Some 60 years ago, marines were trained for unarmed combat. I suspect that they still are. Some of the skills taught, back in the 50s, came from judo. Today, I would expect karate to be added to the list. And karate has a number of blows that are guarenteed to be fatal with one punch, provided that punch is delivered with intent to kill.

One of those punches is designed to drive the bones of the nose back up into the front of the brain.

It seems reasonable to me that a direct blow to the nose, head-on rather than uppercut-style, could easily have that same result if delivered with angry force even with no intent for it to be a killer.

And I agree that, if no evidence of previous bad blood between the parties exists, it appears to be a clear-cut case of self defense. It could just as easily had the same outcome if the blow had been to the solar plexus rather than the head, too!

it's very telling in how the some of the public thinks that a lick is alright in excusing death.

We can straw men all we want to about daughters and sisters but this isn't any real different than a simple nonviolent altercation (like a unwanted push or a brush against someone else) and responding in a way that causes death.

Heck you could get in a fist fight that leads to death and still be guilty of killing another person.

Must not be christian or respect actual morale and civil laws if any interaction makes it alright to be the judge, jury, and executioner.
They aren't saying a lick deserves death and surely you know that. No one can rationally believe that one punch would likely lead to death. That wouldn't have been the intent. Must have been a freak occurrence. They are saying a lick is likely to prompt a punch and that guy surely knew that when he licked him. Sounds like a tragic, freak result.

He hasn't been charged with anything. He was simply arrested on a criminal complaint of murder.

Man arrested on first-degree murder complaint following altercation in OKC club | Local News - Home (http://m.koco.com/news/man-arrested-on-firstdegree-murder-complaint-following-altercation-in-okc-club/27584536)

But a person has to be responsible for the outcome of their reactions.

The licker couldn't have been surprised when he got punched.

If you wrongly punch someone and they have a peculiar medical condition, you are stuck with it since you deliberately wrongly punched them. The eggshell skull. If you are engaged in legitimate self defense (a fact question and we don't know enough, yet), the fact that the aggressor has a vulnerable but hidden medical condition isn't relevant.

My past experience is that the kind of guy that licks another guys face in a bar is probably used to getting his ass kicked. This time he just got more than he bargained for.

The licker couldn't have been surprised when he got punched.


I can't go that far down the trail with you PQ. Cluelessness, like some other traits, can run clean down to the bone.

Understood. I will remember that, when my 3 year old neice licks my elbow. I will be sure to bludgeon her to death with my ONE PUNCH. Because afterall..she licked me...so, she assaulted me first.

A grown man at a club and a little kid are 2 different things.

I see they filed a CPC today. I'll go pick it up in the morning and see if there are any more details and report back.

I noticed only the one report above claims a single punch was thrown. All the other reports simple claim they were in a fight.

As for whether or not they'll file charges...... wouldn't surprise me either way. It wasn't that long ago a man in OKC was charged with sexual assault for simply giving another male co-worker a 'titty-twister.'

A grown man at a club and a little kid are 2 different things.
Yep, I use two completely different fighting styles.

... What kind of world would we be living in if some drunk could feel justified or entitled to go around licking the faces of total strangers?

I dunno, maybe the kind where many folk only feel reasonably secure if they go out in groups, keep an eye on each other's drinks all night, view the word key as being interchangeable with weapon, and the process for confirming the safe arrival home of the group members is as much a part of the evening plan as where to go and what to order.

Idiots who take liberties ... walking among us for decades.

Witness on Ch 4 says that the victim didn't do anything or touch the guy before the punch other than bump the guy's table and spill his drink. Be interesting to see if any videos exist to see what really happened. Witness was the karaoke DJ

Even with "little" things like this - don't you get the feeling that the world is going crazy?

Even with "little" things like this - don't you get the feeling that the world is going crazy?

