Ask Your Question today
this guy punched someone because he was making fun of the guy for being poor. the guy who got punched got a broken nose and is filing a police report. do you think violence is the answer sometimes or do you think people should deal with their emotions?
| yes, if they deserve it. | 9 | |
| no, people should deal with their emotions. assault is illegal. | 18 | |
| i'm unsure. | 2 |
People need to deal with their emotions like a rational adult. Unless the person strikes first, there's no reason to start swinging. It's not worth having assault permanently on your record and screwing yourself over.
In that context I don't care to make a moral judgement. I can never have enough context to completely understand what those two people were feeling at the time they did the things they did.
It seems to me like both of them are in the wrong, but if they are both in the wrong and their actions only impact on each other then are either of them really "in the wrong"? Does it really matter? Does it even make sense to try and figure out whether or not the second man was justified? I don't think so.
my people always say that it is only when a mosquitoe lands on a mans testicle, does he know that some things can be solved without violence.
The law is the law and that is assault, but I still feel sometimes violence is necessary. If somebody keeps fucking with you over and over, eventually maybe they should be taught a lesson? Pain can serve as a memory of what not to do and it has.
That guy who was talking shit sounds like a major pussy. The other guy should have challenged him to a dual!
At the same time, I personally don't consider those fighting words. You have to attack more than my ego for me to start swinging. Those guys sound childish.
The person who verbally attacked the guy basically committed assault too.
Breaking that guy's nose is still not a justified response.
The law states that, if you defend yourself, you need to do so in a manner that justifies it.
If a guy stands there with a knife, threatening to stab you, you can't break his nose as a response because, although he made his intentions clear, he did not yet follow through with it.
The moment he tries to stab you, you have the right to defend yourself...but only in a suitable manner.
If he stabs you, you then have the right to use necessary force to ensure your safety, the peoples' safety around you and to subdue the attacker by necessary means.
...
I was going toward my point of this all... but I forgot what it was now.
If somebody makes a threat it should be ok to take their threat seriously and retaliate in self defense. it is better to take threats for what they say because you never know for certain if someone is bluffing or not. Maybe people would learn not to make empty threats. Its like if someone breaks in your house it is best to assume they are armed, and if they get shot burglarizing, it is their own fault because they should know the risk to begin with.
in theory I completely agree with you because that is what makes sense. You are 100% correct to assume that. But stuff starts to get hazy when it comes to the law.
It's the little differences like what I mentioned in my previous thread that can mean the difference between YOU yourself actually being arrested or having a leg to stand on in a legal case.
You won't believe how many times things like these happen and the party who was in the wrong gets away with everything all because of aggrevated assault because of what the law considers as being an overreaction to a specific event.
Yes, it is safe to assume that a burglar breaking into your house is armed. That's "gun 101". But then you, as a legal firearm holder and carrier has the responsibility of making sure you make all the precaution methods necessary in order to lawfully defend yourself. If the burglar doesn't have a gun and you kill him by shooting him, a case of manslaughter is opened against you and everything will be one big mess.
I have no idea if the laws in the USA are so strict on gun control of the holders of a firearm, but in a lot of other countries the legal firearm holders can get into a boat load of trouble... all because you defended yourself, rightfully, but not lawfully..
No they do not have to make a movement towards you with a knife to defend yourself if you feel your life is in danger well depending on states all that you need is a perceived threat and you can retaliate.
That is easy to take that standpoint.. but it does not protect you in a court of law.
If I yell at you that I am going to stab you, even if I don't have a knife on me, and you break my face; you will actually be the one in trouble regardless. As screwed up as that sounds.
There are just too many loopholes that can hurt you, even if you did what is perceived as being right in your opinion. There are just too many variables.
I'm sorry but you need to do some research on stand your ground laws your original example was somebody having a knife and threatening to stab you which in itself is menacing with a deadly weapon in most states you are within your rights to use deadly force against such a person if you perceive them as an imminent threat to your safety. I strongly disagree with such laws but they do exist in many states there are some states such as Florida where you can kill somebody who is fleeing.
I do get tired of people throwing legal terms around with senseless abandon: how can words be an assault unless they're justifiably putting the other person in fear?
The words may be abusive or racist or sexist of homophobic or just plain insulting, but they can't be an assault unless the US legal system is even stranger than I already think it is
You're right. In the US, words alone can't be assault. But it gets hazy. If a big thug looms over you yelling obscenities with clinched fists, it could be found to be assault even if the thug doesn't say they are going to hurt you. The law focuses on whether the victim would have reasonably felt that their well-being was threatened. It's often used as a defense if the victim used force of some kind to subdue the threat and is being charged with assault, or some other violent act, on the thug.
That was actually assault and battery in the US. Just threatening someone with harm can be assault. The punch was battery. I would have to guess plenty of folks are found guilty of assault and battery by a judge, when that judge is thinking, "yeah, I'd of jacked that jerk in the nose, too". But it's illegal for a good reason. Best learn to deal with jerks non-violently.
It won't hold up in court.
"Yes your worship, I broke his nose because he called me a meanie head"
But will it ever reach court?
I need more details. Thid isn't really how adults behave, so I'm guessing minors are involved. I do not condone violence. Although some people need a good bitchslap.
We were taught this little saying in grammar school, and I think we should all understand that it is truth. "Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will never hurt us."
I believe that most of this cyber bullying is so detrimental because kids are not taught this lesson.