When is it OK to hospitalize someone?

Remove all ads!

Here's the article.

Spoiler

Would this case stand the reversibility test? Had the Korean boy called the boy a "honkie" and then been sent to the hospital, would he be the one being called a racist bully? We all know the answer to that one. And it's not un unrealistic comparison. Supposedly all men are equal in the eyes of the law in our glorious Western democracy. That means anyone can be a racist, regardless of skin color. But in this case it appears that some people are more equal than others.

Don't get me wrong. The white kid had no right to say what he said -- he should be punished. But any idiot knows that being called a name is not grounds to haul off and break someone's face -- unless you can play the race card. The Korean kid needs to be punished the same as if a white kid had hospitalized someone. No special bonuses for race, no special penalties for race. Imagine if this sort of thing became the norm:

example: In the middle of a heated argument, Allan Smith, a white resident of Springfield, was called "a damn white fool" by his wife Lateisha. Incensed at the unfair slight, he smashed her in the face, which act required her hospitalization. The community has rallied around Allan for being the victim of a racist epithet. Lateisha has been villified in the media, and has to be discrete when going to her plastic surgery appointments to reconstruct her face.

Yeah, like that would ever happen, right?

Equal rights means equal responsibility, not open season on ANY racial group -- even those evil, racist whites.

 

My view would be this: Some stupid boy started a fight. He lost it. He was the one who threw the first punch and the Korean kid seems to have been defending himself. I don't want to see him charged for that. I think the whole racist thing is just the media at work, I do feel sorry for the white kid in that sense.

 

Just calling someone a "f***ing chinese" does not automatically make the kid a racist. We all know the race card is out there and by making that comment, couldn't he of said it knowing it would of pissed the other kid off, even if he doesn't truly believe it himself. We all do foolish things, it doesn't make us racist. When i was a kid, my brother who is 2 yrs older, was a little heavy, but was always worried people would call him fat. So, knowing this, if we got into it, i would call him fat-boy. Not because i thought he was fat or dislike fat people in anyway, but i knew it would make him mad, make him think i might possible think it of him, possibly giving me an edge in our childish fights. There is a difference. His intentions also count if your going to label him. Now, if he actually hates chinese, it's another story...

 

I think the entire race angle is being overblown. Since the Korean guy actually helped the white one after the fight, I doubt he was that offended himself. On the other hand, neither the white kid nor his parents, according to the article, wanted the Korean kid charged, so wth? Apparently the media, and maybe community, has been a bit too sensitive over the angler issue that the article mentioned.

However, I don't see why he should be charged for a fight that the other guy started. As far as I am concerned, if someone offends you and then start a fight with you, you are within your limits to hit back. If it turns out you are stronger than them, well, too bad. Besides, while a broken nose is not nice, it's hardly a life-threatening injury. He might have gotten a little overboard (or not, maybe it was just a (un)lucky punch) but hardly something to have trouble with the police over. If there was any racism in the entire affair, it is there imo.

By the way, the article seems to contradict itself on one detail. On one hand, it states that "the other boy had actually started the fight after calling the Korean boy a "f---ing Chinese." Then, it says his parents apologized and said the kid "made a stupid remark in the heat of a fight" . Which is it?

 

I'm not familiar with speedball, but it is obviously some form of game that was being played in a Physical education class. The Korean kid allegedly tripped the White kid -- sounds like a foul of some sort. IF the trip occurred and occured deliberately and it was a grievous foul in terms of the game, then one mark against the Korean kid -- obviously he's not some sort of a saint just minding his own business.

After the trip, the White kid throws a racial epithet. One mark against the White kid for losing his temper. Totally understandable situation so far, all of us have committed fouls while playing games and I would argue that many of us have said things that we shouldn't have said. It's 2 boys acting like teenagers.

Then, the white kid throws a punch. One mark against him for being a violent little dork. Still common for teenage boys to lash out when they feel they've been wronged. The article doesn't make clear whether or not the punch landed or if it caused any damage. The Korean kid proceeds to punch back, which is reasonable considering the circumstances -- you swing at me, I swing at you in the interests of not giving you a second swing. The Korean kid is obviously more skilled (black belt in an unnamed martial art, I'm guessing Tae Kwon Do) and deals some serious damage to his attacker. Maybe his response was disproportionate to the motivating behaviour, maybe not, who knows. But the law doesn't tend to care about that, I believe -- if you seriously injure someone, you are likely to get into trouble.

What disturbs me about the case is the gleeful joy with which the media immediately labels the White kid as the racist and lays all the blame at his feet, and how everyone steps back from even considering looking at the behaviour of the Korean kid. As I said, I firmly believe that if the situations were reversed, the White kid would be behind bars and Oprah would be offering to pay for the reconstructive surgery for the Korean kid.

