Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lawump
I'll take this umpire's case.
BUT EVEN IF THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL HEAD-BUTT: If I was defending the umpire in some lawsuit that arose as a result of this incident, I'd have a great defense to any claim the coach has arising out of the head-butt. Basically the law says a person can use force in self-defense and such force extends to the use of all reasonable force to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact...whether that contact is intentional or negligent.
|
The coach should not have been arguing this call. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.
The coach should not have tried to turn the umpire around to continue arguing. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.
The coach should not have put his face in the umpire's face. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.
The umpire should not have head butted the coach, using his face mask as a weapon.
NOW SOMEBODY COULD GET INJURED!
The coach's final reaction was clearly in response to getting a piece of rigid metal shoved into his face. But even that was nothing more than a "girlie shove" that couldn't have injured a 6-yr-old.
I'm not condoning anything this coach did. I'm only pointing out that the only thing that happened that had the potential for bodily injury was the umpire's head butt.
If I were an attorney, I wouldn't want to defend either one of them. From a bodily harm aspect, however; I would think the coach's actions would be easier to defend than the umpire's. I don't see anything the coach did that warranted getting a face full of metal.
The coach was physical with the intent of getting the umpire's attention - not with doing the umpire any physical harm. Nor could the action taken by the coach be construed as having the reasonable potential to cause bodily harm.
This does not justify the coach's actions, however.
On the other hand, it appears the umpire's only intent was to cause physical harm. And his action could certainly be construed as having the potential to cause great bodily harm.
I would say the latter trumps the former as for as egregiousness.
There should be sanctions for
both - in my opinion.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN