Former Gophers QB Phillip Nelson arrested in his hometown of Mankato for assault

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donate To GopherHole
Winasota Gopher said:
It wont be hard to prove he kicked him in the head though....

While he was on the ground I might add.
Click to expand...

On this there is no question. One way or another PN is likely going to do time. It is going to be a question of how much and on what charges.
 

Costa Rican Gopher said:
The eyewitnesses said Kolstad was completely out on his feet from the punch (I almost wonder if TS had brass knuckles, a roll of coins or something in his hand?), didn't get his hands out to brace his fall & (their words) "smoked his head on the pavement". Multiple witnesses described the disgusting splat of his head slamming into the concrete. Multiple witnesses described how disturbingly loud the splat was. One punch knockouts kill people all the time & it's almost always the victim going limp, not getting their hands out & smashing their heads in during the fall that kills them. I think it's far more reasonable that this was the case, than PN's rubber tennis shoe did that type of damage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is certainly possible that one punch would knock someone out (have you ever watched a football game where someone is knocked out on a hit, yet didn't sustain life threatening injury?). Its also possible that the person was knocked out / hit the sidewalk without sustaining life threatening injuries. And that those life threatening injuries were given by the boot to the head. It did say in the police report that the serious damage was on the side of the head where Nelson kicked him.

Again, tragic situation for all involved. Leave the facts to the medical and legal professionals, and stop passing off your opinion as a fact.
 

14797_10154146510030014_1639920526775961244_n.jpg


Does this look like someone who weighs 280 lbs? If he's 280, everyone in this picture is 250 plus and the guy to his left is about 400.
 

Here are some facts!
PN was identified as kicking IK in the head on the left side.
IK's head was fractured on the left side.
MN law establishes strict liability with the level of injury determining the degree of assault.
Under MN law self defense can't be claimed when you instigate a fight and it escalates.
It also ends when the aggressor is no longer a threat.
As a defense lawyer there are a lot of hurdles to overcome but to me meeting the reasonable person standard in thinking Kolstad was still a threat while laying on the ground is insurmountable.
 

nsmike said:
Here are some facts!
PN was identified as kicking IK in the head on the left side.
IK's head was fractured on the left side.
MN law establishes strict liability with the level of injury determining the degree of assault.
Under MN law self defense can't be claimed when you instigate a fight and it escalates.
It also ends when the aggressor is no longer a threat.
As a defense lawyer there are a lot of hurdles to overcome but to me meeting the reasonable person standard in thinking Kolstad was still a threat while laying on the ground is insurmountable.
Click to expand...

Nice summary. I agree with you in that how does one prove that IK was threat to PN while IK laid on the ground unconscious? It's not like the defense can say the video has no audio and you can't hear IK threatening PN that he is going to get up and hurt him not that it would justify kicking a downed person. Given the facts, it does seem insurmountable that the defense can make a case that IK was any kind of threat.
 


What we need to remember, if any of this goes to trial, which I think it will, one never knows what a jury will do.
 


Costa Rican Gopher: Your posts are so one-sided it's ridiculous. 280 pounds, brass knuckles, and now Nelson's rubber shoes. You know he wasn't 280, but keep saying it. You know he wasn't sucker punched from behind, but keep saying it.

Nelson could have walked away, it's that simple. He was pushed from behind - big deal. We've all seen that type of thing happen. I have never sen it escalate like this. You don't get up from that and kick someone in the head. I can't imagine ever kicking someone in the head - ever.
 

Question from someone who doesn't know to someone who does know, which means, if you have to type the words "I think" don't answer. If you SHOULD type the words "I Think" don't respond. Now that the ground rules are clear.

In the case of the assault, will the prosecution have to prove that IK WASN'T a threat or the defense have to prove that IK WAS a threat? This is innocent until proven guilty situation right? Or does it not work that way in real life?
 



