Battery, but that’s a fairly minor distinction. I will admit that the kick really pissed me off.
But, the kick came as she was getting back up from being justifiably shoved away after having lunged over the table and striking him unjustifiably. He could argue he believed she was getting up to continue striking him, and that the kick was only to keep her from further attacking him while he retreated. If he shuts up and lets his lawyer explain that, it probably won’t be considered unjustifiable. It would probably be considered reasonable doubt. The kick will be hardest to explain, but it is certainly possible.
It certainly did. That’s what “questionable” means here. It means that before applying the legal precedent of “innocence until proven guilty” and “benefit of a reasonable doubt”, my immediate, snap judgment was to be pissed off at the kick. Only after closely considering the circumstances of the kick did I arrive at the conclusion of “questionable”. I, personally, don’t think the kick was necessary at that moment. But, in this context, I can’t definitively conclude that. I provided a hypothetical mindset where his actions would be reasonable. If those circumstances were present in his trial, I would have to afford him reasonable doubt and acquit.
On the other hand, if she’s the one on trial, I would have to afford her reasonable doubt, and conclude that the kick was unjustified. I don’t think that kick would significantly affect the outcome of her trial, but I would consider it in her favor regardless.
Lmfao trying to change the definition of a word so you can backtrack, nah man. Fuck off. You were practically spitting on this woman’s actions with your words in this thread and acted like her touching a bottle twice was ASSAULT!!! You wrote page after page of text to justify his actions.
You’re disgusting and now you’re pathetic too. Shut the fuck up.
I am, indeed, “spitting on this woman’s actions”, regardless of my anger toward him. I found one minor and one potential fault in his actions. I found several serious faults in hers. I have carefully, and dispassionately evaluated the scenario, and I have found considerable fault on her part.
I am continuing to discuss it only to ensure that I have thoroughly explored all reasonable possibilities.
Here, questionable does, indeed, mean that I’m pissed off about the kick. As I said, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to condemn him for the kick. “Questionable” arises from one hypothetical possibility that would make my anger inappropriate. Legal doctrine requires the assumption of that hypothetical possibility until conclusively proven otherwise.
I continue to straight up accuse her of assault. Two counts of simple assault, two counts of battery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon.
I continue to defend his initial push, as well as the final shove. I do not defend the throwing of the liquid in her face: It was provoked, but it was unjustified. I provided a reasonable doubt as to the kick; his kick is only defensible if that doubt exists.
You keep trying to sound like you know the law and you don’t.
The law requires the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have incorporated that standard into my analysis.
You’ve proven that with your misunderstanding of what intent means.
Intent is not particularly relevant here. Only justification is relevant. The only unjustified acts of his were the throwing of the liquid (which was a provoked act and likely excusable) and possibly the kick (which could potentially be considered justifiable as I have previously described.)
Her unjustified acts include the initial grabbing of the glass, the initial striking with the hands, and the continued menacing with the beer bottle.
Is there some part of this that I have not properly or adequately considered?
Intent and justification are two separate concepts. “Intent” refers to the actor’s internal state of mind. “Justification” refers to the external conditions the actor faces at the time of the action.
As we cannot know the contents of the minds of either participant (nor can the participants know the minds of eachother) “intent” is not the relevant model for this discussion.
Battery, but that’s a fairly minor distinction. I will admit that the kick really pissed me off.
But, the kick came as she was getting back up from being justifiably shoved away after having lunged over the table and striking him unjustifiably. He could argue he believed she was getting up to continue striking him, and that the kick was only to keep her from further attacking him while he retreated. If he shuts up and lets his lawyer explain that, it probably won’t be considered unjustifiable. It would probably be considered reasonable doubt. The kick will be hardest to explain, but it is certainly possible.
The kick did not piss you off. You spent the last two hours doing laps in this comment section blaming her.
It certainly did. That’s what “questionable” means here. It means that before applying the legal precedent of “innocence until proven guilty” and “benefit of a reasonable doubt”, my immediate, snap judgment was to be pissed off at the kick. Only after closely considering the circumstances of the kick did I arrive at the conclusion of “questionable”. I, personally, don’t think the kick was necessary at that moment. But, in this context, I can’t definitively conclude that. I provided a hypothetical mindset where his actions would be reasonable. If those circumstances were present in his trial, I would have to afford him reasonable doubt and acquit.
On the other hand, if she’s the one on trial, I would have to afford her reasonable doubt, and conclude that the kick was unjustified. I don’t think that kick would significantly affect the outcome of her trial, but I would consider it in her favor regardless.
Lmfao trying to change the definition of a word so you can backtrack, nah man. Fuck off. You were practically spitting on this woman’s actions with your words in this thread and acted like her touching a bottle twice was ASSAULT!!! You wrote page after page of text to justify his actions.
You’re disgusting and now you’re pathetic too. Shut the fuck up.
I am, indeed, “spitting on this woman’s actions”, regardless of my anger toward him. I found one minor and one potential fault in his actions. I found several serious faults in hers. I have carefully, and dispassionately evaluated the scenario, and I have found considerable fault on her part.
I am continuing to discuss it only to ensure that I have thoroughly explored all reasonable possibilities.
Disgusting piece of shit lol
For context:
This is what you said.
You’re a fucking moron.
Questionable here means you’re mad? You fucking absolutely disgusting shit. Shut the absolute fuck up
Here, questionable does, indeed, mean that I’m pissed off about the kick. As I said, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to condemn him for the kick. “Questionable” arises from one hypothetical possibility that would make my anger inappropriate. Legal doctrine requires the assumption of that hypothetical possibility until conclusively proven otherwise.
No it doesn’t stop trying to change definitions. You played defense for this man’s actions and straight accused her of assault.
You keep trying to sound like you know the law and you don’t. You’ve proven that with your misunderstanding of what intent means. Shut up
I continue to straight up accuse her of assault. Two counts of simple assault, two counts of battery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon.
I continue to defend his initial push, as well as the final shove. I do not defend the throwing of the liquid in her face: It was provoked, but it was unjustified. I provided a reasonable doubt as to the kick; his kick is only defensible if that doubt exists.
The law requires the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have incorporated that standard into my analysis.
Intent is not particularly relevant here. Only justification is relevant. The only unjustified acts of his were the throwing of the liquid (which was a provoked act and likely excusable) and possibly the kick (which could potentially be considered justifiable as I have previously described.)
Her unjustified acts include the initial grabbing of the glass, the initial striking with the hands, and the continued menacing with the beer bottle.
Is there some part of this that I have not properly or adequately considered?
Holy shit you’re stupid you genuinely do not understand what intent means in a legal sense.
Intent is justification you moron. You didn’t Google it once.
I have read this article on general intent and this article on specific intent. I have also read this article on justification as well as this article on self defense which also discusses justification.
Intent and justification are two separate concepts. “Intent” refers to the actor’s internal state of mind. “Justification” refers to the external conditions the actor faces at the time of the action.
As we cannot know the contents of the minds of either participant (nor can the participants know the minds of eachother) “intent” is not the relevant model for this discussion.