No

Wonder if the Marine said "BOOM!! Head-shot" and then walked off

Even with "little" things like this - don't you get the feeling that the world is going crazy?
No

Thoughtful answer. I'm glad that everybody who doesn't feel all the existential angst I do these days decided against signing-in just to post "No." This would be one boring forum if everybody just gave "yes" and "no" answers to everything. Of course, most people here know I wasn't fishing for "yes" or "no"...I was expressing myself with a rhetorical question. But I think you knew that.

Way too many wanna be extremist who think that any negative situation that impacts them allows them to deal with it in a manner is acceptable to become violent and even cause death.

There was a recent news story here where a guy selling meat out of the back of his refrigerated truck knocked on someone's door so they opened fire. Or the other case where a girl was in a car wreck and pulled herself to a house and knocked on the door so they opened fire.

Seriously these type of people need to be relocated to an actual war zone if they cant live in a civilized manner with the rest of us.

I'm just past tired of hearing I was so scared of (fill in the blank) that I had to kill them as a defense.

Grow a pair, react calmly, and stop being a such a sissy.

There's a pretty big difference between shooting at someone for knocking on your door and punching a guy for licking your face.

Both resulted in death for the other party.

Both murderers didn't show any control over their reactions.

Don't get me wrong I don't know anyone who wants to get licked by a stranger but responding like a thug with no self control doesn't help their defense. He's better of in jail where some someone else where someone else will do the thinking for him.

At this point I feel you're just trolling. Wouldn't you be more at home on gawker?

In another hypothetical situation.... Lets say a man walked up and grabbed a woman's breast and as a reactionary response she kicked him in the nads and for some reason he died from that blow down below. Should she be arrested for murder?

In another hypothetical situation.... Lets say a man walked up and grabbed a woman's breast and as a reactionary response she kicked him in the nads and for some reason he died from that blow down below. Should she be arrested for murder?

So, now you're comparing a sexual assault to someone licking someones face? I just want o clarify.

So, now you're comparing a sexual assault to someone licking someones face? I just want o clarify.

Licking someone's face is Assault *AND* Battery. You seem to be incapable of grasping that concept.

So, now you're comparing a sexual assault to someone licking someones face? I just want o clarify.


Licking someone's face is Assault *AND* Battery. You seem to be incapable of grasping that concept.
And could arguably be considered sexual assault...

Licking someone's face is Assault *AND* Battery. You seem to be incapable of grasping that concept.

I do not have any comprehension issues, nor am I incapable of understanding a very simple concept. I am not disputing what charges the deceased should be facing, as that would seem to be a waste of time. I am more focused on the ineptitude of the accused suspect to deal with a situation, that does not warrant killing another human being over. Maybe you are incapable of grasping THAT concept. I definitely do not want to "stereotype," but I continue to see story after story of former Military/Marines who cannot deal with varying social situations. Instead of making rational decisions based on calculated intellect, they resort back to their caveman like instincts and resort to violence. (Which is the ONLY reason, I brought up the PTSD earlier.) Because when these type of incidents happen, and the accused are former military...the PTSD is often times used as a crutch of sorts. Almost as a defense, for why these guys are acting out, as if there should be some kind of sympathy for them. (A free ticket to beat the **** out of whoever they want...just because they went to war)

It seems that at this point the victim is alleged to have licked the defendant. This licking claim is based on unnamed and unidentified witnesses. The only identified witness( DJ) stated to the news that victim bumped into the suspects table causing a drink to spill. So for all you folks debating around the tongue licking as to whether that is provocation or not, at this point that allegation is sketchy at best. The only thing certain is a man is dead at the hand of another man.

