved the damage was caused by her, then this is a different offence. In both cases, the facts he was parked too close, did not move his car and got out to argue in an aggressive manner would all work against him. You appear to be arguing if you see someone committing a minor offence, the law allows you to knock them unconscious.
1
She will have a sore head for a week - he will have a sore head for a few years.
1
The law doesn't work that way. If a 90 year old lady hit Mike Tyson with her walking stick, Mike is not allowed to knock her out with a punch to the head and claim self-defence. Bottom line is Mike had no reasonable grounds to believe the woman was about to injure him. And the same applies to orange suit man.
1
@tacottogetherness7604 I didn't see any of the 3 people hit him. I see a woman try to grab his phone and then knock the phone from his hands. He has no right in law to inflict injury in retaliation. He must prove he believed he was about to be injured and acted to prevent this happening. She was clearly wanting to stop him using his phone - nothing suggests she agreed to engage in mutual combat or was about to inflict injury.
1
@tacottogetherness7604 You think the TV news team, police and state prosecutor also have no idea how the law works?
1
@Taharqo.saved.the.Hebrew Technically, intentionally hitting a phone from a person's hand is fourth degree assault and cannot really be claimed to be have been a defence action unless believed to be a potential weapon. The victim would have to show it caused physical injury or substantial distress, so in most situations it would not lead to a criminal prosecution.
1
@tacottogetherness7604 That might be true in some cases (Steven Avery) but, in this case everyone can see exactly what happened. Size and gender are important legal factors. To claim he acted in self-defence he has to prove he reasonably believed the 5'3" woman was about to injure him. I cannot see a jury buying that. He's charged with 3rd degree felony assault on the KO - so up to 5 years in prison.
1
@amaru427 Exactly! Keep your hands to yourself or be arrested and have to appear in court charged with one count 3rd degree felony, two counts 4th degree misdemeanor and if found guilty most likely be taken to prison.
1
@davidcooke8005 What do you think it looked like they were about to do to him?
1
@davidcooke8005 Not really.
1
@davidcooke8005 I did watch the video - it shows a man committing a felony assault on a woman and misdemeanor assaults on a woman and a man.
1
@davidcooke8005 What makes you think it legal to hit a person, because they laid hands on you?
1
@davidcooke8005 It doesn't work like that. The altercation was created when OM got out of his car and confronted the 3. There was arguing heated words and then a woman attempted to grab OM's phone then knocked OM's phone from his hand. This was technically assault, but because physical harm/distress was unlikely caused there would be no state prosecution. If the phone was damaged this is a different offence. Now OM hits the woman in the head and knocks her unconscious after which man and woman begin pushing OM away. OM hits man and woman knocking woman to ground. The woman should not have grabbed/knocked OM's phone, but the important question is did this action and other factors give OM reasonable grounds to believe he was about to be injured? If a jury finds OM had no reason to believe he was about to be injured then he has no legal excuse for hitting the woman. This would mean the man and woman had reasonable grounds to believe their friend was about to be further injured and they also were about to be injured. So they have the legal right to act in self-defence and their actions against OM were defencive not attacking. To rely on a self-defence defence, OM must satisfy a jury he reasonably believed he was about to be injured and that, the force he used was not more than required to prevent him from being injured.
1
Because it's clearly 3rd and 4th degree assault.
1
@TM-nq4tt Both - He has been charged with 3rd degree assault felony on the first victim and 4th degree assault misdemeanor on each of the other two victims.
1
@TM-nq4tt Yeah, knocking people out is against the law there.
1
@TM-nq4tt Self-defence against what? In Seattle the law allows a person to use force against another person only if they reasonably believe they are about to be injured and the force must be reasonable only to prevent potential injury. The accused can tell a jury it was reasonable for him to believe he was about to be injured and if the jury agrees he will have committed no crime. My view is on the video evidence the jury will find there was no reason for him to believe he was about to be injured, that him hitting the woman was disproportionate reaction to having his phone knocked from his hand, the others then had lawful right to act in self-defence and his attack on them was also unwarranted.
1
@Qazxswer68 Up to five years.
1
@flakesinyershoe8137 His lawyer has to convince a jury it was reasonable for him to believe he was about to be injured and the video doesn't support this.
1
@flakesinyershoe8137 It's not my logic - it's Washington state law. Have you read your own attempt at logic? Because, most people think "injury" and "a beating" are the same thing...
1