Yesterday, we discussed the fight between a Jets fan and Patriots fans recently caught on YouTube. One of the issues for discussion was the focus of the media on a New York Jets fan, Kurt Paschke, punching a woman in a Patriots jersey. Many were outraged that he hit Jaclyn Nugent, 26, and that anger grew when it was learned that he was a former felon. However, the full video showed Paschke being attacked first by Nugent, at least in that incident. Well, it turns out that the police was not so confined in its search. Charges were filed Tuesday afternoon against Amanda MacDowell of Marlborough, Mass.; Jaclyn Nugent and David James Sacco, both of Boston, and Kurt Paschke of Holbrook, N.Y. I remain unclear as to why Paschke is even charged since what was shown on the video seems a legitimate act of self-defense. It may be misleading in terms of what occurred before, but he is shown hitting Nugent after she attacks him.
The charges generally are a welcomed development for many fans who no longer go to games because of idiots like these.
Paschke’s mother, Colleen, insisted that the Patriots fans were harassing them throughout the game and pursued them after the game. She says that the Patriots fans yelled “get them” and were throwing punches. She insists her son was protecting her. She says that Nugent and the others were upset over the close loss and went looking for Paschke.
All four are charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct charges MacDowell and Nugent allegedly kicked and punched Paschke. He then allegedly punched Nugent in the face. Sacco also allegedly hit Paschke in the face. They will all have to go through a special class for unruly fans (i.e., how to act as a civilized person in a crowd) to be allowed back into the stadium. I fail to understand why they are not banned. It is a little late to learn how to act like an adult for these people. If their parents failed to teach them in their first twenty or so years not to drink and brawl in public, I am not sure some film and a class will make up for it.
Yet, Nugent is still being portrayed as the victim under the standard that a man should never hit a woman even after she hit him repeatedly. The law does not see it that way. If he hit her after an unprovoked attack, it would appear an act of self-defense.
Notably, Nugent is a graduate from the University of Massachusetts where she graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice and Corrections. She has been working for Meditech, a health care technology company, as an Application Specialist for three years and three months. She is tasked with resolving customer issues among other duties. Presumably, she applies a less hands on approach to such conflicts at Meditech. Do you think that involvement in this type of high-profile brawl should be grounds for termination by a company like Meditech?
Paschke’s conviction for a killing in a fight outside of a restaurant may have warped the analysis of the case as did the clip of his hitting a woman. His mother and father insist that he was defending himself and his elderly mother. I have not seen anything on the clip that would justify his being charged but it will be interesting to see how this story unfolds. In New York, the privilege of self-defense would seem to cover such a circumstance as does common law:
Sec. 35.05 Justification; generally. Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which
would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties or functions;
2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The necessity and
justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder.
Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a defense.
Sec. 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: . . .
6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody.
Whenever a person is authorized by any such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or qualify such authorization.
In the meantime, it is good to see charges for such conduct. It remains the exception as stadiums are taken over by the most obnoxious and juvenile element of our society.
Source: Daily Mail
34 thoughts on “Four Charged In Jets-Patriots Brawl”
Tina / Nick, where’s this other video at? I seem to have gotten lost in the blogosphere.
Here is the video.. :o)
Tina, This blog is open 24/7. I’ll continue to keep my eye out for posts like this that I think you’ll like. That video find w/ the different camera angle was a great find.
nick… you definitely sent me to the right blog… I have much to say… a lot. At work now… til later.
anarmy, The point I was talking about was male v female. However, I have a suggestion. A new commenter, Tina, came up w/ another camera perspective on the follow-up post on this topic. I’ll meet you over there. Look @ that camera angle and then we can discuss it.
Forgive my lack of extensive knowledge of law, but are you suggesting that in defending himself, he should have differentiated between a left cross, right hook or hard shove when facing more than one assailant? Escalation of force is usually more rigidly applied to law enforcement and military folks. Granted, if he had stabbed her or shot her, this would be a different conversation. She kicked and hit him…. where was her “armlock, headlock, bearhug” or even her left jab? If this was legitimate self defense, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make.
If I was faced with more than one person trying to get me, I’d take the first person down as hard as possible to discourage the rest. I’ve also had training I suppose, but he was also likely intoxicated. I’m happy he didn’t throw her into a hot dog cart and break her neck, for her sake as well as his.
armyofficer, What about putting the woman in an armlock, headlock, bearhug? Hell, what about a left jab instead of a right from way down in Mississippi? And, the prosecutor says he’s “not in the clear.” And really, does anything anyone here says or think really matter @ this point? What the prosecutor says is all that matters. Then, what a jury says. That’s the way it works.
While I don’t relish the idea of fistfights breaking out all over the country to meet expectations of women’s equality, a woman who expects no reprisal for attacking anyone else is ludicrous.
A generally accepted social expectation is that men will not hit women, regardless of the provocation. Where’s the line? Do you have to have a broken leg and a cracked rib before you fight back? What about abusive wives? It’s not always the men that are the aggressors.
Men are generally larger and stronger than average women, a fact that has guided history, chivalry, mysoginy, and all other good and evil things done to and for women. Human nature remains the same, and people (regardless of sex) will take advantage of others when they believe they can get away with it (if they are of such a mind).
In this case, everyone was drinking. These folks love this sport enough to pay ridiculous money for gas, tickets, and alcohol at this game, so they were likely emotionally charged before the game started. During the game, they were likely rowdy as well. After the game, they were caught on camera venting frsutration physically.
Based on the video alone, Pashke is innocent of anything but self defense. Faced with three (charged) drunk individuals threatening physical harm, he had every right to defend himself (especially after taking several hits). If you take into account his prior charges, he was still attacked and defended himself. No, we don’t know what happened before the camera cut on. No, we don’t know if he didn’t provoke the whole thing himself. But based solely on the information we know, I’d say he’s in the clear. But then, I’m sure there will be a trial (or minor sentencing and this whole thing will go away…. time will tell).
“liar,” “dishonest,” “unable to read,” My God, I’m a bad and illiterate man! Let’s stick w/ substance if you are able, please.
Each person is entitled to what they think…. You are less than conciliatory with Mike S., You throw the first jab and then say Mike of Elaine starts it….
I stated pretty much what Mike stated but there was no attacking my comment…..and I said it first…. I have not been on here much as some of the dribble I read I spend my time elsewhere….
You may like the word “SHIRT”….. leave the “R” out and you have a mess…. think about it….. when I felt you were being attacked…. I defended you….. I do not think it was unwise or foolish… I would do the same for anybody….
This is a blog where free speech is only restrained for the respect of others opinions…. You attack, and you will be attacked back…. Your culture club has waned over the last few months…..Just think about it….
I’m sorry, I thought this was a blog, not a court of law. I have said here earlier the prior record cannot, and should not, be used in adjudicating this case. It is and should be pertinent in deciding whether to charge this convicted, violent felon. And, if convicted on this offense, his prior violent, criminal behavior will be part of the presentence report and sentencing. We are certainly free to point out here, A BLOG, that this man is a convicted, violent, felon. Again, this is not computing w/ me. I don’t understand your stance on this. But please, keep giving me pointers on how criminal trials are conducted. I’m taking notes.
“We are certainly free to point out here”
You are certainly free to point out anything you like. Then again so am I and I illustrated why your question was a “when did you stop beating your wife” question. Now I was quite clear on my response to you, but you again garble it into a meaning of your making. My impression is either that your reading skills are deficient, or that you are being dishonest in your interpretation.
Comments are closed.