Could you go to jail for this?

Question

Someone assault's you physically first but not intending to kill (they punch or hit you), and in self defense you gouge out one of their eyes.

Yes

No

Other

Select age and gender to cast your vote:

GirlGuy

Answer 1

NathanDavis | 1.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

it depends on some specific circumstances... but it could be a possibility, yes

because you could very well be defending yourself from a very serious threat, but at some point you could be using excessive force... law states that your response has to match the level of the threat, and never to go overboard... and I think this is the instance, in which different people could have different opinions as to what would actually mean (also depends on the law of different states)

in this... if someone punches you first... it would be EXTREMELY unlikely, that you can just gouge out someone's eye with one punch back, something else must have happened as well, or something else could have been used

React

1 Person

Vendela

1 mo
Yeah, there's literally no way you can gouge someone's eye out with a punch. Hence why I said gouge lol, fingers are ripping the eye out.
NathanDavis

1 mo
if person A hits and then starts to strangle person B... so B person ends up gougins´ A person's eye in the struggle and in the attempt to free and save themselves, I would call it fair... lol

and I would probably still want person A, to go to jail... because of the intent in that situation

Answer 2

Vendela

Yeah, there's literally no way you can gouge someone's eye out with a punch. Hence why I said gouge lol, fingers are ripping the eye out.

Answer 3

NathanDavis

if person A hits and then starts to strangle person B... so B person ends up gougins´ A person's eye in the struggle and in the attempt to free and save themselves, I would call it fair... lol

and I would probably still want person A, to go to jail... because of the intent in that situation

Answer 4

DaveJord | 296 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

All depends on the specific circumstances or situation you are in. You have the right to defend self defense, so if you are under attach you can fight back. Now it a matter of if a court of law or persecutor would consider you use of force, even in self defense, to be excessive. So if someone pushes you and you accidently gorge out an eye... that could be considered excessive even it was an accident you could have to prove it.

Additionally criminal charges aside... you could have a civil suit brought against you for damages.

React

Answer 5

alice55 | 3.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

In France you would cause there's no self defense laws (they're so shitty than if someone agrees you with a knife and you kill him with a gun you're the one who's considered as being the aggressor).
So yea in this situation you would be in deep shit.

React

Answer 6

purplepoppy | 2.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

As a rule of thumb self defence should be in proportion to the level of danger you're in. So if a frail little old lady gouges out the eyes of a 7ft stocky attacker it's OK.

React

Answer 7

Deed211

Xper 2

I'm afraid of going to jail lol. Just see how I look in someofmy playful selfies:
I'm going to be immediately raped by everybody. I'm straight too. I wouldn't risk gouging somebody's eyes out. It's not worth getting plowed by prisoners. Being honest lol Could you go to jail for this?

React

Vendela

1 mo
Wtf 😂😂😂
Deed211

1 mo
Lol yeh, going to jail is like one of my biggest fears. Dont risk it!!
Deed211

1 mo
No matter how angry we might get, jail time is not worth it lol

Answer 8

Vendela

Wtf 😂😂😂

Answer 9

Deed211

Lol yeh, going to jail is like one of my biggest fears. Dont risk it!!

Answer 10

Deed211

No matter how angry we might get, jail time is not worth it lol

Answer 11

Soteris | 7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Depends on the local law. Excessive use of force in self defense usually exists but there can be some major difference in how they are implemented. For example I am not sure its that comprehensive in USA where people appear to routinely shoot others to death when they only ever appeared to pose a non-lethal threat.

React

bamesjond0069

1 mo
That doesn't happen unless you watch CNN
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 Nice way to say "It happens if you dont hide from the news."
bamesjond0069

1 mo
No it just doesn't happen. However cnn will pretend it does. Usually most unarmed individuals killed are then discovered to be actually armed.
Show All Show Less
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 "Most". Also there has been plenty of examples where that is blatantly not the case such as the Treyvon Martin case or Kyle Rittenhouse
bamesjond0069

1 mo
Perfect example. Kyle rittenhouse attackers had a gun and also attempted to hit him with inanimate objects (skateboard) that are known to be effective in harming people. But if you only watch cnn you would not have all the facts.

