Andyman in Trouble

[Andyman]

Hey guys something bad happened to me the past weekend. I was at a party and one of my friends randomly sucker punched some kid and my brother who is the toughest bastard I know was ratherpissed at this. So he got in my buddies face and started lecturing him about it (my bro is 32). Anyways while my bro was lecturing this guy about how stupid sucker punching some guy is another one of my buddies (who is the mouthiest SOB ever) comes up and gets into my bros face and starts telling my brother to shut the **** up and etc. So my bro hit him in the face but not nearly as hard as he could cause if he did the guy would be convulsing on the ground. Anyways the guy who got hit was pissed and he started to talk the **** and what not. I didnt want to see my brother kill the guy so I told mouthpiece to STFU and calm down. He then turned his attention towards me calling me on along with many other names and insults. I ignored him initially and actually walked awa from the fight 4 times telling him to piss off. However after the 4th time he pushed me as hard as he could and I had had enough so we started scrapping. This is the first fight I have ever been in adn i kinda froze up while he hit me in the face like 10 times. After that I managed to get on top and I hit him like 4 times and then someone tackled me and I immediately got up and threw a kick at the guy who started the fight with me. Ultimately breaking his jaw and knocking out 2 of his teeth. I am now getting charged and probably wont be able to afford universty this sept cause now i have to pay for a lawyer. the first fight i have ever been in and i never even started it goddamn. :petting:

[Seraphim]

Well the ****er go this just deserved. What about self defence?

[MVSpartan117]

Definatly, it certainly seemed like self defense

[RoBBo]

rough deal, i hope it all works out for u...

[Andyman]

the kick was deemed excessive and therefore i am getting charged with assault causing bodily harm. :oops:

Bull**** eh!

[flickme]

Did you come out with any marks on you?

[scott]

did you (at any point after he pushed you) have a chance to *escape* the situation?

if so, for all you boys and girls out there- self defence wont cut it
something to remember next time

[Flagg]

About the only thing I can suggest is consider the following:

Were any of the participants under the influence?

If so, who?

Are there any witnesses?

If so, are they credible?(credible means NOT your friends, NOT your opponents friends, and not under the influence)

If there are credible witnesses, do they support your story of legitimate self-defense?

If things go bad for you(meaning you're found guilty), I would also research in your jurisdiction what possibility exists to avoid a criminal misdemeanor conviction.

Often first-time offender opportunities exist(such as diversion) to avoid acquiring a criminal record.

Good luck with it.

[Seraphim]

Are you of age?

[StarvingStudent47]

Quite honestly? You're in trouble. I don't know about in Canada, but in the USA, kicking someone when they're on the ground is pretty much never covered under "self-defense," no matter how much they deserved it.

Good luck getting that sorted out, and keep us updated. I wish I could give you more concrete advice, but criminal law isn't really my area of expertise.

[Ratamacue]

HANK!!! You're up.

[Herrmannek]

About the only thing I can suggest is consider the following:

Were any of the participants under the influence?

If so, who?

Are there any witnesses?

If so, are they credible?(credible means NOT your friends, NOT your opponents friends, and not under the influence)

If there are credible witnesses, do they support your story of legitimate self-defense?

If things go bad for you(meaning you're found guilty), I would also research in your jurisdiction what possibility exists to avoid a criminal misdemeanor conviction.

Often first-time offender opportunities exist(such as diversion) to avoid acquiring a criminal record.

Good luck with it.

I think he is worried more about civil suit... Damn just say good bay to your first milion :)

[b.scheller]

This is Canada after all, its unfortunete how stupid the law is. A teachers buddy, had his house broken into. The two punks starting stealing things, anyway the guy whos house was being robbed, took a bat and then after a half an hour of some major crazyness, the guy ended up beating the **** out of the two. Tying them up to a chair and breaking their legs. Of course he got charged with assault with a deadly weapon, they got off scot free.