I do not have any comprehension issues, nor am I incapable of understanding a very simple concept. I am not disputing what charges the deceased should be facing, as that would seem to be a waste of time. I am more focused on the ineptitude of the accused suspect to deal with a situation, that does not warrant killing another human being over. Maybe you are incapable of grasping THAT concept. I definitely do not want to "stereotype," but I continue to see story after story of former Military/Marines who cannot deal with varying social situations. Instead of making rational decisions based on calculated intellect, they resort back to their caveman like instincts and resort to violence. (Which is the ONLY reason, I brought up the PTSD earlier.) Because when these type of incidents happen, and the accused are former military...the PTSD is often times used as a crutch of sorts. Almost as a defense, for why these guys are acting out, as if there should be some kind of sympathy for them. (A free ticket to beat the **** out of whoever they want...just because they went to war)

You not answering the question about the girl kicking the guy in the balls is very telling.

You are refusing to acknowledge that laying a single punch to another's face after being assaulted is not to be unexpected and is indeed RATIONAL (Even if it's not the *best* way to handle the situation).

You keep conflating the fact that the guy died with the action that the Marine took. Results are not how you determine fault.

I'm not saying this Marine is innocent. *But as reported at the beginning of this thread*, if that were indeed *exactly* how it went down [Guy licks Marine in the face with no physical preempting from the Marine, Marine then punches guy in the face, guy dies] then you have absolutely no ground to stand on.

You're making quantum leaps to arrive at your erroneous conclusions based on what has been reported, most of the rest of us are saying 1. We don't know enough to say one way or the other or 2. Assuming this was reported accurately (and that is a MASSIVE assumption) this is simply an unfortunate case of deadly self-defense.

You need to realize that even if the Marine turns out to be guilty, you still have made no sound argument for your position based on the current foundation of this discussion.

In another hypothetical situation.... Lets say a man walked up and grabbed a woman's breast and as a reactionary response she kicked him in the nads and for some reason he died from that blow down below. Should she be arrested for murder?

If it was my wife she wouldn't have to bother. Nobody expects anybody to die from one solid punch to the noggin. Knocked out maybe but not go croaker on you.

So, now you're comparing a sexual assault to someone licking someones face? I just want o clarify.

One it's a hypothetical situation, two they were both assaults that resulted in a reactionary response.

It seems that at this point the victim is alleged to have licked the defendant. This licking claim is based on unnamed and unidentified witnesses. The only identified witness( DJ) stated to the news that victim bumped into the suspects table causing a drink to spill. So for all you folks debating around the tongue licking as to whether that is provocation or not, at this point that allegation is sketchy at best. The only thing certain is a man is dead at the hand of another man.

Good point, all the facts are not in and we are just assuming at this point. Once the facts are in we can debate the issue.

This entire situation is nothing less than tragic. The families of these men are forever changed. Clearly licking someone's face is never a good idea, but how many good ideas does someone come up with when they are drinking in a bar. So even if this alleged walk-by-licking did indeed take place, that's not okay but there are also much better way of reacting. A jump to violence seems very unnecessary, considering you are in a bar and there will be drunk people doing dumb stuff. This punch sounds like more than a typical punch, the news (take that for what it's worth) made it sound like the suspect used the bottom part of his palm in a upward motion to the victims nose. Not what I would typically consider to be a "self-defense maneuver," but more like a "you hurt my pride, now I am embarrassed and angry and to show those around me I'm not just going to let someone lick me, I am going to hurt you."

You would never think when you tell your drunk buddy "Hey I dare you to go lick that big dudes face." That he's end up killed from it. I believe this case could end up with one person dead and another in prison because of drunken silliness, and pride.

At this point I feel you're just trolling. Wouldn't you be more at home on gawker?
How?

By advocating not killing another person for licking someone's face at a bar.

It seems more trollish to me to think that that type of response is justified in a civilized country.

How?

Because you keep insisting on equating punching someone once (an action which would not be expected to cause death or serious injury) in response to assault and battery with shooting someone (an action which would be expected to cause death or serious injury) for the non-crime of ringing a doorbell.

I can see two reasons someone would think the two are comparable, and trolling was the generous option. Maybe I was wrong though, so I'll assume the other option from now on.

You would never think when you tell your drunk buddy "Hey I dare you to go lick that big dudes face." That he's end up killed from it.

