10:41 PM. Responding to an assault call, Officer Tim Hoffman takes statements from the two parties involved.
John’s story: “I just came down here to relax, man. So I was sitting at the bar, and I heard this man and woman arguing over there in the corner. I could see the situation was getting out of hand, so I walked over there, and calmly suggested they should lay off. The guy just blows up, gets in my face, starts swearing and threatening me. I knew I’d have to defend myself, right? I got into a defensive stance. He just sucker punched me and ran away.”
Ryan’s story: “I was talking to my girlfriend, having a conversation, when this prick walks over here. He said he knew Karate, and I’d better calm down. I told him to go back over to the bar and mind his own damn business. Then he starts trying to do some Karate move on me, so I hit him in self-defense. After that, I went with Crystal out to my car, just in case he tried anything else.”
Imagine you are the police officer. Which story do you believe, and why?
Loading ...
6 responses so far ↓
1 J.T. // Jul 25, 2008
Ryan, actually. John says he “has” to get involved, but after his utter failure, nothing happens. He uses rather exaggerated language, including labeling something a “sucker punch” when by his own admission he’d had time to drop into a “defensive stance,” because he “knew he’d have to defend himself,” then the guy “runs away.” Taking the woman John came to save with him, as well.
Ryan’s on much better standing, he does not engage in any behavior that escalates the conflict (you can say “damn” in public,) until John makes it clear by physical preparation he is planning on engaging, uses a single context-appropriate technique, disengages immediately, gathers his loved ones, leaves the threat area, and awaits if not contacts the authorities. Ryan’s actions meet the definition of self-defense in most jurisdictions, John’s actions probably never do.
2 Dan Paden // Jul 25, 2008
I don’t believe either of them, not entirely. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between. But it seems to me that it’s generally a sign of hubris and poor judgment to try intervening in an argument. Defending someone who’s actually under attack is one thing; tryin’ to get in someone else’s bidness is another.
3 CreidS // Jul 25, 2008
Ryan is telling how he felt, John is telling a story. Look at all the ways he is trying to sway the audience:
just to relax (why did you get into a fight then?)
I could see
calmly suggested
just blew up
I knew I’d have to defend myself
Ryan probably was a jerk — but you are much more likely to see someone at a bar trying to pick a fight than trying to end one, in my experience.
4 Dojo Rat // Jul 25, 2008
By the letter of the law, the guy who actually threw the punch and hit the other guy is at fault.
People can posture and call each other all kind of names, but when you lay your hands on someone, that’s when the law gets involved.
The thing to start with would be to bring the altercation to the attention of the bartender. The bartender is leagally responsible for anything that goes on in a drinking establishment. When they put their eyes on the conflict, they are the ultimate witness the police will listen to, especially if you are in a situation where you have to resort to violence.
5 J.T. // Jul 25, 2008
Actually Dojo Rat, the law (in *almost* every jurisdiction) doesn’t require anything of the sort. Merely that the a reasonable person would have considered that a fight was imminent. Once it’s clear that you are going to be attacked, you can pre-empt it, and it’s pretty clear from John’s story that he was going to “defend himself.”
Former Bouncer
6 Cobra-Kai // Jul 26, 2008
The random guy sitting down not doing shit i would believe him he did’nt do nothing he was’nt involved so he has no reason to lie he just sat there and watched sipping his drink wishing he had popcorn.
Leave a Comment