Claiming That Somebody Was Suicidal as a Defense to Battery or Unlawful Restraint

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Are you insane? Do you know how many times police came to a situation involving a suicidal person and proceeded to kill the person themselves?

---

It's a hell of a lot less common than the media would have you believe. Does it happen? Yes. Is it a possible outcome? Depending on the actions of the suicidal person, yes.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

The LAST people you want in this situation are the police.

---

Fine. Then call EMS to come collect the person. Their response when they find out the person is armed it going to be to call for police to secure the scene first.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I said, "Your thoughts ... are utterly irrelevant".

Your thoughts. YOUR thoughts.

Understand?

---

Understood. But I do appreciate the efforts of those who have addressed my questions none the less. My hope was to learn more about the law itself, even if not directly applicable to my friends case. I at least have a better understanding of the kidnapping law now.

If the guy had not restrained the woman, and if she had gone out there and killed someone, you can bet that the guy would have been sued by the dead person's family.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

If the guy had not restrained the woman, and if she had gone out there and killed someone, you can bet that the guy would have been sued by the dead person's family.

---

Also, what if he had not restrained her and she killed herself in front of him while he watched? Like she SAYS she is going to do. What the heck is going to come of that? And it's a class A felony to intervene that, even after police have been contacted, and are in transit to the apartment... Terrible situation, terrible waste of talent and hard work.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Sounds like we have differing views on what factually represents an immanent threat....

---

No. What we have is a problem with you not getting what imminent means. From Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. “Ready to take place.” Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition, “impending, about to happen.” In other words, the threat of violence must be immediate, impending, about to happen at that moment. That was not the case when she was walking out the door — she was not ready to attack him at that point, an attack was not about to happen. She’d turned her back on him and was walking out the door. There was no immediate threat she was going to attack anyone at that time.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

I don't care what anyone has to say, an armed erratic and suicidal woman IS an eminent threat to society... No matter when it happens.

---

What you are describing is a potential threat to society, not an imminent one. In the case of a potential threat you call the police. They are far better trained to deal with such situations than the average person, and they have the legal authority to act that the average person does not.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

The girl was in the wrong to walk out into public Space with a weapon in hand. She should have been charged for that threat. My friend should not be facing a class A ffelony for eliminating that threat.

---

It might surprise you then to learn that simply walking out your front door with a knife in your had is not a crime. She could not be criminally charged just for that. Something more from her would be necessary before she’d committed a crime. On the other hand, it is a crime to physically grab someone and pull her anywhere and fight with her unless you are facing an imminent threat of harm or some third person is facing an imminent threat of harm from her. And while you are very resistant to acknowledging it, at least at the point when she is walking away from him she is certainly not posing any imminent threat to him. As a result, he didn’t have the right to put his hands on her. That’s a basic battery (or assault, depending on the state). Sure, maybe she posed some potential threat of harm to someone down the road, be it five minutes or an hour later. But that situation doesn’t legally allow him to do what he did. Again, in that situation the thing to do is contact the proper authorities.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

If the guy had not restrained the woman, and if she had gone out there and killed someone, you can bet that the guy would have been sued by the dead person's family.

---

No competent lawyer would file such a suit for the family as it would be promptly dismissed for failure to state a proper claim and would likely draw sanctions from the court for being frivolous. The law does not impose any duty on the boyfriend here to physically restrain his girlfriend from leaving the home. He is not at all legally responsible for her behavior. As such, any lawsuit filed on that basis is doomed to fail.

[QUOTE=Taxing Matters;965266] As a result, he didn’t have the right to put his hands on her. That’s a basic battery (or assault, depending on the state). Sure, maybe she posed some potential threat of harm to someone down the road, be it five minutes or an hour later. But that situation doesn’t legally allow him to do what he did. Again, in that situation the thing to do is contact the proper authorities.

