You know what's fucked? Our self defense laws

[Justforfun000]

Get this. I was singing in a bar a few weeks ago. There were a couple of guys there that got drunk, they were brothers actually, and then at one point decided to pick on these two young guys at a table. They jumped them. There was a tussle and the bar kicked the two kids out that were jumped. I know, that's baked too.

In any case, they stayed and I was nearby when they were trying to bull shit some people. Talking in that typical local yokel dumb-like-stump way, they said something like "Yah, those guys spit in my brothers face earlier. They headbutted him too, we were minding our own business".

I was there the entire night and I didn't see ANY of this. I was talking to the two guys and they were young guys from Newfoundland, friendly, one had just moved into the area.

Other people said they knew these other two were spoiling for a fight earlier. Apparently they were swaggering around in a way that was obvious.

so anyway, fast forward past a lot of other shit in between....after they got kicked out as well, they came back in another door with a couple of other buddies, and were trying to pick fights again. One guy there named Winston, happens to be black by the way, walked towards them at one point and is like "Guys, guys, relax...sit and have a drink..don't be so upset". so at least three of them jump him.

I'm in the other side of the bar which is separated by a glass partition, (smoking room thing). My singing partner Lisa is in there and trying to pull one of them off him.

Ok, here's the crux of this.

Who owned this is unknown, it MIGHT be Winston's or it might have been one of the guys, but at one point during this point when he's getting the shit kicked out of him by at least 3 guys Winston had possession of and apparently sliced one of the guys in the stomach. Very superficial cut possibly, I remember the other one saying something about not seeing any blood, so it couldn't have been too bad, but in any case...

After these idiots got broken up, they were kicked out of the bar and they locked the doors and called the police.

winston is at the bar on a stool recovering from being hurt. When the cops show up they make their way to him at one point and they lead him outside in handcuffs. Myself and at least 4 other people start saying to them "No no, wrong guy. You have the wrong one. HEY hello, he was the victim". Not a glance our way. Not paying attention.

So after being outside with him for about 15 minutes against a car two came back in and said, what is this? Someone said this is the wrong guy? I was like "Yeah, about 5 of us said that. You ignored us". I damn near said "What, is he the only black man you could find in here"?

Anyway, I just found out last night that he was charged for the weapon offence. Not allowed in that bar, has to abstain from alcohol, not sure what else is happening in regards to this.

I am flabbergasted by this. What the FUCK is that all about?

It's perfectly ok for three fucking guys to use their hands and feet as weapons against you, and yet if you DARE to use a weapon that might even up the score and save YOURSELF from harm ranging from brain damage, broken limbs or death, YOU become the criminal? What kind of fucked up bullshit is that???

I'm sorry, but if someone, ESPECIALLY more then one person attacks you, all bets should be off. That is absolutely ridiculous. As usual this fucking country protects the damn criminal better then the victims.

[Rogue 9]

Who owned this is unknown, it MIGHT be Winston's or it might have been one of the guys, but at one point during this point when he's getting the shit kicked out of him by at least 3 guys Winston had possession of and apparently sliced one of the guys in the stomach. Very superficial cut possibly, I remember the other one saying something about not seeing any blood, so it couldn't have been too bad, but in any case...

Who owned what? You never specified.

And yes, the self-defense laws are screwed all to hell and gone.

[Lord Zentei]

Who owned this is unknown, it MIGHT be Winston's or it might have been one of the guys, but at one point during this point when he's getting the shit kicked out of him by at least 3 guys Winston had possession of and apparently sliced one of the guys in the stomach. Very superficial cut possibly, I remember the other one saying something about not seeing any blood, so it couldn't have been too bad, but in any case...

Who owned what? You never specified.

And yes, the self-defense laws are screwed all to hell and gone.

Owned the knife that was used.

[Justforfun000]

Oops. Sorry. It was a boxcutter.

Winston works in a warehouse apparently, so he could have had it on him from work.

[aerius]

One guy there named Winston, happens to be black by the way, walked towards them at one point and is like "Guys, guys, relax...sit and have a drink..don't be so upset". so at least three of them jump him.

Big fucking mistake. Really big dumbass fucking mistake. By walking up to the guys and saying what he did, it can be said that he instigated the incident. Now add the fact that he had a boxcutter or some other blade and used it on the guys, well, that's instigating a fight and use of a lethal weapon. Any decent lawyer can say "yes, this Winston guy had a knife on him, and deliberately started a fight so he could fuck some guys up" and make the charges stick. Why? Because he walked up to the guys and talked to them in what can be drawn as a insulting and belittling manner. It was fucking stupid of him. By doing what he did, he assumed criminal responsibility, and that's why he's being treated like one.

