Joe Schilling sucker punching drunk guy

[Frode Falch]

 

[yekmurat]

Probably because he just recently got off the trial right.

Also, I think people need to sort of define what 'sucker punching' is... from the video and what people said... the guy was goading him, and he went back and squared up... that's not a sucker punch; it was implied a fight was about to happen

Oh I didnt know he had a fight

And yeah that guy was just an unlucky dude in 6 billions of people you find one of the best striker on planet...

 

[Fergelmince]

There was absolutely no reason for Joe to approach him in the first place, and in such an aggressive manner. If Joe really felt threatened, he could have just pushed him, or taken a step back.

Joe was looking for trouble. That's very clear.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Florida, among most States in the US, has very strong Stand Your Ground Law.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

What's that got to do with Joe Schilling punching some random manlet? I never said street fighting isn't dangerous.

So then clearly any drunk manlet could be a threat that should be neutralized the second they show aggression

 

[Tatra]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Florida, among most States in the US, has very strong Stand Your Ground Law.

I understand the law disagrees with me, but I think that law is wrong. You don't have a right to approach someone aggressively. According to the logic of that law, it was Balboa who was practicing the 'Stand Your Ground' by flinching. Joe was the aggressor and that's an indisputable fact.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

There was absolutely no reason for Joe to approach him in the first place, and in such an aggressive manner. If Joe really felt threatened, he could have just pushed him, or taken a step back.

Joe was looking for trouble. That's very clear.

The court disagrees

 

[Tatra]

The court disagrees

I already said I understand that. But the law is bullshit. Joe was the aggressor.

 

[Fergelmince]

I understand the law disagrees with me, but I think that law is wrong. You don't have a right to approach someone aggressively. According to the logic of that law, it was Balboa who was practicing the 'Stand Your Ground' by flinching. Joe was the aggressor and that's an indisputable fact.

You're saying the law disagrees with you, but then you say "according to the logic of the law, it was balboa who was practicing the "Stand Your Ground" by flinching." That statement demonstrates you're confused.

As far as your statement, "you don't have a right to approach someone aggressively," there is nothing in Florida State Criminal Code stating you have to approach someone with your hands behind your back while skipping, or turn around, put your hands up and slowly walk up to them backwards.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

I already said I understand that. But the law is bullshit. Joe was the aggressor.

The court watched the same video and said Balboa was the aggressor. He clearly made the first aggressive move . It's a clear cut case which is why he not only won but received immunity from civil suits. You and others are simply wrong and can't accept it. Maybe go to school to be a defense lawyer if you're so adamant about it .

 

[Tatra]

You're saying the law disagrees with you, but then you say "according to the logic of the law, it was balboa who was practicing the "Stand Your Ground" by flinching." That statement demonstrates you're confused.

I'm saying that the judge decided Joe was defending himself, but according to that very law, Joe was clearly the aggressor and Balboa was the one 'standing his ground'. Joe acted aggressively first, not Balboa.

As far as your statement, "you don't have a right to approach someone aggressively," there is nothing in Florida State Criminal Code stating you have to approach someone with your hands behind your back while skipping, or turn around, put your hands up and slowly walk up to them backwards.

So I can just aggressively approach anyone I like and if they flinch, I have the right to brutally KO them? What an absolute dump of a state Florida is. Thank god I don't live in the USA.

The court watched the same video and said Balboa was the aggressor. He clearly made the first aggressive move .

By saying 'hey!'? lol

It's a clear cut case which is why he not only won but received immunity from civil suits. You and others are simply wrong and can't accept it. Maybe go to school to be a defense lawyer if you're so adamant about it .

Not really. All it demonstrates is how absurd the law/courts are.

Joe aggressively approached Balboa for no reason whatsoever. He was the aggressor.

 

[Poatan Power]

Hence why the law is fucking stupid. Americans wonder why their country is self destructing. There is no developed country in the world with worse laws, or judicial system than the states. A major part of the problem is water heads in this thread that think something like a "stand your ground" law makes sense. You're an absolute beta virgin if you think an MMA fighter should be allowed to hit a drunk person due to "acting aggressively near them", or the George Zimmerman case. The rest of the world laughs at your nonsense. Your entire legal and legislative system is broken, and retards like yourself are the problem.

What are you talking about? The guy feinted at Joe acting like a tough guy and got a cold two piece. Would I have done it? Nah, not worth the potential for legal trouble. But there's a continuum of behavior that is legal in that scenario, and the system found Joe was narrowly on that continuum. He doesn't get less or more rights because he knows how to box in a cage. Agree with it or not, I don't really give a shit, self-defense is self-defense. Nothing ethically out of pocket occurred here -- if anything a karmic debt was served.