F+cking law...

[ChuckThunder]

This is Canada after all, its unfortunete how stupid the law is. A teachers buddy, had his house broken into. The two punks starting stealing things, anyway the guy whos house was being robbed, took a bat and then after a half an hour of some major crazyness, the guy ended up beating the **** out of the two. Tying them up to a chair and breaking their legs. Of course he got charged with assault with a deadly weapon, they got off scot free.

F+cking law...

:roll:

He didn't need to do that...

[hank]

Don't know much about Canada, but SS47 nailed it. Self Defence doesn't really cover this. Self Defence is when you are getting your tail kicked and you respond. This is jsut provocation. You could have walked, but didn't.

Get a lawyer for sure. You can always get loans to go to school.

In a lot of US jurisdictions this would be battery, or maybe even aggravated battery. Serious charges indeed. Good luck.

hank

[hank]

This is Canada after all, its unfortunete how stupid the law is. A teachers buddy, had his house broken into. The two punks starting stealing things, anyway the guy whos house was being robbed, took a bat and then after a half an hour of some major crazyness, the guy ended up beating the **** out of the two. Tying them up to a chair and breaking their legs. Of course he got charged with assault with a deadly weapon, they got off scot free.

F+cking law...

This is a crazy story indeed. Still, breaking legs and tying people up seems a little unreasonable don't you think? I mean you are only justified in using necesssary force to repel the threat. If the guys were stealing stuff then that is way too much force. Maybe it is stupid, but that is the normal way it is.

Here is a note for everybody just so you know. You can never use deadly, or potentially deadly, force to defend property. Potentially deadly force is OK only when you reasonably fear for your life. Don't fall into that trap.

hank

[anonymous individual]

Don't worry. You should be fine. As long as you have enough friends as witnessess, you can say that act was a self defend. Remember you walked away 4 four times and before was trying to calm the situation. As far as punishment goes, if you weren't charged before, you should be able to get off easy with community service.

As far as the lawyer fee goes, you should sue that person in the civil court for damages, such as the insults and made you use brutal force. You can stretch them as personal damage. Remember you are in a Canadian courtroom, anything is possible. If you do win in that court, you will have some money. But don't expect much. It might not even worth if it is lesser than the lawyer fee. Talk to your lawyer about for legal advices.

Just some thoughts.

But the way, keep in touch with us. Let us know what is going on. We are with you.

[Mark Sman]

One: Don't speak another word about this alleged incident to anyone but you're lawyer, parents or people your lawyer directly instructs you to talk to.

This includes the police, friends, enemies, everyone. Everyone! Especially your girlfriend

If someone asks, tell them "Sorry, I can't talk about that right now." Don't betray anything about the alleged incident by speach or action. People don't testify about what they remember. They testify about what they remember remembering.

Check out your lawyer's trial history. Stay up with all developments on the case through him. Get the absolute best lawyer you can. Its "all the justice you can afford" in the US. I assume the same in Canada.

Two: Stop all drinking for the duration. The worst thing would be to pile up a second charge of any nature at all. In my experience alcohol and "incidents" seem to go hand in hand. I realize you wanna party, but you want to stay out of lockup even more. Hopefully the so called victim will get locked up for violating a sheep or something between now and trial.

Three: Forget the words self defence. Walked away four times means you walked back five times.

[hank]

Don't worry. You should be fine. As long as you have enough friends as witnessess, you can say that act was a self defend. Remember you walked away 4 four times and before was trying to calm the situation. As far as punishment goes, if you weren't charged before, you should be able to get off easy with community service.

As far as the lawyer fee goes, you should sue that person in the civil court for damages, such as the insults and made you use brutal force. You can stretch them as personal damage. Remember you are in a Canadian courtroom, anything is possible. If you do win in that court, you will have some money. But don't expect much. It might not even worth if it is lesser than the lawyer fee. Talk to your lawyer about for legal advices.

