Defending your Hat

[TopGumby]

I'd say the situation ended well. Punk got punked, and no harm done.

I'd also say that if you are in for a penny you're in for a pound, and while this story has the happy ending that we all can admire, let's suppose that the punk makes a split second decision that he can't back down in front of the girl, and out comes a weapon. Not only would you be dealing with a punk with a knife/gun, but there is also another male and the woman. Worse case, you're dead. Even if he fights back unarmed, it's a big escalation, and it might have ended up as two or three on one, and there is no guarantee that one of the others won't escalate in turn.

Best case, you whup ass on one or all of them, and then you better be sure you get a lawyer who can explain why you decided to detain and threaten somebody who was not at the time a physical threat to you, and why you beat them bloody when they tried to defend themselves. You will be portrayed in court as an unstable maniac vigilante who puts a second hand hat above the value of human life.

It ain't right or just, but it's true, especially in Seattle.

It's a judgment call, and in this case you won.

 

[Tiller]

I say you handled it much better then I would have. I'd of probably rattled his teeth, and then got my hat back, but that my be the ignorance of youth speaking. Either way I think you did the right thing. No one has a right to invaded your personal space, or take your property, unless you want them to.

Either way a round of a applause :eusa_clap :eusa_clap .

 

[Dewhurst]

I want to say that this was handled correctly, but I'm just not sure I can convince myself that it was. It would seem awfully silly to fight over a hat, or over the fact that someone invaded your personal space, when a phrase may have made all the difference. Standing up for yourself doesn't always mean "combat".

It would come naturally to me to turn around to this guy and say, "Hey, man, what gives? Give me my hat back!", and to see where things went from there. Physical violence would not be an option though in this scenario. I would much rather call the police and report my stolen property (or the robbery in progress), then end up on the wrong end of a Kershaw Blackout.

It sounds like you reacted rather explosively. Perhaps that was mere "posturing", as someone suggested above. Did you feel real anger and rage when it happened, almost as if you were on auto-pilot? Or, were your actions deliberate?

Still, I'm glad the problem ended without anyone getting hurt.

 

[CopperNY]

you've got my vote.

what he did was a direct challenge (in a social aspect), and you had no idea what might have occurred next. i think you showed great restraint. more youth need to be shown that actions have consequences.

in my high school (mid '80's), knocking off someone's hat was an accepted invitation to fight, just like sitting on someone's car.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

That's hard to say for sure. If you take the events on face value, a grown man grabbing a punk kid by the shirt might indeed be crossing a "legal" line. But in context, our guy was merely acting in response to theft, which is precisely what taking someone's hat constitutes.

After all, he didn't hit him, and I would do no less than try to get my wallet back if someone picks it out my my pocket. A hat is no different: it's property, and other people have no right to take it without permission.

Yes he committed a battery which is an unconsented to touching.

 

[4and1]

If you were within your legal rights to clock someone on the streets that guy would never have touched your hat.

 

[Subvet642]

Has your hat ever got you into a fight?

I'm walking down the street yesterday when I see two guys and and girl walking my way, laughing, shouting, and doing what two guys and girl do. They were in their early 20's at the most and the way they were acting were probably in the "Big City" for a visit. As I pass, one of the guys reaches up and grabs my vintage Lee Trinity right off my head!

Before the punk could get away I grabbed a fistful of his shirt, spun him around had pulled back for a big John Wayne roundhouse. I also believe I made a comment about carnal relations he may have with his mother. The kid looked at me wide eyed and dropped the hat. I pushed him off. We stared each other down for a minute before I retrieved my hat and walked away. No other words were said.

I would like to think that I taught him a lesson about what NOT to do while walking down the Ave, but he probably only remembers the old man who completely freaked out when he touched his hat. Do you think I overreacted? Has this kind of thing ever happened to you?

Bravo-Zulu! There is no code, moral or legal, that requires us to be doormats. You may or may not have taught him a lesson, it depends on how well he learns.

 

[RobFedoraField]

justifiable

1) totally justifiable and I hope I would do the same. i don't want to teach my child that it's ok for someone to grab something of yours if they want it. The kid may have thought he was joking, but what a dumb move!

2) I think in the old west that would have been a justifiable shooting :eusa_clap

3) with the amout of people who carry concealed (legal or not) the last thing I'd do is to run up and grab somebody's hat, that's just askin' for trouble, well at it is based on the way I was raised.

 

[hatflick1]

I champion your response. Sure beats giving the grabber a...time out to think about what he did. Like it or not, many young people over the years have been raised in a touchy-feelie environment wherein their inappropriate behavior is the result of what a teacher has failed to do rather than a kid acts out simply because he's a butt head! Consequences. You gave that grabber guy his first lesson in...consequences!

 

[Carlisle Blues]

It seems that you both should have spent some time cohabitating in the pokey. Clearly, here there was (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff. That is what occurred based on the facts that you provided.

