"Home invasion"
OK, drama queen.
If the report is accurate, the Dude accidentally went to the wrong door of what he thought was his friend's place, knocked before entering, and then immediately apologized and left when he realized he made a mistake. Whether McCollough believed it was accidental or intentional is immaterial, it doesn't give him the right to commit assault. McCollough can't claim he was defending himself or his property, he went after him in the hall.
And as for prioritizing an injury to his pinky sustained while sucker-punching a dude in the mouth and leaving him unconscious and bleeding while falling down a flight of stairs....yeah, I think the defense attorney might go a different route on that one.
I don't know any of these people and, probably, neither do the great majority of the posters on this board. None of us were there and our comments on this board range from best guesses to pure speculation. However, with all due respect, this is a pretty aggressive post obviously pointed at and critical of this player and I think it is unreasonable.
First, I understand that reasonable minds can differ on the nature of the drunk guy's initial involvement, but why was there a need to attack the poster you quoted with the "drama queen" label? Disagree, yes. But why disrespect the poster. Calling what happened a "home invasion" may be too strong for you, but if it was your dwelling that some random drunk entered without permission, I bet you'd think it was more than a simple mistake. At minimum, you would call it a trespass. By the way, being drunk is not a legal excuse for a trespass. it is still a trespass.
Next, the premise "If the report is accurate" is a huge and largely unsupported presumption. This "Dude" as you call him, was self-described as being so ripped that he couldn't even find the right building , let alone the right apartment, that he had just left in the middle of the day. If he didn't know where he even was, why would anyone (especially law enforcement) presume his other reporting of what happened to be accurate? It might be, but I really cannot imagine why he would be presumed to be accurate in his recital of "the facts," let alone why he wasn't also the subject of police enforcement for, among a variety of things, public drunkenness or an admitted trespass. This guy literally lit this fire, was obviously and publicly drunk and he admitted a trespass. Yet, he walked away without any apparent police action. Moreover, the officers apparently took his clearly drunken words as their basis for a warrantless arrest of the other person who had just been confronted in his own home by the trespasser. Was the "Dude" really confused? Did he really knock? Did he immediately apologize and leave after opening the door without permission and entering someone's home? Did he even know what planet he was on? All of the alleged victim's articulated defenses to his missteps are dependent on his honesty and trustworthiness and not one of us knows whether he is being honest or reporting accurately. Yet, the player was arrested without a warrant and the "Dude" walked away, albeit without a tooth. From the public reports, the officers decided they had probable cause to arrest without a warrant based on the words of an obviously and admittedly drunken person who may have had some bias because of his personal circumstances The officers may have been correct, but without more information, no one knows for sure. I am of the opinion that the player should not have been arrested without a warrant. If probable cause existed, they could have obtained a warrant, but a judge should have made that decision in my view.
Your description of the player's described conduct as not giving him a right to "commit assault" is technically correct. The problem is, dependent on what really happened, it may not have been an "assault" at all. It sounds like the incident certainly involved a punch, but whether the punch was justified depends entirely on the facts --- almost none of which are personally known by the public and none were personally known to the officers. They were not there and they acted on the words of a drunken person with a potential motive to tell the story from his own point of view. If they had any other evidence of how the alleged punch occurred that supported the drunken statements, they likely would have described it in their report.
The officers appear to have based their decision to arrest the player without a warrant entirely on the utterances of a drunk guy with a head injury who may have just committed at least two offenses of his own. To be sure, his statements could be 100% right and accurate, but none of us, including the officers, know that for a fact. And, at the very least, there is an obvious and overwhelming reason to question his account -- he was so drunk he couldn't even find the same
building he had just left moments before and he had possibly committed two chargeable offenses himself. His statements could be spot on, but they could also be confused and/or biased. I don't see how those statements are automatically reliable and can be a reasonable basis for an arrest on the spot without a warrant as opposed to commencing an investigation that might or might not lead to an arrest after a warrant application. It's not like the defendant is an unknown vagrant who is likely to disappear while witnesses, camera recordings, and the like could have been collected.
Finally, you appear to cite as facts "prioritizing an injury to his pinky sustained while
sucker-punching a dude in the mouth and
leaving him unconscious and bleeding while falling down a flight of stairs." I don't personally know about the pinky, or the "sucker-punching," or the "leaving him unconscious and bleeding while falling down a flight of stairs," and, again with all due respect, neither do you or any of us who were not there to witness what happened. You, too, are basing your "facts" on the words of the alleged victim.
Taking his report as facially valid given the alleged victim's admitted drunken condition and recent improper behavior was simply not reasonable in my opinion. Maybe his descriptions were accurate, maybe they weren't. But taking his word as gospel, without more evidence, turns the presumption of innocence on its head. The officers needed probable cause to arrest without a judicially issued arrest warrant. Probable cause is a tricky standard, but I don't see it here. In my opinion, there should have been a more in depth investigation by the police and the presentation of the findings to a judge before just leveling on the spot charges against McCullough. How does McCullough un-ring the bell of accusation if he is subsequently found to be blameless?