Just some thoughts.

But the way, keep in touch with us. Let us know what is going on. We are with you.

Are you sure about this? I am not a Canadian law expert, but in US and most countries that use adversarial system you can't sue for damages for something like this unless the other person committed a tort, and then you don't get legal fees for a criminal proceeding. If you know this is right then so be it, but if were Andyman I would put this out of my mind as improbable.

Sman's advice is very good. No talking about it, everything you say to anybody is admissable and even if you deny it the damage is done.

I think the key is get a lawyer, but don't worry so much about trial records. First of all that kind of info is hard to get and even harder toe verify. Any lawyer will tell you he is a great trial lawyer and most lawyers won't tell you anything bad about naother lawyer. Chance are this kind of small time deal will never see a court. I mean, what you really need to worry about is the suit for damages by the guy you kicked. That could get expensive.

hank

[Mark Sman]

I didn't even think about a civil suit. You're right.

You're also right that lawyers won't dis each other generally. But you might be able to get people to say good things about a guy who really knows his stuff.

Two friends of mine got into it in a parking lot one night. One tackles the other. He lands ackward against a parking stop. Spiral fracture of the Femur. Major bad. Its still in the courts.

Best of luck.

[Fintin]

masterbate....masterbate....masterbate....

[EvanL]

Been there...DOne that....So many of these cases happen in Canada especially with youths. It will hopefully get dropped.
My cousin gets into them all the time, and never once did they follow through with any of them.
But still
Good luck.

[R935]

Hey Andyman

Here are some things for you to consider. I'm sure your lawyer will go over all of these but u can use it to ease your mind.

1. Is the crown proceeding by indictment or by summary? If you look in Criminal Code (C.C.) the two carry very different penalties. In your case I would presume that if it doesn’t get dropped it would be summary which basically means 6 months of jail and/or 2000$ for a maximum penalty. If by some unexplained circumstances the crown chooses indictment you will have the choice of either going with Judge only or the judge and the jury. If you want compassion pick jury.
2. Look under section 34 C.C. – self -defence against unprovoked assault. It may help you a lot. Especially with good explanation.
3. The crown will have to prove both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Meaning the have to prove it you did it and had mental intent of doing it. If either isn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt case is dismissed.
4. The whole judiciary system is over tasked. ( does the crown really have the time to deal with something like that)
5. If it was a bar fight or house party where alcohol is being consumed witnesses are loosing a lot of credibility (bar fights are most unreported crime where assault has been committed).
6. Even if you get convicted there are many factors that determine your sentence (first time offender, good student etc.) The judge can use discretion when sentencing so you may end up doing community work.


In case of civil court you’re pretty much f***ed. It will help you a lot if you are acquitted in criminal case. Hope this helps you a bit.


Regards
R935

[hank]

Hey Andyman

Here are some things for you to consider. I'm sure your lawyer will go over all of these but u can use it to ease your mind.

1. Is the crown proceeding by indictment or by summary? If you look in Criminal Code (C.C.) the two carry very different penalties. In your case I would presume that if it doesn’t get dropped it would be summary which basically means 6 months of jail and/or 2000$ for a maximum penalty. If by some unexplained circumstances the crown chooses indictment you will have the choice of either going with Judge only or the judge and the jury. If you want compassion pick jury.
2. Look under section 34 C.C. – self -defence against unprovoked assault. It may help you a lot. Especially with good explanation.
3. The crown will have to prove both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Meaning the have to prove it you did it and had mental intent of doing it. If either isn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt case is dismissed.
4. The whole judiciary system is over tasked. ( does the crown really have the time to deal with something like that)
5. If it was a bar fight or house party where alcohol is being consumed witnesses are loosing a lot of credibility (bar fights are most unreported crime where assault has been committed).
6. Even if you get convicted there are many factors that determine your sentence (first time offender, good student etc.) The judge can use discretion when sentencing so you may end up doing community work.


