William J. Rice -- Who Threw Punch And Lost Finger At Health Rally -- May Not Be Charged With Crime

The aggressive punch-throwing man whose finger was bitten off at a health reform rally in California last night now has a name: William J. Rice. And chances are, he won't be charged with a crime.

That's according to Capt. Ross Bonfiglio, a public information officer with the Ventura County Sheriffs Department, who I just spoke to. Bonfiglio said Rice -- an anti-reform protester whose severed finger was reattached last night courtesy of Medicare -- is 65, lives in Newbury Park and has cooperated with sheriffs deputies.

Bonfiglio said his department has a description of the accused finger biter -- a pro-reform demonstrator who Rice punched before the biting -- but hasn't identified a suspect yet.

Rice told sheriffs deputies that the biter left the much larger pro-reform rally across a busy intersection in Thousand Oaks, CA, last night to have words with Rice at a small anti-reform rally that had set up across the street. Rice -- who our eyewitness said was aggressive and much bigger than the pro-reformer -- told deputies that the smaller man insulted him. "Rice says he felt threatened," Bonfiglio told me, "and decided to punch the guy in the nose."

The pro-reformer then got up off the ground, the two fought, and the pro-reformer bit Rice's pinky finger off.

Rice told deputies he assumed his finger couldn't be salvaged, so put his injured hand in a towel and walked to a nearby hospital. Another man reportedly picked up the severed pinky and brought it to the hospital, where it was reattached.

Bonfiglio said that while specific charges will be up to the district attorney, he thinks the biter will face a felony mayhem charge, with Rice facing a misdemeanor assault charge at most, and perhaps nothing at all.

"He's more a victim at this point," the captain said, even though "he was admittedly the primary aggressor."

"Nothing's black and white in a case like this," he said, noting that proportion can matter just as much as the order of events.

"If Rice was the initial aggressor and the guy cut his head off, it doesn't mean it was justified."

Late Update: I just got Rice on the phone. He said he's not speaking to the media. His brief statement before hanging up: "Surely there's more important things in this world than me getting my finger bit off."
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/man-who-threw-punch-and-lost-finger-at-health-rally-may-not-be-charged.php?ref=fpa

Felony mayhem for DEFENDING YOURSELF? BULL SHIT!

The guy was supposed to just let this assbite punch him and not retaliate?

Fuck that.

then that's how the law goes ... apparently ...

even allowed to defend ourselves.

I heartily support someone's right to self-defense, and have exercised it more than once. However, there are limits to how far that right extends.

I can't be held responsible for whatever happens when the adrenaline kicks in.

In any case, the point I was making was that a policy of not biting people's fingers off doesn't necessarily translate to having no right to defend oneself. Speaking for myself, I do consider myself responsible for what happens when the adrenaline kicks in, and that has served me well so far. Your mileage may vary, of course.

It's just that I've seen fights where fingers enter the mouth (and eyes), and IMO at the point when the gag reflex kicks in, the jaw muscle will do what it does best.

It's possible that it was reflexive or similarly unavoidable; I, personally, don't think it was very probable and i do have a fair amount of experience to draw on. That's just my personal opinion. Either way, the correct course of action would have been to wait for the police and turn oneself in rather than flee the scene and make oneself an object of suspicion; but obviously, neither party was acting sensibly.

Mr. Rice has never heard of reflexes.

This guy had used his finger, according to at least one eye-witness so far (who has spoken to the police) to threaten a woman, 'shoo'ing' her into the street where there was moving traffic. Then he used it again on the finger-biter. Seems to me his finger was a danger to at least two people that we know of. He punched the finger biter, knocking him to the ground again into a street where there was moving traffic.

I have listened to rightwingers and some on the left vehemently defend people who have shot and killed intruders or others they believe to be threatening them. Often even when the threatening person is running away. Self-defense is a right, they say, once you feel threatened.

But there were no guns here, just a finger, a fist and a set of teeth. So now we are hearing, from the same rightwingers, that the finger biter 'went too far'. Since Rice had already acted aggressively towards two people, looks to me like he was a threat to others until he lost his finger. Who knows what he might have done had that not happened? I am amazed that we haven't seen a thread praising the finger-biter as we so often see when there is a gun involved.


