Wayne Houchin injured in attack

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by b_08, Nov 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. You know Hatter...people like you are no different than religious nuts. You lack common sense or logic. You're the type of guy who sits in front of the court house and tries to explain to people why men molest children or why someone shot up a school yard. Always looking out for the criminal.

    Every post you spend 95% focusing on the host. Honestly, people like you disgust me.

    Here...a post from Wayne in response to an idiot named Danny who basically is just like you.

    http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=490848&forum=218&147&start=120
     
  2. From the Magic Cafe...as Wayne wrote it...

    "Some facts:

    1) We participated in a short interview during which I performed Thread, BJ presented a gift to the host & my wife helped to translate.

    2) After the performances, the host said that he wanted to give us a "blessing." He asked BJ to hand him a bottle of Aqua De Florida. The host then handed it to my wife and asked her to pour a large amount into his cupped hands. She did. He then turned to BJ and asked him to pick up a lighter from the stage and light the fluid. At this point none of us had any idea what the host planned to do. Personally, I assumed that he was about to perform the old burning hand trick where it would look like his hand was on fire because of the liquid. But to be clear - we had no clue what he was doing or planning. He is not a magician. We had no reason to suspect beforehand that he would perform a stunt. We were filming a national TV spot - we assumed the host to be a professional presenter & therefor trusted him.

    3) Seconds after BJ lit the fluid on fire the host turned without warning, poured it on my head and rubbed it into my face.

    4) The entire studio was in shock. BJ & my wife were stunned. You can see from the video that it takes a second for me to realize what has happened. I can honestly say that BJ & Frania are more emotionally traumatized over the event than I am. They are angry & devastated that they unknowingly participated in the attack.

    5) The video has not been edited. The video posted was an iPhone video from a member of our crew - who is not a magician and had no idea what we were doing or what to expect from the segment. At first he thought it was a trick. He did not film the entire segment, but took still photos and happened (luckily) to switch to video just before the incident. I was told today that we do have the full broadcast video from the studio that shows the entire segment. I'm sure that will be released in time.

    6) Of course this is being pursued through legal channels. I will release information when possible.

    7) It was 2 hosts of a different TV program that aired 24 hours later that suggested I deserved the attack because of the black magic they assumed I practice. The hosts laughed and mocked the fact that an American magician had been injured. Now that the facts have been released, the hosts of this 2nd show have informed us they plan to fully retract their statements and apologize during today's broadcast.

    8) The attack was intentional. The host didn't trip and accidentally spill it on me... he didn't sneeze. He intended to pour flaming liquid on me. Whether or not he intended to set me on fire is irrelevant as he DID set me on fire. If you take a loaded gun, point it at someones head & pull the trigger (expecting the gun to misfire) and it doesn't misfire - you are absolutely still responsible for shooting someone in the face - regardless of your intentions.

    9) Nobody from Curiosidades is pretending to know or understand the hosts intentions. What we do know is that he purposefully took a handful of flaming liquid & dropped it on me. The hosts intentions will play a role in the severity of his punishment - but that's for a court of law to determine & decide.

    I sincerely appreciate your support, concern & anger. I hope to post another important update later today."
     
  3. I love Hatter's argument of "Innocent until proven guilty" in that it has been used as a loop hole in many a trial. The facts are quite simple; numerous people in the studio saw this nut case commit a crime e.g. he IS NOT innocent, there is overwhelming proof on film as well as the eye-witness accounts e.g. he is not a "suspect" he is the person that committed the assault and as such, he deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then some. Technically, American Lawyers would also hold the producers of the show (if different) and the studio itself liable in that we tend to shoot for the deepest pockets available when this kind of thing happens. I'm better however, studio executives are being more than supportive in that they know what kind of ramifications this could bring.

    I would likewise bet that this jerk's legal team are already looking at a Temporary Insanity plea or else exploit Religious Freedom arguments and if the latter is invoked, then we will find an even greater controversy ensue. Even the Insanity plea would prove a major problem, but is Wayne's legal team can have the man screened a couple of time by heavily credentialed Mental Health experts, it can probably be ruled out.

    Personally, I think it will be interesting to see what Karma itself, has in mind for this idiot.
     