No, but I would expect he'd end up punched for it. In fact, even before this story, if you asked me "what do you think would happen if I walked up to a marine (or really, any guy) and licked his face?" I would respond "You'll probably get punched." Just like if you walked up to a random woman and licked her face, you'd probably get (at the least) slapped, thrown out, and possibly punched if she's with someone.

At this point I feel you're just trolling. Wouldn't you be more at home on gawker?

This deserves at least a warning from the admins. This goes nowhere but downhill once it starts.

Because you keep insisting on equating punching someone once (an action which would not be expected to cause death or serious injury) in response to assault and battery with shooting someone (an action which would be expected to cause death or serious injury) for the non-crime of ringing a doorbell.

I can see two reasons someone would think the two are comparable, and trolling was the generous option. Maybe I was wrong though, so I'll assume the other option from now on.
When you physically assault someone in anger you have to be aware that it might have a higher level of danger than you originally thought.

That's not some risk you get to wash your hands of.

If I punch someone with a seizure condition, punch someone and they trip over something, punch someone on blood thinners, punch someone and they fall in front of a car....etc.

How about you stop punching people instead of worrying about how their body reacted to it.

When you physically assault someone … you have to be aware that it might have a higher level of danger than you originally thought.
The face-licker should have thought about that.

When you physically assault someone in anger you have to be aware that it might have a higher level of danger than you originally thought.

That's not some risk you get to wash your hands of.

If I punch someone with a seizure condition I don't know about, or punch someone and they trip over something, or if I punch someone and they fall in front of a car....etc.

Correct, but usually the responsibility for the consequences of something like this is the person committing the crime. So someone tries to mug me, and I punch them, and they have a seizure and die, then they are responsible for the consequence.

Now, all of this is still just speculation as it seems we now have conflicting reports.

The alleged face-licker should have thought about that.

There, fixed it for ya.

The face-licker should have thought about that.

Maybe the marine winked at him prior or was sending off alot of gay vibes?

Back on subject.

So if someone spits on me on i have the right to punch them so hard it causes death. What if a guy walks up and gently touches my hand and i spin around and KO him with a punch and he dies....justified in your book.

Kinda like those muslim extremist that go around ending people's lives over simular infractions.

The reward and punishment for everything is death. Brilliant!

When you physically assault someone in anger you have to be aware that it might have a higher level of danger than you originally thought.

That's not some risk you get to wash your hands of.

If I punch someone with a seizure condition, punch someone and they trip over something, punch someone on blood thinners, punch someone and they fall in front of a car....etc.

How about you stop punching people instead of worrying about how their body reacted to it.

When you physically assault someone, such as licking someone in the face, you have to be aware that it might have a higher level of danger than you originally thought.

That's not some risk you get to wash your hands of.

I'm so glad we are finally in agreement.

Maybe the marine winked at him prior or was sending off alot of gay vibes?

Back on subject.

So if someone spits on me on i have the right to punch them so hard it causes death. What if a guy walks up and gently touches my hand and i spin around and KO him with a punch and he dies....justified in your book.

Kinda like those muslim extremist that go around ending people's lives over simular infractions.

The reward and punishment for everything is death. Brilliant!

Do you not understand that saliva being transported from you to another person without consent is considered assault and battery?

Do you not understand that saliva being transported from you to another person without consent is considered assault and battery?
Going to have a hard time convincing a judge and jury that someone licking or spitting on you was enough of a offense to justify immediately ending their life.

Any reasonable person would say to file a police report when you sobered up.

If I had to guess the marine wishes he wouldve done just that.

There, fixed it for ya.
Didn't need fixed. You allege that it is alleged. Besides, this discussion has dealt more in the hypothetical than any concrete evidence since no one, unless they were there, can state concretely what happened. I'm basing my comments, until proven otherwise, on the story as outlined in the original post.

You not answering the question about the girl kicking the guy in the balls is very telling.

