This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
In reality, I would expect the sheriff to arrest both parties caught fighting, and sort out “who started it” later. I mean, both guys are going to say the other one started it, aren’t they?
There are two people watching this fight. So they know who started it. One could argue that they are unreliable as witnesses because they are intoxicated from drinking beer. However, they sound lucid. Also, the Sheriff is not there. Whoever started it will not be caught in the act.
That’s what I mean; he didn’t see who started it, and if he breaks it up and questions the witnesses without securing the fighters, the one who they finger for starting it might react poorly. He’s unlikely to get violent again with the sheriff right there, but it would seem to be an unnecessary risk.