  4. It is not a loophole....it is a staple of common law practices dating back to the Roman era. What you are missing is that the video evidence will likely be more than enough proof to convict the guy. I can't speculate on the courts in a foreign country but I cannot imagine anyone seeing that and interpreting it as anything but intentional. Insanity defense is not as successful a strategy in the US as many would have you believe. That is just one of those wives tails that gets ginned up in the movies and TV. That said.....I don't know a thing about Insanity defense in the D.R. so it is a possibility. If this had happened in the U.S. the main issue would likely come down to intent and other mitigating circumstances. Wayne put it well on his post on the cafe'. Put a gun to someone's face and pull the trigger expecting a dud. The bullet isn't a dud and you shoot someone in the face. You are still responsible for shooting someone in the face even if harm was not your intent. (Edit: Obviously if you are the vice president it is the other guys fault for having the audacity to stick his face in the way of your buck shot!)

    If I recall right there was still a charge of criminal negligence when Brandon Lee was killed on a movie set. Nobody meant to kill him but someone screwed up and he died. You may not have to spend life in the joint if you were responsible for that but some form of punishment is meted out even for negligence. So the upshot is a crime was committed. That seems pretty clear. The courts will likely spend most of their time determining intent. From that they will determine some form of punishment that ranges from criminal negligence to aggravated assault, all the way up to attempted murder. All of that is assuming a legal system similar to the U.S. court system. If it is like the Italian Court system then likely try to uncover some deep conspiracy or some cockamamie love triangle gone wrong...but that is just because Italians love melodrama!
     
  5. #45 b_08, Dec 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2012
    All this talk about intent is pointless.

    There is only one relevent question for any logical person with a lick of common sense to ask: "What was SUPPOSED to happen, if not exactly what happened?"

    When you take flaming liquid and pour it on someone's head and face, there is no "Possibility #2".

    There is only one instance when this wouldn't have been a crime and that is if it was a trick gone wrong and that has already been ruled out 100%. This is so clear that it is mind boogling how there some people stupid enough to "ask questions"' acting as if they're so "above it all" and encouraging people to not "jump to conclusions". Ridiculous.
     
  6. Yeah...that kind of sums up what I just said. Apologies if I was too specific. I have a Admin of Justice degree(Pre-Law) mistakenly thought I might be able to educate some folks a bit on the process. Obviously if there is an actual lawyer kicking around this thread they might do a better job than I at that.
    Actually if you read my post it points out that even if it was a trick gone wrong there still is criminal liability. It is just liability for negligence and not a more serious offence like assault or attempted homicide. Just think of it this way...in some jurisdictions if you are driving a car and hit a pedestrian you are criminally liable for the pedestrians injuries, or death, regardless of circumstances. So even if you are doing everything right and paying attention to the road and a drunk jay walking pedestrian jumps in front of your vehicle you are ultimately responsible for the accident. When you choose to take any action that involves potential risk you are ultimately responsible for the outcome of your actions.
     
  7. You are right about the question, but wrong about your answer. The host clearly intended to have Fran pour liquid into her hand and have BJ light it on fire and then to raise his hands over Wayne's head and release the liquid. Beyond that is speculation.

    Option #1 - The host intended the liquid to "flash" as soon as it had oxygen around it, causing a visually shocking image that cause no harm to Wayne. If that was the plan, three things possibly went wrong. First, the amount of the Florida Water was too much. Second, he released it too early (causing the amount of the Florida Water to be too much); Third, the distance between the release point and Wayne's head was too short not providing enough time for the flash above Wayne's head. Fourth, Wayne had hairspray or gel which caught on fire. Wayne and his staff were not in on the stunt - it may have been the producer's idea of doing something that had an impression equal to Wayne's performance.

    There are things in the video that are consistent with this option. The look on the producer's face could easily be shock. The "rubbing it in" might be the producer's attempt to "push" the fire off of Wayne. The producer went over to Wayne after he was on the floor and appeared concerned.

    If that is the case, the producer's actions were incredibly stupid, grossly negligent and (at least under U.S. laws) criminal. As Wayne properly pointed out, U.S. law provides that you are criminally responsible for the consequences of your actions even if you didn't intend those consequences (e.g. someone who drives while drunk and kills someone didn't intend to kill the person but is nonetheless criminally cupable).

    Option #2 - The guy intended to burn and or kill Wayne because Wayne practices voodoo. First off, the whole voodoo issue arose because the folks at the Daily Deception misinterpreted who made the statement about "divine justice" and attributed that to the producer rather then to the two hosts of an unrelated show (see Wayne's statement above about the show retracting the statement). Second, the fact that the producer went over to Wayne after the accident doesn't jive with the conclusion that the producer is an evil maniacal person who is attempting to immolate Wayne to cleanse his soul.