Its not "telling" of anything. You continue to blindly reach, to the point of creating half truths. In my very first sentence I stated, that I am not disputing who is at fault, or who "allegedly" instigated the confrontation. You can use whatever scenario you want to choose, and arrange all of the characters in whatever fashion you so choose. The fact remains the same, that even though you want to define the "lick" as an assault. (And once again....I'm NOT disputing that it should be considered an assault) But that the action of licking someone is not done, with the intention of causing physical harm.


You are refusing to acknowledge that laying a single punch to another's face after being assaulted is not to be unexpected and is indeed RATIONAL (Even if it's not the *best* way to handle the situation). You continue to define being "licked" as assault. Definition of the law, says that you are correct. So, how you worded this sentence lends itself to leave my response in your favor. So, since we can agree that you are equating being "licked" to assault, then I can without hesitation answer the question very easily. So no....I do NOT think its "RATIONAL" for someone to throw a punch to another's face, after being licked. I would think that if someone felt the need to retaliate and cause physical harm, that they are a half wit. You know...a D...D...D...Dummy.



You keep conflating the fact that the guy died with the action that the Marine took. Results are not how you determine fault. I'm not concerned with who is at fault. You continue to try to make this into something much more than what it is. This isn't an episode of Perry Mason.


then you have absolutely no ground to stand on.


You're making quantum leaps to arrive at your erroneous conclusions based on what has been reported, most of the rest of us are saying 1. We don't know enough to say one way or the other or 2. Assuming this was reported accurately (and that is a MASSIVE assumption) this is simply an unfortunate case of deadly self-defense.


You need to realize that even if the Marine turns out to be guilty, you still have made no sound argument for your position based on the current foundation of this discussion.

I'm not here to discuss the Due Process of Law, and break down the legal terminology of why one might, or might not be found guilty. You are putting a lot of effort into trying to make this discussion much more important than it really is. I don't need a "sound argument" for my position, when the position is merely an opinion. Once again...you are fingering your butthole too much to try and make this a more technical discussion than it really is. My opinion is that anyone who feels the need to punch somebody, because they were licked in the face, has a lot of intertying issues. Whether it social anxiety, anger management issues, or for the lack of better words.....they're just a piece of trash.

Thread needs less bickering, more T2 references

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/3544346/terminator-2-lick-o.gif

Hmm. Well, we seem to have a difference of opinion about societal niceties. Some apparently think punching someone who licks your face without permission is simply a beast, deserving of the worst possible fate if said punch results in death, intended or not.

About all I can say is that I would be far more horrified if my son licked a stranger's face without permission than I would if he punched someone who licked him. The first is just beyond uncivilized - it is nasty, gross and icky. Sick. What kind of weirdo does such a thing? Who thinks they have the right to touch another person so intimately without permission?

A punch, on the other hand, at worst, is an over reaction and more likely would be seen as completely appropriate.

People who are completely offended by physical violence would do well to not have a nasty mouth.

I don't know what the story is and who to believe but I imagine the marine wasn't ever for a second in fear of his life or bodily harm and the punch to the head was retribution and not self defense. I don't see this as murder per se but rather an unfortunate tragic accident. Whatever the outcome of the investigation I hope the legal system shows a bit of restraint and not punish foolish retribution with foolish retribution. A very sad story.

Gotta be able to handle your booze and remain control of your actions.

Gotta be able to handle your booze and remain control of your actions.

If a stranger walked up and licked your wife or one of your kids I imagine you would just give them a stern warning.

If a stranger walked up and licked your wife or one of your kids I imagine you would just give them a stern warning.

Of course not. The correct answer is to start throwing punches and escalate the situation. Ya know in order to keep your family safe and show your kids nobody will diss you.

If a stranger walked up and licked your wife or one of your kids I imagine you would just give them a stern warning.
Why would i have my kids at a bar during the wee hours of the morning?

To save both of our time. Bar fights happen for stupid reasons, the vast majority for very very stupid reasons. Just because a person is drunk doesn't make them above the law of and the outcomes of our own actions.