In case of civil court you’re pretty much f***ed. It will help you a lot if you are acquitted in criminal case. Hope this helps you a bit.


Regards
R935

be careful with mens rea (intent) - all that is required for battery is intent to cause a harmful contact. Pretty hard to argue that you did not intend to cause a harmful contact when you kicked him. Just sayin

Get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer

Acquittal in criminal cases DOES NOT help in civil trials. I REPEAT - acquittal in criminal case DOES NOT help in civil trials. The burden on a plaintiff is around half that of the state. Just ask OJ - acquitted in criminal b/c state couldn't convince jury beyond reasonable doubt (95-99% roughly), but got his hoohoo handed to him in civil trial b/c burden on plaintiff is only preponderance of evidence (51% roughly).

Also, this reliance on witnesses is really not helpful. The victim will testify and say Andyman kicked me, I got hurt, end of story. This does not sound like self defense so the witnesses can't really hurt the victim.

GET A LAWYER and pray this guy don't sue you for damages.

hank

[Roger Rabbit]

Can you not speak to the guys involved and see if they will drop the charges?

[Midtown]

Damn, something about playing hockey for so long has made it where I wont kick someone in a fight, I dont know why, but I'd much rather just punch them. I wish you good luck dude, you got shafted hardcore.

[StarvingStudent47]

Can you not speak to the guys involved and see if they will drop the charges?

Out of court settlements are pretty much ALWAYS better if they're available. Truth is, paying him a settlement would probably be cheaper than paying your your lawyer his attorney fees during a trial, EVEN IF you win that trial.

However, it's still good to have a lawyer help negotiate the out-of-court settlement so you don't get completely burned. And if he stonewalls, then I guess a trial is the only option.

[R935]

Hey Andyman

Here are some things for you to consider. I'm sure your lawyer will go over all of these but u can use it to ease your mind.

1. Is the crown proceeding by indictment or by summary? If you look in Criminal Code (C.C.) the two carry very different penalties. In your case I would presume that if it doesn’t get dropped it would be summary which basically means 6 months of jail and/or 2000$ for a maximum penalty. If by some unexplained circumstances the crown chooses indictment you will have the choice of either going with Judge only or the judge and the jury. If you want compassion pick jury.
2. Look under section 34 C.C. – self -defence against unprovoked assault. It may help you a lot. Especially with good explanation.
3. The crown will have to prove both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Meaning the have to prove it you did it and had mental intent of doing it. If either isn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt case is dismissed.
4. The whole judiciary system is over tasked. ( does the crown really have the time to deal with something like that)
5. If it was a bar fight or house party where alcohol is being consumed witnesses are loosing a lot of credibility (bar fights are most unreported crime where assault has been committed).
6. Even if you get convicted there are many factors that determine your sentence (first time offender, good student etc.) The judge can use discretion when sentencing so you may end up doing community work.


In case of civil court you’re pretty much f***ed. It will help you a lot if you are acquitted in criminal case. Hope this helps you a bit.


Regards
R935

be careful with mens rea (intent) - all that is required for battery is intent to cause a harmful contact. Pretty hard to argue that you did not intend to cause a harmful contact when you kicked him. Just sayin

Get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer

Acquittal in criminal cases DOES NOT help in civil trials. I REPEAT - acquittal in criminal case DOES NOT help in civil trials. The burden on a plaintiff is around half that of the state. Just ask OJ - acquitted in criminal b/c state couldn't convince jury beyond reasonable doubt (95-99% roughly), but got his hoohoo handed to him in civil trial b/c burden on plaintiff is only preponderance of evidence (51% roughly).

Also, this reliance on witnesses is really not helpful. The victim will testify and say Andyman kicked me, I got hurt, end of story. This does not sound like self defense so the witnesses can't really hurt the victim.