When you have a group of scumbags spoiling for a fight, you sit down, make yourself scarce, and suck your beer or you quietly get the fuck outta there. You DO NOT go up and confront the scumbags, don't talk to them, don't make eye contact with them, don't do anything to draw attention from them. You do not unsettle or provoke the situation.

If you do the above and they still come after you, then you can do anything you damn well please in self-defence. You've now shown that you've done everything reasonable to avoid trouble, meaning the criminal blame is now 100% on the scumbags. Now you can go break their knees and stab them through the kidneys if the threat to your life is justified.

[Justforfun000]

Big fucking mistake. Really big dumbass fucking mistake. By walking up to the guys and saying what he did, it can be said that he instigated the incident.

It wasn't exactly like that either....it's in a small room with two pool tables, and he more or less looked towards them and raised his hands up in a very non threatening way. All of the witnesses say he was coming across as very passive.

Now add the fact that he had a boxcutter or some other blade and used it on the guys, well, that's instigating a fight and use of a lethal weapon.

See I would argue that only people that actually BEGIN the assault can be classed as instigating a fight. It's not a physical altercation until someone throws the first punch. It shouldn't make any difference WHAT he was doing or saying to them as long as it was not physical.

Because he walked up to the guys and talked to them in what can be drawn as a insulting and belittling manner. It was fucking stupid of him. By doing what he did, he assumed criminal responsibility, and that's why he's being treated like one.

This is the problem with email, I'd have to have you hear the way he said it in voice. That wasn't word for word, people were relating to me the overall placating tone and gestures. He was very friendly about it. These guys were simply fucking idiots that were spoiling for a fight.

When you have a group of scumbags spoiling for a fight, you sit down, make yourself scarce, and suck your beer or you quietly get the fuck outta there. You DO NOT go up and confront the scumbags, don't talk to them, don't make eye contact with them, don't do anything to draw attention from them. You do not unsettle or provoke the situation.

They were STARTING with everyone. Just before this happened with Winston, ANOTHER guy was talking not to the guys themselves, but the one they were currently harassing and he was saying back away, don't get involved. They turned towards HIM and started with the "What, now YOU want to go?" And he was saying "I'm not trying to fight I'm telling THIS guy to keep away from you and stay out of it". And they were about to physically start with HIM. The point here is that they were loose cannons and they were going to get a fight started any way they could. They already DID start one before this and then came back in. Any judge who wouldn't see this as completely their fault would be a fucking idiot.

If you do the above and they still come after you, then you can do anything you damn well please in self-defence. You've now shown that you've done everything reasonable to avoid trouble, meaning the criminal blame is now 100% on the scumbags. Now you can go break their knees and stab them through the kidneys if the threat to your life is justified.

now that I tried to explain the situation a little more accurately, you might see what I mean. It is more like what you just described above. However, the laws here mean that he STILL gets charged because you aren't allowed to protect yourself in that nature. You should either be able to fight back with your 4 limbs to their 12 or just take it. Idiotic bullshit is what it is.

[aerius]

I don't think I'm making this clear enough. Everyone involved knew these fuckheads were spoiling for a fight. And yet in one way or another, they all drew the attention of the scumbags to themselves. By doing that they become partially responsible for whatever shit may happen.

Yes, the scumbags were spoiling for a fight, but people gave them an excuse to start one. People knew this, and yet they did not take action to avoid a fight. That's what the issue is.

As I said before, sit down and shut up or get the fuck outta dodge. Don't stick around when you know shit's going to happen.

[darthdavid]

I don't think I'm making this clear enough. Everyone involved knew these fuckheads were spoiling for a fight. And yet in one way or another, they all drew the attention of the scumbags to themselves. By doing that they become partially responsible for whatever shit may happen.

Yes, the scumbags were spoiling for a fight, but people gave them an excuse to start one. People knew this, and yet they did not take action to avoid a fight. That's what the issue is.

As I said before, sit down and shut up or get the fuck outta dodge. Don't stick around when you know shit's going to happen.

This is the problem with our country today. Lawyers are strangling the nation, everything is bound in beuracratic bullshit. Talking to someone to try and prevent them from fighting shouldn't be the kind of thing that can be twisted into the person saying it starting a fight. But the useless scum sucking lawyers have insured that it can be.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I don't think I'm making this clear enough. Everyone involved knew these fuckheads were spoiling for a fight. And yet in one way or another, they all drew the attention of the scumbags to themselves. By doing that they become partially responsible for whatever shit may happen.

Yes, the scumbags were spoiling for a fight, but people gave them an excuse to start one. People knew this, and yet they did not take action to avoid a fight. That's what the issue is.