I've known people who have gotten into bar fights for very good reasons. Didn't make either party above the law when the cops showed up

I'm having a hard time believing that this was just a simple case of a guy walking up to a random stranger and licking his face. You would think that there would have had to have been some sort of previous dispute or something between these two guys.

Just because a person is drunk doesn't make them above the law of and the outcomes of our own actions.
And you should really remember that when licking another mans face.

And you should really remember that when licking another mans face.
I think you are projecting.

I think you are projecting.
You're probably right. You've been pretty spot on this whole thread.

I don't think very many of you read the actual story.

Update: 8/19/2014 –*27-year-old Jeremy Rafford died after being hit one time in the face at a local club.

Witnesses at the club say the suspect, 32-year-old David Bales, was*actually defending himself after Rafford licked his face.

Now other eyewitnesses are coming forward*with a different story.

Jeremy Baxter, the DJ that night at the club, claims he saw the whole incident.

“I saw [Jeremy], the guy who got killed, leaning over the table. *I guess [Jeremy] had bumped the table cause something spilled and he said I’ll buy you a drink, pay your tab, whatever. *There was no confrontation. *He was being nice,” said Baxter.

Baxter says that is when Bales became violent.

“While I was walking away, David came straight up from the table and palmed him under the nose. *There was no self-defense, nothing on that…Jeremy did not touch him,” claimed Baxter.

Police say the incident is still under investigation.

You're probably right. You've been pretty spot on this whole thread.
You are very welcome.

The most important three seconds, give or take a bit, in David Bales' life were those moments immediately after the lick. What, if anything transpired in the seconds right before the lick will also come into play.

Honestly, I can't tell from the information presented what happened other than there was a lick and a punch and the lick giver was dead right there after the punch.

I anticipate there's at least a brief Paul Harvey period as well. If so, that part of the story will determine what, if any, charges are brought in the matter.

First of all, I must admit that if some strange dude in a bar licked me on the face. I probably wouldn’t have punched him.

And here's the rest of the story . . .

I learned, first hand, about thirty-five (maybe forty?) years ago, (without formal military/martial arts training) that it’s more effective, in terms of warding off or equalizing, that sort of personal “affront” to “normalcy” in interpersonal relationships (without having a firearm available) to go directly for the windpipe. It takes the fight out of the perceived assailant really fast even if he has a couple of friends backing him up.

I’ll never forget the time that I actually felt my fingers and thumb connect on the backside of a “rowdy stranger’s” windpipe as I banged his head into the most convenient door jamb. I asked him if he had had enough. Of course he was unable to respond, but his buddies spoke for him. They said yes. And they left. To this day I am thankful that I didn’t kill him.

Not that I didn’t (almost) intend to so do.

btw: The almost ‘victim’ who precipitated the encounter, in the little neighborhood bar that I called home away from home and at which I bartended/bounced said—to me—on a day off prior to the long ago event in question: “So . . . What does it take to get a drink around here, Punk.”

I went off on him on account of I had just stopped in to mourn the untimely death of a good friend, teacher, and customer of mine right after his funeral.

I really appreciate what Kevin referred to, above, It was one of the most memorable three to thirteen seconds of my life.
(and to this day I hope the choking little sh!t his pals carried out the door hasn't been run over by a truck, train or bus. =)

Thoughtful answer. I'm glad that everybody who doesn't feel all the existential angst I do these days decided against signing-in just to post "No." This would be one boring forum if everybody just gave "yes" and "no" answers to everything. Of course, most people here know I wasn't fishing for "yes" or "no"...I was expressing myself with a rhetorical question. But I think you knew that.

I can only agree.
Otherwise there is a divergence of opinion.
Which goes nowhere.

(p.s. the "puncher"--in this case--is no more guilty of a "crime" than the "tapir"
you wouldn't happen to have a Jury of One's Peers application handy, would you?
or maybe even a never get asked to be on a jury form? =)