Possible options...confused..

[Zigner]

Well IF there is truly a videotape, it shows two people engaging in behaviors they should not have. And she engaged first.

Whatever my response was, it was immediately following her actions toward me, and THAT would be on the tape...not that it matters all that much.

The tape would show, at best (for you), mutual combat wherein BOTH participants broke the law.

 

[davew128]

Yes, I think you need to speak ONLY to an attorney. In this thread, you've admitted to (at least) one crime.

Which would be what exactly? I see an affirmative self defense to any battery charge.

 

[GOODYMAN]

I totally forgot to address that part. If there is a protective order issued, it will likely be done ex parte, without OP's knowledge or presence. To show up to that hearing would likely be seen as inflammatory, and would be difficult to achieve anyway. If there is a protective order hearing that OP is invited to, it would be a hearing to contest the order, which would be initiated only by him or his attorney. In that case, it would of course be in his best interest to attend.

Indeed, the Ex Parte is already in force, I just haven't been served yet...

And so that's what this attorney was saying...how much do I want to expose of myself by ATTEMPTING to contest the order? I guess his position is that regardless of who did what to whom first, I come off looking slightly more nefarious, and trying to make my myself look LESS so is a hit and miss for my case...


I'm not saying this is my position, but...what possible response could I have to: "the videotape shows her slapping you...but why did you slap her back - that wasn't cool - explain yourself!".

"Yeah...but she hit me first your Honor, don't I get credit for that?"

Or am I oversimplifying this matter?

 

[Proserpina]

Indeed, the Ex Parte is already in force, I just haven't been served yet...

And so that's what this attorney was saying...how much do I want to expose of myself by ATTEMPTING to contest the order? I guess his position is that regardless of who did what to whom first, I come off looking slightly more nefarious, and trying to make my myself look LESS so is a hit and miss for my case...


I'm not saying this is my position, but...what possible response could I have to: "the videotape shows her slapping you...but why did you slap her back - that wasn't cool - explain yourself!".

"Yeah...but she hit me first your Honor, don't I get credit for that?"

Or am I oversimplifying this matter?

Honestly? That excuse should be flushed down the toilet when you're about 5 years old.

 

[single317dad]

Indeed, the Ex Parte is already in force, I just haven't been served yet...

And so that's what this attorney was saying...how much do I want to expose of myself by ATTEMPTING to contest the order? I guess his position is that regardless of who did what to whom first, I come off looking slightly more nefarious, and trying to make my myself look LESS so is a hit and miss for my case...


I'm not saying this is my position, but...what possible response could I have to: "the videotape shows her slapping you...but why did you slap her back - that wasn't cool - explain yourself!".

"Yeah...but she hit me first your Honor, don't I get credit for that?"

Or am I oversimplifying this matter?

Unfortunately, there is no self defense clause in the battery or domestic statutes. If you do let the protective order stand, and there are no charges filed, I would think a temporary change of scenery might be in order.

 

[Zigner]

Indeed, the Ex Parte is already in force, I just haven't been served yet...

And so that's what this attorney was saying...how much do I want to expose of myself by ATTEMPTING to contest the order? I guess his position is that regardless of who did what to whom first, I come off looking slightly more nefarious, and trying to make my myself look LESS so is a hit and miss for my case...


I'm not saying this is my position, but...what possible response could I have to: "the videotape shows her slapping you...but why did you slap her back - that wasn't cool - explain yourself!".

"Yeah...but she hit me first your Honor, don't I get credit for that?"

Or am I oversimplifying this matter?

Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Man: Roundhouse open-handed smack on the side of the head that throws the woman to the ground and causes her to need assistance to stand.

Tell me, was the man's response appropriate?


PS: I am NOT condoning any physical attack by either party, but c'mon!

 

[GOODYMAN]

Honestly? That excuse should be flushed down the toilet when you're about 5 years old.

I totally agree.

Such a notion of "she hit me first" is indeed total B.S. and I know it.

As such...why would I even go there or anywhere NEAR that?

The affirmative self defense angle was brought up by the guy I spoke to - and even then he was like reluctant to put much stock in at all.

So essentially, he was like "hope for a 2 year order, no arrest, no charges filed...and peace from this matter...outside of the stigma of being someone that the MAN has to put in a corner so he doesn't hurt the ladies".

What do you think about his position on the matter? I could be wrong, but it sounds to me that he doesn't want me to be put in a position to even HAVE do defend or explain what happened, even though my actions were "somewhat" understandable. Just not understandable enough to make it worth going under the microscope of cross-examination.

Right?

 

[GOODYMAN]

Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Man: Roundhouse open-handed smack on the side of the head that throws the woman to the ground and causes her to need assistance to stand.

Tell me, was the man's response appropriate?


PS: I am NOT condoning any physical attack by either party, but c'mon!