Winasota Gopher said:
Question from someone who doesn't know to someone who does know, which means, if you have to type the words "I think" don't answer. If you SHOULD type the words "I Think" don't respond. Now that the ground rules are clear.

In the case of the assault, will the prosecution have to prove that IK WASN'T a threat or the defense have to prove that IK WAS a threat? This is innocent until proven guilty situation right? Or does it not work that way in real life?
Click to expand...

I think........aw, $hit!

Seriously, though, this is a good question.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
Question from someone who doesn't know to someone who does know, which means, if you have to type the words "I think" don't answer. If you SHOULD type the words "I Think" don't respond. Now that the ground rules are clear.

In the case of the assault, will the prosecution have to prove that IK WASN'T a threat or the defense have to prove that IK WAS a threat? This is innocent until proven guilty situation right? Or does it not work that way in real life?
Click to expand...

Chapter 609..02 Subd. 10.Assault. "Assault" is:
(1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.

Under (1), it doesn't matter if the victim couldn't be in fear due to being unconscious all that matters is that Nelson kicked or tried to kick with the intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death. Moreover, before the victim was unconscious, if Nelson did anything with the intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death, then Nelson is guilty of assault. For instance, if Nelson threatened the victim verbally or with gestures with intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death, then Nelson is guilty of assault.

Under (2), Nelson had to kick the victim with intent to injure or attempt to kick the victim with intent to injure. That's right, Nelson did not have to even connect with the kick. He simply had to believe in his mind that he was kicking his leg in order to injure the victim.

For self-defense, Nelson has the duty to retreat from a threat if it is possible, unless he's in his home, before responding with reasonable force (not what you could reason out of your mind, but what a reasonably prudent person in a similar situation would do). A good rule of thumb is you may only respond with a similar level of force that the threat currently represents. For instance, if you get punched, you can only punch back. However, if he draws a gun and threatens you or shoots at you, then you can use deadly force.

The prosecution will have to prove that Nelson assaulted Kolstad. In order to assert a self-defense argument, Nelson will have to prove that Nelson could not retreat and that the amount of force was reasonable given the threat he faced.

A self-defense argument basically means that Nelson admits to assaulting Kolstad, but the assault was justified so no punishment is warranted.
 

I keep reading that Nelson was hit/pushed so hard that he fell to the ground. Has anyone addressed PN's BAC at the time of the incident? Has that information come out or will that be kept from the public? My point is that if he was extremely intoxicated, what I would say .15 or higher, knocking PN over might not have taken too much effort. It sounds like he was pretty hammered from what reports said. This might be a tough one for the defense to refute, assuming his BAC was fairly high.
 

RunGopherRun said:
I keep reading that Nelson was hit/pushed so hard that he fell to the ground. Has anyone addressed PN's BAC at the time of the incident? Has that information come out or will that be kept from the public? My point is that if he was extremely intoxicated, what I would say .15 or higher, knocking PN over might not have taken too much effort. It sounds like he was pretty hammered from what reports said. This might be a tough one for the defense to refute, assuming his BAC was fairly high.
Click to expand...
Have any independent witnesses confirmed that PN was knocked down? I heard a self proclaimed family friend of PN's mention this on Barrero last week and that PN hit his head after he fell down and remembered nothing after that moment. Anyone seen this mentioned in any news stories from an independent witness?
 



Tater said:
Have any independent witnesses confirmed that PN was knocked down? I heard a self proclaimed family friend of PN's mention this on Barrero last week and that PN hit his head after he fell down and remembered nothing after that moment. Anyone seen this mentioned in any news stories from an independent witness?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the story read to me like what RunGopherRun wrote, more of a drunken stumble after being pushed in the back than anything else.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
Yeah, the story read to me like what RunGopherRun wrote, more of a drunken stumble after being pushed in the back than anything else.
Click to expand...

Serious question: Wouldn't it be the result of the shove/punch that mattered and not the state of the shovee/punchee that would matter? For example, if it is a frail old man who gets shoved, he's more likely to go down. Same with a drunk underage guy. To me, that doesn't matter. He fell to the ground (supposedly) and isn't that all that matters (not why a presumably virile hotshot QB would go down)?

Just some thoughts. Not sure any of this matters.

(Is "shovee" even a word??? DPO?)
 

Winasota Gopher said:
Question from someone who doesn't know to someone who does know, which means, if you have to type the words "I think" don't answer. If you SHOULD type the words "I Think" don't respond. Now that the ground rules are clear.

In the case of the assault, will the prosecution have to prove that IK WASN'T a threat or the defense have to prove that IK WAS a threat? This is innocent until proven guilty situation right? Or does it not work that way in real life?
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a moot point because you've just confused about 80% of jurors.

Your assumption is that a typical juror is a rational person and able to think in a reasonable way without emotion clouding the issue. In my position I am exposed to a wide swath of human beings, and from this, extensive reading, personal experience I conservatively assert that perhaps 50% of americans are rational, reasonable human beings able to think clearly about most issues. Some would argue far less!

Therefore, as I and Dr. Don have pointed out anything can happen in a jury trial. What if there is a old grandma that has a latent fear of african americans? What if there is an stcgopher or someone who feels he "had it coming ", ie if you throw the first blow then you deserve whatever happens afterward no matter how many eggs/innocents are broken (the George Bush defense). There will also be a line of thinking that neither Shelley or Nelson were trying to "kill" Kolstad. This is a generation that grew up with WWE, video games, etc where head punches, face kicks do little to no damage. They were not aware that these types of attacks were capable of causing the type of damage Isaac suffered. Is that a "reasonable" defense?
 

GopherJake said:
Serious question: Wouldn't it be the result of the shove/punch that mattered and not the state of the shovee/punchee that would matter? For example, if it is a frail old man who gets shoved, he's more likely to go down. Same with a drunk underage guy. To me, that doesn't matter. He fell to the ground (supposedly) and isn't that all that matters (not why a presumably virile hotshot QB would go down)?

Just some thoughts. Not sure any of this matters.

(Is "shovee" even a word??? DPO?)
Click to expand...

Sure it matters. It matters because it plays to how severe the contact was. If PN is slightly intoxicated (.07 - .10), and IK "violently punches" PN in the back, knocking him to the ground there is more of a case for self defense. He felt attacked in a violent manner and was knocked down due to the force of a violent physical blow.

On the other hand, if IK "pushes" PN in the back, causing a highly intoxicated PN to stumble and fall down, mostly of his own accord, his retaliation would not be of self defense, but to kick a guys A$$ who just pushed him.

I read these scenarios very differently. I have no idea if it would matter or not, but to me, if I was a juror, the only way I would ever even give self-defense any credence would be if it was obvious that he was violently attacked and he had to protect himself. And then I would still vote him to be guilty because he kicked a guy in the head who was on the ground and posing no threat. This is not Florida.
 

I doubt that BAC helps any defense as a mitigating factor when the drinker is underage (consuming illegally). This is just so terrible all the way around.

The camera footage may be the only sober witness. At first I was angry with PN, now I'm just sad about the whole ordeal.
 

I wonder if at some point PN will plea down to a much lesser charge. The whole bit about a fight lasting a push, a recovery, a blow from a third party, scrambling around the few people present and then a kick o the head with deck shoes (not steel toed safety boots) makes a difference or not. I still come back to 2 am, drunk, tired, on the defensive because of the girl friend, and the uncertainty of just walking away add up to a conviction. Retreat may have already happened when the push came. How many times does a guy have to retreat before your committed to a fight of self defense? Each time? If it is each time, is there a reasonable person rule that overrides retreating if it occurs multiple times? I am not on PN side, I am just trying to establish when certain things are enforceable and when they are not.
 

