Posted on 10/29/2007 9:38:52 PM PDT by garyhope
"A" punch was thrown. The judge never said it was only one. Actually, he left it unsaid.
A punch was sufficient for the judge to find that an assault had occurred. Ten punches would not change that finding.
No, they weren't. I posted the link.
Chris was getting into his car. Mike and Mark were heading to the apartment door. They were separated.
Nick and Jake arrived and Nick went after Chris. Mark broke away and went to help Chris.
That left Mike and Jake alone. Since Jake's friend Nick was busy with two guys, I'm sure his attention was focused on those two.
Maybe Marks's friends saw what happened. But they ain't talkin'.
IMHO, Mette didn't seek a jury trial because the evidence was heavily against him. He sought a bench trial because he hoped that the judge would be inclined to look the other way because he was a police officer.
Agreed. The list of injuries sure read like he was stomped and kicked.
When you're in a potential physical confrontation with another person, you tend to focus on that other person. Totally.
When it's two against one, I guarantee you're not looking around or thinking of anything or anyone else.
So to answer your question, no. I don't think his pal would have noticed the local high school marching band going by. And I have to go back to the fact that the defendant lied at the scene.
That's what the jury would have concluded also.
But it's a moot point. The extent of the injuries was the important issue in this case, not how many blows it took to inflict those injuries.
Assault consists of simple touching in an unwelcomed way. Note the assailent was not Mette. The miscreant began the unwelcomed touching first. He physically attacked Mette 3 times first, before Mette threw his first punch. THe assialant lost all right not to be hit as long as he continued that attack. The judge's finding of fact was consistant with one blow, delivered during an ongoing assault that was purpetrated and being vigorously engaged in by the assailant. That blow broke the assialant's nose, probably knocked him unconscious, whereupon he fell backwards and subsequently hit his head on the ground.
"A punch was sufficient for the judge to find that an assault had occurred. Ten punches would not change that finding."
Mette did not commit assault, regardless of what the judge said. The judge is in fact full of shit. Mette was under no obligation to let the assailant touch him n any way, any more whatsoever. He was also under no oblgation to turn his back to the assailant and flee, which would open and expose him to more danger. This liberal BS of insisting that folks leave themselves open to detached retinas, broken bones, brain damage, and other possible injuries due to the choices and actions of violent assailants, to promote their warped concept of "civility" and "peace" needs to be opposed at every occurance.
Folks can't all be experts at fending off violent nutcases w/o injuring the "precious" little asses. If they need to hit them with a pipe, a claw hammer, garbage can, sewer cap, ect... to stop the attack, so be it. It's the right thing to do.
Not according to Iowa law. Mette could have retreated. He chose not to.
You want to argue the law is stupid? Not fair? Ridiculous? Fine. I happen to agree. I think the same about a speed limit of 55 when it used to be 70 on that same highway. But I still have to pay the ticket.
"That blow broke the assialant's nose, probably knocked him unconscious, whereupon he fell backwards and subsequently hit his head on the ground."
Well, that explains the broken nose and the bleeding on the back of his head. What about the broken cheek and the broken jaw?
Maybe those happened the day before? Birth defect? Hey, just trying to be helpful.
" No, they weren't. I posted the link."
Yeah, I saw the link. You should have read it.
"They were separated."
The separation distance was less than the distance from the curb to the porch.
"Since Jake's friend Nick was busy with two guys, I'm sure his attention was focused on those two."
Yeah, 2 guy's that probably couldn't jump high enough to reach Nick's chest. Did you miss the part about Nick being 6'8"? Nick didn't have to worry much about those 2. He would have noted if Jake the flake was being stomped as he lay unconscious on the ground.
"Not according to Iowa law. Mette could have retreated. He chose not to.
Ridiculous. He retreated once and the assailant followed in pursuit. Did you read the moron judge's comments? She said Mette should have turned his back on Jake the flake and walked away. Only a dummy would fail to defend against an attack as so mounted by the perp here.
"You want to argue the law is stupid? Not fair? Ridiculous? Fine. I happen to agree."
The law allows for self defense, and that's what happened here. Jake the flake was mounting a violent physical attack on Mette and intended to continue. One can not simply walk away from such an attack w/o reasonably expecting serious bodily harm to occur. It's reasonable to assume that Jake's persistent attack presented immanent danger to Mette's safety, and I'm sure IA law considers the safety of others to be a valid concern. Mette obviously didn't have the quick thinking mental and fighting skills of Qui Chang the kung fu monk. That shouldn't be a crime, or expected, even if cops are caught up in such a situation.
"What about the broken cheek and the broken jaw?"
Your link contains the findings of the judge, who said there was bruising in the area of the cheek and eye. That's consistent with a knock out punch and a broken nose. The bruising is hemorrhage to the surrounding areas, which also may have sheer damage. There's no details, but I can visualize a couple punches that could do what's described. Note also that it was Mette's hand and shirt that had blood on them, not his pants and shoes. That indicates a punch, not a stomping, or kicking.
This kind of thing is rather common. It's not the law, but the world veiw of the judge and prosecutor that causes outcomes like this. They deny that folks under attack are subject to all the various injuries that are possible when someone fails to defend and remains nonviolent in the face of an attack such as this.
This sucks! The judge and the DA need to be jailed.
My question, and it is a simple one: Who threw the first punch?
This is one of those “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” things.
That said, Five years?!!! There must be more to this story.
Thanks. This seems to be a case where a bunch of reporters cherry-picked facts. To read the article which prompted this article, that the officer hit the guy only once was not in contention. Yet your quote suggests that he beat him, kicked him and generally broke bad all over him. At least one person is being, at best, careless.
Mette did not lose because he punched the guy once. He lost because the evidence suggested that he did much more than just punch the guy once. Had the judge believed his story (i.e., had the evidence backed him up), he wouldn’t be off to jail.
Actually, in these cases the overlooked precepts include "provocative acts","disparity of size", "number of assailants","diminished capacity"(incited to rage) et.al.
Duty to retreat is recent, bizarre and dangerous philosophy.
A reasonable man does not turn his back on a threat.
Ever.
It would be interesting to read a court transcript.
Best regards,
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.