You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:09:51 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

We can talk about the law all we want, but guilt is only determined in a court of law. Nothing about the law is actually determined until the jury or judge makes their announcement.

The example above is missing information. If you are pushed in the back, how do you know for sure who pushed you? What was the demeanor of that person when you turned back to face them? Where they confronting you or had they turned away to leave,
either walking or running?

There was a case in DC some years ago where someone robbed a jewelry store, possibly at gun point. The robber(s) left the store and jumped in a car to flee and the store owner caught up with and shot the robber(s) resulting in at least one death. He
was tried for murder. Seems if the robber had fled the scene you can't claim self defense. I believe the store owner was a foreigner from a country where that would have been OK.

My concern with the punch above is that a shove is a lesser action than a punch. More importantly, I don't know that you would be justified in expecting another shove if you simply left. So a claim of self defense might be a stretch. But the laws vary
a lot between states.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/10/2022 9:09 PM, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and
likely convicted on that basis.


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:6c0edb8d-af4d-421f-a59d-45226511b400n@googlegroups.com...

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

--
Rich

I think it depends on whether the action of pushing you in the back made you feel that your life was in danger or you risked bodily harm by doing
nothing, and if you can show that slugging him was a way of reducing the
chance that you would suffer such injury. For example, if you turn around
and you see the person coming at you with a weapon or even making a movement suggesting he is about to inflict harm or injury on you, then punching him could be taken as self-defense.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On February 11, Barry Gold wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.
Are you guilty of a crime?
Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and likely convicted on that basis.

I forgot to mention - the victim fell on his head, and suffered serious injury.

My note follows from a newspaper report of the event, just the bare
facts given above. It occurred in Los Angeles, in a stadium, where team fan enthusiasms apparently got out of hand. The report said the assailant was identified, and taken into custody. No info on how he was charged.

So, can he actually be charged with manslaughter, if his action was lawful,
and the damage was accidental?

Speaking for myself, if I'm a juror, I'll vote to acquit in such a case. Is
my attitude an outlier? Can the gov't really justify impaneling a jury, with the expectation they'll vote unanimously to convict?

Of course I'm also interested in the technical aspects of the law,
how it deals with such a case.


--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 12:28:48 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

On February 11, Barry Gold wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.
Are you guilty of a crime?
Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and likely convicted on that basis.

I forgot to mention - the victim fell on his head, and suffered serious injury.

Which one was the victim and suffered injury?

My note follows from a newspaper report of the event, just the bare
facts given above. It occurred in Los Angeles, in a stadium, where team fan enthusiasms apparently got out of hand. The report said the assailant was identified, and taken into custody. No info on how he was charged.

So, can he actually be charged with manslaughter, if his action was lawful, and the damage was accidental?

Speaking for myself, if I'm a juror, I'll vote to acquit in such a case. Is my attitude an outlier? Can the gov't really justify impaneling a jury, with the expectation they'll vote unanimously to convict?

Of course I'm also interested in the technical aspects of the law,
how it deals with such a case.

You seem to have a strong bias as indicated by your choice of labels, "assailant" and "victim". Your original post just mentions "you" and "a person" or "he". Please indicate which one is the assailant and the victim.

If the "victim" suffered a serious injury after falling on his head, was he in any position to do anything else? I'm not clear on the details.

I think the fact that you have a strong opinion based on newspaper reports shows that you are like most people. I would not have a strong opinion because I know the evidence shown in court is not at all like newspaper reports. So it is hard to say how
one might vote on a jury since that is a very different experience.

Also, manslaughter does not require intent, the details vary from state to state. For example, in Florida, second degree murder is an unintentional act. But you can be convicted of "attempted" second degree murder. Does that make any sense??? My
point is that many manslaughter cases are accidental.

BTW, the vote to acquit also has to be unanimous. In most states anyway. Anything other than unanimous is a hung jury and the case may be tried again.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:5b1ed343-4950-4bf7-a872-973637dcafd7n@googlegroups.com...

On February 11, Barry Gold wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.
Are you guilty of a crime?
Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and
likely convicted on that basis.

I forgot to mention - the victim fell on his head, and suffered serious >injury.