Well basic battery is a hell of a lot different than kidnapping in terms of severity. The former is a class A misdemeanor that is often associated with deferral programs, and the later is a class A felony that carries a maximum of life in MI. Furthermore, in MI that statue you says that the force used must be intended to inflict harm on the individual to constitute assault and battery. I hope that he can prove that his use of force was not intended to cause harm, to a jury.



[

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

I guess the part I'm struggling with is WHY those points are utterly irrelevant. To me they all seemed like common sense defenses, but all the volunteers here are saying they count for nothing or they are just flat out lies. Is it irrelevant purely because because of the fact that I wasn't there, or because they have no mitigating factor on the facts that a person was unwillingly restrained, regardless of circumstances.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here. Just trying to figure out why what seems to me like a common sense situation isn't so common sense at all, and why my points if true, don't actually count for anything. This is more instructive to me than I am trying to use advice to to help him. I'm just trykng to wrap my mind about why the heck a good guy like him is facing up to life in prison for something that could happen to almost anyone.

---

You were not there. You do not know what happened. You also do not get to prosecute this case. There are going to be lawyers who do that unless he makes a deal.

The point is no one can tell you what may or may not happen because none of us were there, it will be up to the lawyers on the case, the judge and the jury. That is it. It will be up to HIS lawyer to bring up those points and then it depends on if the jury believes it or not. Does that make sense now? People have only said this a dozen or so times.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

And I'm ASKING, say perhaps I wanted to be a defense lawyer someday.... Do MY thoughts constitute any sort of legal validity. I know I'm an uneducated plebian outsider here, I don't know nearly as much about the law as you all do. But as a spectator and someone who wishes to understand the law better so I don't make mistakes that destroy the rest of my life, like my friendly likely did.... Does my logic/ postulations for a defense constitute any real realevancy to a hypothetical case such as this. If you dont wish to answer that, because it is abuse of this forum or out of the scope of realm of this case, then I understand and respect that. But when you straight up dismiss my points as being utterly irrelevant with no explanation at all... I guess that makes me extremely fearful of my ignorance of the law. I guess I have no real grasp of the law, as I should by this age. And I could very well inadvertently end up in a similar predicament some day. That's what's scary about your response.

Any ways sounds like my friend and his medical future are toast based on some sort of technical fault to how he handled an attempted suicide. And he may be going to prison for that too.

Sounds like the evidence and testimony regarding the circumstances behind why he even resteained her are completely irrelevant. Sounds like what he did was actually quite immoral and evil. Jesus. I fear this countries legal system.

---

No what it sounds like is you are not reading and then comprehending what anyone is telling you. If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school and learn the law. Yes the legal system is cold. Did you expect it to be rainbows and butterflies?

It - is - not - up - to - you - to - defend. He will have a lawyer. There will be a prosecutor. And a jury.

Did this happen or is it hypothetical?

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Are you insane? Do you know how many times police came to a situation involving a suicidal person and proceeded to kill the person themselves?

The LAST people you want in this situation are the police.

---

Why are you on here? That's the dumbest comment I've read on here in awhile. No most times the police do not end up killing a suicidal person. Or anyone. Is there "suicide by cop?" Yes it has happened.

The police ARE the first people you want in this situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

If the guy had not restrained the woman, and if she had gone out there and killed someone, you can bet that the guy would have been sued by the dead person's family.

---

No. Just no.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Also, what if he had not restrained her and she killed herself in front of him while he watched? Like she SAYS she is going to do. What the heck is going to come of that? And it's a class A felony to intervene that, even after police have been contacted, and are in transit to the apartment... Terrible situation, terrible waste of talent and hard work.

---

Do not entertain TechWorker. He/she trolls.

[QUOTE=Question4law;965274]

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

As a result, he didn’t have the right to put his hands on her. That’s a basic battery (or assault, depending on the state). Sure, maybe she posed some potential threat of harm to someone down the road, be it five minutes or an hour later. But that situation doesn’t legally allow him to do what he did. Again, in that situation the thing to do is contact the proper authorities.

