Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Okay, this is just to vent of some frustration

I don't know how screwed up laws are around the US and other parts of the world but my uncle is about to be sentenced for murder for beating up and killing 2 muggers armed with knives because the jury deemed his actions to be "too extensive" as he is an mma instructor aka my former sensei, and they felt that he was capable of stopping his assailants(armed with knives) without killing them with his years of knowledge and experience in mma. Granted the one attacker was 17 and the other 20. So to sum it up: A 53 year old man with a leg brace gets attacked at the beach at night by 2 muggers armed with knives, who incidentally managed to stab him in the thigh in the process of trying to KILL HIM and his actions are deemed as unnecessary and "racist" because his attackers were black individuals involved in gang initiation killings...

Thing I'm getting at is this. In which part of the world is the law actually put into place to protect the rights of individuals and not the criminals? It seems like reading up on news from around the world that no matter the country you live in, the law only serves to protect a select few members of society.

Edit: Please note that this isn't meant to turn into a racist argumentative thread.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
OMG this is the shit that just be making me so mad sometimes..my condolences to you and your family this justice system is all fucked up... your uncle should definitely not be going to jail right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,319 Posts
What part of any of that even remotely implies racism? Two guys attack him, he apparently goes nuts defending himself and kills both of them, it's decided that his special skills and training in an art of self defense mean he could have incapacitated them, hence he went too far and committed murder. Anyone bringing race into it is a fucking moron.

If you've got a link to an article about it that shows exactly where 'racism' comes into it, I'll agree that it's ridiculous. I'm just not seeing it, probably more boring self pitying from white folk pissed off they don't have anything decent to complain about.

Whether there should be a limit to how much you can defend yourself, that's another matter. I think there should be. It's such a difficult and arbitrary point to decide, though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,090 Posts
I don't see how it's racist, they attacked him at night, if anything that makes it harder for him to fight because he can't see them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
What part of any of that even remotely implies racism? Two guys attack him, he apparently goes nuts defending himself and kills both of them, it's decided that his special skills and training in an art of self defense mean he could have incapacitated them, hence he went too far and committed murder. Anyone bringing race into it is a fucking moron.

If you've got a link to an article about it that shows exactly where 'racism' comes into it, I'll agree that it's ridiculous. I'm just not seeing it, probably more boring self pitying from white folk pissed off they don't have anything decent to complain about.

Whether there should be a limit to how much you can defend yourself, that's another matter. I think there should be. It's such a difficult and arbitrary point to decide, though.
Exactly the fucking point. There is supposed to be a news article in the paper about it all next week as far as I know. The supposed "attack on the attackers"

He didn't kill them because they're black, he killed them in a moment of self defence. He was stabbed ffs. It didn't help matters that he was still wearing his brace because of injury prior to being attacked.

Whether there should be a limit to how much you can defend yourself, that's another matter. I think there should be. It's such a difficult and arbitrary point to decide, though
I do see your point though but if you were fighting for your life, being over 50+ and already injured wouldn't you do whatever you can to survive? Limiting ourselves to what we can and cannot do to defend ourselves is ridiculous. If I were to be attacked by multiple assailants out to kill me the last thing on my mind would be "is breaking his neck too far"? How does one determine something like that? Do i miss my chance to perhaps break the neck of someone trying to kill me in favor of rather trying out my luck and hoping I don't get stabbed to death in the process?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Well that's fucked up! How bad was his lawyer? I'm no lawyer but he could have argue that under the circumstances (having his life endangered after being stabbed) had no time to figure out what was the "right amount of force" to subdue two attackers. The worst he should have been tried for involuntary manslaughter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,319 Posts
I do see your point though but if you were fighting for your life, being over 50+ and already injured wouldn't you do whatever you can to survive? Limiting ourselves to what we can and cannot do to defend ourselves is ridiculous. If I were to be attacked by multiple assailants out to kill me the last thing on my mind would be "is breaking his neck too far"? How does one determine something like that? Do i miss my chance to perhaps break the neck of someone trying to kill me in favor of rather trying out my luck and hoping I don't get stabbed to death in the process?
This is where it gets interesting, from a hypothetical standpoint. Could he have used his training to, for example, break the wrist of an attacker and disarm him of the knife? If I was on a jury, I'd have to think the answer would be almost certainly. If that happened, then the danger has passed and anything more than an attempt at physical restraint may be legally considered too much. It's difficult to know where that line is drawn.