    As to intent, Wayne said it best "Nobody from Curiosidades is pretending to know or understand the hosts intentions. What we do know is that he purposefully took a handful of flaming liquid & dropped it on me. The hosts intentions will play a role in the severity of his punishment - but that's for a court of law to determine & decide."

    As for the comments about "innocent until being proven guilty" being a loophole, I have to disagree. Esotresh's analysis is spot on. A country that can convict you without proof of your guilt is not a country where I would like to live. First, read the philosophical underpinning here: Blackstone's Formulation and then read about what happens even in the face of what you are calling a loophole here:Connecticut Innocence Project.

    Baller - You're comments to Hatter are out of line. He makes valid points and is avoiding jumping to conclusions like you are based on an emotional reaction to someone we all respect greatly being severely injured. I've found in life that it is the things I'm certain of that are usually the things that I am most mistaken about. One of the lessons you need to learn in life is "seek first to understand and then to be understood." Read a book called the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. You might learn something.
     
  8. The only thing now is to find out what course is taken on Wayne's team part. Because we have no idea how the legal system in D.R. works and for all we know the guy could just end up with a slap on the wrist or worse.

    In the post on the magic cafe Wayne pretty much mentioned all the points that people were arguing about. It wasn't a stunt. It was intentional. And he or his team wasn't aware of what was going to happen. He mentioned that they were invited on to the show, Wayne then did Thread, and gave the host a gift. Then the guy wanted to "bless" Wayne. The problem with the blessing theory is that when you do the research on that topic. Nowhere in the ceremony do you light the person on fire or pour a bunch of the stuff on the persons head.

    So did he intend to kill him? Possibly not. But he DID intend to hurt him. That part is clear as day.
     
  9. That's the problem I'm seeing. I'm all for trying to be calm and reasonable about this, but despite the fact that my knowledge of Caribbean religious practices can be charitable described as "rudimentary," I'm pretty sure none of them involve setting someone's head on fire.
     
  10. #50 b_08, Dec 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2012
    Reality One - I've read the book. You should read it again because you didnt learn much during the first reading.

    What you need to learn in life is that those who like to stand up for criminals are often times worse than the criminals themselves because they allow them back into society so they can harm future innocent people again.

    If I wake up in the morning and the ground and my car is completely soaking wet, I'm going to assume it rained while I slept.

    You and Hatter come along and offer an "explanation" that someone could have taken a hose and soaked everything in the middle of the night.

    Is it possible? Yeah.

    Is it likely? No.

    Is it ridiculous? Yes.

    That's how your "explanations" sound like to people with common sense.

    "Your honor, my client intended to put on brass knuckles and he intended to make a fist. He also intended to cock his arm back, but right before he hit RealityOne in the face, we cannot know his intentions. Lets all keep an open mind and not speculate.

    Remember right before this happened my client told RealityOne he had a "gift" for him.

    There could be many possibilities. He was teaching him martial arts defensive tactics, he was showing him an old ancient bonding ritual, he was trying to get him to smell the metal in the brass knuckles, he was trying to hit the fly buzzing behind RealityOne's head. I mean...the possibilities are endless.

    Oh RealityOne's face? He's fine. Nothing a little reconstructive surgery can't take care of. But let's talk more about how my client got bullied when he was in the 1st grade."
     
  11. Baller, you are the type of person that is the reason we have an objective legal system. Because people react on emotion rather than facts.

    Who here is saying the guy is innocent? It's not that he shouldn't have the book thrown at him, it's which book? His rationale for doing this could be the difference between life in jail, a mental ward, etc.

    And some day, something may go horribly awry for you and you accidentally hurt someone. On that day, I'm guessing you'll want people to take your story into account instead of just assuming you were purposely attacking them.
     
  12. As somebody who does lots of different stuff (from doing extreme sports to doing mechanical objects and dealing with different dangerous tools), I know how hard it is to get a hand injured considering I also do magic. Reading the news about what happened to Wayne, I knew I had to know every bit of detail I could acquire to understand how and why on earth this could have happened. ...especially to Wayne. But it's good to know that he is already recovering. I could then lessen my worries.