My note follows from a newspaper report of the event, just the bare
facts given above. It occurred in Los Angeles, in a stadium, where team
fan
enthusiasms apparently got out of hand. The report said the assailant was >identified, and taken into custody. No info on how he was charged.

So, can he actually be charged with manslaughter, if his action was lawful, >and the damage was accidental?

Speaking for myself, if I'm a juror, I'll vote to acquit in such a case.
Is
my attitude an outlier? Can the gov't really justify impaneling a jury,
with
the expectation they'll vote unanimously to convict?

Of course I'm also interested in the technical aspects of the law,
how it deals with such a case.

--
Rich

There's really not enough information here to know if you are an outlier or
how most jurors would vote in this case. Your original post asked whether slugging a person who had pushed you in the back was legit self-defense. As
I said in another post, whether or not the slugging was true self-defense hinges on whether or not the slugger was reasonably acting to avoid imminent serious physical harm. If that action resulted in the person falling,
hitting his head and dying, it's hard to see how a manslaughter charge could result from an act deemed as legitimate self-defense. But we really need
more info here.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On February 12, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.
Are you guilty of a crime?
Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and
likely convicted on that basis.

I forgot to mention - the victim fell on his head, and suffered serious injury.

Which one was the victim and suffered injury?

The pusher ended up in a coma.
Unknown if he has awoke.

My note follows from a newspaper report of the event, just the bare
facts given above. It occurred in Los Angeles, in a stadium, where team fan >> enthusiasms apparently got out of hand. The report said the assailant was
identified, and taken into custody. No info on how he was charged.
So, can he actually be charged with manslaughter, if his action was lawful, >> and the damage was accidental?
Speaking for myself, if I'm a juror, I'll vote to acquit in such a case.
Can the gov't really justify impaneling a jury, with
the expectation they'll vote unanimously to convict?

You seem to have a strong bias as indicated by your choice of labels, "assailant" and "victim".

The assailant - if he is charged - would be the puncher, due to the unfortunate consequences.

If the "victim" suffered a serious injury after falling on his head, was he in any position to do anything else?

He was out when he hit the floor.

I think the fact that you have a strong opinion based on newspaper reports shows that
you are like most people... So it is hard to say how one might vote on a jury since
that is a very different experience.

I don't have a strong opinion of this particular case. I'm well aware
that many details are missing.

I do have a strong opinion regarding self defense, in principle. Specifically, if it's justified, and there are incidental/accidental repercussions, I'm not going to convict a person of any criminal act, through post facto rationalization.

I'd be surprised if my attitude isn't the norm - but I've been surprised before -

I'll add a fyi note here: this type of thing happens once a year in a large city.
A single punch is fatal, wooo, it must have been Mike Tyson!

What actually happens is that the victim suffers a 'flash ko', he's out for maybe two seconds. Thus all the muscles relax, one's instinct to protect
the head with arms and neck fails. His head hits the ground like a bowling ball.

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/11/2022 9:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/10/2022 9:09 PM, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person.  You turn
away, he pushes you in the back.  You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication:  what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and likely convicted on that basis.

Note: I am not a lawyer and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Starting off with the "Complication: what if there are consequences of
your punch?" (we found that Pusher fell, hit his head on the pavement
and is now in a coma and might not survive.) It doesn't matter if Pusher
got a small bruise from the punch or if Pusher dies from the punch. If
the punch was self-defense, it was self-defense no matter the end results.

Moving on to the first question, from RichD and the reply from Barry.
IMHO, it's not a case of retaliation. Puncher has turned and is walking
away. Pusher pushed Puncher from behind. At the very least, this could
be considered misdemeanor battery. Puncher, at this point, has no idea
what Pusher will do next and and doesn't know if Pusher will wind up
performing more severe actions so he puts up a defense.

Now let's say that, instead of pushing Puncher, Pusher walks over to
Puncher's car and keys the side of it. *THEN* Puncher is definitely
retaliating when he cold-cocks Pusher (aka Scratcher) and it was
*definitely* retaltiation and not self-defense of any kind and *Puncher*
is the one who's guilty of, at the very least, misdemeanor battery and
possibly more, depending on if Scratcher recovers (of course, Scratcher
is guilty of vandalism as well although that may be of little comfort to Puncher as he becomes the "wife" of Big Bubba, his cellmate.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/11/2022 9:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/10/2022 9:09 PM, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and likely convicted on that basis.