Maybe if he had used a gun instead of his teeth?

never fails to amaze me. And I think it is instructive to point it out when it is as blatant as this case. Had the situation been in reverse, Finger Biter would be a hero, and the finger waver would be demonized as a rabid liberal justifying why they need to be armed to the teeth, or maybe with teeth now that we see how effective a weapon of self-defense they can be.

I'd like to know who this guy's dentist is.

I do get your point. I am not in favor of violence once the danger is past. The thing is we don't know that it was past in this case, as I pointed out, Rice had already threatened another person and was apparently looking for a fight which might not have stopped with the finger biter.

He probably should have called the police, but people are people and when someone punches you in the face pushing into a street with moving trafic, you might not feel very rational at that point. Which is why my lecture, if I were going to deliver one, would be directed to the guy who started the whole thing and lost part of his finger as a result of his own behavior. Maybe next time he should not assume that there will be no consequences when he chooses to engage in violent behavior.

Basically my view is that you shouldn't get into or stay in a fight you can't handle...and that applies to both parties.

differently. But then I would not poke my finger in someone's face or punch them in the nose, because I would assume there might be consequences and because it's both morally wrong and more importantly, illegal.

As far as this incident, one is more responsible than the other. I am not for this 'everyone is wrong' attitude we have developed. Throughout history, in most legal systems, the initiator of violence is generally held to be the most responsible. Any reaction by their victims, is usually called self defense and most of the time, justifiable. The only question remaining once that is clear, is how far can you go to defend yourself? But for the police to say that the person without whom none of this would have happened is less responsible, is just plain wrong imho.

My now-ex-husband got mad and put his hand over my face while I was driving, so I bit his hand.

The biter was smaller.

Fight to win.

I live in Ventura County and worked briefly as a civilian in the department. Our Sheriff's deputies are largely the same kind of people as the town hall nutbags. They are reactionaries, racists and generally despicable people. I used to like cops before I worked with some.

Rice threw the first punch. Everything the other guy did from there was self defense.

And bitting off a finger isn't chopping off a head ... someone should tell the sheriff.

n.t.

If it was done on purpose, its a bigger issue.

even leave the group he was with? Almost sounds like he was hoping for a confrontation. I don't agree at all with what William J. Rice believes in, but it does sound like he was confronted. A punch probably was warranted.

When he threw the first punch, Rice intiated violence. Everything his opponent does from there is defense.

If he was assaulted (and in this case I don't know if he was or wasn't) then punching may have been warranted.
Here is the definition of assault:
assault - a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped.

Again, I can't make that call, but if there are ever any charges in this case, it will probably be one of the initial questions.

woman who was just handing out leaflets, nearly pushing her in front of moving traffic. She left, according the eyewitness account and went back across the street. I do not know why 'finger-biter' went over, but maybe he wanted to let Rice know that he had been observed nearly pushing a woman into moving traffic. And Rice seems to have been looking for a fight according to eye-witness testimony by a blogger who was there.

We'll have to wait to hear from the finger biter I suppose. But what is known is that he did not physically attack Rice until after Rice punched him and endangered his life. So, how was a punch warranted if all that happened was that finger biter took him to taks for attacking a woman simply for handing out leaflets?

Biting his finger off wouldn't. Self defense. Least amount of violence needed.

I'd rather take a punch than have the skin broken by someone biting me.

California who died from an infection caused by the bite of 5-year-old girl.

A dog's mouth, on the other hand, is the cleanest thing in the world, I've been told.
(cat's mouths are also full of nasties)

I'd kiss a good looking woman instead of a dog any day. As far as you taking the punch, no. This is about a 65 year old taking a punch. Here in seattle we had a 65 year old get punched once and die. Assailant got quite a few years for it.
Keep the wound clean and it shouldn't be a problem. There's no MRSA in the mouth.

from various surfaces and grew the germs from them. The human mouth was far by far the dirtiest sample he took. In fact is was much dirtier than the toilet seat. (Interestingly, the toilet was one of the cleaner surfaces, probably because it was regularly cleaned with disenfectant products.) The cleanest sample was from our Afghan Hound's mouth.

What's counterintuitive about all this, of course, is that dogs are famously coprophagic. You would expect a coprophage to have a nasty mouth, but maybe their mouths actively fight bacteria because of that little habit.

...which side of the debate the good sheriff is on. The fucking bastard. How the hell does the finger-biter face a possible felony mayhem charge when he was the one attacked? When the old bastard who started all this admits he hit him first??? And he's to get off scott-free? The hell you say!

- I think this stupid-ass sheriff needs to go back to work and concentrate on his area of expertise: donuts.

K&R

ROTFLMAO....We have to stop being violent at these rallies. We're not going to get nowhere fighting because then we're going to get locked up by the police. We have to have educated but firm arguments about Healthcare Reform. But the story was funny, lmao.

You get someone in a headlock after trying to push them into oncoming traffic...I'd say they have every fucking right to defend themselves.

After Obama rightfully took the side of Professor Gates, local LE cannot be trusted to protect him, as seen by the abundance of right wing extremists coming to the President's meetings with firearms.

The Police are going to take the side of the right winger? Shocking I tell you.
And it makes little difference if you are a woman/minority cop, they will defend each other 99% of the time, including
the Officer's Tom and Jemima from Cambridge (i.e the Professor Gates arrest).

what bullshit

There's no rules in a fight. Don't throw punches unless you're ready to take it all the way.

But there are rules.
If someone punches you in the face, and you pull a gun and shoot the person, you are wrong and in trouble.
Especially in this situation, where I don't believe there was much danger of losing life.
If running away is a viable option, but you take an overly aggressive tactic such biting off a finger (if it was purposeful), using a knife or a gun, then you are wrong, and should face the consequences.

SOCIALIST!!!

:sarcasm:

HEH.

the street should not have been crossed. That is aggressive behavior, as was the punch in the face.
But I don't think getting up and then biting a finger off is a good self defense mechanism, when walking away would have probably been the best mode of defense.

Getting up and fighting back is not a "good self defense mechanism"? Who are you? Harry Reid? I wish more of these Teabagging bullies had their noses bloodied or appendages bitten off. Fuck 'em.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My lovely state has odd self defense laws. The initial aggressor can become the victim and the initial assault victim can become the perpetrator of assault rather arbitrarily. Lawyers will be needed here.

I do agree that crossing the street is not an "aggressive act". That statement is just silly. What if the guy's car was across the street somewhere, shit I don't know how many "aggressive acts" I have committed today going to my car, going to the store, etc...

Crossing a street, by itself, is not an aggressive behavior.
But once in court I can see arguments questioning why a member from an opposing group would cross the street to confront someone.
How was the person approached?
Did the person throwing the first punch fear for his safety (I'm not saying this guy did, but those are the issues that may be brought up if it ever goes to court).

If someone comes at me in a threatening manner, I may very well throw the first punch.

And to a previous poster, just because I believe someone is an asshole, does not, in my opinion, give someone the right to bite off a finger.
You may believe differently.

We know by the righty's own admission that he threw two punches, the second of which landed in the man's mouth prompting the other man to bite. It isn't about belief, it is about what happens during a physical altercation.

now why did he want to get to the other side?
And was he aggressive to the other guy, or threatening?

Of course the guy is going to say he was aggressive, otherwise he just committed assault. Saying, "I felt threatened" is standard for establishing a line of defense. The only thing that bothers me is that the second man has not responded.

bit off the finger.

This story is different.

Now how hard can it be to get such details right, or refrain from making claims until you do?

Regardless, biting off a finger isn't "self-defense".

It must not be that rare because I've seen in used before in drunken brawls.

I can imagine that it may have been accidental. A finger in the mouth and the stress of the moment.
It may also have been purposeful, in which case it is wrong and it could be a felony (vs the misdemeanor of the first punch).

Either way, I also don't believe that biting a finger off is self defense, especially in this situation.

Though to be perfectly honest, I'm just angry I didn't think of that comment first.

Just like everybody says you need to do if there is an intruder.

Hee hee.