 

Since the injured boy actually hit first, there should be no case, just because you have a black belt doesn't mean your not allowed to defend yourself, an seriously using both racial slur and hitting someone, the white kid should be the one facing charges

I think the bolded part is the important part. I actually couldn't care whether the he used racial slur or some other insult. the fact is he started the fight by throwing the first Punch and insulting his opponent, he fully deserved a broken nose and a assault charge, the fact that he is a teenager doesn't change that

 

And anyway, in my understanding the one who ought to be hospitalised is anyone with sufficiently serious injuries

 

the tripping could be considered the first act of violence

most times someone trips someone up, its not by accident

 

Speedball is kind of like a mix between soccer and ultimate frisbee, that's the best way I can describe it.

The kid threw the first punch and ended up getting a broken nose, I think that's all fair.

 

When is it OK to hospitalize someone?
When they've been injured, are sick, or need some kind of medical treatment. Otherwise don't hospitalize them, it's just a waste of hospital time.

I don't think it's okay to physically attack someone for insults, of any kind. If they are being unreasonable, treat them like a dangerous animal. Are you insulted by the angry growls of a dog? Try to think of why they are saying it, and ignore what they say. If they're out for a fight, be aware of the possibility of concealed weapons. If you strike the first blow and get stabbed as a result, it won't look good. Never start a fight, but definitely finish it, if it starts. Stay alive at all costs. That's just my security guard instincts kicking in.

 

consider how many soccerplayers who should face charges then...

 

I think there's one serious question that needs to be answered. When the Korean kid broke the other kid's nose, was the fight generally on-going and even, or was the other kid on the ground or trying to get away? legally speaking, if someone assaults you and then runs away, you have no right to pursue, you aren't defending yourself any more. IF the Korean kid broke the white kid's nose while the white kid was still attacking, then it's perfectly justified and no charges should be leveled. IF the white kid was no longer attacking, if the Korean kid had lost his temper and was just wailing on the boy, then charges are appropriate.

 

likewise they dont face charges for affray or assult when they shove or fight

as a martial artist he should have known better, Ive been arrested before for a fight I didnt start, I slammed the bloke into a lamp post. The police said that being trained in taijutsu I could have easily restrained him, instead I knowingly and forcefully injured someone, which took it beyond self defence, luckily for me the guy didnt bring charges.

Would you say that striking a child is wrong? even if he throws the first punch?

simple fact, the superior fighter caused harm above and beyond reasonable force.

 

first off several soccerplayers have been charged and even sentenced for actual fights started.

as for your "hitting a child strawman" Im not even going to comment it beyound this.

fact is, the guy get's punched at and punches back. that he also had a degree in a martial art shouldn't matter, since there is no evidence of him actually using it.

 

In this story I cannot see a white kid being accused of racism out of overzealous political correctness. That is one think that I felt ringing through. Then, I don't really see the point here. The guy was attacked, and he broke his attackers nose.

Well, of course the parents are incensed that their good boy got his nose broken. Somewhat understandable; they are interested in their kids interests. In school, for many parents it's never the own children that are to blame for anything they get themselves into. So they went to the police, who had to investigate. Police involvement tends to escalate the problem. Press coverage never helps as well as it blows up the problem. IMO the lesson ought to be this: First, in separate conversations it ought to be made clear that the blame lies with the attacker. Then, remind everyone sternly that silly, pointless fights over name calling inevitably involve risks like bodily harm, and aren't worth it. Actions have consequences, some of which, like broken noses, leave visible marks. The two ought to reconcile, and be both disciplined because violence in school as a metter of policy will not be tolerated as it is not a productive way to sort out differences.

More general, there is this point that irks me: So the guy knew martial arts. So what? I find it puzzling that him being trained in martial arts puts an onus on him. Apparently people expect someone who has training in martial arts to be or act more mature than his attackers, because he had martial arts training. The interesting implication of such reasoning is that apparently he would have been allowed to break his attackers nose if he hadn't had martial arts training, maybe because then the fight would be more equal.

It is worth keeping in mind that the attacker lost because he messed with a superior opponent. Had he attacked a weakling who couldn't have defended himself the situation would have been easily reversed. Ironically, the whole debate about adequacy of self defense only arises because the defender was able to defend himself. Recht braucht dem Unrecht nicht zu weichen. That sentence succinctly says that one doesn't need to stand down in face of an unjustified attack on his physical and personal integrity.

Self defense is the action that effectively defends against an ongoing attack. To justify self defense it doesn't matter at all whether he can martial arts or not, or wether he used martial arts or not. I can't find any reason why someone who is under an unprovoked and unjustified attack ought to exercise self restraint. The attacker was not a child, nor mentally retarded. Martial arts don't render those who are schooled in them invulnerable. Fights are unpredictable. So he should fight with a hand behind his back and risk getting hurt by a lucky punch (that might, say, break his nose) from his opponent in a valiant attempt to not only not get hurt himself, but also to not hurt his attacker?

It is IMO reasonable to expect him to de-escalate, to try avoid a fight - but once the fight is on, his attacker has it coming.

 

Not in Britain they havent, the football association levies fines but above that the law doesnt touch it.

The damage to the nose is clear evidence, this wasnt a punch from the elbow, this was a punch from the body.