    As for the guy who did that to Wayne... I just don't know what to say. And I'm leaving it that way. I just hope that justice will be given to Wayne. My concerns are just for Wayne and the others with him that time.
     
  13. And I hope that no one in your family, friends or your girlfriend/wife ever gets brutally murdered. Because if that time comes you'll most likely find that guy could have been locked up somewhere, but someone like you made excuses for him again and again, thereby giving him another chance to harm your innocent loved one.

    Then you'll get the chance to hear someone like you, Matter, and RealityOne tell you that there is an objective legal system and that he is innocent till proven guilty. I hope you always get the luxury to stand up for the criminals from afar and pat yourself in the back.

    Meanwhile I think I'll choose to stand up for victims like Wayne and actually believe him when he says, "This attack was intentional".
     
  14. y'all are acting retarded...this ain't about you its about wayne and this crazy incident...shut up and go practice
     
  15. Your argument is straying into reductio ad absurdum. But to indulge you, anyone attempting to murder any member of my family will have quite the surprise as we are all quite capable of defending ourselves and understand the legal lengths to which we can take such defense. And on the hypothetical day that my dad has to put a bullet into someone who's breaking into their house, I really hope that the jury will take into account the concept of self-defense, rather than locking him up for killing someone.

    What you seem to be saying is that those of us who are saying, "Hold on, let's make sure we have all the facts," are actually saying, "No, he's innocent." He's clearly not innocent. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not saying he doesn't deserve a punishment. He has clearly committed a crime here and has to deal with the consequences thereof. However, I am not so hot headed as to think that any action should be taken before we actually know all of what's going on. We need to know what he intended, and why this happened.

    Only then can the appropriate punishment be decided. And yes, I do think this guy deserves a punishment. I'm not familiar enough with the legal system to know what punishments he's in line for, though. That's for a judge and jury to decide.
     
  16. #56 RealityOne, Dec 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2012
    I agree that it is unlikely that there is any sort of blessing that involves burning the recipient. However, there is possibility that the host was taking a typical blessing and trying to make it more sensational by adding the fire element.

    Actually, I think I very much understand where you are coming from. I've had the opportunity to see Wayne perform and to meet Wayne and his wonderful wife. I think Wayne is one of the best performers out there. His material is top notch and he presentation is excellent. I am sickened that this happened to Wayne and very angry at the person who did this to him. I think this is where you are coming from.

    I also think I have a sense of your worldview - to you things are black and white. Those that agree with you are correct and those that disagree are ignorant because if they were as smart as you they would share your opinion.

    First problem with your assumption is the use of the word "criminals." You are assuming that everyone who is accused of a crime committed it. That only works in totalitarian states.

    Second, if your statement is taken as the absolute truth you present it as, a 16 year old shoplifter should be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Someone who shoots someone in self-defense (see above about them being guilty because they were accused) should be given the death penalty (he is guilty because witnesses saw him shoot the gun and the person died) and we can't have someone like that back in society. Yes, I know I'm arguing exceptions, but that illustrates why such generalizations are bad logic.

    Third, you are confusing my points about someone getting a fair trial (which I feel strongly about) with my views on issues such as recidivism, mandatory sentencing guidelines and the function of prisons-- which, you have no clue about any of my beliefs on those issues. Again, you are taking a small piece of information and extrapolating conclusions which have no basis (either in favor of or against those conclusions) in the facts you know.

    See, your own analogy proves the problem with your thought process. All Hatter and I are saying is to withhold judgment until we have all the facts. Let's see what facts I'd like to know before I decided if it rained...

    1) If the car in the driveway is wet, what about the car in the street? If it isn't, then it isn't likely that it rained.
    2) Is the neighbor's sprinkler running?
    3) Is your best friend standing there with a bucket of soapy water and a sponge?
    4) Are there two kids screaming and having a squirt gun fight with super soakers?
    5) Is your rude neighbor standing next to your car, zipping up his pants and laughing?

    Each of those facts leads to a different conclusion. We cannot reach a conclusion without all the facts.

    Agreed. Baller, even your own statement is consistent with what we are saying:

    We don't know what the intent was. But as other have pointed out, that is the least important part. What is important is Wayne's recovery and on that we all can agree.
     
  17. From what Wayne mentioned is that the doctors told him that he most likely won't have any scaring. Which is the best part of the event.
     