However, your young friend the "hat toucher" is equally as culpable because a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

So off to the hoosegow you both go!!!!lol lol lol lol

I guess it is the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right". Should happen again get one of the "boys" to explain justification to the judge. lol lol lol

 

[Feraud]

I hope you are joking CB.

 

[armod]

nothing quite like this has happened to me just yet.

I get people yanking it off my head and trying it on without asking and people that do ask tend to crunch the crown to hold it.

I saw a friend of mine scream his head off at a girl who thought it would be funny/cute to strut around in his hat. however she wasn't too perceptive because it was his army uniform hat that he hangs next to his framed battalion plaque. she even said "why do you even have a hat like this?" after he scolded her.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I hope you are joking CB.

 

[Lefty]

Both did technically commit a battery. The likelihood of either being arrested - unless it was done right in front of a cop and someone decided to press his case to the cop (get lippy) - is zero.

 

[Mr. Scratch]

It seems that you both should have spent some time cohabitating in the pokey. Clearly, here there was (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff. That is what occurred based on the facts that you provided.

However, your young friend the "hat toucher" is equally as culpable because a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

So off to the hoosegow you both go!!!!lol lol lol lol

I guess it is the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right". Should happen again get one of the "boys" to explain justification to the judge. lol lol lol

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet...and my job involves these kinds of situations so I know a bit about it first-hand. I can't speak to Washington law, but in Oregon, unconsented physical contact that causes no injury or substantial pain is regarded as physical harassment rather than battery.

That said, one generally has a right to lawfully restrain someone who is committing a crime. Snatching the hat off a stranger's head is physical harassment at best, and theft at worst (most likely the latter, as it involves the unconsented removal of property). Bill was simply using the minimum necessary force required to apprehend the neer-do-well and forcing the return of his property - all of which is within his legal power. Once the hat had been returned, he let the kid go, unharmed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a cop who would even write a citation on this, or a DA who would prosecute it.

 

[Mahagonny Bill]

It sounds like you reacted rather explosively. Perhaps that was mere "posturing", as someone suggested above. Did you feel real anger and rage when it happened, almost as if you were on auto-pilot? Or, were your actions deliberate?

The reaction was instant with no deliberate forethought. Complete auto-pilot.

I'd also say that if you are in for a penny you're in for a pound, and while this story has the happy ending that we all can admire, let's suppose that the punk makes a split second decision that he can't back down in front of the girl, and out comes a weapon. Not only would you be dealing with a punk with a knife/gun, but there is also another male and the woman. Worse case, you're dead. Even if he fights back unarmed, it's a big escalation, and it might have ended up as two or three on one, and there is no guarantee that one of the others won't escalate in turn.

You are absolutely correct. The situation could have turned out very badly, especially if weapons had come out. It's ridiculous to get killed over a hat, but it has happened before. To remind me of this I'm calling my Lee Trinity the "Stagga Lee" from now on.

It seems that you both should have spent some time cohabitating in the pokey. Clearly, here there was (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff. That is what occurred based on the facts that you provided.

However, your young friend the "hat toucher" is equally as culpable because a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

I agree that we were both in the wrong. However, in my defense your Honor, I did not know the attackers intent when I reacted. For all I know the attacker could have been trying to harm my person and grabbed my hat by accident. Once I was able to asses the situation, I backed down and did not escalate the issue.

BTW- I realize that your having fun with the "pokey" references, but I would be surprised if there was a lot of rape in the King County overnight. Long term incarceration is another story, but propagating this myth of getting raped the minute you are held for charges does not help the conversation.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

The reaction was instant with no deliberate forethought. Complete auto-pilot.


You are absolutely correct. The situation could have turned out very badly, especially if weapons had come out. It's ridiculous to get killed over a hat, but it has happened before. To remind me of this I'm calling my Lee Trinity the "Stagga Lee" from now on.


I agree that we were both in the wrong. However, in my defense your Honor, I did not know the attackers intent when I reacted. For all I know the attacker could have been trying to harm my person and grabbed my hat by accident. Once I was able to asses the situation, I backed down and did not escalate the issue.

BTW- I realize that your having fun with the "pokey" references, but I would be surprised if there was a lot of rape in the King County overnight. Long term incarceration is another story, but propagating this myth of getting raped the minute you are held for charges does not help the conversation.

Whatever your intent was or your arrangement with your hat touching friend is of no consequence. You stated you were wrong; let's move on. Whatever you are talking about with this "pokey" business is again of no consequence I was thinking more like the "Hokey Pokey" because in this situation that is what it is all about. lol lol

 

[Lefty]

Whatever your intent was or your arrangement with your hat touching friend is of no consequence. You stated you were wrong; let's move on.

I've got to agree on this one. You've got three choices when accused: stay silent, find a legal justification, or deny, deny, deny. Your admission sunk you.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I've got to agree on this one. You've got three choices when accused: stay silent, find a legal justification, or deny, deny, deny. Your admission sunk you.

 

[Feraud]

Apparently the court has convicted the victim.