Just because he was attacked, does not justify the use of excessive force. Self-defense is only a defense if the individual defending himself uses “reasonable” force; kicking and stomping on an individual after that individual is already on the ground is not “reasonable” force.
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.
So when a guy chases you down the street and attacks you, you’re allowed only one punch??
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,