Other Criminal Charges & Offenses Charged with battery while recovering my child's stolen bicycle

Your trial stands alone. No matter what is decided with regard to the theft, it has almost nothing to do with whether or not you assaulted this woman. You know you didn't. The judge and jury don't know either or you really and it is very possible that the kid will be found guilty of stealing and you will be found guilty of assault. Those are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if this lady has a record a milt long, if she is assaulted, she can legally pursue justice for that assault. It isn't dismissed because she is a bad person or "deserves it". To be totally honest, from your description of the tug of war over the bike it is entirely plausible to believe she was injured as a result.

From her point of view, her kid was given a bike by a friend and some guy in a truck carrying a gun tried to take it and claimed it was his. She tried to prevent you from stealing her kid's bike and you injured her in the process. Like it or not, that is a sympathetic case. The fact that you took matters into your own hands rather than wait for the police just makes you look like a hot head and a bully. Or at least, I am sure that will be the tactic that will be taken.

The proper thing to have done would be to call the police when you spotted what you thought was the bike. Let them investigate and see if it was or not. Let them deal with the mother and son.
 
viper515 said:
Well, no sense in being quaint, I do have a minor record, but disorderly and dui from prob 15yrs ago. College life...

No, the cops are already aware this lady is a little off but.... I guess what I am asking for now is, since you have sat in "the chair", would I have reasonable grounds to be granted a continuance based on this theft case? That could drag out for another several months I would think! How do I approach that with the judge?

And probably no bonner point for me but I sort of argued it out in a trial with the judge a few yrs back over a zoning board issue that the courts did not even have jurisdiction in. I had to file an appeal with the district court before they would drop it because this judge convicted me of........LOL, I don't even know!!!! There was not even an ordinance number he could attach to it! IMO, ILLEGAL....In short, I have concerns with this judge....
Click to expand...

You can certainly "delay" things.
To start you could ask for 30 days to get your money together to retain counsel.
A family illness, or a business trip could buy you maybe six, eight weeks in this type of case.

Normally, anything beyond four to six weeks absent a death or major surgery, illness judges get cranky.

You might want to speak to four or five good criminal attorneys in your county. The initial consult is often free. Meet with each one and run your thoughts by him or her to get a sense of how THAT judge addresses what your planning.
 
Elle, the position I am taking is this. There is not evidence other than her word. If I can prove she lied to authorities about theft, how can she be credible in her statement? I know she has a scratch BUT how does the prosecution prove I caused that? Did I attack her? NO. Did she pursue me and threaten me? YES. That can be proved. Dash cams will prove she was reaching into my vehicle when police arrived.

I think we are missing a couple things here. Lets excuse the actual facts as apparently not one believes them..... Consider this. We found the bike. The bike was on commons property, NOT on the tenant's private property. We took our property back. Someone came out and tried to steal from us. Per KS law, I have the right to use reasonable force to defend my own property from an attacker. Did I take the property from someone? NOPE, we came up on it laying there all by itself. Now, you might say "but you didn't know it was yours". We could argue that until the cows come home but unless you check your VIN on your own bike every time you get on it, how do you know it is yours? The fact is, that rebuttal only works if it turned out to not be ours. But it was proved right on scene that it was ours. There are aftermarket parts and distinct marks that make this undeniable.

I did NOT repo the bike. We found our own property, then someone tried to steal from us AGAIN!



The kid lied and got his mom in on the action. Told officers he found it, then someone gave it to him. Now he is charged with conspiracy because he actually PLANNED to steal it.

I realize it is much easier or more fun to just tear my defenses apart but I am not getting much out of it. Judge, I do agree that I can probably visit few attys and absorb their thoughts on the direction of the defense.
 
Last edited:
Go into court with that attitude and logic and I do not like your odds. Sure, every case ultimately comes down to credibility. You can't prove SHE knew it was stolen. Stand your ground does not mean what you seem to think it means and it does not mean that no assault occurred. They might not be able to prove their case, but that does not mean you do not have to defend it. Rely on her actions versus yours and you leave yourself wide open. This is why you need a lawyer.
 
Elle, I think I understand where you are going. Your contention is that the burden falls on the prosecutor to provide indisputable proof that I caused her injury rather than self sustained?

As far as witnesses are concerned, there was only the lady's son that was present and his credibility is pretty much gone IMO, having lied to officers. I am not sure they even got a statement from him.

As to how she "knew" it was stolen, that is part of the reason I would like to continue this after resolution of the theft matter because this lady indicated to officers that a supposed owner's father called her and said it was ok to have the bike BUT it was already proved that no father ever called her. IE, if she lied about that, there is a credibility issue there.
 
Doesn't mean she knew it was stolen and or yours to take. At best, she lied about how her kid got the bike. That does not mean she automatically lied about an assault for which there is a visible injury. Sure, it is possible she was injured elsewhere, but objectively the most likely source of an injury is an admitted skirmish over the bike. It is entirely plausible given the injury. Like I said, it is always credibility and even if she knew it was your bike, she could still have a claim for assault. You seem to be working under the assumption that wrongdoing on the part of one party cancels out any wrongdoing on the part of the other party. Not true at all. The "penalty" for stealing isn't assault by the person you stole from. If your whole defense is basically she lied about ownership of the bike and is therefore lying about the injury, and that if you injured her it was your right to do so because she had your bike, guess who is going to prevail? It won't be you.
 