GET A LAWYER and pray this guy don't sue you for damages.

hank

I see that you come from states so I can tell you right now that the laws are a bit different here. His intent was naturally to defend himself and just because PO charged him with assault bodily harm doesn’t even mean that he may actually face those charges. PO’s will almost always charge you with the biggest offence that they can find on you simply because once the case is in the court they can’t change the charges. The crown can only downsize the charge so the PO’s are basically just covering their ass. It’s the same thing as considering every offence as indictable for the purposes of arrest.
The case is now in crowns hand and they will be deciding what happens. If the feel there isn’t enough evidence they may not even pursue it.


Acquittal in criminal cases does help in civil court since most of the alleged victims will wait for the verdict in criminal case and decide on further action. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t going to get sued and most probably loose. But civil court is much more relaxed and allows evidence and witnesses that criminal courts most certainly wouldn’t. Even hear/say evidence is allowed.

[hank]

R935 - all that may be true but you are mistaken about intent and battery. There is no intent to hurt required - only to make a harmful contact. That is law that every first year learns in Canada, England or the US. Battery in a civil context and almost always in a criminal context is not a specific intent crime. It means that if you swing to hit person A and accidentally hit person B you ahve the requisite intent. What you described is specific intent - meaning that Andyman here had to want to kick anyone AND that the effect of that kick was, or was likley to be harmful. Don't confuse the two [specific intent and general intent] b/c they are not the same.

Also, any defense like "self defense" doesn't change the fact that Andyman did or did not commit a battery. The presence of a defense simply means that Andyman's battery may or may not be actionable. Defenses don't negate the crime/tort - just the consequences/liability. Anyone versed in "the law" knows this.

Andyman likely committed a battery - whether he is charged or not is, as you say, up to the "crown". You probably know more about that than I and that is all well and good. BUT - don't tell him that intent or anything else that deals with DETAILS from a legal standpoint may save him. That is the job of a CANADIAN lawyer. If you are one, then don't give free advice on the internet lest you commit malpractice. I am not a lawyer yet [take the bar next Tuesday/Wednesday]. So, my only ADVICE is GET A LAWYER.

This type of "Brother-In-Law" advice you rendered will only make thins worse for poor Andyman here.

hank

[hank]

One other thing, hearsay is sometimes admissable in either criminal or civil. If Canada has different standards for criminal/civil that is certainly different than in the US. It would surprise me if there were different standards but it may well be true. I'll look it up here in a little while just so we'll know for sure.

It is a common misconception that hearsay [that is right, "hearsay" not hear/say] is alwasy in admissable. The reality is that in many instances its is perfectly admissable. Just have to follow the rules.

I'll get back to you on the standards for hearsay in criminal/civil.

hank

[memphiz]

Damn that sucks horribly..
Andyman how old are you?
I think what you did was self defence, I think if anyone of us was in that same situation would have done the same, hopefully it gets dropped, Good luck man.

[hank]

Yeah, just as I thought. Canada has one national evidence statute called, get this - CANADA EVIDENCE ACT. It says, "This Part applies to all criminal proceedings and to all civil proceedings and other matters whatever respecting which Parliament has jurisdiction."

Now, they may not be applicable in Andyman's case b/c it is probably a charge by the province, btu the frameworks would be the same. There are the usual exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay found in the US.

hank

[R935]

R935 - all that may be true but you are mistaken about intent and battery. There is no intent to hurt required - only to make a harmful contact. That is law that every first year learns in Canada, England or the US. Battery in a civil context and almost always in a criminal context is not a specific intent crime. It means that if you swing to hit person A and accidentally hit person B you ahve the requisite intent. What you described is specific intent - meaning that Andyman here had to want to kick anyone AND that the effect of that kick was, or was likley to be harmful. Don't confuse the two [specific intent and general intent] b/c they are not the same.

Also, any defense like "self defense" doesn't change the fact that Andyman did or did not commit a battery. The presence of a defense simply means that Andyman's battery may or may not be actionable. Defenses don't negate the crime/tort - just the consequences/liability. Anyone versed in "the law" knows this.