Your other example, one does not mean routinely, so its basically evidence of nothing since almost everything is bound to happen at least once in awhile.
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 Well, as someone who did not watch CNN but at least looked up the incident Kyle only got confronted with a gun after already killing a person previously at which point I would argue that bringing your own gun to stop a crazy gunman who just killed an unarmed kid is a reasonable thing to do for a gun owner.

But again, going back to the original topic of excessive use of force in self defense. There is no reason to assume that Kyle Rittenhouse would have been killed by the people who chased him which is fairly easily demonstrated by the fact that no one else got killed in the several days this went on etc..

In other words, if Kyle Rittenhouse was not armed then no one would have died that day which I categorize as a much better outcome. Kyle was the one who escalated the level of violence to the point where people got killed and he did that without facing what I consider major danger that would not be fixed with a normal hospital visit for a broken arm or something.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say he directly caused their deaths through his own recklessness by illegally arming himself and putting himself into a dangerous situation forcing himself to self defense.

But yeah, point is that if Kyle did not use excessive force then this would not be a serious case. If anything he might get beaten up which in my opinion would be fucking warranted for him being an idiot and doing stupid shit in the first place. But no, he had to have an illegal gun and now people are dead because of his mistakes and escalation of violence.
bamesjond0069

1 mo
Well fortunately you dont have to take a chance you may get beat up or killed. If a normal person may have feared severe bodily harm... which many people would when in such situation as we discovered from court then its not unreasonable. The order in which he killed people is of little concern since they were acting in concert and they had weapons. Generally one should not chase a man with a gun with a skateboard but thats his problem not mine or kyles.
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 You are just reinforcing my point now.
bamesjond0069

1 mo
How so? Listing an example of someone who shot people who were armed chasing him is no evidence of unarmed people being killed.
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 Armed with what? A skateboard?
bamesjond0069

1 mo
And a gun. Either way one should be aware of the law that if you intend to attack someone with a skateboard they generally have a right to shoot you. So its best not to bring a skateboard to a gun fight. Clearly he took things to a higher level than if he just punched at him. Skateboards are actually well known for causing serious harm due to the shape of them when used this way so its not really any different than a baseball bat.
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 The gun came later and is not relevant to why he began shooting and killing people.

A skateboard is also less lethal than your hands and feet who unlike a skateboard is perfectly designed to kill people.
bamesjond0069

1 mo
Ok mr miyagi 😂 hoy yah 🤚🥋
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 This has nothing to do with fancypants martial arts, just the fact that evolution is a thing and we are literally evolved to punch and kick, as opposed to a skateboard which was designed to be a plywood plank with wheels and a truly inferior weapon to harm someone with.
bamesjond0069

1 mo
Well then you must be a martial arts expert. To the average person a skateboard is far more effective than a fist. But your argument would only support shooting unarmed people. If a fist was deadlier than deadly weapons then you would absolutely be able to shoot someone who raised a hand to you. Fortunately you're incorrect and generally raising a hand to someone is not enough to shoot someone however a weapon would be.
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 As opposed to you who qualifies a kid with a skateboard to be "armed" at which point holding a phone is a more dangerous weapon and every modern human can confidently be shoot for holding dangerous weapons at any one time.

Again, skateboards are not a deadly weapon. If you dont believe me then try wielding one and post it on youtube because that would look funny as hell.
bamesjond0069

1 mo
abc7.com/.../

Don't forget a knife is just a kitchen utensil until you chase someone with it yelling at them. 👍
Soteris

1 mo
@bamesjond0069 A knife is a knife is a knife is a knife. Also people drown in bowls of soup, does not make it a valid weapon just because some random person finds a way to die to one. My favorite is a woman dying from masturbating with a carrot.

So no, I will not allow you to use such rubbish logic to support your flawed argument.