RunGopherRun said:
Sure it matters. It matters because it plays to how severe the contact was. If PN is slightly intoxicated (.07 - .10), and IK "violently punches" PN in the back, knocking him to the ground there is more of a case for self defense. He felt attacked in a violent manner and was knocked down due to the force of a violent physical blow.

On the other hand, if IK "pushes" PN in the back, causing a highly intoxicated PN to stumble and fall down, mostly of his own accord, his retaliation would not be of self defense, but to kick a guys A$$ who just pushed him.

I read these scenarios very differently. I have no idea if it would matter or not, but to me, if I was a juror, the only way I would ever even give self-defense any credence would be if it was obvious that he was violently attacked and he had to protect himself. And then I would still vote him to be guilty because he kicked a guy in the head who was on the ground and posing no threat. This is not Florida.
Click to expand...

Roger that. I understand your point better now.
 

So are you "self defense" people saying that if someone punched/pushed me in the back and I fall down, after I get up, and see that person laying on the ground... That I can still assume that there is enough danger to me, that I can use a weapon on his head? A hammer? A Shovel? A two-by-four? My foot? A foot is considered a weapon, right? Oh, and don't forget that he pushed his way past people who were trying to restrain him.
 

Costa Rican Gopher said:
The eyewitnesses said Kolstad was completely out on his feet from the punch (I almost wonder if TS had brass knuckles, a roll of coins or something in his hand?), didn't get his hands out to brace his fall & (their words) "smoked his head on the pavement". Multiple witnesses described the disgusting splat of his head slamming into the concrete. Multiple witnesses described how disturbingly loud the splat was. One punch knockouts kill people all the time & it's almost always the victim going limp, not getting their hands out & smashing their heads in during the fall that kills them. I think it's far more reasonable that this was the case, than PN's rubber tennis shoe did that type of damage.
Click to expand...

So would you let me kick you in the head like it was a soccer ball w/ my rubber tennis shoe? There would be no damage, right? Why the hell are you defending Nelson so much? Are you related???
 

Irony for PN's jealousy issues, the first nice day of summer when he gets to the pen, there is a decent chance his girlfriend is laying by the pool with some other guy.
 

dpodoll68 said:
You keep referring to Kolstad as "huge" and "big" and say that you saw him referred to somewhere as 280 lbs. Can you cite where you saw this? I've seen many pictures of him since this incident, and unless those are very old pictures, he's nowhere near 280 lbs.
Click to expand...

I can't cite the 280lb reference. It was in one of dozens of pieces that filtered out at first. There were many inaccuracies at that time, so I'm willing to cede the point. What I won't cede is that a buffed, 230+lb college linebacker is still a "huge" man.
 

akgopher said:
Irony for PN's jealousy issues, the first nice day of summer when he gets to the pen, there is a decent chance his girlfriend is laying by the pool with some other guy.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about. Chicks LOVE LOVE LOVE violent felons. PN's girlfriend will be fighting off other women for mere crumbs of written affection from her washed up quarterback heartthrob. (And changing panties frequently due to excessive moisture.)
 

Ozzy&Ray said:
Costa Rican Gopher: Your posts are so one-sided it's ridiculous. 280 pounds, brass knuckles, and now Nelson's rubber shoes. You know he wasn't 280, but keep saying it. You know he wasn't sucker punched from behind, but keep saying it.

Nelson could have walked away, it's that simple. He was pushed from behind - big deal. We've all seen that type of thing happen. I have never sen it escalate like this. You don't get up from that and kick someone in the head. I can't imagine ever kicking someone in the head - ever.
Click to expand...

No, the emotion of the lynch mob is one sided. What I said is it's simply not as cut & dried as many want it to be (I do mean WANT it to be). I believe the defense will make a compelling case.