As I said before, sit down and shut up or get the fuck outta dodge. Don't stick around when you know shit's going to happen.

Sounds like a varient of "she was asking to get raped" to me.

[aerius]

Sounds like a varient of "she was asking to get raped" to me.

Ah, no. More like "the police have reported there's a rapist prowling the neighbourhood park. But I'm a hot defenceless female and I'm going to walk through the park for a few hours at 1am wearing skimpy clothing."

I ask again. Why are people hanging around in a bar when scumbags who have already started a fight are back and looking for more trouble.

[Superboy]

More like "the police have reported there's a rapist prowling the neighbourhood park. But I'm a hot defenceless female and I'm going to walk through the park for a few hours at 1am wearing skimpy clothing."

That may be a very stupid thing to do, but are you saying that the female would legally take part of the blame for the rape?

There's no way this guy should hold any legal acountability for the fight whatsoever. They started the fight, simple as that. Just because he knew they were rowdy guys doesn't mean he should have a legal responsibility to avoid them. Asking them to calm down is not instigating a fight, nor should the law consider it as such.

[Vicious]

Aerius, I'm sorry, but what your saying makes no fucking sense. The guys are lunatics, so it's his fault when he goes over and tries to calm them down, even offers them a drink? Fuck that. Same deal with the rape analogy. People should not have to alter perfectly acceptable behavior in order to avoid punishment like this. As long as he didn't do anything physical, there's no blame on Winston. It's the guys' fault for taking it to the physical level. I don't care if he went up and called them raging assholes, they are still at fault since he didn't take it to the physical level. I have personally heard a cop say that provocation doesn't justify assault. If someone is taunting you, and you go after them, YOU are responsible. It doesn't matter if they said your mother was a whore and sucked bums' cocks for pennies, YOU are at fault by law for responding to a verbal taunt with physical violence.

Of course, this is talking about cops, not lawyers. Lawyers, at least the defense lawyers who take cases like this, are fucking amoral pricks. They'll spew anything to make their case and get their money.

[aerius]

More like "the police have reported there's a rapist prowling the neighbourhood park. But I'm a hot defenceless female and I'm going to walk through the park for a few hours at 1am wearing skimpy clothing."

That may be a very stupid thing to do, but are you saying that the female would legally take part of the blame for the rape?

I doubt she'd suffer legal consequences, but we'd all be calling her a stupid fucking bitch who got what she had coming.

Let me walk you through this again. We have a bunch of punks who are starting fights and causing shit. Everyone in the fucking bar knows this. They've already started fights. They left, and now they're back to cause more shit. We have a guy with a boxcutter who goes up to the guys and tells them to chill. The fight starts, he gets a beatdown, but manages to cut one of the guys with a boxcutter.

Any half decent lawyer can successfully claim that Winston went up to the guys to start a fight, and having a boxcutter on him and using it is just proof of intent. That's the way the legal system, and to a lesser extent the cops view it.


With that said, here's what probably happened. After Winston got the beatdown and scumbags were tossed out, the cops arrived on scene. Those scumbags were probably the first people the cops interviewed. They probably had a nice story cooked up. Something along the lines of "we were at the bar chilling & having a few beers when this psycho came up to us and started talking shit. We tried to calm him down but he flipped out and started punching us, then the psycho whipped out a knife and fucking cut me! And that's when shit got really crazy and we just ran". And that's why the cops came and treated Winston the way they did.


Which I agree is bullshit. But the fact remains that he used really shitty judgement and got himself into a shit. He's not a cop, he's not security, he's not a bouncer, he's not bar staff. He has no business at all getting involved. He did not think and made the wrong choice, and now he's paying for it.

[Kuroneko]

Whether or not Winston (or the hypothetical rape victim) should have expected the outcome and whether or not it they made an intelligent choice from a personal-harm perspective are both irrelevant. It is a moral question only--after all, if the laws were followed and the result was not proper (as was claimed in the OP), where did such an evaluation of nonpropriety come from? The real question, then, is whether Winston should be penalized for attempting to calm down a group of rowdy blokes, not whether he could be legally held accountable. More than that, aerius' argument that Winston did the wrong thing seems to hinge on Winston's lack of social authority regarding the matter making the results his responsibility, but that sort of argument applies equally well in the case of any ordinary citizen attempting to defuse a potentially dangerous situation when not initially involved. Consequently, it is not at all clear that Winston's choice was wrong in this case, except perhaps to the ethical egoist. On the contrary, it might be to some extent praiseworthy.

