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

[cbg]

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.

[Taxing Matters]

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.

[Mark47n]

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.

[TechWorker]

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.

[Taxing Matters]

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.

[Question4law]

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.

[cbg]

What exactly is your goal, here?

[cdwjava]

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?

[cbg]

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

[Question4law]

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?

I'll leave the matter alone. In lighter terms, I think cdwjava basically nailed it. I guess my queries about the legal case ended up morphing into a debate, and this is clearly the wrong forum section for that. I'm not trying to irritate or antagonize.

To clarify, however. I don't think my friend should be free to do whatever with his woman. I think him being charged with severe abuse, in a situation where someone was abusing themselves, and he was making legitimate efforts to stop that abuse... is completely screwed up on a moral level. Call me naive, but I'm just now learning that the law doesn't look at situations on a holistic level, nor is it necessarily moral.

I think this case stinks, and truthfully I don't understand why it is even being prosecuted. The girl doesn't even want prosecution, so the state took over. The case seems more academic than anything.