you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -3 points 10 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Instigation. She is not being charged because she is not responsible for the assault. His deplorable and criminal acts of harassment against her make him criminally responsible for her attack.

    You do not get to harass someone so egregiously and incessantly as to instigate a physical altercation, and then call them "barbaric" for having attacked you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    victim of her assault can still press charges.

    He can be charged with assault and battery, due to his instigation of the physical altercation.

    It is not other people’s responsibility for how you react to how you feel

    That is true only as a general condition, not an absolute one. There are certainly exceptions. "Instigation" is one such exception.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    The word I used in the parent comment was "instigation".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Then you concede that he instigated the attack. You don't need to continue blaming the victim's violent response, because responsibility for those acts falls on the harassing instigator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Intriguing. Please explain why "instigation" does not apply here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

    There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

    — Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942[1]

    His works and words certainly meet the court's criteria. He wasn't just generally offensive; he personalized his lewd, obscene, and libelous harassment directly toward his chosen victim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)