[aerius]

Legal issues aside and in an ideal world, there was no wrong in what Winston tried to do. But he still didn't make the best choice. No one's life was in immediate danger, he had all the time he needed to alert bar staff to the situation and have them deal with it. If bar staff can't or refuses to deal with it, then Winston can then do so if he still feels obliged to.

Back to the real world. While Winston's actions were commendable and in good faith, and even though I feel he shouldn't be charged, it was still naive and foolhardy. He did not show good judgement.

[Justforfun000]

Some good points were brought up here..I'm going to expound even more on the exact details regarding the weapon thing. I want to see where this will lead.

Gotta run out for a bit though....I'll be back.

[Glocksman]

Legal issues aside and in an ideal world, there was no wrong in what Winston tried to do. But he still didn't make the best choice. No one's life was in immediate danger, he had all the time he needed to alert bar staff to the situation and have them deal with it. If bar staff can't or refuses to deal with it, then Winston can then do so if he still feels obliged to.

Back to the real world. While Winston's actions were commendable and in good faith, and even though I feel he shouldn't be charged, it was still naive and foolhardy. He did not show good judgement.

I'm as pro-self defense a person as you'll find on this board, but aerius is correct. Winston simply didn't exercise good judgement in this case.

I legally carry a gun at times.
Does this make me Billy Badass?

Nope, in fact it imposes on me a higher standard of care in that I have a lethal weapon and therefore I should avoid (within reason, and the standards vary from state to state) creating a situation that could escalate into one where deadly force is used.

In other words, if I'm unarmed, I may very well do something similar to what Winston did depending upon my 'read' of the situation.
If I'm armed, then unless someone's life is in immediate danger, I'm simply staying out of it as I don't want a simple brawl to potentially escalate into a homicide.

[Glocksman]

Added:

My state's laws are pretty clearcut and 'leinent' on the subject, but Winston could probably have been charged even here.

Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.


(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.

If the prosecutor wanted to charge him, he'd claim that Winston provoked the combat.

[Superboy]

A person could actually be accused of initiating combat, simply because they spoke to a person? I don't understand how Winston's actions could be, in any way, interpreted as aggressive. He was asking them to calm down, that's seems like opposite of aggression.

[aerius]

Adding on to what Glocksman said, in the real world, the actions a person takes before and after the self-defence incident are often as important if not more so that what happened during the self-defence incident itself. What a person does before and after the incident go a long way towards establishing their character in the eyes of the authorities.

Was the guy really innocent? Did he take reasonable steps to avoid or de-escalate the situation? Did he use proper judgement? Was he playing hero? Why didn't he call for help? These questions and more will be asked by security, police, and the courts when it gets to them. Sometimes, like in this situation, getting directly involved is not a wise choice. Standing back and calling for help will do a lot more good. They will look at all this and weigh his actions accordingly.

[Kuroneko]

While Winston's actions were commendable and in good faith, and even though I feel he shouldn't be charged, it was still naive and foolhardy. He did not show good judgement.

Given what you say here, there is no substantial disagreement between our positions. Winston's only apparent error was in assuming that other people would be reasonable. Is this naive? Well, perhaps. What I think we can agree actively penalizing such things is not acceptable--and that is the question raised in the OP.

I legally carry a gun at times. Does this make me Billy Badass?

"Guys, guys, relax...sit and have a drink..don't be so upset." Does this situation really correspond with the picture you paint?

(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

If the prosecutor wanted to charge him, he'd claim that Winston provoked the combat.

If the testimony of the OP is correct, it is clear that (1) is false, (2) can only be true if asking someone to relax and have a drink is unlawful, and (3) only if such an offer constitutes an attack. If the presecutor wanted to charge anyone, just about anything could be claimed--it is quite another matter whether or not those claims would be reflective of the facts. In this case, no.

[Glocksman]

"Guys, guys, relax...sit and have a drink..don't be so upset." Does this situation really correspond with the picture you paint?

I'm not upset or saying Winston felt that way.
The question was merely rhetorical.

If the testimony of the OP is correct, it is clear that (1) is false, (2) can only be true if asking someone to relax and have a drink is unlawful, and (3) only if such an offer constitutes an attack. If the presecutor wanted to charge anyone, just about anything could be claimed--it is quite another matter whether or not those claims would be reflective of the facts. In this case, no.

It's been stated that others in the bar knew these guys were looking for a fight.

Other people said they knew these other two were spoiling for a fight earlier. Apparently they were swaggering around in a way that was obvious.

A prosecutor may not look at charging someone in a brawl, but once a deadly weapon becomes involved, you're held to a higher standard.
In this case, if someone testified that Winston knew these guys were spoiling for a fight, a prosecutor could portray his intervention as deliberately intended to provoke an incident.

