Are you talking about here, where you discussed “low impact” and “high impact” escalations? I think that was a reasonable, fair analysis of escalation.
The use of force against another person without their consent is generally unlawful unless justified. A use of force is justified where a person reasonably perceives a threat of unjustified force, and uses only such force a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.
You addressed “escalations” on most of these acts during the altercation. However, your analysis is incomplete. You did not explicitly state whether each of these forceful acts were justified or unjustified, and you did not provide your rationale for determining justification.
I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but I think we can agree that grabbing the glass from him was an unjustified use of force.
I think we can also agree that his throwing the drink on her was also an unjustified use of force. (Even though there was a previous use of force by her, the throwing of the drink could not be considered an attempt to “stop the threat”; the throwing of the drink was unjustified.)
Her lunge across the table. Was this justified, or unjustified? Why?
My dude, we can absolutely not agree that trying to take someone’s glass is a “use of force”. And since literally the entire altercation after that was predicted on a absolutely wild escalation on his part, repeatedly, it’s not worth “debating”.
Just admit you’re desperate to find any argument that blames women and move on.
My dude, we can absolutely not agree that trying to take someone’s glass is a “use of force”.
Ok.
Surely, we can agree it was a physical act. Surely, we can agree it was the first physical interaction of the altercation. There was no physical contact between the parties prior to her grabbing the drink.
Can we agree that it was also unjustified? If not, can we agree that her attempt to grab the glass was not invited, wanted, or consented to? At the very least, it was the first physical escalation of a verbal disagreement, right?
When a physical altercation has commenced, the person instigating the physical altercation is not justified in using any force until they have attempted to retreat from the altercation. If she did, indeed, instigate the altercation, (even if his reaction was a “wild escalation”), she was not justified in continuing the altercation, let alone escalating it, until she had made some effort to retreat.
Did she make some effort to retreat? Or was she continuing the physical altercation she had provoked and instigated?
And since literally the entire altercation after that was predicted on a absolutely wild escalation on his part,
You’ve made this argument, repeatedly, and rationally. I’ve commended your analysis on escalation as reasonable, fair, rational. I’ve conceded every single point you’ve made about escalation.
I’ve also pointed out that “escalation” is only one relevant factor. More specifically, “escalation” affects the determination of “reasonableness” as it applies to the use of force. It is not the only factor that determines reasonableness, and it is certainly not the only factor relevant to justification. Talk to me about justification. I’ve conceded that the throwing of the drink was not justified, and I’ve conceded that the possible justification for the kick was, at best, questionable. Talk to me about justification with regard to every other act committed by each party.
Are you talking about here, where you discussed “low impact” and “high impact” escalations? I think that was a reasonable, fair analysis of escalation.
The use of force against another person without their consent is generally unlawful unless justified. A use of force is justified where a person reasonably perceives a threat of unjustified force, and uses only such force a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.
You addressed “escalations” on most of these acts during the altercation. However, your analysis is incomplete. You did not explicitly state whether each of these forceful acts were justified or unjustified, and you did not provide your rationale for determining justification.
I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but I think we can agree that grabbing the glass from him was an unjustified use of force.
I think we can also agree that his throwing the drink on her was also an unjustified use of force. (Even though there was a previous use of force by her, the throwing of the drink could not be considered an attempt to “stop the threat”; the throwing of the drink was unjustified.)
Her lunge across the table. Was this justified, or unjustified? Why?
My dude, we can absolutely not agree that trying to take someone’s glass is a “use of force”. And since literally the entire altercation after that was predicted on a absolutely wild escalation on his part, repeatedly, it’s not worth “debating”.
Just admit you’re desperate to find any argument that blames women and move on.
Ok. Surely, we can agree it was a physical act. Surely, we can agree it was the first physical interaction of the altercation. There was no physical contact between the parties prior to her grabbing the drink.
Can we agree that it was also unjustified? If not, can we agree that her attempt to grab the glass was not invited, wanted, or consented to? At the very least, it was the first physical escalation of a verbal disagreement, right?
When a physical altercation has commenced, the person instigating the physical altercation is not justified in using any force until they have attempted to retreat from the altercation. If she did, indeed, instigate the altercation, (even if his reaction was a “wild escalation”), she was not justified in continuing the altercation, let alone escalating it, until she had made some effort to retreat.
Did she make some effort to retreat? Or was she continuing the physical altercation she had provoked and instigated?
You’ve made this argument, repeatedly, and rationally. I’ve commended your analysis on escalation as reasonable, fair, rational. I’ve conceded every single point you’ve made about escalation.
I’ve also pointed out that “escalation” is only one relevant factor. More specifically, “escalation” affects the determination of “reasonableness” as it applies to the use of force. It is not the only factor that determines reasonableness, and it is certainly not the only factor relevant to justification. Talk to me about justification. I’ve conceded that the throwing of the drink was not justified, and I’ve conceded that the possible justification for the kick was, at best, questionable. Talk to me about justification with regard to every other act committed by each party.