Andyman likely committed a battery - whether he is charged or not is, as you say, up to the "crown". You probably know more about that than I and that is all well and good. BUT - don't tell him that intent or anything else that deals with DETAILS from a legal standpoint may save him. That is the job of a CANADIAN lawyer. If you are one, then don't give free advice on the internet lest you commit malpractice. I am not a lawyer yet [take the bar next Tuesday/Wednesday]. So, my only ADVICE is GET A LAWYER.

This type of "Brother-In-Law" advice you rendered will only make thins worse for poor Andyman here.

hank


I have to agree with you and emphasise that I am not giving him advices but only some scenarios of what could happen since we all know that each case is different. His case will definitely require a lawyer representation therefore I haven’t even bothered mentioning that since it seems like something natural to do. If you read my first post you would see I said that his lawyer will go over that. As far as the hearsay :lol: evidence goes I’m only conveying what I’m told and learned by hard in school. I still have to go over my studies (I haven’t touched them since April) but I believe that mens rea is only irrebuttable for ****** offences which his is not.

Regards
R935

[tuckerhat]

do you have martial arts training? that usually tends to complicate things.

[Andyman]

Well my dad I think is gonna try to cut a deal with the parents of the guy say I pay for damages and I dont get a record. I probably wont be able to go to university this sept but i wont have a record and i can go next year I mean **** if i got in now i probably still will next year. The only thing that really sucks is that i was gonna play for the schools soccer team i had the coach out watching my games and everything, so yeah thats the worst of it. Also I just saw the guy at a party and he gave me a hug and we talked about it all. All he said was dude I dont hate u I just lost a lot of respect for you you dont kick a buddy in the face. And I said well I dont like fighting and you kept coming at me so friends dont do that either. By the way he wasnt down when i threw the kick he was standing and he was kinda bent over. I just got really emotional about it all cause ive never been in a fight before and i never even wanted to fight the guy he just kept following me. Anyways thanks for the comments guys it helps. My lawyer says ill probably if im lucky get off with a peace bond or something but ultimately thats hard to tell right. Anyways thanks

[hank]

Well my dad I think is gonna try to cut a deal with the parents of the guy say I pay for damages and I dont get a record. I probably wont be able to go to university this sept but i wont have a record and i can go next year I mean **** if i got in now i probably still will next year. The only thing that really sucks is that i was gonna play for the schools soccer team i had the coach out watching my games and everything, so yeah thats the worst of it. Also I just saw the guy at a party and he gave me a hug and we talked about it all. All he said was dude I dont hate u I just lost a lot of respect for you you dont kick a buddy in the face. And I said well I dont like fighting and you kept coming at me so friends dont do that either. By the way he wasnt down when i threw the kick he was standing and he was kinda bent over. I just got really emotional about it all cause ive never been in a fight before and i never even wanted to fight the guy he just kept following me. Anyways thanks for the comments guys it helps. My lawyer says ill probably if im lucky get off with a peace bond or something but ultimately thats hard to tell right. Anyways thanks

Just make sure the lawyer is involved in any deals b/w you, your dad, and the other guy. Also keep in mind that parents don't always have what is "best" in mind. I know this sounds horrible, but believe me the lawyer must represent you and won't be interested in "teaching any lessons" while your father, even with the best intentions, might. Law school is full of many cases where the best-intentioned parents "make a deal" that teaches a lesson and that deal screws things up for the kid.

So far you've done good, just make sure and see it through. Spend some time with the lawyer and make sure whatever gets agreed to has no long term implications for you personally.

Also, make sure the crown [or the prosecutor] gets involved and deals with your lawyer. Nothing would be worse than "making a deal" and then having soem overzealous prosecutor getting to use that against you if things go south. Always plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Good luck

hank

[CannibalSquirel]

Way to go man!