[1] A Full Nelson is an illegal wrestling hold that allows the owner to grasp his opponent`s cervical vertebrae with relative ease. The applicant submitted five errors to the Court. Four of these assignments allege that various court orders were not supported by the evidence and should have been denied or were misrepresentations of West Virginia law. The fifth task indicates that the accused was not effectively assisted by a defence lawyer during the trial. On the basis of the fourth allocation of errors, the Court annuls the allocation of errors relating to the Court`s refusal to give instructions to one of the applicants on the question of the defence of another. Other jurisdictions grant that a person has the right to intervene on behalf of another person in certain situations. The right to defend others is generally self-defence. You simply follow in the footsteps of the victim and can only do what the victim themselves would be legally allowed to do. See State v. Barnes, 675 S.W.2d 195 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984); State v. Matthews, 459 So. 2d 40 (La.App.
1 Cir.1984), for pretrial detention by State v. Matthews, 464 So. 2d 298 (1985); Commonwealth v. Gray, 441 Pa. 91, 271 A.2d 486, at 488 (1970); Menschen v. Young, 12 A.D.2d 262, 210 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1961). It is not necessary to examine or determine whether the [excluded] direction correctly defines a person`s right to intervene with *677 another person whose life is in danger and the degree of force they may use to repel the aggressor`s attack; And these issues are not discussed, examined or decided. State v. Collins, 154 W.Va. to 782, 180 S.E.2d to 61. What a person can legally do to defend himself when threatened with death or serious bodily harm, he can do for a brother; But if the brother has provoked an assault, that brother must withdraw as much as possible before his brother has the right to take the life of his abuser to defend the brother.
But if the brother was so drunk that he was mentally unable to know his duty to retire, or if he was physically unable to withdraw, a brother is not obliged to stand idly by and watch while he is killed or suffers serious physical harm because he does not withdraw in such circumstances. Only the perfect ones are freed from the need to retreat while acting in self-defense. The offender must withdraw if he is able to do so; If they cannot withdraw due to the severity of the attack or for other reasons, they will be excused by law for not doing so. State W.Va. v. Greer, 22 *676 W.Va. 800, at 819 (1883). [Footnote omitted by Court.] [2] A. David Abrams, Jr., Abrams, Byron, Henderson & Richmond, Beckley, on behalf of the complainant.
While this court has not dealt directly with the defence of another defence in recent years, we are not entirely unprecedented. In State v. Collins, 154 W.Va. 771, 180 S.E.2d 54 (1971), a situation was presented to the Court in which a tavern owner shot two guests involved in a bar fight with a third customer. The court did not directly address the issue of someone else`s defence because it concluded that it was not necessary for the tavern owner to fire shots other than his first two warning shots to stop the disturbance. Although the tavern owner argued that he shot the guests to protect the third party from injury or death in addition to himself, the evidence suggested that the fight was over when he fired the deadly projectiles, and “it was not necessary for him to act as he did to protect Marcum from the threat of death or serious injury.” State v. Collins, 154 W.Va. to 781, 180 S.E.2d to 61. Our complainant was not directly involved in the battle between his brother and the Kincannons, but had participated in much of the verbal preliminaries that led to the fracas.
That night, when Robert Saunders went to see Nite Flite, his brother James and Phillip Kincannon exchanged angry words. (James` companion, who accompanied him, had adorned herself that evening with a silk scarf given to her by Phillip Kincannona, which infuriated Mr. Kincannon.) Robert Saunders testified that when Phillip Kincannon intervened on behalf of his brother, he retired to recruit his brother Brian to help him. Fearing a fight, the owner of the Nite Flite escorted the Saunders brothers outside. More than a hundred years ago, this court ruled that the right to self-defence can be exercised on behalf of a brother or a stranger. In 1883, this Court stated: The plaintiff then insisted that he feared for his brother`s life. He knew that one of the witnesses to the fight, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, had a gun in his car. Suddenly, he rushed to M`s vehicle. Campbell to draw the .357 Magnum revolver. Mr.
Campbell testified that although he immediately snatched the weapon from Mr. Saunders and placed it under his belt, the Grievor suddenly grabbed it and fired a shot over the heads of the fighters.