Note: I am not a lawyer and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Starting off with the "Complication: what if there are consequences of
your punch?" (we found that Pusher fell, hit his head on the pavement
and is now in a coma and might not survive.) It doesn't matter if Pusher
got a small bruise from the punch or if Pusher dies from the punch. If
the punch was self-defense, it was self-defense no matter the end results.

Labeling the punch as "self-defense" does not justify it. Walking away would also be self-defense.

Moving on to the first question, from RichD and the reply from Barry.
IMHO, it's not a case of retaliation. Puncher has turned and is walking
away. Pusher pushed Puncher from behind. At the very least, this could
be considered misdemeanor battery. Puncher, at this point, has no idea
what Pusher will do next and and doesn't know if Pusher will wind up performing more severe actions so he puts up a defense.

Yes, just as he had no idea the pusher would push him. Why didn't he mount a self-defense prior to being pushed when he had no idea what the pusher would do? Was there any reason to think the push was not coming? Not knowing what to expect is common
among non-prescient beings. The question is, what made the puncher think he needed to punch rather than shove, or leave or any of a dozen other responses that don't include a risk of serious harm or death?

Now let's say that, instead of pushing Puncher, Pusher walks over to Puncher's car and keys the side of it. *THEN* Puncher is definitely retaliating when he cold-cocks Pusher (aka Scratcher) and it was
*definitely* retaltiation and not self-defense of any kind and *Puncher*
is the one who's guilty of, at the very least, misdemeanor battery and possibly more, depending on if Scratcher recovers (of course, Scratcher
is guilty of vandalism as well although that may be of little comfort to Puncher as he becomes the "wife" of Big Bubba, his cellmate.)

I have not seen anything described here that indicates the punch was necessary after the shove. I would expect there to be some other evidence such as the body language of the pusher or verbal threats or possibly an act such as drawing back a fist to
indicate an escalation. If the shove was not enough to cause you to lose balance, it seems a far cry from a threat of "imminent harm". I would simply leave. Was that not an option for puncher?

Think of this as a bear encounter. You have no reason to think you are going to punch your way out of the situation. Maybe the bear would not like a punch on the snout and leave, but if you are truly concerned about your safety after being shoved,
doesn't it make much more sense to back away from the bear? How would you know that your punch would do anything other than provoking an even more extreme response? No, escalating a physical confrontation is seldom the right thing to do for many
reasons. The possibility of serious harm or death for either party is enough to make the punch unjustifiable without more evidence of threat.

Any time you physically attack someone you run the risk of inflicting serious harm or death. Manslaughter or even second degree murder are potential charges in such a case. At very least the punch is illegal by itself.

That said, it is hard to tell what a jury would do. Lawyers love to manipulate juries.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/16/2022 2:36 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/11/2022 9:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/10/2022 9:09 PM, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense.
So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and
likely convicted on that basis.

Note: I am not a lawyer and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night. >>
Starting off with the "Complication: what if there are consequences of
your punch?" (we found that Pusher fell, hit his head on the pavement
and is now in a coma and might not survive.) It doesn't matter if Pusher
got a small bruise from the punch or if Pusher dies from the punch. If
the punch was self-defense, it was self-defense no matter the end results.

Labeling the punch as "self-defense" does not justify it. Walking away would also be self-defense.

A lot of states have "stand your ground" self-defense laws (although, I
agree that in many cases, "just walk away" can be the best way to
de-escalate a situation.)

Moving on to the first question, from RichD and the reply from Barry.
IMHO, it's not a case of retaliation. Puncher has turned and is walking
away. Pusher pushed Puncher from behind. At the very least, this could
be considered misdemeanor battery. Puncher, at this point, has no idea
what Pusher will do next and and doesn't know if Pusher will wind up
performing more severe actions so he puts up a defense.

Yes, just as he had no idea the pusher would push him. Why didn't he mount a self-defense prior to being pushed when he had no idea what the pusher would do?

There is *NO* "pre-emptive strike" self-defense law that I've ever heard
of. I.e. the attacker has to do something that makes you fearful. So
simply walking up to someone and shooting them simply "because he had a
gun strapped to his hip and I didn't know if he was going to turn and
shoot me or not" is murder. And we both can agree there.

But if someone was waving the gun in your face (even if they didn't fire
or otherwise touch you in any way with either part of their body or part
of the gun, including "touching" you with the bullet) then you'd
probably be well within your rights to shoot him first (or at least
allow his face to pummel your fist.)

Now the current situation is midway between those two. *BEFORE* the
push, Pusher may not have been threatening but maybe had just been very
angry. So Puncher tries to walk away. Then Pusher pushes him and says
"Don't you walk away from me. I'm going to kick your a**!" (we don't
know what was said at any point so this is hypothetical.) Before that
point, Puncher may have thought he *could* just walk away and avoid harm
but after that point, Puncher may have been more fearful for his safety
if he didn't fight back.

If someone assaults you (I'm just going to equate "assault" and
"battery" here even though in many areas, they aren't quite the same)
and you have good reason to think the assault will escalate/continue,
you have the right to defend yourself against further assault. A push in
the back IS an assault, even if a fairly mild one, and the circumstances
may have warranted a belief that it would be followed by more forceful/aggressive assaults.

Was there any reason to think the push was not coming? Not knowing what to expect is common among non-prescient beings. The question is, what made the puncher think he needed to punch rather than shove, or leave or any of a dozen other responses that

don't include a risk of serious harm or death?

And we don't know the full circumstances. Nor does a punch carry a large
risk of serious harm or death. MOST punches cause some pain and
discomfort for several days but nothing past that (how many boxers die
from the first upper-cut?)

But a use of force CAN warrant a larger use of force back if the forcee
feels that the forcer will escalate the level of force. You're justified
to shoot the person waving a gun in your face, even if he didn't shoot
first, and you don't have to stop at just "waving a gun back at him." If
he fired a gun at you and missed, do you only get to fire to one side of
him? "Hey, can you hold still a moment? I need to fire back but I don't
want to accidentally hit you since you missed me. Yeah, that's good.
Stand just like that and I'll shoot to one side by about 6 inches."

Now let's say that, instead of pushing Puncher, Pusher walks over to
Puncher's car and keys the side of it. *THEN* Puncher is definitely
retaliating when he cold-cocks Pusher (aka Scratcher) and it was
*definitely* retaltiation and not self-defense of any kind and *Puncher*
is the one who's guilty of, at the very least, misdemeanor battery and
possibly more, depending on if Scratcher recovers (of course, Scratcher
is guilty of vandalism as well although that may be of little comfort to
Puncher as he becomes the "wife" of Big Bubba, his cellmate.)

I have not seen anything described here that indicates the punch was necessary after the shove. I would expect there to be some other evidence such as the body language of the pusher or verbal threats or possibly an act such as drawing back a fist to

indicate an escalation. If the shove was not enough to cause you to lose balance, it seems a far cry from a threat of "imminent harm". I would simply leave. Was that not an option for puncher?

Original post: "You exchange heated words with a person. You turn away,
he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him."

There's not enough evidence either way. And I never said a punch is
ALWAYS warranted. I simply said it *CAN* be self-defense.

Think of this as a bear encounter. You have no reason to think you are going to punch your way out of the situation. Maybe the bear would not like a punch on the snout and leave, but if you are truly concerned about your safety after being shoved,

doesn't it make much more sense to back away from the bear? How would you know that your punch would do anything other than provoking an even more extreme response? No, escalating a physical confrontation is seldom the right thing to do for many
reasons. The possibility of serious harm or death for either party is enough to make the punch unjustifiable without more evidence of threat.

Are you REALLY comparing an argument between two people that are
possibly the same size/weight/age and a confrontation between someone
who weighs 90kg and that has really no defensive methods other than a
punch and a bear that weights 250kg and has long sharp claws and teeth
and saying the best move in one case is also the best move in the other?

Any time you physically attack someone you run the risk of inflicting serious harm or death. Manslaughter or even second degree murder are potential charges in such a case. At very least the punch is illegal by itself.

