Replies

Dig deeper. This was not a one punch incident. Gotthard was severely beaten incurring multiple serious injuries requiring that he be airlifted from one hospital to another. This columnist is lying through his his teeth.

Forget the columnist. I read the judge’s ruling. I don’t recall any mention of a severe beating. Just a single punch, provoked by physical assault on Mette, after which Mette’s assailant hit the ground and hit his head. There was no testimony (according to the ruling) contradicting that (although, having said that, I'll go back to the ruling and check my facts).

I also read in the ruling that:

a) IL law requires that someone in Mette's situation is required by law to either flee or stand there and take a beating, and...

b) He (Mette) decided against a jury trial.

Mette's only mistake was waiving his right to a jury. He might have benefited from the jurors' innate sense of justice (id est jury nullification).

"Gotthard was severely beaten incurring multiple serious injuries requiring that he be airlifted from one hospital to another."

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.