Answer 12

bamesjond0069

That doesn't happen unless you watch CNN

Answer 13

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 Nice way to say "It happens if you dont hide from the news."

Answer 14

bamesjond0069

No it just doesn't happen. However cnn will pretend it does. Usually most unarmed individuals killed are then discovered to be actually armed.

Answer 15

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 "Most". Also there has been plenty of examples where that is blatantly not the case such as the Treyvon Martin case or Kyle Rittenhouse

Answer 16

bamesjond0069

Perfect example. Kyle rittenhouse attackers had a gun and also attempted to hit him with inanimate objects (skateboard) that are known to be effective in harming people. But if you only watch cnn you would not have all the facts.

Your other example, one does not mean routinely, so its basically evidence of nothing since almost everything is bound to happen at least once in awhile.

Answer 17

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 Well, as someone who did not watch CNN but at least looked up the incident Kyle only got confronted with a gun after already killing a person previously at which point I would argue that bringing your own gun to stop a crazy gunman who just killed an unarmed kid is a reasonable thing to do for a gun owner.

But again, going back to the original topic of excessive use of force in self defense. There is no reason to assume that Kyle Rittenhouse would have been killed by the people who chased him which is fairly easily demonstrated by the fact that no one else got killed in the several days this went on etc..

In other words, if Kyle Rittenhouse was not armed then no one would have died that day which I categorize as a much better outcome. Kyle was the one who escalated the level of violence to the point where people got killed and he did that without facing what I consider major danger that would not be fixed with a normal hospital visit for a broken arm or something.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say he directly caused their deaths through his own recklessness by illegally arming himself and putting himself into a dangerous situation forcing himself to self defense.

But yeah, point is that if Kyle did not use excessive force then this would not be a serious case. If anything he might get beaten up which in my opinion would be fucking warranted for him being an idiot and doing stupid shit in the first place. But no, he had to have an illegal gun and now people are dead because of his mistakes and escalation of violence.

Answer 18

bamesjond0069

Well fortunately you dont have to take a chance you may get beat up or killed. If a normal person may have feared severe bodily harm... which many people would when in such situation as we discovered from court then its not unreasonable. The order in which he killed people is of little concern since they were acting in concert and they had weapons. Generally one should not chase a man with a gun with a skateboard but thats his problem not mine or kyles.

Answer 19

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 You are just reinforcing my point now.

Answer 20

bamesjond0069

How so? Listing an example of someone who shot people who were armed chasing him is no evidence of unarmed people being killed.

Answer 21

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 Armed with what? A skateboard?

Answer 22

bamesjond0069

And a gun. Either way one should be aware of the law that if you intend to attack someone with a skateboard they generally have a right to shoot you. So its best not to bring a skateboard to a gun fight. Clearly he took things to a higher level than if he just punched at him. Skateboards are actually well known for causing serious harm due to the shape of them when used this way so its not really any different than a baseball bat.

Answer 23

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 The gun came later and is not relevant to why he began shooting and killing people.

A skateboard is also less lethal than your hands and feet who unlike a skateboard is perfectly designed to kill people.

Answer 24

bamesjond0069

Ok mr miyagi 😂 hoy yah 🤚🥋

Answer 25

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 This has nothing to do with fancypants martial arts, just the fact that evolution is a thing and we are literally evolved to punch and kick, as opposed to a skateboard which was designed to be a plywood plank with wheels and a truly inferior weapon to harm someone with.

Answer 26

bamesjond0069

Well then you must be a martial arts expert. To the average person a skateboard is far more effective than a fist. But your argument would only support shooting unarmed people. If a fist was deadlier than deadly weapons then you would absolutely be able to shoot someone who raised a hand to you. Fortunately you're incorrect and generally raising a hand to someone is not enough to shoot someone however a weapon would be.

Answer 27

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 As opposed to you who qualifies a kid with a skateboard to be "armed" at which point holding a phone is a more dangerous weapon and every modern human can confidently be shoot for holding dangerous weapons at any one time.