Well basic battery is a hell of a lot different than kidnapping in terms of severity. The former is a class A misdemeanor that is often associated with deferral programs, and the later is a class A felony that carries a maximum of life in MI. Furthermore, in MI that statue you says that the force used must be intended to inflict harm on the individual to constitute assault and battery. I hope that he can prove that his use of force was not intended to cause harm, to a jury.



[

---

No one on here has to prove anything. Smh.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Are you insane? Do you know how many times police came to a situation involving a suicidal person and proceeded to kill the person themselves?

The LAST people you want in this situation are the police.

---

Of course ... it works out so much better when people try to restrain the armed and insane themselves. But, if that's what YOU want to do, good luck to you.

Of course YOU cannot place a person into a mental health facility or compel them to get help, so good luck. And, statistically, the number of people actually harmed being taken into mental health custody by the police is infinitesimal. But, I'm sure you know that.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Fine. Then call EMS to come collect the person. Their response when they find out the person is armed it going to be to call for police to secure the scene first.

---

Yeah. EMS doesn't respond to collect a mentally ill person. In fact, they are not legally authorized (at least in my state) to place a person into protective custody. The POLICE can, but not EMS. So, unless the person exhibits zen like calm and is willing to go with them to a hospital (assuming said hospital happens to offer psych services which is not a guarantee) EMS will call the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

The point is no one can tell you what may or may not happen because none of us were there, it will be up to the lawyers on the case, the judge and the jury. That is it. It will be up to HIS lawyer to bring up those points and then it depends on if the jury believes it or not. Does that make sense now? People have only said this a dozen or so times.

---

Not asking what will happen, just whether they were viable defenses. I know I'm not defending him, I'm just worried about him and I just wondered if anyone on this board could answer whether my 'hypotheticals' were viable legal defenses or not. Understandingly, none of the volunteers here want to waste their time with hypotheticals or my curiosities about the law, if it has no fruitful bearing on the case at hand. That's where I went wrong in attempting to use this forum for educational purposes over actual pragmatic purposes.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

No one on here has to prove anything. Smh.

---

Wasn't asking for any volunteers here to prove anything. Was referring to the defendant in the case, and what he has to be able to prove to win his case.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

The law does not impose any duty on the boyfriend here to physically restrain his girlfriend from leaving the home. He is not at all legally responsible for her behavior. As such, any lawsuit filed on that basis is doomed to fail.

---

Are you saying that if the boyfriend just sat there, watching his girlfriend cut longitudinally into a wrist artery and bleed to death, he isn't legally responsible for allowing her to do that? Are you kidding me? Society EXPECTS a man to intervene in a situation like that. People are going to be happier with him for allowing her to kill herself than him intervening? That's the RIGHT thing to do?

You know, Thomas Jefferson has a good quote about this sort of situation "if a law is unjust, man is not only right to disobey, he is obligated to do so."

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Well basic battery is a hell of a lot different than kidnapping in terms of severity. The former is a class A misdemeanor that is often associated with deferral programs, and the later is a class A felony that carries a maximum of life in MI. Furthermore, in MI that statue you says that the force used must be intended to inflict harm on the individual to constitute assault and battery. I hope that he can prove that his use of force was not intended to cause harm, to a jury.

---

That’s not quite right. The Michigan model jury instructions explain the requirements in plain English pretty well:

(1)
The defendant is charged with the crime of assault and battery. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2)
First, that the defendant committed a battery on [name complainant]. A battery is a forceful, violent, or offensive touching of the person or something closely connected with the person of another. The touching must have been intended by the defendant, that is, not accidental, and it must have been against [name complainant]’s will. It does not matter whether the touching caused an injury.
(3)
Second, that the defendant intended either to commit a battery upon [name complainant] or to make [name complainant] reasonably fear an immediate battery.