The child comment was demonstrating the difference between the two, the adult obviously being superior, but that is irrelevent because a child can easily cause harm to an adult so in the same instance as above surely the adult should defend himself?

with regards to the martial arts, there are laws regarding excessive force. My Budo Taijutsu teacher was a police officer, and he always said, you have to be careful, the only thing which is legal in self defence is escape, the instant you throw a punch back, thats affray, and from there everything brings a risk of ABH.

obviously we cannot really judge the situation because we dont know what really happened. However we know this, his attacker was not armed, at the time his attacker was at a distance not in active physical contact (grappling, wrestling etc) The Korean boy could have possibly walked away at that point. He made a choice to strike his attacker in the head - a red area, with sufficiant force to cause serious injury to his nose. That is excessive force.

In the instance where I got arrested I actually hurt the guy by accident because I didnt even know there was a lamp post behind me, I still got arrested.

In any case, the police would have to arrest people for any fight to gain by questioning evidence to the alleged offence, the police can charge someone if the crown prosecution decides there is enough evidence for it to go to court. then it is up to the magistrates to decide if it should go to crown court then it is up to a jury.

 

How can this be considered excessive use of force Shoshino? IMO, he used enough force to stop his attack from continuing to attack him. It would have been excessive if, for example, he continued hitting the other kid after he was down. From what the article states, the Korean kid threw one punch, which effectively ended the fight.

One of the main reasons that people learn a martial art is for self defense. So the Korean kid, when placed in a situation where it was necessary to defend himself, should not have used his knowledge in martial arts? That seems absurd. I agree with Ragusa - if you say he shouldn't have fought back because he knew a martial art, it implies that it would have been OK if he broke the other kid's nose if he didn't know a martial art. The fact that he was a black belt should be irrelevant here - he threw one punch to defend himself.

As an aside - while I certainly don't know the details of your case Shoshino, I also think it's that your actions got you arrested. You should be allowed to defend yourself to the best of your ability when you are attacked.

 

I agree what should be, but unfortunately what should be and what are in the eyse of the law, as Im sure you know full well are 2 very different things.

This isnt what Im trying to say, I could care if the black belt had broken every bone in the kids face. What Im trying to say is that the law takes issue with it, being trained and thus considered 'a professional person' The law requires a degree of restraint, Ive seen it several times in a news paper where a police officer who is off duty has faced charges for fighting because 'he should have known better' despite the fact that he was attacked, there was also a case on the news not so long ago about a security chief from a shopping centre being charged because he punched a shop lifter who struck at him first, because he was trained the magistrates decided that he faced charges. look at all the crap about the G20 riots, officers hitting out at people who are throwing bricks at them being suspended and facing possible charges.
I dont agree with this s**t but this is the way society is.

If you want to know what happened in my case.

I was a bar tender at the time, saturday night, some guy was thrown out for urinating in a corner.
After closing I made my way to the takeaway across from the pub, and bought a burger, this guy must have recognised me as he started swearing at me, I ignored him which made him more aggressive, he hit my burger out of my hand and squared up to me. He then threw a punch which was easy to avoid, I using his weight took control of his arm in a bar and spun him around to where I believed he would land on the floor but instead slammed him into the lamp post behind me. I was arrested for affray and cautioned that I could be charged with ABH (having caused injury). In this case it was decided that he would not press charges so long as I didnt press charges, having already spent 14 hours in a cell, I was left on my way.

I was told by the custody sergent that had he decided to press charges I would have been remanded in custody to appear before a magistrate court, who would have decided if there was a case to answer.

Im only arguing the situation at a base level, the police not the prosecution, and whether we like it or not, participating in a fight even if you are the victim of an attack is affray and you will be arrested for it.

 

In the US there are a variety of laws on the books in various states which limit the use of martial arts in a self-defense scenario. I seem to recall one state requiring a black belt to identify themselves as such before a blow could be landed (I'm not going to guaranty the accuracy of my memory in this).

One common thread in the use of martial arts with self-defense is the concept of reasonable force. Reasonable force is the minimum force necessary to neutralize a threat. This is typically given a fairly wide berth for untrained personnel -- when attacked you can simply swing away with whatever is at hand. For most, excessive force (which becomes assault) is continuing to hit after the incapacitating blow.

For trained personnel (black belts, special forces, riot police, etc.) excessive force can be interpreted more stringently -- for a highly trained person often the most affective means to stop an assault is to simply not allow the other person to land a blow. If a good defensive posture is adequate to neutralize the threat then an offensive attack could be considered assault in some areas. There can also be legal issues if the trained person strikes quickly with a sustained damage blow (i.e., one that causes long-term problems like broken bones) without trying to stop the fight will less damaging blows.

The issue here isn't necessarily the fight, but instead the level of training one person had. Some of these laws came about from idiots watching Kung Fu and believing it. Other laws came about because some real bad asses were out there goading others into fights (and then hurting the "aggressor" in "self-defense" -- my instructor was one of those types).