Winston may (probably didn't) intend to start a fight, but in a lot of instances, prosecutors are more interested in convictions instead of justice.

[Justforfun000]

ok lessee...I've lost track of things.

Winston is a person that hangs out there and is in nature probably best decribed as close to a "stoner". He's Jamaican I believe and talks in that very slow lazy way of speech that you'd think he was drunk.

In this case these guys were grandstanding in the middle of the room and trying to get this one guy to start something, turned on the one trying to tell the other guy to back away, and this is being listened to by every person in the room, so they are all involved as to watching this show. In my opinion they were just ready to leap towards the other guy when Winston tried to defuse it. In this case he became the scapegoat because they were going to attack someone momentarily.

From everyone's point of view there, they would have absolutely NO problem getting every single witness to agree that these morons were 100% responsible for everything and that they instigated everything. So from THAT angle anyway, Winston would have total support.

What really pisses me off is the fact that he was the victim. He was jumped by three people. He tried at one point to defend himself from serious bodily harm by using a weapon that at least had a CHANCE of evening up the score and deterring the idiots from pounding on him.

And HE gets charged? HE can't drink anything while on this charge? HE can't come to this bar?

What the fuck is this blame the victim bullshit??

That's what gets my goat. There is one simple thing that always seems to be ignored when getting into these damn arguments as to "reasonable force" defence and crap like that. HE DIDN'T START THE DAMN FIGHT. if it was not for these neanderthals, he would NEVER have been doing anything physically violent. He was being beat on by three bloody people. As far as I'm concerned, I could care less if he managed to crawl over and grab a machete and chopped off some of their fucking arms. He has EVERY Right in my mind to protect himself from harm in whatever way he can. Anyone suggesting the attackers deserve "protection" of any kind is being an idiot who should go through the same situation some time and see how sympathetic YOU would feel to someone sticking up for them.

[Aaron]

ok lessee...I've lost track of things.

Winston is a person that hangs out there and is in nature probably best decribed as close to a "stoner". He's Jamaican I believe and talks in that very slow lazy way of speech that you'd think he was drunk.

In this case these guys were grandstanding in the middle of the room and trying to get this one guy to start something, turned on the one trying to tell the other guy to back away, and this is being listened to by every person in the room, so they are all involved as to watching this show. In my opinion they were just ready to leap towards the other guy when Winston tried to defuse it. In this case he became the scapegoat because they were going to attack someone momentarily.

From everyone's point of view there, they would have absolutely NO problem getting every single witness to agree that these morons were 100% responsible for everything and that they instigated everything. So from THAT angle anyway, Winston would have total support.

What really pisses me off is the fact that he was the victim. He was jumped by three people. He tried at one point to defend himself from serious bodily harm by using a weapon that at least had a CHANCE of evening up the score and deterring the idiots from pounding on him.

And HE gets charged? HE can't drink anything while on this charge? HE can't come to this bar?

What the fuck is this blame the victim bullshit??

That's what gets my goat. There is one simple thing that always seems to be ignored when getting into these damn arguments as to "reasonable force" defence and crap like that. HE DIDN'T START THE DAMN FIGHT. if it was not for these neanderthals, he would NEVER have been doing anything physically violent. He was being beat on by three bloody people. As far as I'm concerned, I could care less if he managed to crawl over and grab a machete and chopped off some of their fucking arms. He has EVERY Right in my mind to protect himself from harm in whatever way he can. Anyone suggesting the attackers deserve "protection" of any kind is being an idiot who should go through the same situation some time and see how sympathetic YOU would feel to someone sticking up for them.

Don't forget that in Canada the self defense laws require you to retreat if possible before fighting or use a weapon to defend yourself. The crown attorney may feel that he failed in that duty and decide to throw the book at him. However if your friend has been released with a promise to appear in court by the police, it's SOP for them to set conditions like they have on him. Your friend can have them altered but he has to appear in court with his lawyer and request the conditions be changed.

[Justforfun000]

Don't forget that in Canada the self defense laws require you to retreat if possible before fighting or use a weapon to defend yourself. The crown attorney may feel that he failed in that duty and decide to throw the book at him. However if your friend has been released with a promise to appear in court by the police, it's SOP for them to set conditions like they have on him. Your friend can have them altered but he has to appear in court with his lawyer and request the conditions be changed.

He was on the ground the entire time being kicked in the head and punched all over. If it was on HIM then he managed to pull it out of a pocket during the blows and use it.

If it was on the attackers then he grabbed it off them.

I don't see how this could in any way be anything BUT pure self defence.