There is nothing in the video to assume she did anything wrong your ability to read people is absolutely shit.
Likely she can tell he’s about to get violent and tries to stop him grabbing his drink, which he throws in her face, then pushes her, kicks her, pushes her again.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
If you think so then hopefully she learned a valuable lesson about choosing to grab someone’s drink, causing them to spill it everywhere. Not a good idea to do that to someone you think is going to get violent.
You watched a video of unjustified totally disgusting assault because a woman told a guy she didn’t wanna date and your response is “hope she learned something”
You keep replying like you’re reading my posts, but you refuse to acknowledge what I’m saying like you refuse to acknowledge the first few seconds of the video.
I’m saying it’s a bad idea to try and snatch someone’s drink when you think they’re going to get violent. Or really, it’s bad in any situation where you’re not a bouncer.
If you want to read into that and assign blame to the woman in the video then that’s entirely on you.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
From your own words:
and tries to stop him grabbing his drink
…
Likely she can tell he’s about to get violent
He hadn’t yet committed a violent act. There was no indication from his posture or body language that he intended to commit any violent act. Any potential violence from him wasn’t yet “imminent”, which is a requirement for the use of force in self defense. Taking the glass wasn’t justified; it was instigating.
Escalation is irrelevant. Talk to me about justification. Start with her grabbing of the glass. Proceed to the throwing of the drink. Proceed to her standing up and striking him. Talk to me about any issue of justification of at least these three acts.
Her initial grabbing of the glass was unjustified. There’s an image of a post (supposedly) made by her where she discusses the incident. Her statement confirms that her grabbing of the glass was not justified.
He did escalate, after her provocation. He threw the contents of his glass in her face. Unjustified, but provoked: his conduct would likely be excused.
Having provoked the throwing of the liquid, she was not justified in striking him. She escalated anyway, unjustifiably. I believe you used the phrase “specific intent to cause harm” - she escalated to that point. Her conduct here justified a forceful response to stop her from striking him. He pushed her backward, she fell over her seat to the ground. She tried to get up to continue her attack; he kicked her back down, and attempted to retreat. That’s de-escalation. Even if she had been justified, his retreat ended justification she would have had.
She escalated again, this time to unjustifiably threatening him with a deadly weapon. Again, she justified a forceful response to stop her new attack. Again, he pushed her away. Again, he retreated.
What part of my analysis of justification do you believe is flawed?
Oh my god. You’re a moron I’m so over you anything you don’t like is “iRrElEvaNt!”
You don’t understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not. You don’t understand social interactions or what classifies as battery. You don’t understand shit, you are not a lawyer and you’re a fuckin liar.
Shut up lmfao waste of fucking oxygen. You’re just so fucking wrong.
You don’t understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not.
Yeah, kinda, sorta.
Let’s try this again. The use of force against another person is generally unlawful. “Intent” does not make it lawful. “Intent” might be the difference between negligence and aggravated assault, but it does not determine legality of force.
“Justification” determines legality. Generally, speaking, all uses of force are unlawful. Generally. Use of force is only lawful in those specific circumstances where it is justified. You can use any degree of force you want, so long as the broader external circumstances specifically justify that use of force. For example, if I spin around in circles with my fists out and my eyes closed, you are justified in using some degree of force to stop me from hitting you. My intent in spinning is not relevant. Your intent to cause me harm is not particularly relevant. (It is only relevant if it exceeds the “reasonable person” standard) If you perceive a significant, unjustified threat of harm to any person, including yourself, you are justified in using a reasonable level of force to stop that harm.
The actual intentions of the actual actors is wholly irrelevant. The “intent” of a “reasonable person” in the same situation as the actors is the closest that “intent” comes to the issue.
In focusing on “intent”, you are looking at the mindset of the individuals. It is not necessary to look at the mindset of either of these individuals. All we have to look at is each forceful act, and determine justifiability.
I would remind you: you are not justified in using force against either a justified use of force, or against an unjustified use of force that you have previously provoked.
With that, I am perfectly willing to explore the justification for each forceful act in that video.
There is nothing in the video to assume she did anything wrong your ability to read people is absolutely shit.
Likely she can tell he’s about to get violent and tries to stop him grabbing his drink, which he throws in her face, then pushes her, kicks her, pushes her again.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
You can tell that from the video? Because to me it looks like grabbing his drink is what sets off the whole thing.
So maybe she’s right? Lmfao.
If you think so then hopefully she learned a valuable lesson about choosing to grab someone’s drink, causing them to spill it everywhere. Not a good idea to do that to someone you think is going to get violent.
Such a stupid comment.
Well shit, if you’re gonna ignore half the video then hopefully you learned a valuable lesson about the kinds of replies you’ll get.
You watched a video of unjustified totally disgusting assault because a woman told a guy she didn’t wanna date and your response is “hope she learned something”
Your skull is empty.
You keep replying like you’re reading my posts, but you refuse to acknowledge what I’m saying like you refuse to acknowledge the first few seconds of the video.
Get your own skull checked out.
You’re saying fucking stupid shit.
Why are you blaming her for him assaulting her? Grabbing a drink isn’t assault.
What is she supposed to learn here?
I’m saying it’s a bad idea to try and snatch someone’s drink when you think they’re going to get violent. Or really, it’s bad in any situation where you’re not a bouncer.
If you want to read into that and assign blame to the woman in the video then that’s entirely on you.
You already assigned blame to her, why would I do it again?
You’re insufferable. Blocked.
“He’s going to get violent if I take his glass, so I need to take his glass.”
That argument is a condemnation of her actions, not a justification.
From your own words:
…
He hadn’t yet committed a violent act. There was no indication from his posture or body language that he intended to commit any violent act. Any potential violence from him wasn’t yet “imminent”, which is a requirement for the use of force in self defense. Taking the glass wasn’t justified; it was instigating.
He escalated you dumb ass.
Escalation is irrelevant. Talk to me about justification. Start with her grabbing of the glass. Proceed to the throwing of the drink. Proceed to her standing up and striking him. Talk to me about any issue of justification of at least these three acts.
Her initial grabbing of the glass was unjustified. There’s an image of a post (supposedly) made by her where she discusses the incident. Her statement confirms that her grabbing of the glass was not justified.
He did escalate, after her provocation. He threw the contents of his glass in her face. Unjustified, but provoked: his conduct would likely be excused.
Having provoked the throwing of the liquid, she was not justified in striking him. She escalated anyway, unjustifiably. I believe you used the phrase “specific intent to cause harm” - she escalated to that point. Her conduct here justified a forceful response to stop her from striking him. He pushed her backward, she fell over her seat to the ground. She tried to get up to continue her attack; he kicked her back down, and attempted to retreat. That’s de-escalation. Even if she had been justified, his retreat ended justification she would have had.
She escalated again, this time to unjustifiably threatening him with a deadly weapon. Again, she justified a forceful response to stop her new attack. Again, he pushed her away. Again, he retreated.
What part of my analysis of justification do you believe is flawed?
Oh my god. You’re a moron I’m so over you anything you don’t like is “iRrElEvaNt!”
You don’t understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not. You don’t understand social interactions or what classifies as battery. You don’t understand shit, you are not a lawyer and you’re a fuckin liar.
Shut up lmfao waste of fucking oxygen. You’re just so fucking wrong.
Yeah, kinda, sorta.
Let’s try this again. The use of force against another person is generally unlawful. “Intent” does not make it lawful. “Intent” might be the difference between negligence and aggravated assault, but it does not determine legality of force.
“Justification” determines legality. Generally, speaking, all uses of force are unlawful. Generally. Use of force is only lawful in those specific circumstances where it is justified. You can use any degree of force you want, so long as the broader external circumstances specifically justify that use of force. For example, if I spin around in circles with my fists out and my eyes closed, you are justified in using some degree of force to stop me from hitting you. My intent in spinning is not relevant. Your intent to cause me harm is not particularly relevant. (It is only relevant if it exceeds the “reasonable person” standard) If you perceive a significant, unjustified threat of harm to any person, including yourself, you are justified in using a reasonable level of force to stop that harm.
The actual intentions of the actual actors is wholly irrelevant. The “intent” of a “reasonable person” in the same situation as the actors is the closest that “intent” comes to the issue.
In focusing on “intent”, you are looking at the mindset of the individuals. It is not necessary to look at the mindset of either of these individuals. All we have to look at is each forceful act, and determine justifiability.
I would remind you: you are not justified in using force against either a justified use of force, or against an unjustified use of force that you have previously provoked.
With that, I am perfectly willing to explore the justification for each forceful act in that video.
You’re so stupid. Shut the fuck up lmfao
You’re not a lawyer. You’ve been so wrong every time you say anything. Shut the fuck up