Of course, if someone I loved was prosecuted for using excessive force in such a scenario, I know what my instant reaction would be. It's a very personal issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
This is where it gets interesting, from a hypothetical standpoint. Could he have used his training to, for example, break the wrist of an attacker and disarm him of the knife? If I was on a jury, I'd have to think the answer would be almost certainly. If that happened, then the danger has passed and anything more than an attempt at physical restraint may be legally considered too much. It's difficult to know where that line is drawn.
But would breaking a wrist be a guarantee in stopping his attackers hell bent on killing him? Remember, he was 1 man against 2 attackers and according to him, they were relentless. He even struck his car key through the cheek of one of his attackers but it only worsened everything. If the right opportunity to eg disarm an opponent does not present itself, you would be forced to do what you thought best to save your life. He himself didn't escape unscathed. He had been stabbed, suffered a broken nose and a few broken ribs and bruises. He was fighting for survival, nothing else. There were initially 4 gang members, only 2 prompted to attack and the other 2 fled(and were apprehended)when patrolling police officers came across the scene.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Wait, this happened in South Africa? What are the laws there when it comes to this sort of stuff?
No different than the laws of any other country. That's why it's fucking ridiculous. SA isn't a shithole to live in like most of africa, which is why this kind of stupidity is astonishing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,787 Posts
Sorry for this man... Absolutely terrible!

But in all honesty laws are not what people idealize them as. As soon as you make a law you essentially are drawing a line in the sand. What I mean by this is it creates black and white, right or wrong and in most situations causes worse behavior than previously established.

The issue is the law is suppose to be enforced and then executed by just people. However, just people cannot be just when it comes down to survival or status. So how much money can be made for the state or just blind following of the law because it is the easiest least amount of work is what you get.

This rant is weird because not too long ago someone asked if they would save someone being mugged by killing the perp and I said no just because of this result. It's sad but there really aren't too many good laws anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,077 Posts
It sucks that the laws are hypocritical. I never understood how an original victim can become a suspected and convicted.

And coming from a black man, the OP isn't racist. It's fucking bullshit that his uncle is getting a murder charge for defending himself. South Africa has to be a fucked up place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
Don't understand how anyone can judge self-defense as murder. If you are attacked by someone and did not give the attacker any reason to come after you, I think you should be in the clear, unless of course you end up killing the attacker in a very menacing way. It is hard to guess how anyone would react to getting attacked, and being stabbed, by someone. Some people might just do enough to stop the attack while others might take it as a "it's me or him" situation and end up killing the attacker. No way to determine when you go from just defending yourself to actually wanting to kill the other guy. It is a very complicated issue, but if I was to judge a case like this I would probably side with the initial victim.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,322 Posts
I think I have seen this movie before.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,477 Posts
Where my niccuhs at, smokin' them trees?!?

Truth be told, I thought the same...

Back to the topic, first and foremost, I appreciate the title of your thread. As for it's contents...

Kinda bullshit, but if that's the case and your judicial systems mirrors the states, a jury of his peers will see it as such too. But, if your Uncle went into it with the intent to kill these individuals, then the line gets a little skewed.

Self defense is exactly that...defense. I understand the muggers had the intent to do harm and the implements to bring it about, but that's because they saw a weakened prey, and it was 2-1. Perhaps by proving dominance/standing ground, they'd have just fled? Guilty of assault, and nothing more?

The fact that he killed both doesn't help his cause either. After one attacker was removed he could've subdued the other til help arrived...that sorta thing.

My stance on it is they went looking for trouble, and it bit'em on the ass. Good riddance. :agree:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaksonian224

·
The Loose Cannon
Joined
·
5,833 Posts
Okay, this is just to vent of some frustration

I don't know how screwed up laws are around the US and other parts of the world but my uncle is about to be sentenced for murder for beating up and killing 2 muggers armed with knives because the jury deemed his actions to be "too extensive" as he is an mma instructor aka my former sensei, and they felt that he was capable of stopping his assailants(armed with knives) without killing them with his years of knowledge and experience in mma. Granted the one attacker was 17 and the other 20. So to sum it up: A 53 year old man with a leg brace gets attacked at the beach at night by 2 muggers armed with knives, who incidentally managed to stab him in the thigh in the process of trying to KILL HIM and his actions are deemed as unnecessary and "racist" because his attackers were black individuals involved in gang initiation killings...

Thing I'm getting at is this. In which part of the world is the law actually put into place to protect the rights of individuals and not the criminals? It seems like reading up on news from around the world that no matter the country you live in, the law only serves to protect a select few members of society.

Edit: Please note that this isn't meant to turn into a racist argumentative thread.
Sorry to say it, but your Uncle deserves everything he gets if he beat them up and murdered them. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Do you know how they died? What were their injuries?

It's not fair that he's in trouble for self-defense but you ave to ask whether he overstepped whats reasonable and what is excessive.

Incapacitating them would have made more sense. Severly injure the bastards.

Manslaughter might be more appropriate.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top