By your basis though, I have no defense so no need for a lawyer? Basically it will just become a negotiation between parties to avoid the hassle of a trial?
 
To be blunt, I'm not saying you don't have a defense. I am saying the defense you are proposing to go with stinks. That is why you need a lawyer. Especially if you already have a history with this judge. A local lawyer will now how to handle that.
 
Intrigued by your response, I started digging more into defensible strategy for battery. I realize I will probably get kicked but the kicks seem to be helping.

Consent - maybe not the most common of defenses but the fact that she freely engaged combat by pulling at this bike and it can easily be proved (actually on the police report) means she engaged me.

intent - some argument here because most intent defenses are more like a pure accident. This was most certainly an accident but also a consequence of actions. I think the reckless part can be disassembled with my demeanor when authorities arrived and my 911 calls. She was screaming and I was calm.

Her defense of property does not hold water. She might try to elude to some BS that she "thought" it was hers but this is why I want the facts in the theft case. If she had knowledge of the theft, she legal had no rights to the bike at all. my only position here is any property defense BS from her.


We also have the OBVIOUSNESS factor that I am not sure what to do with yet. Ur kid shows up with a bike out of the blue, then seeks to start chopping, altering, and debadging the bike. This does not raise an suspicion by a parent????

It seems like the term "normal person" is used in the courts so I would be happy to use it as any "normal parent" in this situation would have realized the facts here and I believe this parent DID.
 
One can never consent to an assault. Sorry, that one is a no-go. You seem to completely miss the point that it does not matter if you agree she had a reasonable reason to think the bike was her kid's. Nothing justifies assault. Nothing. Period. End of statement. Go into court victim blaming and you are dead in the water. If this were a dispute over ownership of the bike itself, sure, why she thought it belonged to her and her kid would matter. Here, it just simply does not. Even if you both agreed she ripped the bike from your child's hands, you are not legally permitted to assault her to get it back. That is just not the way the law works, nor should it.
 
Mr. Viper, good morning.
The state has the burden of proving your guilt.
You, as the defendant, have many rights protecting your liberty.
The defendant isn't required to prove her or his innocence.
A criminal defendant is cloaked in the legal truth that he or she is innocent until judged guilty by a jury.
A criminal trial, as regards the defendant, isn't a debate.
A criminal defendant should be selective in choosing rebuttals.
Silence says more than a poor argument.
 
In everything I have absorbed, a fist fight between two people can be considered consensual because both parties agreed to contact. When she tried to pull at the bike and pursue me, she consented to contact.

I am not calling you out but more of a debate here but your logic does not quite make sense to me. Basically you have indicated that she had a right to try and take the bike from me as she "thought" it was hers. However, you just stated above that if she took a bike from me, I have no right to get it back. That makes no sense. By your logic, she had a right to use force to take back a bike, but I have no right to my own property. Is there a step in the system that changes the game once theft has been committed?

Further, you seem to be presuming that I approached someone who had the bike and took it from them??? That did NOT happen. We found the bike, it was not on her private property, we had just taken lawful possession of the bike. She then attempted to steal it from me.

This is not assault, only battery.
 
army judge said:
Mr. Viper, good morning.
The state has the burden of proving your guilt.
You, as the defendant, have many rights protecting your liberty.
The defendant isn't required to prove her or his innocence.
A criminal defendant is cloaked in the legal truth that he or she is innocent until judged guilty by a jury.
A criminal trial, as regards the defendant, isn't a debate.
A criminal defendant should be selective in choosing rebuttals.
Silence says more than a poor argument.
Click to expand...


Thank you sir. I know the recommendation is to lawyer up, if only to persuade the prosecutor not to prosecute it. I feel as pro-se, the prosecutor will likely offer an amendment to disorderly just to get a conviction without trial, in which I would have to decide if I want to accept disorderly, or allow the prosecution to try to prove battery.

I feel very confident if this goes to trial as pro-se, it won't matter what I say. I highly doubt the prosecutor will really have to "prove" anything to get a guilty verdict. This judge finds everyone guilty. In which I would have to appeal in district court. This play has worked in the past as the city then has to employ more hours and costs in the charge, so they opt not to pursue further.

I have looked into the elements of proving a battery but I am unclear about intent. Per statute, it states "intentionally or recklessly". Basically it sounds like they need to prove I intended to cause her harm or recklessly caused harm.

FYI, I am going to take your advice to at least consult an atty to learn their thoughts on the matter.
 
Last edited:
A battery is simply the unwarranted, unwanted touching of another.
The law recognizes that in urban areas acts such as bumping accidentally into another while boarding a bus, walking down a crowded street, or in a crowded elevator don't constitute a battery. Otherwise, it's simple, so much so that the law uses the mythical reasonable man in applying understanding of our laws.

In law, a reasonable person (historically reasonable man) or The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical person of legal fiction who is ultimately an anthropomorphic representation of the body politic standards crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions.
 
Met with atty today. They indicate defense of property and self defense are both plausible and high probability of success, citing that due to the location of the property, we had already reclaimed the property thus reasonable force was justified.
 
If you met with an attorney, then you might want to follow his/her advice. I don't think there is much more we can tell you here.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top