Whether the state could prove all those elements is, of course, something I don’t know, not having seen the evidence the state would seek to introduce on the matter. If the state went this route, it would likely charge it as a domestic assault and battery. The requirements for that offense are similar, with the addition that the state would have to prove they were involved in a relationship, but that seemingly would not be difficult here. It would be up to the jury to decide if he had the necessary intent after hearing all the evidence. No way to tell from here how that would turn out.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Are you saying that if the boyfriend just sat there, watching his girlfriend cut longitudinally into a wrist artery and bleed to death, he isn't legally responsible for allowing her to do that? Are you kidding me?

---

No I am not kidding you. He is not responsible to her, as her boyfriend, to physically intervene to save her from harm that she does to her herself. He is not “allowing” her to do it — presumably she didn’t seek his permission first to do it, after all. To the extent he has any obligation here it is to call the authorities to get her help. But he has no legal obligation to get into a physical fight with her to disarm her and may in fact commit a crime by doing that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

That’s not quite right. The Michigan model jury instructions explain the requirements in plain English pretty well:

(1)
The defendant is charged with the crime of assault and battery. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2)
First, that the defendant committed a battery on [name complainant]. A battery is a forceful, violent, or offensive touching of the person or something closely connected with the person of another. The touching must have been intended by the defendant, that is, not accidental, and it must have been against [name complainant]’s will. It does not matter whether the touching caused an injury.
(3)
Second, that the defendant intended either to commit a battery upon [name complainant] or to make [name complainant] reasonably fear an immediate battery.

---

Yup, sounds like basically if you touch someone and they don't like it/want it its a crime in MI. No exceptions made for people who lack faculty of control. I've read through some other states statutes, however, and they do make exceptions for youth and mentally ill people who are out of control. So, irrelevant to this situation, but basically any civilian take down/ arrest of a criminal individual is also a crime in MI. Unless you are a police officer, you have no legal protection for touching another person.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Yup, sounds like basically if you touch someone and they don't like it/want it its a crime in MI. No exceptions made for people who lack faculty of control. I've read through some other states statutes, however, and they do make exceptions for youth and mentally ill people who are out of control. So, irrelevant to this situation, but basically any civilian take down/ arrest of a criminal individual is also a crime in MI. Unless you are a police officer, you have no legal protection for touching another person.

---

Michigan law does appear to allow for force to be used in a private person's arrest, at least for felonies committed in their presence. This situation would not seem to be a felony, and he did not make a private person's arrest.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Not asking what will happen, just whether they were viable defenses. I know I'm not defending him, I'm just worried about him and I just wondered if anyone on this board could answer whether my 'hypotheticals' were viable legal defenses or not. Understandingly, none of the volunteers here want to waste their time with hypotheticals or my curiosities about the law, if it has no fruitful bearing on the case at hand. That's where I went wrong in attempting to use this forum for educational purposes over actual pragmatic purposes.



Wasn't asking for any volunteers here to prove anything. Was referring to the defendant in the case, and what he has to be able to prove to win his case.



Are you saying that if the boyfriend just sat there, watching his girlfriend cut longitudinally into a wrist artery and bleed to death, he isn't legally responsible for allowing her to do that? Are you kidding me? Society EXPECTS a man to intervene in a situation like that. People are going to be happier with him for allowing her to kill herself than him intervening? That's the RIGHT thing to do?

You know, Thomas Jefferson has a good quote about this sort of situation "if a law is unjust, man is not only right to disobey, he is obligated to do so."

---

So is this hypothetical or did it really happen? Now you are just being confusing.

OP, why are you still wasting the time of the very kind volunteers here?

Allow me to summarize:

This is not your problem.
Your feelings are irrelevant.
Your friend should be discussing this with his attorney, and ONLY with his attorney.

The end.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

OP, why are you still wasting the time of the very kind volunteers here?

Allow me to summarize:

This is not your problem.
Your feelings are irrelevant.
Your friend should be discussing this with his attorney, and ONLY with his attorney.

The end.

---

Because you aren't the only one I've been talking to, Dogmatiques. Unlike your initial and persistent downcry of my questions irrelevancy, others have taken the time to answer my 'frivolous' questions. I have gained from that, they didn't seem to have a problem answering, and even seemingly engaged by the topic, and so I don't see the issue, nor that I'm breaking any forum rules.

OP if you cared at all about your friend, you'd have taken our repeated advice and told him he must not talk to anyone about this except his lawyer. Him talking to you about this (not to mention you then broadcasting it all over the internet) can - and probably will - get him into more trouble than he's already in.

Quote:

---

Quoting eerelations

---

OP if you cared at all about your friend, you'd have taken our repeated advice and told him he must not talk to anyone about this except his lawyer. Him talking to you about this (not to mention you then broadcasting it all over the internet) can - and probably will - get him into more trouble than he's already in.

---

This. So much.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

So, irrelevant to this situation, but basically any civilian take down/ arrest of a criminal individual is also a crime in MI. Unless you are a police officer, you have no legal protection for touching another person.

---

Police officers sometimes say, "If you don't like cops, then call a crackhead to solve your problems." The problem is that the state has a monopoly on *any* use of force. So, a crackhead (or any other non-police officer) can get into trouble for using any amount of force to solve a problem, even the benign amount of force required to simply restrain someone. Meanwhile, the police can come in and use *any* amount of force (even deadly), and no one can touch the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Police officers sometimes say, "If you don't like cops, then call a crackhead to solve your problems." The problem is that the state has a monopoly on *any* use of force. So, a crackhead (or any other non-police officer) can get into trouble for using any amount of force to solve a problem, even the benign amount of force required to simply restrain someone. Meanwhile, the police can come in and use *any* amount of force (even deadly), and no one can touch the police.

---

Wow ... this is SO erroneous! Really!

As for the use of force by a private person, there are numerous exceptions under the law in all states that permit the use of force to protect one's self and others, sometimes even their property, and almost always in the detention of someone who committed a crime (or at least a felony) in their presence. So to say that only the police can use force is wrong. And to say they can do so improperly and unlawfully with impunity is certainly also wrong.

I was walking down the road once and a crazy man came walking by me with what looked like a rifle by his side. Several people pulled over to call the police. Two marked vehicles approached from behind while three unmarked black vehicles drove up onto the sidewalk to cut him off from the front and sides. I don't know if the gun was real or not, but the man was ultimately arrested.

This is a situation where I think people felt an IMMENENT enough of a threat to call police and get them involved. Police would not have covertly approached the man and remove his weapon if they didn't feel the same way.

This situation is really no different than the one with the suicidal girl. The problem is that police are the only ones who get to decide arbitrarily if a threat is IMMENENT. Any one else has to wait around and see what happens.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

This is a situation where I think people felt an IMMENENT enough of a threat to call police and get them involved. Police would not have covertly approached the man and remove his weapon if they didn't feel the same way.

---

No. Once again, you are describing a potential threat. You described him as “crazy” and that can mean a whole lot of things. But you did not describe a situation in which he was posing some immediate threat of harm to anyone — he wasn’t pointing the gun at anyone, he wasn’t threatening to kill or harm anyone. He was simply walking down the street with what appeared to be a rifle. And, in case you didn’t know, in many places walking carrying a firearm in plain view is actually perfectly legal to do. Just as walking around with a knife in hand in plain view is generally perfectly legal to do. You’ll note that the public did not try to disarm this guy; they called the police and let them deal with it, which they did, apparently successfully. There wasn’t any need for someone to disarm him before they got there. Your friend should have done the same thing: call the authorities and not pull her back into the apartment to try to disarm her.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

You’ll note that the public did not try to disarm this guy; they called the police and let them deal with it...

---

Uh, maybe the civilians did not try to disarm the guy ... because they were AFRAID to do so?

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Uh, maybe the civilians did not try to disarm the guy ... because they were AFRAID to do so?

---

As well they should have been! When unarmed and untrained civilians approach an armed and possibly deranged subject we call them "victims." Best to wait for the police to deal with that. More victims tends to make the job of the police all that much more difficult.

Why do you call them victims? Is it because the civilians are facing an immanent threat regardless if they are being explicitly threatened by the deranged individual?

If the police call someone like that a victim, I simply don't understand why it is not legal for a civilian to attempt to eliminate the threat themselves. Any other 'victim' of a crime would be entitled to do so as a measure of self defense.

Don't answer that question though. I'm just pointing out the double standard between what you just said and the situation in this thread.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Don't answer that question though. I'm just pointing out the double standard between what you just said and the situation in this thread.

---

You just can't get it through your thick head, can you? Your friend's GF was not a threat. He had no right of self defense nor was he stopping an imminent threat to himself or others.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

Why do you call them victims? Is it because the civilians are facing an immanent threat regardless if they are being explicitly threatened by the deranged individual?If the police call someone like that a victim, I simply don't understand why it is not legal for a civilian to attempt to eliminate the threat themselves. Any other 'victim' of a crime would be entitled to do so as a measure of self defense.

---

I call them "victims" because if an untrained, ill-equipped civilian tries to take on an armed and deranged subject, they are more likely to get hurt or killed than affect any sort of detention! Hence, they BECOME victims. Before that, they are NOT victims, they SHOULD be good witnesses.

Quote:

---

Don't answer that question though. I'm just pointing out the double standard between what you just said and the situation in this thread.

---

Answered anyway, because you misunderstood what I wrote.

This situation could really get a lot simpler for my friend if he just lied and said she to him she was going to go hurt someone. Maybe that's what I can't get through my head. That's all he'd have to convince a jury of, and it doesn't sound like it would be that diffucult given the circumstantial evidence here.

If there were witnesses, which I believe were mentioned earlier, of the GF being yanked back into the apartment then it's not so circumstantial, is it?

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Uh, maybe the civilians did not try to disarm the guy ... because they were AFRAID to do so?

---

Quite rightly so. I have already said in this thread that it is foolish to get into a fight with someone armed, whether it be a giant knife or a gun, as that may risk doing more harm than good when there is no imminent (immediate) threat of harm from the person. That was true with the OP’s friend getting into the fight with his girlfriend and true with this guy with the rifle. That should be just common sense. The OP’s friend let his emotions cloud his common sense and engage in an altercation that was not necessary and that could have resulted in serious harm to one or both of them. He’s fortunate it didn’t turn out that way.

In addition to that common sense issue, there is the legal issue of potentially being charged with a crime when getting physical with someone who is not posing an imminent threat of harm to anyone else. Had someone tackled the guy just walking down the street with what might have been a rifle he may well have ended up facing charges himself for battery or some other offense.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

This situation could really get a lot simpler for my friend if he just lied and said she to him she was going to go hurt someone. Maybe that's what I can't get through my head. That's all he'd have to convince a jury of, and it doesn't sound like it would be that diffucult given the circumstantial evidence here.

---

He’d have to hope the jury believed him, and that’s not a given. Moreover, the case against him is not circumstantial. There is direct evidence — the neighbors who saw him grab her and pull her back in (and didn’t see a knife) and apparently heard at least some of the shouting between them. I’m going to guess none of the neighbors heard that she threatened him. And there is also whatever the cops heard and saw when they showed up and whatever she told them. All of that is direct, not circumstantial, evidence. His biggest problem is that even if he lied and said she threatened him, she wasn’t threatening him at the time she was walking out the door nor was she in an immediate position to do him harm. Her back was turned to him walking out of the apartment. There was no imminent threat at the time he grabbed her and pulled her back inside. Whatever might have happened before then in the apartment, once the threat was gone he had no right to grab her and fight her for the knife. You don’t want to acknowledge that, but it is certainly what a jury is going to be looking at if it goes to trial — why did he need to grab her when at that time she posed no imminent threat to himself or anyone else? There are independent witnesses that saw him pull her inside, so he couldn’t lie his way of that part very well.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

If there were witnesses, which I believe were mentioned earlier, of the GF being yanked back into the apartment then it's not so circumstantial, is it?

