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

[free9man]

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.

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.

[Question4law]

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.

[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.

[Question4law]

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.

[Taxing Matters]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Question4law]

[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.



[

[qwaspolk69]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

[cdwjava]

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.

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.

[Question4law]

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.

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.

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."

[Taxing Matters]

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.

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.