Catamari wrote:I'll have to side with Tribble, here. We don't have enough evidence to really lay any sort of claim. The first job of a skeptic is to analyze the claims made and the evidence. I would say that the mother acted irrationally and escalated the situation. Based on the skater's actions, I don't think he's necessarily the aggressor in this situation, perhaps careless, but not malicious.
Had I been in that situation, that woman would have a bloody nose after decking me.
Here's how that would actually look:
----You (skater) were doing something wrong. You physically harmed a child (actus reus - a guilty act) because of your reckless behavior (mens rea - guilty mind. Reckless disregard of your surroundings satisfies this requirement for purposes of assault. State law varies, but this is in the Model Penal Code, which means you can rely on it being the case in the jurisdiction where this took place). You have committed assault, you can be charged with this regardless of what follows. In fact, it is probable that the state will choose to charge you, because you were being a dangerous asshole in a public place, and you harmed a child. You can argue that you crumpled to mitigate harm to the child, but a jury would be skeptical that the length of the assault allowed you any meaningful mitigation, and despite your efforts it certainly looks like actual harm occurred.
The mother could sue you civilly on behalf of the injured child (under a negligence theory; recklessness doesn't support assault or battery torts), or sue you herself for intentional infliction of emotional distress (intentional here is satisfied by recklessness) or negligent infliction of emotional distress, because, you know, you smashed into her child in front of her.
----Mom comes to the rescue of her child. Uh oh. Performance of your hobby has created threat to a tiny, breakable human life, and someone has shown up to punish you. Someone the jury can so-so-easily relate to.
She was not addressed by the skateboarder. There is no "cooling off" period that might mitigate a self-defense claim by her. The interval between attack and retaliation is because it took the mother that amount of time to close the distance. Her intent could be argued as set the moment the attack occurred, and maintained until she took action. This is not escalation. It might actually be a diminished response to hit a full-grown man with your hand after he hits your child with his body and skateboard.
There are a couple of tests for insanity, M'Naughten and police-at-the-elbow test. The actions of a mother protecting her young can be reasonably protected to satisfy either of these tests where the child was actually harmed and the interval or behavior don't indicate a cooling-off period.
There are a couple of other things to consider. Whether this jurisdiction has a duty to retreat is one of them. How many skaters were on the scene. The gender and build of the person holding the camera. The mother's assessment of threat is pretty easy to cast in her favor: a taller male (generally considered more threatening than a female) attacked her child. The male has at least one friend nearby. The mother's immediate support is another female holding her child. There are other children in the background, vulnerable and unable to defend themselves.
---You've punched the mother back, giving her a bloody nose. You've taken a bad situation, initiated by your own stupidity (recklessness being legally sufficient for your behavior to be considered a criminal act) and made it worse. You've assaulted a second person, a woman, protecting her child, effectively outnumbered by you and your cameraman. Good job shitheel. You've made prison more probable. You've demonstrated that you can actually be intentionally dangerous, which would allow the mother to assume that you're a threat to herself and the children around her, and 'escalate' her response in proportion to the enhanced threat that you present. Your own argument for self-defense is much weaker, because you and your cameraman outnumber her, you are male and she is female, your builds may not be comparable.
The state would charge you for two counts of assault. The mother could sue you for assault (since it was intentional) and IIED on behalf of her child (who, lets assume, witnessed his mother being attacked).
Your berserker status galvanizes the local government, allowing them to pass legislation outlawing the use of skateboards in public places as a noxious activity too dangerous to be permitted. Way to go.
Few juries would convict the mother of attacking you. Most juries would convict you for attacking the mother.
