My arguments are consistent regardless of the genders of the participants. Yours clearly are not. Mine would hold up with two men, two women, two NBs, or any two adults of any sex, gender, race, creed, color, national origin. Switch any gender of any participant here, and you have a big, politically incorrect problem with your current position.
No they’re not. They’re fucking dumb and everyone reading this thread seems to think the same thing.
You’re literally trying to say she touched him first. On a date.
From your perspective a partner would have the right to choke slam their partner if they surprised them with a hug because they touched them first.
From your perspective one person is not responsible from removing themselves from danger, they’re responsible for hurting people to make a point and exert control.
You’re stupid go drink whatever liquids are under your sink.
You’re literally trying to say she touched him first. On a date.
Oh, wow. You have a real problem there if you think “on a date” constitutes “consent”. This is 2026, not 1952.
Grabbing a drink out of someone’s hands without their consent is a provocative act. Provlcative in the sense that it invites immediate retaliation. Check out the Wikipedia articles on provocation, intigation, “fighting words”… They should give you some indication of how the law sees such actions.
Basically, if you provoke a response, you are not justified in reacting to that provoked action. Grabbing the glass was instigation, and provocation. She invited some kind of response. Because she was the instigator, she was not justified in lunging at him after the drink was thrown.
I stand by both of those. There are three relevant acts between the two.
Again: you are not justified in grabbing a drink out of someone’s hand. The act of doing so is technically considered assault and battery. That act served as provocation for throwing the drink.
Again, if you unjustifiably provoke a response, your reaction to that response is also unjustifiable. If you call me a “fucking moron”, spit in my face, and I immediately slap you, you are not justified in using further force against me. My slap will probably not be considered justified, but it was certainly provoked, and would likely be deemed excusable. I would likely be exonerated for that slap.
Your decision to subsequently punch me is unjustified because of your initial provocation, and I am justified in using force to stop you from continuing to punch me.
Here, he shoved her to the ground while she was unjustifiably striking him. His shove was justified.
She tried to get back up off the ground, and he kicked her back down. That is questionable.
He was justified in initially pushing her to the ground. If he reasonably believed she was going to continue her attack when she got back up, he would, indeed, be justified in pushing her back to the ground. If that belief was unreasonable, the kick would not be justified. The same act possibly being deemed just or unjust, the kick was, indeed, questionable.
You have not offered any sort of explanation or challenge to that analysis. I have no reason to think I erred in that analysis. I stand by it, and will continue to stand by it until a reasonable alternative is presented.
My arguments are consistent regardless of the genders of the participants. Yours clearly are not. Mine would hold up with two men, two women, two NBs, or any two adults of any sex, gender, race, creed, color, national origin. Switch any gender of any participant here, and you have a big, politically incorrect problem with your current position.
No they’re not. They’re fucking dumb and everyone reading this thread seems to think the same thing.
You’re literally trying to say she touched him first. On a date.
From your perspective a partner would have the right to choke slam their partner if they surprised them with a hug because they touched them first.
From your perspective one person is not responsible from removing themselves from danger, they’re responsible for hurting people to make a point and exert control.
You’re stupid go drink whatever liquids are under your sink.
Oh, wow. You have a real problem there if you think “on a date” constitutes “consent”. This is 2026, not 1952.
Grabbing a drink out of someone’s hands without their consent is a provocative act. Provlcative in the sense that it invites immediate retaliation. Check out the Wikipedia articles on provocation, intigation, “fighting words”… They should give you some indication of how the law sees such actions.
Basically, if you provoke a response, you are not justified in reacting to that provoked action. Grabbing the glass was instigation, and provocation. She invited some kind of response. Because she was the instigator, she was not justified in lunging at him after the drink was thrown.
This is what you said.
You’re a fucking moron.
I stand by both of those. There are three relevant acts between the two.
Again: you are not justified in grabbing a drink out of someone’s hand. The act of doing so is technically considered assault and battery. That act served as provocation for throwing the drink.
Again, if you unjustifiably provoke a response, your reaction to that response is also unjustifiable. If you call me a “fucking moron”, spit in my face, and I immediately slap you, you are not justified in using further force against me. My slap will probably not be considered justified, but it was certainly provoked, and would likely be deemed excusable. I would likely be exonerated for that slap.
Your decision to subsequently punch me is unjustified because of your initial provocation, and I am justified in using force to stop you from continuing to punch me.
Here, he shoved her to the ground while she was unjustifiably striking him. His shove was justified.
She tried to get back up off the ground, and he kicked her back down. That is questionable.
He was justified in initially pushing her to the ground. If he reasonably believed she was going to continue her attack when she got back up, he would, indeed, be justified in pushing her back to the ground. If that belief was unreasonable, the kick would not be justified. The same act possibly being deemed just or unjust, the kick was, indeed, questionable.
You have not offered any sort of explanation or challenge to that analysis. I have no reason to think I erred in that analysis. I stand by it, and will continue to stand by it until a reasonable alternative is presented.
And you’re a fucking idiot for it.