  18. #58 b_08, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2012
    RealityOne - if a person wakes up to see his car and driveway wet and has to asks the questions you asked, he wouldn't be "smart", he would be mentally handicapped or locked up in a mental facility.

    Hey, you know that shooter who opened fire during the Dark Knight premier? He meant to load the guns and take them into the theater. He meant to pull the trigger, but after that his intentions are anyone's guess. Lets not jump to conclusions, maybe he was just trying to give the audience the full "Batman experience".

    If I ever commit a crime I hope I get you on my juror. You're hilarious.

    And btw I would fully support Chris' father shooting an intruder. A guy who owns a coin shop that I know recently shot 2 guys trying to rob him. I congratulated that guy. Once again, I'm for the victims not the criminals.

    Wayne has clearly said it was an INTENTIONAL ATTACK. ATTACK. Not stunt gone wrong. Who the hell cares WHY he did it, the only thing that matters is he intended to cause harm.

    You don't think he did even after Wayne and everyone on his team has said it was malicious. To continue to go on and on about "facts" is disgusting and insulting to Wayne and his team.

    My words here: "I honestly don't care what the host's intentions were. At best he was being irresponsible and stupid. At worst he is a psychotic murderer."

    I said that before I saw the video and before Wayne made his statement. Unlike you I actually believe the victim and take his account as the truth.
     
  19. Prove it. There is nothing that I've seen yet that proves that this was not just a ridiculous amount of stupidity on the assailant's part.

    Now, before you try to say that the mere fact that he put flaming liquid on someone's head proves it, let me tell you that is not necessarily the case. I have watched people light themselves on fire with white gas or lamp oil and put it out, repeatedly in a short period of time, without hurting themselves. I've seen people handle burning objects without hurting themselves. I've seen people trace burning liquids over their bare skin without suffering damage. I've personally lit white gas trails on my body without hurting myself. I've done it to other people. I've done transfers as well, where I put fuel on my fingers, light that fuel on fire, and then use that fire to light another torch, all without hurting myself in the least. I've purposely lit my entire palm on fire with white gas, repeatedly within a few minutes. In a decade of fire performance, I've lit my clothes and person on fire at least a half dozen times. I've had burning fuel flung onto me accidentally. There are probably less than five other people on this forum who can speak with as much or more authority on how fire and highly flammable liquids behave when ignited than me.

    It is entirely plausible that this idiot thought that he could drip burning fuel onto Wayne and put it out immediately. It's entirely possible that he saw this online and thought it would make good TV. Then, not being trained in fire performance, he thought he could pull it off. Then he got too much fuel and it was too much fire and he did this. The people who know how to do this sort of thing without doing damage make it look really easy. I know, I've seen it in person.

    Yes, he's clearly guilty. But of what? Is he merely criminally stupid or does he have malicious intent? Without knowing that, the proper punishment cannot be determined.

    Step back. Remove your emotions from the issue. We all want Wayne to be well and we all want this guy to receive the proper punishment.

    Show me where they said it was malicious. I've read his statements as I could find them. Wayne said:

    I don't see the word "malicious". He does, however, say this:

    That nobody involved (on the American side) knows why the host did what he did. He, Wayne, says that the intentions of the host are important, and that a court of law shall determine and decide his fate. Are you a court of law? Are you a lawyer? Are you at least thoroughly knowledgeable regarding assault and negligence laws?

    I've said it before, I'll repeat now: The host is clearly guilty of lighting Wayne on fire. He deserves punishment. Let's actually investigate the situation and learn all the facts of the case before the decision of what punishment is made.
     
  20. Baller, at the beginning of this thread I had nothing but respect for your determination and action regarding this incident, as this post has progressed, that respect has steadily declined. Regardless of the emotion that something like this evokes, please remember that this forum is always a place in which all opinions are welcome. The line is not so fine between argument and insult, and you seem to be getting much closer to the latter in your more recent posts. The fact that your insult is aimed at people who have far more experience in these matters from both technical and legal standpoints only furthers my notion that this had to be said.

    "To continue to go on and on about "facts" is disgusting and insulting to Wayne and his team."
    The above statement is literally the antithesis to the moral progress that we have made as a species.

    To everyone, this is becoming a debate on justice, morality, and intelligence; I highly doubt that Wayne wants to read us arguing with each other. This thread was created with him in mind, I personally feel it would be best to keep this thread focused on well-wishes. If we would like to continue this discussion on justice in relation to this incident, I feel it is best we start a new thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results