Another ST Boston brawl- Tavarez vs. Gathright - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Another ST Boston brawl- Tavarez vs. Gathright

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Matthias » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:17 pm

nuggets wrote:
Strasil42 wrote:Hopefully they are smart enough to not throw at yankees though. Farnsworth will destory them.


Farnsworth/Gathright would be priceless. Guys like Gathright don't hit back because their hands, feet, ect. are considered deadly weapons in a court of law. If Farnsworth comes after you, I assume I'd be ok to use them though :-D


actually, that's a huge myth.

Not in the Face! Not in the Face!


Debunked: Boxers are required to register their hands as "lethal weapons."

Research has failed to reveal any statutory, regulatory or other requirement that boxers -- or anyone skilled in martial arts -- "register" their hands or any other body part as "lethal weapons" in the U.S., UKoGBaNI, Canada, or any other common law nation. However, a criminal defendant's experience in boxing, karate, or other forms of hand-to-hand combat may be relevant to determining various legal issues.

First, in the United States at least, the question of whether hands (or other body parts) of a boxer, martial artist or any other person even qualifies as a "deadly" or "lethal" weapon depends largely upon how "deadly weapon," "lethal weapon," or "deadly force" is defined (usually by statute, which is then interpreted by the courts). _See,_ _e.g.,_ Vitauts M. Gulbis, "Parts of the Human Body, Other Than Feet, as Deadly or Dangerous Weapons for Purposes of Statutes Aggravating Offenses Such as Assault and Robbery," 8 A.L.R.4th 1268 (1981 and supplements); Christpher Vaeth, "Kicking as Aggravated Assault, or Assault With Dangerous or Deadly Weapon," 19 A.L.R.5th 823 (1995 and supplements). Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met. For example, in _Minnesota v. Bastin_, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997), the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the trial court's conclusion that the left fist of the defendant, a former licensed professional prize fighter, was a "deadly weapon."

Some courts in the United States have concluded, however, that a criminal defendant's experience in boxing or martial arts should be considered when deciding whether s/he possessed a required intent to cause harm. For instance, in _Trujillo v. State_, 750 P.2d 1334 (Wyo. 1988), the Wyoming Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault after he punched someone in the head. His history as a trained boxer was one bit of evidence supporting the jury's findings on his mental state. Likewise, in _In the Matter of the Welfare of D.S.F._, 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of the defendant, who had "substantial experience in karate," were sufficient to demonstrate his knowledge that he was hitting the victim with sufficient force to break the victim's jaw.

Similarly, a criminal defendant's boxing or martial arts experience may be relevant to determining the validity of a self-defense claim. For instance, in _Idaho v. Babbit_, 120 Idaho 337, 815 P.2d 1077 (Idaho App. 1991), the defendant shot the victim and claimed self-defense. The trial court admitted evidence regarding the defendant's past training and experience as a boxer, concluding that it was relevant to a determination of whether the defendant truly believed it was necessary to shoot the victim in order to protect himself and others. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed.

Documented: A criminal defendant's experience in boxing or the martial arts may be relevant to deciding whether the elements of a criminal offense have been proven.


http://tafkac.org/faq2k/legal_2007.html
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Iconoclastic » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:20 pm

Has he been suspended for 10 days or ten games? Cuz 10 days is only 6 or 7 games.
[b]Bold Predictions:[/b]

Grady Sizemore will have more value than Jason Bay regardless of draft position

Aramis Ramirez in 155 G will hit over .300 40 HR 110 RBIs

Brian McCann will have more value than Jorge Posada regardless of draft position
Iconoclastic
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 795
Joined: 5 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Strasil42 » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:21 pm

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Strasil42 wrote:Farnsworth will destory them.


Tek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Farnsworth


Haha right.

You need to look for some videos of farnsworth fighting. Its hilarious.

Tek had trouble with kid wonderful. Farnsworth would own him.
Strasil42
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4347
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Omaha

Postby nuggets » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:30 pm

Matthias wrote:actually, that's a huge myth.


I never said anything about boxers, why would you post that article? It is true in most cases regarding nth degree black belts who often are trained to kill with their hands, rather than punch hard.
nuggets
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3342
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby kidnemisis » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:46 pm

Matthias wrote:
nuggets wrote:
Strasil42 wrote:Hopefully they are smart enough to not throw at yankees though. Farnsworth will destory them.


Farnsworth/Gathright would be priceless. Guys like Gathright don't hit back because their hands, feet, ect. are considered deadly weapons in a court of law. If Farnsworth comes after you, I assume I'd be ok to use them though :-D


actually, that's a huge myth.

Not in the Face! Not in the Face!


Debunked: Boxers are required to register their hands as "lethal weapons."

Research has failed to reveal any statutory, regulatory or other requirement that boxers -- or anyone skilled in martial arts -- "register" their hands or any other body part as "lethal weapons" in the U.S., UKoGBaNI, Canada, or any other common law nation. However, a criminal defendant's experience in boxing, karate, or other forms of hand-to-hand combat may be relevant to determining various legal issues.

First, in the United States at least, the question of whether hands (or other body parts) of a boxer, martial artist or any other person even qualifies as a "deadly" or "lethal" weapon depends largely upon how "deadly weapon," "lethal weapon," or "deadly force" is defined (usually by statute, which is then interpreted by the courts). _See,_ _e.g.,_ Vitauts M. Gulbis, "Parts of the Human Body, Other Than Feet, as Deadly or Dangerous Weapons for Purposes of Statutes Aggravating Offenses Such as Assault and Robbery," 8 A.L.R.4th 1268 (1981 and supplements); Christpher Vaeth, "Kicking as Aggravated Assault, or Assault With Dangerous or Deadly Weapon," 19 A.L.R.5th 823 (1995 and supplements). Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met. For example, in _Minnesota v. Bastin_, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997), the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the trial court's conclusion that the left fist of the defendant, a former licensed professional prize fighter, was a "deadly weapon."

Some courts in the United States have concluded, however, that a criminal defendant's experience in boxing or martial arts should be considered when deciding whether s/he possessed a required intent to cause harm. For instance, in _Trujillo v. State_, 750 P.2d 1334 (Wyo. 1988), the Wyoming Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault after he punched someone in the head. His history as a trained boxer was one bit of evidence supporting the jury's findings on his mental state. Likewise, in _In the Matter of the Welfare of D.S.F._, 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of the defendant, who had "substantial experience in karate," were sufficient to demonstrate his knowledge that he was hitting the victim with sufficient force to break the victim's jaw.

Similarly, a criminal defendant's boxing or martial arts experience may be relevant to determining the validity of a self-defense claim. For instance, in _Idaho v. Babbit_, 120 Idaho 337, 815 P.2d 1077 (Idaho App. 1991), the defendant shot the victim and claimed self-defense. The trial court admitted evidence regarding the defendant's past training and experience as a boxer, concluding that it was relevant to a determination of whether the defendant truly believed it was necessary to shoot the victim in order to protect himself and others. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed.

Documented: A criminal defendant's experience in boxing or the martial arts may be relevant to deciding whether the elements of a criminal offense have been proven.


http://tafkac.org/faq2k/legal_2007.html


owned.
kidnemisis
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 183
Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:48 pm

nuggets wrote:
Matthias wrote:actually, that's a huge myth.


I never said anything about boxers, why would you post that article? It is true in most cases regarding nth degree black belts who often are trained to kill with their hands, rather than punch hard.


why? because 3 years of law school taught me to distill, compare, and apply. and when something says, "Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met." it's not very tough to say that unless a black belt is using something other than their hand, it doesn't apply. even if the next sentence gives a case involving a boxer as its example.

read. think. then speak.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby nuggets » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:53 pm

kidnemisis wrote:owned.


Not so much. Maybe you want to go back and look at the issue I brought up and not the "Boxers don't have to register their hands" issue the other guy manufactured to prove a point that wasn't being contested because he really didn't read my post.

You can pull up as many cases which include martial artists or boxing trained individuals having their hands or feet considered lethal weapons as not. There is a grey area that has been ruled differently depending on individual circumstance. Most boxers or martial artists try to avoid using closed fists in fights because they know there is a reasonable chance they will be considered deadly weapons and therefore incur more harsh penalties under the law.
Last edited by nuggets on Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nuggets
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3342
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby nuggets » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:55 pm

Matthias wrote:
nuggets wrote:
Matthias wrote:actually, that's a huge myth.


I never said anything about boxers, why would you post that article? It is true in most cases regarding nth degree black belts who often are trained to kill with their hands, rather than punch hard.


why? because 3 years of law school taught me to distill, compare, and apply. and when something says, "Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met." it's not very tough to say that unless a black belt is using something other than their hand, it doesn't apply. even if the next sentence gives a case involving a boxer as its example.

read. think. then speak.


That's great, maybe you should study these cases:

In recent years Ohio appellate courts have issued contradictory rulings on the subject. A 1999 ruling said “there is no question” that fists can be deadly weapons; a 2000 ruling affirmed a lower court’s jury instruction that fists can’t be considered deadly weapons. And a 1996 ruling said that “while human fists may not be deadly weapons per se,” it was reasonable to consider them as such in a specific beating case (incidentally, one involving a former boxer).


The bottom line here is what one can argue to fit this common description:

“any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specifically adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.”
nuggets
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3342
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby nuggets » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:01 pm

kidnemisis wrote:
Matthias wrote:Similarly, a criminal defendant's boxing or martial arts experience may be relevant to determining the validity of a self-defense claim. For instance, in _Idaho v. Babbit_, 120 Idaho 337, 815 P.2d 1077 (Idaho App. 1991), the defendant shot the victim and claimed self-defense. The trial court admitted evidence regarding the defendant's past training and experience as a boxer, concluding that it was relevant to a determination of whether the defendant truly believed it was necessary to shoot the victim in order to protect himself and others. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed.

Documented: A criminal defendant's experience in boxing or the martial arts may be relevant to deciding whether the elements of a criminal offense have been proven.


http://tafkac.org/faq2k/legal_2007.html


owned.


Did we ride the short bus to the cafe today? How can you really post anything like you two have when something like this exists in your own post?
nuggets
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3342
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby nuggets » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:14 pm

Matthias wrote:stop embarrassign yourslef and i'll stop embarassing you as well.

finding a random allusion to contradictory caselaw in one jurisdiction does not mean that something is common or accepted. here's a link for you.

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=460

but if you really want to chase this rainbow, here's a publicly-available website for you to look up statutes and court decisions and you can prove up your martial-arts myth.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/

otherwise, probably best to just drop it. some of the best advice i've ever heard is the first rule of hole-digging: when you're in one, stop.


lol, I see you are out to win arguments today, rather than participate in discourse. You have created your own agrument with the registering boxers and martial artists stuff, you haven't addressed mine. I'm not saying anything like the myth which is addressed in your link is. I'm talking about the real world.

I know people who are nth degree blackbelts. Something they all are aware of is the risk that they can be considered deadly weapons in a court of law. It's a fact that the grey area exists and it's well documented. I'd be nice if you didn't create a fake argument as you haven't considered what I'm acutally saying.
Last edited by nuggets on Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nuggets
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3342
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buiviopaufamp and 8 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Jul. 25
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

St. Louis at Chi Cubs
(4:05 pm)
Toronto at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Arizona at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Boston at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Diego at Atlanta
(7:35 pm)
Oakland at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
NY Mets at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Cleveland at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Miami at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Detroit at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Baltimore at Seattle
(10:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at San Francisco
(10:15 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact