Killed Via Chokehold

[Guest]

I can tell from reading half of these comments that most have not choked anyone out before or even been choked themselves yet they seem to think they know their stuff.

 

It seems like with something like an RNC, he would have had to hold it for an awfully long time in order to incur brain damage

 

if the hold that put him unconscious is maintained at the same rate, brain damage starts to occur within less than 30 seconds according to the discovery channel.

 

 

Even with both carotid and jugular arteries severed, the typical human will take 20-40 seconds to fall unconcious, depending on physical distress at the time of oxygen-supply loss. For actual long-term brain damage, I couldn't guess, though.

 

if you cut off the arteries with a RNC it can take less than 10 seconds even in a calm relaxed state. now with the chase that took place and the high stress situation im sure their hearts were pumping pretty fast which can cut that time down considerably.

 

The only chokehold i can think of that would block airwavies, is if you put your hand over the guys neck, frontwards. If so that is murder & easily provable.

REALLY? FKING REALLY?> double face palm. this is an mma site and i have to say im ashamed to have this comment on the forums...

 

there are too many air chokes for me to even mention here. almost any choke can be an air choke depending on how it is applied.

 

how many choke holds did you go through in your mind when you were trying to pick out the "block airwavies" one? well, let me see. theres the brock lesnar thumb in throat choke, and theres the rape shake the head choke. hmmmm thats all i can think of from the movies so yeah... gotta be the rape choke that did the snizzle.

[Guest]

Don't know about the US, but in Canada he would be charged with manslaughter. Reasons, you can't protect your property to a deadly degree, the guys ran away & he neve ment to kill the kid.

 

Resource- currently taking law in school, comes in hand some time.

the moral os this story. don't steal or you might get put in a death hold.

[Guest]

This thread is amazing. Like any of you have a right to end someone's fucking life.

true but these guys had no right to steal too. it didn't belong to them.

[Guest]

Hey if it was me I would have choked the little fucker myself. However, I probably wouldn't have chased him down I probably would have just shot his dumbass. All these people that steal shit need to get a fucking job if they want something not take from people that have worked for everything they have. I say more power to the guy.

 

You're incredibly fortunate to be able to get a job at the slightest whim whatsoever.

[Grasman]

The outcome of this thread is mainly that many of you guys are seriously fucked up.

 

In most part of the civilized world, if you kill someone while robbing you, stealing from you etc... you get thrown to prison for several years.

The only possible way you can kill someone and avoid being sentenced for manslaughter, is by proving within a shadow of a doubt that you were in fact protecting your life with your action.

And no, it is not enough by any means for you to be attacked, for you to be able to claim self defense after killing someone, you would have to prove the attacker tried to kill you.

 

The defense has to be within proportions of the attack.

 

This is one of the reasons i regard the USA only as a semi civilized country.

 

It is ridiculous to read some of the justifications for killing a "thief", fucking disgusting.

 

May your own attitude hit yourself, sooner than later

[Grasman]

true but these guys had no right to steal too. it didn't belong to them.

Someone steals a kiss from your girlfriend/wife/etc... does the thief deserve to die?

 

You are starving and steal from a shop,, do you deserve to die?

 

You are taking a shortcut over private property,,, do you deserve to die?

 

Your brother jokes around and grabs a girls ass,,, does he deserve to die?

 

You kill my brother for trying to steal your car,,, do you deserve to die?

 

etc... etc..!

 

If you answer yes to any of these questions, you are a clear danger to the life of your fellow human beings, and surely by your own logic you deserve to die as soon as possible

[jammon896]

First off as if a 42 year old guy chased down two teen agers let alone ko'd and choked them. Old man Strength?

Anyway its kinda obvious that guy had no training on chokes at least or was just in a frenzy otherwise no one would be having this discussion. It was probably a simple choke a rear naked or guillotine as stated before. I bet he was on an adrenaline rush and squeezed way to long and possibly torqued the neck of that kid. That being said its kinda sad to hear of this happening. Theft is a punishable crime but its not worthy of killing another.

 

I think they should send a BJJ black belt to that guys house to choke him unconscious mabey that would show him how he messed up.

[Guest]

Self Defense is one thing and the only situation I could see myself taking a life, or defending a loved one.

 

 

Even then. If you kill someone un-necessarily you should be punished for it. I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, and even more strongly opposed to people thinking they can kill each other for bullshit reasons.

[Guest]

I don't think he killed the robber on purpose. The guy did die 8 months later.

 

I agree it is unfortunate that someone died. I just don't think the robbery victim should be held responsible for it.

[Grasman]

I don't think he killed the robber on purpose. The guy did die 8 months later.

 

I agree it is unfortunate that someone died. I just don't think the robbery victim should be held responsible for it.

This wasn't a case of robbery, it was a case of attempted theft/car burglary, where the thieves fled and got hunted down.

 

He then attacks the thieves, ko'ing one of them, choking out the other.

 

Douglas Uhler and Brian Johnston, both 18, were chased down by the car’s owner, who punched Johnston, knocking him unconscious, and then placed Uhler in a wrestling hold until police arrived, according to Acting Somerset County Prosecutor A. Peter DeMarco Jr.

 

He is clearly the attacker in this case, so in this case he was endangering the teenagers life, and one could argue it was them whom were in self defense, not the other way around.

 

So, basically, you want the youngsters to be held responsible for their actions ( a mini crime ), but not the attacker, who's attack resulted in one unconscious and one dead,( a serious crime) while nothing happened to the attacker, he got away scot free and lost nothing. Even though he initiated the contact and used force way out of proportions, leading to death, because of a frigging wallet and a watch.

 

Can you see the failure in your logic?

 

By this same logic, the dead teens father, brother, uncle, friend, son etc.. are fully justified in killing the car owner, and not be punished for it.

[Guest]

about time some sense entered the thread.

[Guest]

That quote paints a grossly different picture of events. Also, property was found on the robbers.

 

Not understanding your logic of my logic. Your statement makes me believe you think I believe the robbery victim intentionally killed the robber. Maybe if the robber's father, brother, uncle, friend, son etc. saw the victim choking their son, brother, nephew, friend, father etc. it would be alright to take action to subdue the victim (not known at the time to be the victim of robbery.) In that case they would be defending a loved one without knowledge of his intents to just subdue the robber.

 

I just don't see how you got all that from my statement.

[Grasman]

That quote paints a grossly different picture of events. Also, property was found on the robbers.

 

Not understanding your logic of my logic. Your statement makes me believe you think I believe the robbery victim intentionally killed the robber. Maybe if the robber's father, brother, uncle, friend, son etc. saw the victim choking their son, brother, nephew, friend, father etc. it would be alright to take action to subdue the victim (not known at the time to be the victim of robbery.) In that case they would be defending a loved one without knowledge of his intents to just subdue the robber.

 

I just don't see how you got all that from my statement.

Again,, this wasn't a robbery, there is a big difference between theft and a robbery.

 

The owner of the car was in no way threatened by the teenagers, as it was him who chased after them, and physically attacked them. By definition, they were acting in self defense, since they were being attacked.

 

The attacker is successful in neutralizing both of his victims, by use of major physical force, leading to physical death of one of the victims of the attack.

 

The car owner was a victim of a minor crime, he then travels over large distance, creates a situation of great danger for himself and his (by now) victims, killing one of them, unintentionally or intentionally.

 

You don't correct a little wrong with a big wrong, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

In this case all involved are both perpetrators and victims.

The car owner was a small victim, but a big perpetrator, and the other way around for the teens. It is just a case of "the teens started it".

 

IMO The car owner should be charged for an attack that lead to (possibly unintentional) manslaughter, but not to push for the maximum sentence.

 

I can't see any justification for anything less.

[Guest]

Yes. I was ignorant on the robbery thing. It was theft. Definitely not robbery. I did not know the difference until now.

 

The thieves actions are still a serious crime. Auto Theft seems pretty serious. Seems it might be worth 5 years. I know horses are different, but I always heard you could hang someone if you catch them stealing a horse (probably in just some areas, not all.)

 

Reading the NJ Self Defense Laws seems to state the guy chasing the kid is in the right if he asked for his property back. Can't say I am good at reading that kind of stuff. Reading the first few pages made me flip flop a couple times. But I am back on the chasers side.

[Driven]

 

The owner of the car was in no way threatened by the teenagers

 

Not according to the victim of the theft. After knocking out one of the thieves, the other one attacked him. At that point, he was definitely being threatened.

[MattyBlayze]

Not according to the victim of the theft. After knocking out one of the thieves, the other one attacked him. At that point, he was definitely being threatened.

 

Yeah, I was reading this thread waiting for someone to point that out to Grasman.

 

The kid who died jumped out of the bushes onto the guy's back while saying, "Come on, <blank>!". Now, if you're trying to argue self-defense over the kid who died, its a sin to ignore the fact that, yes, while the "killer" ran after him, the kid still jumped and attacked him - not the other way around.

 

The part ignored:

 

Prosecutors said that after Montalvo knocked out one of the suspects, later identified as Brian Johnston, Uhler ran out from nearby bushes and shouted: "You want a piece of me, (expletive)?!" Uhler jumped on Montalvo, who put him in a submission hold, Somerset County Prosecutor Geoffrey Soriano said. The move blocked the teen’s oxygen flow, causing a brain injury, Soriano said.

 

 

The reason I originally posted this is because those two sentences alone are what the argument hinges on - is being attacked, as the killer was by the deceased, enough to claim self-defense, and is holding a choke for that long going overboard? Not nearly as cut and dry as some imply.

[Grasman]

Yes. I was ignorant on the robbery thing. It was theft. Definitely not robbery. I did not know the difference until now.

Cool, glad that's corrected

 

The thieves actions are still a serious crime. Auto Theft seems pretty serious. Seems it might be worth 5 years. I know horses are different, but I always heard you could hang someone if you catch them stealing a horse (probably in just some areas, not all.)

Reading the NJ Self Defense Laws seems to state the guy chasing the kid is in the right if he asked for his property back. Can't say I am good at reading that kind of stuff. Reading the first few pages made me flip flop a couple times. But I am back on the chasers side.

To me it is totally irrelevant whether NJ law states that or not.

In many Arab countries it is legal to stone women that have been raped, for adultery.

We can name endless idiotic laws from the underdeveloped countries of the third world, Far east, mid east etc.. and obviously a few places in the developed, supposedly civilized US of A.

 

But none of that makes it right, or even remotely justified.

 

Do you see a legal Arab women stoning frenzy in the same sense?

 

That's legal murder, in NJ's case it's legal manslaughter, same difference, same outcome, both very wrong.

[Guest]

Ok, in that case Grasman, I feel it is alright to defend yourself. I will not liken defense of one's self to the unjust treatment of women. If defending myself is being uncivilized, I don't want to be civilized.

 

The way you are putting it, it sounds like the situation means nothing. It would be like charging an mma fighter for assault even though there are things in place to make what they do legal.

 

I believe the horse thief laws were put in place due to lack of police.

[Grasman]

Yeah, I was reading this thread waiting for someone to point that out to Grasman.

 

The kid who died jumped out of the bushes onto the guy's back while saying, "Come on, <blank>!". Now, if you're trying to argue self-defense over the kid who died, its a sin to ignore the fact that, yes, while the "killer" ran after him, the kid still jumped and attacked him - not the other way around.

 

The part ignored:

 

"Prosecutors said that after Montalvo knocked out one of the suspects, later identified as Brian Johnston, Uhler ran out from nearby bushes and shouted: "You want a piece of me, (expletive)?!" Uhler jumped on Montalvo, who put him in a submission hold, Somerset County Prosecutor Geoffrey Soriano said. The move blocked the teen’s oxygen flow, causing a brain injury, Soriano said."

 

 

The reason I originally posted this is because those two sentences alone are what the argument hinges on - is being attacked, as the killer was by the deceased, enough to claim self-defense, and is holding a choke for that long going overboard? Not nearly as cut and dry as some imply.

I agree with this Matty, it still doesn't change the fact he chased after them and initiated the attack, but it definitely strengthens the car owners case regarding the manslaughter charge outcome, and should serve as a sentence reduction.

 

All we know these bushes were by a wall so he couldn't get anywhere, but that's pure speculation, although it shows the possibility of the unknowns.

But regardless, this is a case of manslaughter, intentional or not.

[Grasman]

Ok, in that case Grasman, I feel it is alright to defend yourself. I will not liken defense of one's self to the unjust treatment of women. If defending myself is being uncivilized, I don't want to be civilized.

Attacking and killing someone over a watch and a wallet, or anything of that nature, is wrong, just as bad treatment of women is wrong.

I was just pointing out that something being legal somewhere, might have nothing to do with it being right in any shape or form.