No, it was not appropriate, but it all happened so fast, you know.

Of course I wish it would have gone down differently..

 

[single317dad]

I totally agree.

Such a notion of "she hit me first" is indeed total B.S. and I know it.

As such...why would I even go there or anywhere NEAR that?

The affirmative self defense angle was brought up by the guy I spoke to - and even then he was like reluctant to put much stock in at all.

So essentially, he was like "hope for a 2 year order, no arrest, no charges filed...and peace from this matter...outside of the stigma of being someone that the MAN has to put in a corner so he doesn't hurt the ladies".

What do you think about his position on the matter? I could be wrong, but it sounds to me that he doesn't want me to be put in a position to even HAVE do defend or explain what happened, even though my actions were "somewhat" understandable. Just not understandable enough to make it worth going under the microscope of cross-examination.

Right?

The more I hear the details of what the attorney actually said, the more I think he's probably giving you the best advice in a difficult situation.

 

[single317dad]

Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Man: Roundhouse open-handed smack on the side of the head that throws the woman to the ground and causes her to need assistance to stand.

Tell me, was the man's response appropriate?


PS: I am NOT condoning any physical attack by either party, but c'mon!

I think that's oversimplifying things a little. Have you ever been slapped to the face with NO, absolutely 0, effect?
What if the two parties had been a 90-pound supermodel, and a 200-pound female? Would that person be expected to take abuse without defending herself?
I'm not saying he should have slapped her. I'm just saying that 3 slaps to the face do have an effect, and it's usually the effect of getting hit back.

 

[Zigner]

I think that's oversimplifying things a little. Have you ever been slapped to the face with NO, absolutely 0, effect?
What if the two parties had been a 90-pound supermodel, and a 200-pound female? Would that person be expected to take abuse without defending herself?
I'm not saying he should have slapped her. I'm just saying that 3 slaps to the face do have an effect, and it's usually the effect of getting hit back.

It was an intentional simplification of the matter

ETA: The chance at successfully claiming self defense depends on the parties involved and the realistic expectation of harm. The OP had the option of simply walking away. Get it?


ETA Again: When I was involved in a similar situation, I walked away...and voila! No charges

 

[GOODYMAN]

It was an intentional simplification of the matter

ETA: The chance at successfully claiming self defense depends on the parties involved and the realistic expectation of harm. The OP had the option of simply walking away. Get it?


ETA Again: When I was involved in a similar situation, I walked away...and voila! No charges

I definitely get it.

Unfortunately, contrition is a woefully weak defense in court. I could just die...seriously. I've never been in a situation like this before. I can hardly think straight...

 

[davew128]

Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Woman: Light slap to the face, no effect.
Man: Roundhouse open-handed smack on the side of the head that throws the woman to the ground and causes her to need assistance to stand.

Tell me, was the man's response appropriate?


PS: I am NOT condoning any physical attack by either party, but c'mon!

Zigner, I can tell you that any woman who goes to the effort of hitting a man like that is doing so with all the force she can. We're not talking a slap to the face like you see on tv (which is ALSO battery). Further, a smack to the head (regardless of who is hitting whom) does not ordinarily knock someone to the ground, usually, there's an element of either being off balance or (to coin a hockey phrase) someone took a dive.

As singledad points out, nobody (including men) is required to simply stand there and be hit. Every self defense law I've ever seen requires use of proportionate or reasonable force to stop the assault ot battery on one's person. I don't think slapping someone and not causing injury against another party who is repeatedly striking you is unreasonable. Now a punch to the jaw or using a weapon would be unreasonable, but this....just not seeing it.

 

[davew128]

ETA: The chance at successfully claiming self defense depends on the parties involved and the realistic expectation of harm. The OP had the option of simply walking away. Get it?


ETA Again: When I was involved in a similar situation, I walked away...and voila! No charges

OP was in HIS home, not hers. He has no duty to leave, she DOES.

I ALSO have been in a similar situation and in the process of "leaving" was forcefully grabbed from behind and my jacket ripped after being chased down from a block away since staying silent and walking away didn't have the desired result. My push of the woman which knocked her to the ground to get her away from me WAS considered self defense and voila, no charges.

 

[Zigner]

OP was in HIS home, not hers. He has no duty to leave, she DOES.

Ahhh, so THAT justifies the beat-down. Thanks for clearing that up.
The woman was OUTSIDE. OP could have simply gone back inside and closed the door instead of laying her out on the ground.

I ALSO have been in a similar situation and in the process of "leaving" was forcefully grabbed from behind and my jacket ripped after being chased down from a block away since staying silent and walking away didn't have the desired result. My push of the woman which knocked her to the ground to get her away from me WAS considered self defense and voila, no charges.

Yours was a different situation (as was mine, of course)