Again, skateboards are not a deadly weapon. If you dont believe me then try wielding one and post it on youtube because that would look funny as hell.

Answer 28

bamesjond0069

abc7.com/.../

Don't forget a knife is just a kitchen utensil until you chase someone with it yelling at them. 👍

Answer 29

Soteris

@bamesjond0069 A knife is a knife is a knife is a knife. Also people drown in bowls of soup, does not make it a valid weapon just because some random person finds a way to die to one. My favorite is a woman dying from masturbating with a carrot.

So no, I will not allow you to use such rubbish logic to support your flawed argument.

Answer 30

RagnarRedbeard | 261 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 6

It depends on the threat level and how well you can justify it.

If the attacker is smaller or close to your size and unarmed, then you probably will. If they’re a lot bigger than you then it can be easily justified.

There are plenty of cases of people being knocked out with a punch, hitting their heads on concrete and dying, even when the attacker didn’t intend to kill them.

React

1 Person

Answer 31

libsaretards | 285 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 7

Technically yes. In reality probably not. You did not respond with deadly force. Law enforcement and the courts look at the LEVEL of force used AS WELL AS the result of the force. His eyes getting gouged out is unfortunate, but he attacked first and you defended with hands instead of a weapon and just happened to hit his eyes with your fingers. That is hand-to-hand so you still used the same level of force as the aggressor. Had you stabbed him that would be different.

React

1 Person

Answer 32

TommyMountainFigure | 574 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Yes.. Self defence means you can use minimum force to restrain or prevent harm from the assailant..
Gauging out an eye is excessive force.

React

Answer 33

Deathraider | 2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

It probably depends on the detail of what they were doing and if you had a reasonable fear that they would kill you or seriously injure you. If it was a punch, it’s going to be hard to argue that in court.

React

Answer 34

jshm2 | 6.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Depends on context.

If you're in a stand your ground situation, then it's unlikely you will get charged. but if it's an altercation in a public place then it's your criminal record vs theirs.

React

1 Person

Answer 35

slatyb | 2.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

There's no telling. People are wrongfully convicted.

React

Answer 36

EssenceOfLight | 628 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

It will be difficult to convince prosecution that you didn't damage their both eyes unintentionally. Self-defense ends when the assaulter isn't dangerous anymore for the person who defends themselves

React

Answer 37

saffoler | 551 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

If you can prove that it was in self defense; you shouldn't go to jail. But rather they should for assaulting you.

React

2 People

Answer 38

exitseven | 5.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Fights are not like you see on TV. It usually results in jail or a lawsuit.

React

Answer 39

Msputiton | 185 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 7

Yes. But not guaranteed. Self defense could play a role in it, but there is still a chance you go to jail

React

1 Person

Answer 40

DonkeyDan | 126 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Really depends on the law where the crime was committed.

React

1 Person

Answer 41

IsoUser | 503 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

You seriously should be booked on a felony and locked up in Jail, have a mental evaluation and be barred from owning a weapon.

React

Vendela

1 mo
So you think people who physically attack first are ok? Good to know fucktard

Answer 42

Vendela

So you think people who physically attack first are ok? Good to know fucktard

Answer 43

browndog

Xper 3

In true self defence and haven't gone to grab something and come back then no because you're defending yourself

React

Answer 44

Fromdusktilldawn | 543 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

In Germany you would be the villain, their laws would punish you by saying it was "overly violent defense".

React

Answer 45

cth96190 | 2.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

The outcome depends upon the law in the jurisdiction in which the event occurs.

React

1 Person

Answer 46

JoyGirl | 743 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Hmmm…that is a hard one. I think it really depends on how good your lawyer is. 🤔

React

1 Person

Answer 47

Wise4myage | 2.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

No, that' self defense and they got what they deserved.

React

1 Person

Answer 48

Pterodon | 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Depends on the state. In my red state you’d be applauded

React

1 Person

Could you go to jail for this?

AI Bot Choice

Most Helpful Guy

Most Helpful Girls

Related Questions

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes