Rivalarrival comments on This happened in Louisville, Kentucky

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?

From your own words:

and tries to stop him grabbing his drink

...

Likely she can tell he’s about to get violent

He hadn't yet committed a violent act. There was no indication from his posture or body language that he intended to commit any violent act. Any potential violence from him wasn't yet "imminent", which is a requirement for the use of force in self defense. Taking the glass wasn't justified; it was instigating.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] deft@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

Escalation is irrelevant. Talk to me about justification. Start with her grabbing of the glass. Proceed to the throwing of the drink. Proceed to her standing up and striking him. Talk to me about any issue of justification of at least these three acts.

Her initial grabbing of the glass was unjustified. There's an image of a post (supposedly) made by her where she discusses the incident. Her statement confirms that her grabbing of the glass was not justified.

He did escalate, after her provocation. He threw the contents of his glass in her face. Unjustified, but provoked: his conduct would likely be excused.

Having provoked the throwing of the liquid, she was not justified in striking him. She escalated anyway, unjustifiably. I believe you used the phrase "specific intent to cause harm" - she escalated to that point. Her conduct here justified a forceful response to stop her from striking him. He pushed her backward, she fell over her seat to the ground. She tried to get up to continue her attack; he kicked her back down, and attempted to retreat. That's de-escalation. Even if she had been justified, his retreat ended justification she would have had.

She escalated again, this time to unjustifiably threatening him with a deadly weapon. Again, she justified a forceful response to stop her new attack. Again, he pushed her away. Again, he retreated.

What part of my analysis of justification do you believe is flawed?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] deft@lemmy.wtf 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 2 months ago

You don’t understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not.

Yeah, kinda, sorta.

Let's try this again. The use of force against another person is generally unlawful. "Intent" does not make it lawful. "Intent" might be the difference between negligence and aggravated assault, but it does not determine legality of force.

"Justification" determines legality. Generally, speaking, all uses of force are unlawful. Generally. Use of force is only lawful in those specific circumstances where it is justified. You can use any degree of force you want, so long as the broader external circumstances specifically justify that use of force. For example, if I spin around in circles with my fists out and my eyes closed, you are justified in using some degree of force to stop me from hitting you. My intent in spinning is not relevant. Your intent to cause me harm is not particularly relevant. (It is only relevant if it exceeds the "reasonable person" standard) If you perceive a significant, unjustified threat of harm to any person, including yourself, you are justified in using a reasonable level of force to stop that harm.

The actual intentions of the actual actors is wholly irrelevant. The "intent" of a "reasonable person" in the same situation as the actors is the closest that "intent" comes to the issue.

In focusing on "intent", you are looking at the mindset of the individuals. It is not necessary to look at the mindset of either of these individuals. All we have to look at is each forceful act, and determine justifiability.

I would remind you: you are not justified in using force against either a justified use of force, or against an unjustified use of force that you have previously provoked.

With that, I am perfectly willing to explore the justification for each forceful act in that video.