 

The way you are putting it, it sounds like the situation means nothing. It would be like charging an mma fighter for assault even though there are things in place to make what they do legal.

 

I believe the horse thief laws were put in place due to lack of police.

The situation means a lot, mma fighting is a fight, not an assault, both willing.

But if a mma fighter doesn't let go of a choke, after the opponent goes completely limp or taps and kills the other fighter, the fighter should be prosecuted, the referee also.

 

But, while i agree the car owner has somethings in his favor, it is still manslaughter.

I would see it exactly the same if the teen had choked and killed the car owner.

The teen squares up to him after he ko's his friend, so the situation changes partly from being an attack to being a fight, with the resulting death.

It is still a manslaughter nevertheless.

[Guest]

Someone steals a kiss from your girlfriend/wife/etc... does the thief deserve to die?

 

You are starving and steal from a shop,, do you deserve to die?

 

You are taking a shortcut over private property,,, do you deserve to die?

 

Your brother jokes around and grabs a girls ass,,, does he deserve to die?

 

You kill my brother for trying to steal your car,,, do you deserve to die?

 

etc... etc..!

 

If you answer yes to any of these questions, you are a clear danger to the life of your fellow human beings, and surely by your own logic you deserve to die as soon as possible

ok. I hear what you say. I don't agree with people stealing of anything of that sort. everyone one has their opinion and you can't knock that.

[Guest]

Attacking and killing someone over a watch and a wallet, or anything of that nature, is wrong, just as bad treatment of women is wrong.

I was just pointing out that something being legal somewhere, might have nothing to do with it being right in any shape or form.

 

 

The situation means a lot, mma fighting is a fight, not an assault, both willing.

But if a mma fighter doesn't let go of a choke, after the opponent goes completely limp or taps and kills the other fighter, the fighter should be prosecuted, the referee also.

 

But, while i agree the car owner has somethings in his favor, it is still manslaughter.

I would see it exactly the same if the teen had choked and killed the car owner.

The teen squares up to him after he ko's his friend, so the situation changes partly from being an attack to being a fight, with the resulting death.

It is still a manslaughter nevertheless.

in some countries you steal you lose a finger or the hand you steal with. Every country has its rule for a reason. to keep M***er F***ers in check. You don't like the law in your country. move to space and create your own law. if you steal you should know you are taking a big risk and the outcome can be the results you don't expect. Life is what you expect it to turn out. you drink and drive. you get caught, you go to jail, your vehicle impound and the rest is history. you rape someone and get caught, you go to jail and maybe get killed for being a rapist. the rest is history. you don't want to die, keep your hands in your F**King pocket. the rest is history. I agree to disagree with the current situation with this guy who killed the kid by mistake, pure adrenaline, caught-up in the moment. who knows. Case closed.

[Grasman]

ok. I hear what you say. I don't agree with people stealing of anything of that sort. everyone one has their opinion and you can't knock that.

I definitely don't agree with anyone stealing anything, but the consequences must fit the action, if they out-proportionate the action, it should be dealt with.

[Driven]

 

All we know these bushes were by a wall so he couldn't get anywhere

 

The article doesn't say the kid was trapped. I find that to be highly unlikely, anyways. While I think that most thieves tend to be of lower than average intelligence to begin with, why would they run into an area from which there was no escape?

 

I also think it's reasonable to defend your property by punching someone. So while laws vary, I wouldn't look on this as an "attack." The article didn't say that once the first kid was down, the victim proceeded to stomp his face or kick him.

 

It's unfortunate the second kid ended up dying, but when your steal from someone and later attack them, you can't expect good things to come from that. I don't know if the victim of the theft should be charged with manslaughter or not without the benefit of an investigation. But from all appearances, he still looks like the victim to me. Not the criminal.

[Guest]

That's a whole lot of bullshit and strengthens absolutely nothing. The only thing we know is that he chased the guys and knocked the first guy out, obviously proving that he was eager to fight and that after he choked the other one to a point where the damage caused his death. That the other robber jumped out of the bushes is just his word, which not surprisingly speaks in his favor. And it's not like it's only a small gap between unconsious and fatally damaged either. Half a minute seems like an ocean of time to stop defending yourself from an unconscious and thus completely harmless "attacker".

 

The guy belongs in jail and his victim as well if only he had the chance to.