---

At the end of the day it's pretty clear from the circumstantial evidence that this guy was just trying to keep a person he loved from carrying out a violent and destructive act that was shown to have been in progress, by the factual evidence in the case. It sounds like he made a HUGE mistake in his efforts to do so. And ultimately he is getting punished for trying to help someone. He just went about it in a hysteria, forgot/didn't know his rights, and made one illegal act in the process of all the other things that were going on during that event.

I think this is a case where a defense attorney could handedly convince a jury of non-malificient motive, and convince the jury to nullify the law.

Fine. Then go out and hire a defense attorney for your friend. Since you clearly aren't interested in hearing anything anyone here has to say.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

At the end of the day it's pretty clear from the circumstantial evidence that this guy was just trying to keep a person he loved from carrying out a violent and destructive act that was shown to have been in progress, by the factual evidence in the case...
I think this is a case where a defense attorney could handedly convince a jury of non-malificient motive, and convince the jury to nullify the law.

---

Putting aside your misuse of some terms here, you are being blinded by your own bias in support of your friend. Sure your friend claims his motive was purely altrustic; he says he wanted to save her from hurting herself. But his statement alone doesn’t make for a slam dunk for him. Of course you believe him because he’s your friend. But will 12 people who have never met the guy before in their lives believe it? You have to take into account that the prosecutor will offer evidence and argument that will paint it in a very different light than your friend does. What will the neighbors say when they testify? How about the girlfriend? And the cops who responded to the call? It may be that what they say will paint a very different picture than what your friend says.

Note that his defense attorney almost certainly cannot argue jury nullification. In most states, that is not a permitted argument to make to a jury. The attorney may argue that the state has failed to prove guilt. But a nullification argument, which basically says that he's guilty but that the jury ought to acquit him anyway because the law or the prosecution in this particular case is unjust, is not something that the defense attorney may do. The jury has to reach that conclusion on its own without the help of the defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting Question4law

---

At the end of the day it's pretty clear from the circumstantial evidence that this guy was just trying to keep a person he loved from carrying out a violent and destructive act that was shown to have been in progress, by the factual evidence in the case. It sounds like he made a HUGE mistake in his efforts to do so. And ultimately he is getting punished for trying to help someone. He just went about it in a hysteria, forgot/didn't know his rights, and made one illegal act in the process of all the other things that were going on during that event.

I think this is a case where a defense attorney could handedly convince a jury of non-malificient motive, and convince the jury to nullify the law.

---

It's not circumstantial, which has been explained above, and if there was a scuffle and he had her pinned, to say nothing of the aforementioned yanking, I'd imagine she also had bruises. If the GF was walking out of the apartment under her own power then he should not have touched her. If he was concerned he should've called 911 and, from the multiple descriptions that have been provided there wasn't one bad decision, there were multiple.

Throughout your posts you've denigrated the victim (NOT your friend) and refered to her as a hysterical woman. You've demonstrated a clear bias, willfully disregarded the explanations offered to your misapprehension of definitions and worked tirelessly to vindicate your friend to people that have no stake in it. I would actually describe your protestations to be hysterical. At the end of the day you weren't there. You don't actually know anything except what you've been told by your friend. You are NOT in possession of facts, only hearsay.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

If he was concerned he should've called 911 and, from the multiple descriptions that have been provided there wasn't one bad decision, there were multiple.

