Stop looking at their genders you stupid misogynistic moron.
Classic.
The law that you wanna quote so fucking hard with 0 expertise is all about intent.
Actually, it’s not. The primary issue to consider is “justification” not “intent”. The use of force is generally unlawful unless justified in defense of self or others. A person is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop another’s use of unjustified force. Provocation and instigation also play a role: A use of force is not always unlawful if the other party has acted to deliberately provoke the response. Look up “fighting words” to get you into the right area of study.
Here, she initiates the physical altercation by unjustifiably grabbing the glass. Provoked, he splashes her. She unjustifiably strikes him. He justifiably shoves her. He kicks her, putting her back on the ground.
The kick is questionable. It’s either an unjustified attack while she’s on the ground, or it’s a justified attempt to keep her from getting up and striking him further. Since this would only matter if he’s the one on trial, and if he’s the one on trial, we owe him the benefit of a doubt, we have to call this one justified.
Either way, he immediately retreats after the kick, ending the threat to her, and making her next actions unjustifiable. She gets back up, grabs a beer bottle, and confronts him again. He justifiably shoves her away.
She initiated everything. Everything he did was a reaction to her instigating actions. Was he asking for the glass to be pulled from his hands? Was he asking her to linge across the table and strike him? Was he asking to be threatened with a beer bottle? The only way his intent was at all relevant is if his intent was for her to start shit.
Based on the prevailing opinions in this conversation, we need much more focus on the laws governing use of force. Clearly, too many people have been denied any formal instruction or training on the subject.
Shut up. You’re just so stupid and nobody takes you seriously. I cannot believe you think she initiated anything or his actions were close to justified.
Means nothing. They’re on a date. If they were strangers that would matter. Your understanding of humans, the law and interactions are embarrassing as fuck.
This is 2026, not 1952. “On a date” does not constitute consent. The idea that “it’s not harm if they know eachother” was retired 30+ years ago, and was on its way out of legal precedence long before that. This is a seriously problematic “rape culture” position you’re trying to rely on.
Classic.
Actually, it’s not. The primary issue to consider is “justification” not “intent”. The use of force is generally unlawful unless justified in defense of self or others. A person is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop another’s use of unjustified force. Provocation and instigation also play a role: A use of force is not always unlawful if the other party has acted to deliberately provoke the response. Look up “fighting words” to get you into the right area of study.
Here, she initiates the physical altercation by unjustifiably grabbing the glass. Provoked, he splashes her. She unjustifiably strikes him. He justifiably shoves her. He kicks her, putting her back on the ground.
The kick is questionable. It’s either an unjustified attack while she’s on the ground, or it’s a justified attempt to keep her from getting up and striking him further. Since this would only matter if he’s the one on trial, and if he’s the one on trial, we owe him the benefit of a doubt, we have to call this one justified.
Either way, he immediately retreats after the kick, ending the threat to her, and making her next actions unjustifiable. She gets back up, grabs a beer bottle, and confronts him again. He justifiably shoves her away.
Nope it’s intent.
Specific intent vs general intent. His intent was very specific. Any other arguments you present is just you being willfully ignorant.
He was never in danger, he was the danger. His intent was specific and harmful. Hers was general and unclear.
Piss off piss baby
She initiated everything. Everything he did was a reaction to her instigating actions. Was he asking for the glass to be pulled from his hands? Was he asking her to linge across the table and strike him? Was he asking to be threatened with a beer bottle? The only way his intent was at all relevant is if his intent was for her to start shit.
Based on the prevailing opinions in this conversation, we need much more focus on the laws governing use of force. Clearly, too many people have been denied any formal instruction or training on the subject.
Shut up. You’re just so stupid and nobody takes you seriously. I cannot believe you think she initiated anything or his actions were close to justified.
Absolutely scummy misogynistic cunt you are
She was the first person to initiate physical contact. That is instigation.
Means nothing. They’re on a date. If they were strangers that would matter. Your understanding of humans, the law and interactions are embarrassing as fuck.
Your mind is an empty and simple place
This is 2026, not 1952. “On a date” does not constitute consent. The idea that “it’s not harm if they know eachother” was retired 30+ years ago, and was on its way out of legal precedence long before that. This is a seriously problematic “rape culture” position you’re trying to rely on.
Lmfaoooo oh shut up you’re pathetic