In addition, stand your ground makes perfect sense, a legally acting person has no ethical/moral/legal duty to retreat before defending themselves from a violation of their rights. To insinuate that a victim has to retreat before defending is attacking the victim after the fact who wasn't the aggressor to begin with. it's akin to asking a rape victim why her skirt was so short or why she got so drunk. We can disagree on SYG as a concept, there's arguments for and against, but the SYG concept is ethically sound from a criminal justice perspective.

And, you absolute fool, George Zimmerman had nothing to do with stand your ground. That defense was never, ever, utilized by Zimmerman in any capacity in his defense throughout the case. Is there anything else you're ignorant about you'd like to reveal to us? Or are you going to keep calling people retards as you espouse shit that isn't even true or accurate?

 

[Fergelmince]

I'm saying that the judge decided Joe was defending himself, but according to that very law, Joe was clearly the aggressor and Balboa was the one 'standing his ground'. Joe acted aggressively first, not Balboa.

Balboa called him over, and he walked up with his hands down, no fists. There's nothing aggressive about it. Balboa gestured in an aggressive manner first, after aggressively staring and rapping at schilling in the bar before the incident.

By they way, this was the law suit in Civil court that Balboa lost, which has a much lower burden of proof. Did the Fort Lauderdale Police Department arrest Schilling?

 

[FriskyRandy]

What are you talking about? The guy feinted at Joe acting like a tough guy and got a cold two piece. Would I have done it? Nah, not worth the potential for legal trouble. But there's a continuum of behavior that is legal in that scenario, and the system found Joe was narrowly on that continuum. He doesn't get less or more rights because he knows how to box in a cage. Agree with it or not, I don't really give a shit, self-defense is self-defense. Nothing ethically out of pocket occurred here -- if anything a karmic debt was served.

In addition, stand your ground makes perfect sense, a legally acting person has no ethical/moral/legal duty to retreat before defending themselves from a violation of their rights. To insinuate that a victim has to retreat before defending is attacking the victim after the fact who wasn't the aggressor to begin with. it's akin to asking a rape victim why her skirt was so short or why she got so drunk. We can disagree on SYG as a concept, there's arguments for and against, but the SYG concept is ethically sound from a criminal justice perspective.

And, you absolute fool, George Zimmerman had nothing to do with stand your ground. That defense was never, ever, utilized by Zimmerman in any capacity in his defense throughout the case. Is there anything else you're ignorant about you'd like to reveal to us? Or are you going to keep calling people retards as you espouse shit that isn't even true or accurate?

You are completely retarded. Enjoy living in a shit country with your shit ideologies.

 

[Tatra]

Balboa called him over, and he walked up with his hands down, no fists. There's nothing aggressive about it. Balboa gestured in an aggressive manner first, after aggressively staring and rapping at schilling in the bar before the incident.

By they way, this was the law suit in Civil court that Balboa lost, which has a much lower burden of proof. Did the Fort Lauderdale Police Department arrest Schilling?

Saying 'hey!' is not an act of aggression. Staring? Rapping? LOL what are you talking about? Yes I'm sure Joe was soooo threatened by this goofy little drunk's 'staring' and 'rapping'. <45>

You don't have to have your fists up to be aggressive. He approaches Balboa very fast. That's the original aggressive act.

 

[Tatra]

Another feel good video for the day...

 

[Fergelmince]

Saying 'hey!' is not an act of aggression. Staring? Rapping? LOL what are you talking about? Yes I'm sure Joe was soooo threatened by this goofy little drunk's 'staring' and 'rapping'. <45>

You don't have to have your fists up to be aggressive. He approaches Balboa very fast. That's the original aggressive act.

It's in Schilling's report to the police. You haven't read it?

and my question still stands, Did the Fort Lauderdale Police arrest Schilling?

 

[Tatra]

It's in Schilling's report to the police. You haven't read it?

And? Is Joe incapable of lying? And even if Balboa did "stare" and "rap", that doesn't justify Joe's actions of aggressively approaching him. At that particular moment, Balboa wasn't a threat.

I think it's very telling Joe never mentioned any of this when the story first broke. He did, however, pretend he was standing up to "racism" because Balboa was rapping lyrics to a rap song. That's desperation & panicking of the highest order. LOL

and my question still stands, Did the Fort Lauderdale Police arrest Schilling?

There are two ways of looking at the situation: the law and morality. I understand the law says Joe did nothing wrong, but all that demonstrates is how absurd the law is. Is it morally justifiable what Joe did? On the streets, sure. In a civilised, first world country? No. Absolutely not.