---

Keep in mind that, any time you call the police on someone, there is a risk that you will be the one arrested instead. The police could have found a reason to arrest OP's friend even if the friend had not touched the woman. Perhaps the friend was cognizant of that reality and wanted to solve the problem himself without involving the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Keep in mind that, any time you call the police on someone, there is a risk that you will be the one arrested instead. The police could have found a reason to arrest OP's friend even if the friend had not touched the woman. Perhaps the friend was cognizant of that reality and wanted to solve the problem himself without involving the police.

---

A guess on your part. But even assuming you are right, that didn’t work out so well for him, did it? He’s facing serious charges, among them kidnapping. I doubt very much that had he called 911 himself and left her alone that he’d be facing those sorts of serious charges. No matter how you and the OP try to spin this, the friend made a big mistake in the actions he took. From both a common sense perspective and a legal one, it was the wrong thing to do based on what the OP says supposedly happened. I completely understand his emotions and his impulse to act, but in situations like that allowing your emotions to take over and overrule your common sense and logic can get you into trouble.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

Throughout your posts you've denigrated the victim (NOT your friend) and refered to her as a hysterical woman. You've demonstrated a clear bias, willfully disregarded the explanations offered to your misapprehension of definitions and worked tirelessly to vindicate your friend to people that have no stake in it. I would actually describe your protestations to be hysterical. At the end of the day you weren't there. You don't actually know anything except what you've been told by your friend. You are NOT in possession of facts, only hearsay.

---

I'm actually in possession of the police report, all facts about the case that I have communicated to this forum were from witness statements in the report. I don't qualifies as hearsay, then so be it. These include everything that I have stated that was communicated to police by my friend.

I don't intend to demean the suicidal woman as being in a hysteria, and not defending her in any way. If this is a true case of something much darker and sinister by my friend then he needs to be held to justice for that. By the same token, and I know it has no legal relevance, I don't think its fair in this sort of situation for the girl to cause so much commotion, fear, and emotion by trying to kill herself in front of another person, and then pinning all legal fault on the other person's response. The guy would not have felt compelled to place his hands on her to begin with if she had not been destructive, violent, and out of control. There needs to be more accountability here for what the female did, basically. I wasn't right to hold the male completely responsible, especially with a class A felony. This happens ALL the time in domestic situations where ALL the blame is placed on the male when the female did things, illegal or not, to initiate an illegal or self-defensive response from the partner. But the law always looks at things black and white.... men evil, women victims.

One last point and this is directed more towards TM; I don't know if it makes any sort of difference, but in reviewing the police report, the woman didn't just casually WALK out the door with a knife in her hand at the conclusion of the argument. According to the police report the exchange happened as follows: The woman had previously lacerated her wrist, that knife was forcibly removed and the BF let go of her, she raced back to the knife rack to get a second knife and started using it against herself, that knife was forcibly removed and the BF let go of her, she raced back for a third knife and this time BOLTED TOWARDS the door. She made it as far as opening the door up with her leading hand. The boyfriend claims that he did not physically pull her in himself but that he pulled/yanked THE KNIFE back from her trailing hand, that she held onto the knife, she released the door (which closes automatically like a hotel door) with her leading hand to use both hands on the knife to try to get it back, then the struggle continued onward back in the apartment and ultimately ended up on the sofa, which is where the police encountered him restraining her.

Anyways, that's all just what HE says in the police report. Sounds like he's gonna have an uphill battle trying to prove it.

The witness did not see much of anything. She just saw the door open with the girl in the entry, then she saw her go back in with arguing between both accompanying. The witness was looking through a peep hole in her door across the hallway. She stated she could not see well enough through that view to see if she had a weapon or not, nor was the door open far and the entry was too dark for her to see the full transaction in the doorway.

What exactly is your goal, here?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

What exactly is your goal, here?

---

Wear us down until we agree that the law is a silly wanker and agitate for the right of his friend to take matters into his own hand and do with his woman what he wishes? ;)

That's kind of what I was wondering, yeah.