Posted on 10/29/2007 9:38:52 PM PDT by garyhope
A minority? With a name like Jake Gotthard, in Dubuque (heavily settled by Germans) Iowa? I’ve got $10 bucks that says he’s white with an obvious German ancestory. Nice try at making it racial though.
Gothard suffered a broken cheekbone, multiple fractures to his nose and a broken jaw, according to court records. He had multiple hemorrhages on the brain. He had bruising on both buttocks and the sides of his arms and on his ribs, and he had lacerations to his face and head.
The emergency-room physician, who was board certified, testified that these injuries would not have resulted from one blow," Dubuque County Attorney Ralph Potter wrote in a pointed defense of the case's prosecution. "The defendant's expert witness disputed that finding, while acknowledging that some of the bruising was consistent with "defensive" injuries
I think he was found guilty by a jury - not the judge.
Sure one's entitled to strike back, 2-3-4 times or more if they're so moved.
However if an altercation should happen in IA/IL?
As soon as one's sated, feeling safe it'd behoove them to become the guy running down the street ASAP.
I suspect "defending-fleeing" will be exactly the result of this.
...after word spreads.
According to the judge’s ruling, Mette waived his right to a jury trial.
The kid was probably stomped. The judge does a disservice to her ruling by ignoring that possibility. In her attempt to rule based solely on the undisputed facts she has created this opportunity for Mette to mount an internet “they-done-me-wrong” defense.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download.php?file=30fd893b
You are correct.
BS. One punch was thrown and the drunk assailant received a broken nose, fell(probably knocked out), and banged his head on the pavement. The rest of your story doesn't match the judge's findings. The judge's findings presented by Paulsen in post #12 show that. The cop was convicted, because Iowa requires the victim to attempt to escape. It's clear from the judge's comments, that she would allow no self defense whatsoever. She would require the victim to flee until they ran out of breath and get beaten by vicious drunks.
This is a typical case of a person defending himself against an attacker and being charged with a crime for it. They left the house, and the assailants followed after them to confront them. Both the judge and the prosecutor are liberals intolerant of the concept of self defense.
It's very likely he was wrong.
That's right, but this is IA, which requires the same thing. MN and WI do also.
"He might have benefited from the jurors' innate sense of justice"
No, this happened in Dubuque, IA. htere would have been libs on the jury and both the prosecutor and judge are libs.
That's right, and in addition, Jake's buddy would have been beaten too, if the scenario was really as the prosecutor said. That's the way these things go.
When applying for my carry permit in Onondaga County NY, a sign above the permit office window actually said “Self-Defense Is Not A Valid Reason”.
(Indeed, only applications noting the reason for the permit request as “sporting purpose” or “collecting” were approved. Later the signing judge who implemented that limitation was driven out of office on cocaine distribution charges. Do the math.)
I thought he only had one friend with him, and that individual was being confronted by someone else. I don't believe his friend saw anything.
That's right. This happens quite often, and those attacked who defend themselves successfully get charged and convicted. The only reason this one hit the news is, because it was a Chicago cop that was railroaded.
"Mette's big mistake was having the judge decide his case."
That was his atty's call. I think his defense atty's ability and competence wasn't so great.
They were all in a group. Even though there were only 2 attackers, the other one would have noticed any overt beating of an unconscious friend.
The judge said, "Mike planted a fist into Jake's face ...". Which was enough to find that an assault took place.
The judge left unsaid whether it was limited to that one punch. It was irrelevant.
The defendant claimed there was only one punch. You believe him. But he lied to the police when they showed up, claiming Jake was drunk and fell.
Yep, I misspoke. But don’t you think his pal would have noticed him getting “stomped and kicked”, even if he was involved in a non-physical pi$$ing contest with one or more of Mette’s friends? I find it hard to believe such a thing would go unnoticed by any of the attendees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.