 

[Fergelmince]

And? Is Joe incapable of lying? And even if Balboa did "stare" and "rap", that doesn't justify Joe's actions of aggressively approaching him. At that particular moment, Balboa wasn't a threat.

I think it's very telling Joe never mentioned any of this when the story first broke. He did, however, pretend he was standing up to "racism" because Balboa was rapping lyrics to a rap song. That's desperation & panicking of the highest order. LOL



There are two ways of looking at the situation: the law and morality. I understand the law says Joe did nothing wrong, but all that demonstrates is how absurd the law is. Is it morally justifiable what Joe did? On the streets, sure. In a civilised, first world country? No. Absolutely not.

Balboa is definitely capable of lying, as demonstrated in his statement to police. Additionally, according to the police report, several witnesses in the bar said Balboa instigated the conflict.

There's nothing in Florida Criminal Code or Florida Civil Code about walking up to someone with your hands down, no fists described as "aggessively approaching." lmfao

There aren't "two types of morality" here. The only thing that's been demonstrated here is that your "morality" is out of sync with reality, including the civil and criminal laws of Florida, along with the witnesses in the bar.

Plus, let's not forget you've gotten way too emotional about this with your schadenfreude for Joe Schilling. "He may have avoided legal penalties, but at least he got knocked out!!!" So you've shown you can't be rational about this situation.

Another feel good video for the day...

 

[Poatan Power]

You are completely retarded. Enjoy living in a shit country with your shit ideologies.

Translation: You had no idea what you were talking about, gave a cursory, inaccurate representation of the laws of a country you don't live in, and cited a case to obtusely refute the stand your ground legal concept where, in fact, the stand your ground defense wasn't used at all and has no connection to what you were talking about in even the slightest. Then you, ironically, call me a retard because you made a fool of yourself. Cheers mate, you just hit the half court shot of making yourself look like a fool. Impressive, even for Sherdog. In this instance, I'm Joe Schilling and you're random drunk bar guy. I'm dipping out unscathed and you're looking at the ceiling. Cheers.

Good on Joe for acting within his naturally inherited rights.

 

[IsNormal]

The official court ruling is interesting and has a good summary of how the court viewed the incident

* They never quite figured out what the guy said to make Joe turn around.
* The court describes Joe as unagressive and the victim as at fault for making a "feinting gesture"



Schilling was at the restaurant dining with a friend and colleague, Jamie Gall.
Ms. Gall noticed when Balboa entered the restaurant. He was boisterous and calling attention to himself. Balboa, who was celebrating a recent promotion, was admittedly drinking, singing, dancing and walking around the restaurant. He had a few beers, as well as a "good" or "decent" amount of shots.
At one point during the night, Balboa went up to Schilling and Gall's table. Balboa, a recreational boxer, testified that he did not know who Schilling was before that night. Ms. Gall, however, testified that she hear Balboa say something about fighting to Schilling. After a brief exchange, they asked Balboa to leave and he complied.
Later that evening, Schilling stepped outside to smoke. When he was returning to his table, Balboa, who was admittedly intoxicated at that point, stumbled into Schilling. The video taken by Ms. Gall shows that Balboa apologized without looking at Schilling, and Schilling acknowledged the apology while continuing to walk back to his table. For some undetermined reason, Balboa calls out to Schilling. Schilling turns around and looks at Balboa in an unaggressive stance. Schilling's feet were shoulder width apart and his hands were at his side. Balboa makes a feinting gesture towards Schilling. Schilling, who testified that he learned to anticipate punches as part of his training, instantly responded with two quick punches. Balboa fell to the floor unconscious.

Schilling testified that he thought he was about to be punched by Balboa. Once he believed the threat was neutralized, Schilling returned to his table, paid the bill and left the restaurant.

Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, "[a] person is justified in using ... deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using... such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." A person who uses such deadly force "is immune from criminal prosecution" for the use of force. "Section 776.032(1) expressly grants defendants a substantive right to not be arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as a result of the use of legally justified force."

The Court must evaluate not whether Schilling's actions were necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, but rather, whether Schilling reasonably believed that using such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
Based upon a totality of circumstances and the facts presented at the evidentiary hearing, the Court finds that Schilling reasonably believed that Balboa posed a threat of great bodily harm to himself. The Court further finds that Schilling used only such force necessary to neutralize the threat, and is therefore entitled to immunity

--------------------------

Really questionable what should be enough for a "feinting gesture". I don't think it was that bad cause his hands were down.

But one thing that this text clarifies is that it had nothing to do with the words being said, or with who walked up to who. It was all about the "gesture" just before the KO.