Yes, you could shoot a spit-wad at someone and cause them to flinch and
lose their balance and step off the curb and fall into the path of the
oncoming semi. Does that mean you're guilty of murder if someone was
waving a gun in your face and already fired four shots that missed and
you then shot the spit-wad and they died?

What about if they already fired four shots and missed so you whipped
out your gun and put one straight through the heart?

A punch "by itself" is illegal. Shooting someone in the chest "by
itself" is illegal. But neither the real-life punch or the hypothetical shooting was "by itself." They were both accompanied by a LOT of other
actions that we could not, without more info, say if they were
self-defense or not.

That said, it is hard to tell what a jury would do. Lawyers love to manipulate juries.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 10:31:45 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/16/2022 2:36 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/11/2022 9:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/10/2022 9:09 PM, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense. >>> So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and >>> likely convicted on that basis.

Note: I am not a lawyer and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Starting off with the "Complication: what if there are consequences of
your punch?" (we found that Pusher fell, hit his head on the pavement
and is now in a coma and might not survive.) It doesn't matter if Pusher >> got a small bruise from the punch or if Pusher dies from the punch. If
the punch was self-defense, it was self-defense no matter the end results.

Labeling the punch as "self-defense" does not justify it. Walking away would also be self-defense.

A lot of states have "stand your ground" self-defense laws (although, I
agree that in many cases, "just walk away" can be the best way to
de-escalate a situation.)

I can't see a purpose to "stand your ground" laws. They are difficult to apply since it requires knowledge of someone's state of mind. Worse, it allows for senseless killings, like the guy in the movie theater who was shot and killed for throwing
popcorn at someone. It hasn't gone to the jury, so we'll see which way the wind is blowing. I have to question anyone's state of mind who brings a gun into a movie theater.

Moving on to the first question, from RichD and the reply from Barry.
IMHO, it's not a case of retaliation. Puncher has turned and is walking
away. Pusher pushed Puncher from behind. At the very least, this could
be considered misdemeanor battery. Puncher, at this point, has no idea
what Pusher will do next and and doesn't know if Pusher will wind up
performing more severe actions so he puts up a defense.

Yes, just as he had no idea the pusher would push him. Why didn't he mount a self-defense prior to being pushed when he had no idea what the pusher would do?

There is *NO* "pre-emptive strike" self-defense law that I've ever heard
of. I.e. the attacker has to do something that makes you fearful. So
simply walking up to someone and shooting them simply "because he had a
gun strapped to his hip and I didn't know if he was going to turn and
shoot me or not" is murder. And we both can agree there.

"Fearful" is a state of mind. I don't see anything that specifies what must produce the state of mind. I'm trying to apply the law as I understand it. I don't see a difference in the two situations, guy with weapon looking like he might shoot me and
someone who pushed me and my being fearful that he might push me again. Actually, I see a lot more justification for shooting the guy with the gun that I perceive as a threat.

But if someone was waving the gun in your face (even if they didn't fire
or otherwise touch you in any way with either part of their body or part
of the gun, including "touching" you with the bullet) then you'd
probably be well within your rights to shoot him first (or at least
allow his face to pummel your fist.)

That's called brandishing the weapon. The state of mind of being "fearful" doesn't require a weapon be brandished. That's the problem with a law being contingent on state of mind. I've seen some people who can give a dirty look that would probably be
considered a threat and acted upon by law enforcement. They get a lot more leeway in who they stop and question.

Now the current situation is midway between those two. *BEFORE* the
push, Pusher may not have been threatening but maybe had just been very angry. So Puncher tries to walk away. Then Pusher pushes him and says
"Don't you walk away from me. I'm going to kick your a**!" (we don't
know what was said at any point so this is hypothetical.) Before that
point, Puncher may have thought he *could* just walk away and avoid harm
but after that point, Puncher may have been more fearful for his safety
if he didn't fight back.

Yep, entirely hypothetical. Threats do not require analysis of a state of mind. That would be justification in a way that can be clearly codified. "State of mind" is not so easy to define or to measure.

If someone assaults you (I'm just going to equate "assault" and
"battery" here even though in many areas, they aren't quite the same)
and you have good reason to think the assault will escalate/continue,
you have the right to defend yourself against further assault. A push in
the back IS an assault, even if a fairly mild one, and the circumstances
may have warranted a belief that it would be followed by more forceful/aggressive assaults.