I said he was 280lbs a couple times early in the thread & not since. He's a buffed 230lb college linebacker, huge by just about every definition. Is that better? How was he not sucker punched from behind? That's not even in debate is it? The reports all say that IK came from behind as PN was walking away, distracted by IK's friend & hit PN. The police reported IK "punched" PN in the upper back, not shoved. The witnesses called it a punch. I've never heard of anyone punching someone in the upper back before, my guess is he missed his intended target, but regardless the defense has witnesses & video to show the blow was so powerful that it took more than one grown man to the ground. I can't imagine kicking someone in the head either & if you think I'm condoning the kick, you need to separate emotion from what I actually posted.
 

diehard said:
I doubt that BAC helps any defense as a mitigating factor when the drinker is underage (consuming illegally). This is just so terrible all the way around.

The camera footage may be the only sober witness. At first I was angry with PN, now I'm just sad about the whole ordeal.
Click to expand...

I don't know what punishment PN or TS will get, but I bet that bar that served PN is screwed.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Chapter 609..02 Subd. 10.Assault. "Assault" is:
(1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.

Under (1), it doesn't matter if the victim couldn't be in fear due to being unconscious all that matters is that Nelson kicked or tried to kick with the intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death. Moreover, before the victim was unconscious, if Nelson did anything with the intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death, then Nelson is guilty of assault. For instance, if Nelson threatened the victim verbally or with gestures with intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death, then Nelson is guilty of assault.

Under (2), Nelson had to kick the victim with intent to injure or attempt to kick the victim with intent to injure. That's right, Nelson did not have to even connect with the kick. He simply had to believe in his mind that he was kicking his leg in order to injure the victim.

For self-defense, Nelson has the duty to retreat from a threat if it is possible, unless he's in his home, before responding with reasonable force (not what you could reason out of your mind, but what a reasonably prudent person in a similar situation would do). A good rule of thumb is you may only respond with a similar level of force that the threat currently represents. For instance, if you get punched, you can only punch back. However, if he draws a gun and threatens you or shoots at you, then you can use deadly force.

The prosecution will have to prove that Nelson assaulted Kolstad. In order to assert a self-defense argument, Nelson will have to prove that Nelson could not retreat and that the amount of force was reasonable given the threat he faced.

A self-defense argument basically means that Nelson admits to assaulting Kolstad, but the assault was justified so no punishment is warranted.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Pompous Elitist said:
It's a bit of a moot point because you've just confused about 80% of jurors.

Your assumption is that a typical juror is a rational person and able to think in a reasonable way without emotion clouding the issue. In my position I am exposed to a wide swath of human beings, and from this, extensive reading, personal experience I conservatively assert that perhaps 50% of americans are rational, reasonable human beings able to think clearly about most issues. Some would argue far less!

Therefore, as I and Dr. Don have pointed out anything can happen in a jury trial. What if there is a old grandma that has a latent fear of african americans? What if there is an stcgopher or someone who feels he "had it coming ", ie if you throw the first blow then you deserve whatever happens afterward no matter how many eggs/innocents are broken (the George Bush defense). There will also be a line of thinking that neither Shelley or Nelson were trying to "kill" Kolstad. This is a generation that grew up with WWE, video games, etc where head punches, face kicks do little to no damage. They were not aware that these types of attacks were capable of causing the type of damage Isaac suffered. Is that a "reasonable" defense?
Click to expand...

No thank you.

I didn't confuse any jurors. I must have confused you because you didn't answer my question at all....
 

Costa Rican Gopher said:
I can't cite the 280lb reference. It was in one of dozens of pieces that filtered out at first. There were many inaccuracies at that time, so I'm willing to cede the point. What I won't cede is that a buffed, 230+lb college linebacker is still a "huge" man.
Click to expand...

You made it up like you always do, Costa.
 

Winasota,

I think you missed my point. I must have not as been as clear as I strive to be. Jurors will not always understand instructions, the law, reasonable doubt, innocent until proven guilty, or just about any legal concept you want to question.

Philip is guilty per the letter of the law, from the standpoint of a reasonable person as 0723 pointed out.. Whether the jury wants to disregard the letter of the law due to a host of other reasons is a whole other ball of wax.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.



Top Bottom