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;
or
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