Avicenna comments on This happened in Louisville, Kentucky

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

she stood up and began striking him in the face.

From what I see, she never striked him. The point where you claim she is striking him on the face is only her getting up and extending her arms. It might be anything from trying to strike him on the face to an angry push. Pushing someone that you think is trying to push you? Yes reasonable. But for anything more than that, It does not seem to even provide enough evidence for a reasonable belief of anything more than a shove.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

It might be anything from trying to strike him on the face to an angry push. Pushing someone that you think is trying to push you? Yes reasonable.

You have conceded that she used force, and that he was justified in using some degree of force to stop her. We don't have to answer the question of whether it was a strike or an angry push. All we need to know is that he was, at least at this specific moment, justified in using some level of force to stop her. You've indicated that a "push" was a reasonable level of force.

You are justified in using any level of force you reasonably believe necessary to stop a threat of harm. She attacked him in some way, he pushed her to the ground. She immediately rose to her feet: can you conclusively demonstrate that, at this specific moment in time, it was wholly unreasonable to believe she was rising to continue her attack?

If you can't conclusively prove she was harmless at this point, then, under use-of-force laws, the kick could (potentially) be justified as an attempt to stop her continued attack.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

We don't have to answer the question of whether it was a strike

This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?

You have conceded that she used force,

Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove. I wouldn't even consider it a lunge, so as it stands, it is a very hard sell for reasonable grounds for suspecting harm. Nevermind proportionality aspect of kicking the woman who may or may not have tries to push you. And this is something you have been glossing over.

If you can't conclusively prove she was harmless

At this point we are acting only on suspicion. I don't think one can conclusively prove that she was initially trying to be harmful either. But lets assume that he really suspected that she meant physical harm and pushed her. At that point, until she gets up and tries to attack (assuming that was her intention to start with), the threat is assumed to be paused. Otherwise what is the difference between one kick and ten kicks? What you defend suggests he should be able to kick her as long as she tries to get up which is open to abuse. So kicking at that point is considered retaliation and it is your duty to retreat if you are in a public space and not your home.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

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

But lets assume that he really suspected that she meant physical harm and pushed her. At that point, until she gets up and tries to attack (assuming that was her intention to start with), the threat is assumed to be paused.

Correct, except for

and tries to attack

She doesn't need to try to attack. He merely needs to reasonably believe she is continuing her attack.

the threat is assumed to be paused.

While she is on the ground and unable to attack, that is true. If she stayed on the ground, he would have no justification to continue. But, she didn't stay on the ground. She was back on her feet and beginning to stand when she was kicked.

Otherwise what is the difference between one kick and ten kicks?

Kicking the attacker before they attempt to continue their attack would not be justified.

If an attacker keeps trying to get up and fight 9 times, the 10th kick would be justified.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Kicking the attacker before they attempt to continue their attack would not be justified.

If an attacker keeps trying to get up and fight 9 times, the 10th kick would be justified.

Exactly, "trying to get up AND fight". But the latter part is absent in this video, just trying to get up is not indication of attempting to continue the attack. Getting up and moving towards the person? Maybe. But it is not possible to justify kicking someone trying to get up in any reasonable way under these circumstances.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

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

trying to get up AND fight". But the latter part is absent in this video,

It is present immediately before, which is why she was put on the ground. It is not unreasonable to believe her immediate attempt to get up again was to continue her attack. That reasonable belief justified putting her back on the ground, so he could effect his retreat without being attacked again.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

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

This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?

It is clearly visible in the video. When you conceded that it could be an "angry push" rather than a "strike", I didn't need to belabor the point. An "angry push" is sufficient to justify a forceful response.

Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove.

You say "Nope" and then describe only circumstances where she used force: a "shove" (previously "angry push") is a use of force.

Nevermind proportionality aspect

"Proportionality" is not a factor in the use of defensive force. The relevant consideration is "reasonably believed necessary to stop the threat".

Where defensive force is justified, substantially greater force can be justified. If a relatively lesser threat cannot be reasonably stopped except with a substantially greater defensive force, the substantially greater defensive force is justified.

"Reasonably believed to be necessary to stop the threat".

The threat in this case is the use of her arms to [strike|angry push|shove] him, which is the forceful behavior she was engaging in when she initially stood.

You have to show that it was unreasonable to believe she was attempting to continue this behavior if you want to demonstrate that his use of force was unjustified.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

It is clearly visible in the video.

Can you provide a screen shot of the moment where her hand actually connects with his face in the form of a strike? I am rewatching the video and not seeing it.

You say “Nope”

I said Nope because I did not say she shoved him or pushed him. All I said is her movement towards him could be anything from wanting to punch him to push him.

“Proportionality” is not a factor in the use of defensive force.

Simply not correct:

https://www.cvpsd.org/post/proportionality-in-civilian-self-defense-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Proportionality” is not a factor in the use of defensive force.Simply not correct:

I suggest you read your link, because it does not reflect your argument. Proportionality does not mean "if she uses 30 newtons of force against him, he is not justified in using 32 newtons against her." It does not mean "if she throws two punches, he is prohibited from throwing three". It does not mean "if she uses a knife, he is prohibited from drawing a gun". It does not mean "she drew only a .32ACP, so he is not justified in using a 9x19 to stop her".

Your link uses substantially the same words I said:

The core idea is that your defensive actions should not exceed what is necessary to prevent harm.

Necessary to prevent harm. Defensive force can significantly exceed the attacking force if the defensive force is necessary to prevent the harm from the attacker.

Courts and legal systems apply a "reasonableness" test. Would a reasonable person in the same situation feel compelled to use the same level of force?

Again, you have to demonstrate that it was unreasonable to think she was continuing her attack at the time of the kick, and/or that the kick was excessive, and intended to cause greater harm than simply putting her back on the ground.

The examples from your link further demonstrate my point:

If someone attempts to slap you, blocking the attack or pushing them away might be reasonable; pulling a knife would not be.

He shoved her away as she slapped him. When she got up (and he reasonably believed she was continuing to attack), he kicked her back on the ground. Absent some statement of intent to cause excessive harm, these are greasonable use of force.

If a home intruder brandishes a weapon or threatens deadly harm, using proportional deadly force to defend yourself may be justified.

In a physical altercation, a beer bottle is a deadly weapon. He used a harder shove to prevent her from causing harm with that weapon.

If an aggressor backs down or flees, continuing to use force may no longer be proportional—and can become criminal.

He stopped using force when she stayed on the ground. He was justified in keeping her on the ground, preventing her from attacking again. he was not justified in using force while she stayed on the ground.

On the flip side. He backed away from her after the kick, and after the final shove. Even if she had been justified in using force before that (she wasn't) that retreat eliminated any justification she would have had in using force against him. Yet, she grabbed a beer bottle and escalated to a threat of deadly force. According to your link, she is the one who violated the "proportionality" standard.

Can you provide a screen shot of the moment where her hand actually connects with his face in the form of a strike?

You are telling me you can't see her right arm move in a leftward motion, over his left arm, toward his face? I do not believe your claim on this point is genuine.

I don't know why you continue to press this issue. Even if you can't see the actual strike, you've already indicated her actions can be reasonably construed as an "angry push". Strike, push, shove, lunge, : these are distinctions without a meaningful difference. Even if she doesn't actually make contact with his face, anyone in his shoes would reasonably believed she was trying to strike him. That's all he needs to justify the push, and the subsequent kick.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent