Mutual combat?

Question

2 soccer players get into a fight they're from opposite teams. Both minors. One of them is charged with assault with a deadly weapon for using thier cleats. Details: player1(P1) is aggressive makes hard tackles & uses verbal intimidation. Player2(P2) is placed on the field as a sub, within 5 minutes P1strikes P2 in the back with the elbow & fist. P2 turns around & warns P1 not to do that again saying that P1 will "learn a lesson". P1becomes angry & comes towards P2 cursing & shoving P2. P2 puts their fists up & strikes P1 in the eye knocking P1to the ground & P2 strikes P1 several more times in the eye. Coaches & parents come on to the field & separate the players. P1 appears to be injured & the police are called. ambulance comes takes P1 to ER for an eval. statements are taken. Officers decide P2 is guilty of using cleats to strike P1. P2 is arrested & charged. P2 has no police record, never been in a fight or struck anyone ever. Parents of P1 say cleats were used P2 parents say no.

Answer 1

Get a good lawyer. I'm sure that even if there were cleats involved, I'm sure there is a way to have it explained. If the cleats weren't involved, medical records should support this. Player one should have been removed from the game for his unfair tactics and attitude towards the other players. Player one showed aggression and attempted to intimidate player two. But once player one was on the ground player two should have stopped the attack. That is why I say get a good lawyer. Good Luck!

Answer 2

I am guessing you are thinking this is selfdefense. It isn't. The words in the middle make it two separate attacks. P2 could ask that P1 be charged as well, but obviously most if not all of the injuries happened to P1. Apparently the police were told a cleat was used so they listed it as such. Regardless, P2 took P1 to the ground and repeatedly bludgeoned him in the eye. P2 is guilty. It is just a question of whether P2 used a weapon. P1 is also guilty but like I wrote there don't seem to be any damages to P2. No harm No foul. P2 needs to pay for P1's hospital bill and medical expenses. That is why P2 is in trouble, to assure those bills get paid.

Answer 3

Wow that's an interesting story...from what you've told me it sounds like P1 got what he deserved... It seems odd to me that P2 was charged... this will most likely end up in family court since both of the primaries are minors. If P2 goes to some kind of anger management class he/she will likely get off with probation only. Hopefully P1 will have learned a lesson and be less aggressive on the field.

Answer 4

Most sporting events are filmed. Find the tape. Figure out if the cleats were actually used. There is a small chance that the tape could also prove that player 1 started the incident in which case he could be charged with assault or inciting violence. To me it sounds like both players were at fault, player 1 was at fault for unfair play and too much aggressiveness, and player 2 was at fault for not stopping soon enough. There is a point when self defense crosses the line to assault and I think that point was crossed in this situation.