Of course, but, "may have" is the problem. There's no reasonable method of determining a state of mind or if it was reasonable. Arm chair quarterbacks got to pick apart the situation and justify the beating of Rodney King. In other cases innocent
people went to jail for being black or other biases. Justifying a killing because of someone's state of mind is ripe for abuse.

Was there any reason to think the push was not coming? Not knowing what to expect is common among non-prescient beings. The question is, what made the puncher think he needed to punch rather than shove, or leave or any of a dozen other responses that

don't include a risk of serious harm or death?

And we don't know the full circumstances. Nor does a punch carry a large
risk of serious harm or death. MOST punches cause some pain and
discomfort for several days but nothing past that (how many boxers die
from the first upper-cut?)

Lots of boxers have died in the ring. What are you talking about???

My point is the puncher had other options. Punching can lead to permanent injury or death. Walking away is seldom given enough thought in such situations. You keep saying we don't know the circumstances and you are right. That doesn't provide
justification. If you are going to punch someone, the burden of proof is on you to show it was justified.

But a use of force CAN warrant a larger use of force back if the forcee
feels that the forcer will escalate the level of force. You're justified
to shoot the person waving a gun in your face, even if he didn't shoot
first, and you don't have to stop at just "waving a gun back at him." If
he fired a gun at you and missed, do you only get to fire to one side of
him? "Hey, can you hold still a moment? I need to fire back but I don't
want to accidentally hit you since you missed me. Yeah, that's good.
Stand just like that and I'll shoot to one side by about 6 inches."

Yet, there is no way to establish what anyone "feels". That's the sticky wicket.

Now let's say that, instead of pushing Puncher, Pusher walks over to
Puncher's car and keys the side of it. *THEN* Puncher is definitely
retaliating when he cold-cocks Pusher (aka Scratcher) and it was
*definitely* retaltiation and not self-defense of any kind and *Puncher* >> is the one who's guilty of, at the very least, misdemeanor battery and
possibly more, depending on if Scratcher recovers (of course, Scratcher
is guilty of vandalism as well although that may be of little comfort to >> Puncher as he becomes the "wife" of Big Bubba, his cellmate.)

I have not seen anything described here that indicates the punch was necessary after the shove. I would expect there to be some other evidence such as the body language of the pusher or verbal threats or possibly an act such as drawing back a fist to

indicate an escalation. If the shove was not enough to cause you to lose balance, it seems a far cry from a threat of "imminent harm". I would simply leave. Was that not an option for puncher?

Original post: "You exchange heated words with a person. You turn away,
he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him."
There's not enough evidence either way. And I never said a punch is
ALWAYS warranted. I simply said it *CAN* be self-defense.

If you use a punch, the repercussions are your responsibility. Just like the guy who fired at the fleeing bandits at the ATM killing a 9 year old girl. We like to imagine a perfect world where we can stand up for ourselves and vanquish the villain.
Reality is that guns are seldom the answer to any question and a punch is seldom the answer either.

Think of this as a bear encounter. You have no reason to think you are going to punch your way out of the situation. Maybe the bear would not like a punch on the snout and leave, but if you are truly concerned about your safety after being shoved,

doesn't it make much more sense to back away from the bear? How would you know that your punch would do anything other than provoking an even more extreme response? No, escalating a physical confrontation is seldom the right thing to do for many reasons.
The possibility of serious harm or death for either party is enough to make the punch unjustifiable without more evidence of threat.

Are you REALLY comparing an argument between two people that are
possibly the same size/weight/age and a confrontation between someone
who weighs 90kg and that has really no defensive methods other than a
punch and a bear that weights 250kg and has long sharp claws and teeth
and saying the best move in one case is also the best move in the other?

You love to invent scenarios. I especially like the fact that, to you, the difference is that you don't want to punch a bear, but you are good with punching a pusher who is "possibly the same size/weight/age". Actually, running from a bear is a
terrible defense. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Any time you physically attack someone you run the risk of inflicting serious harm or death. Manslaughter or even second degree murder are potential charges in such a case. At very least the punch is illegal by itself.

Yes, you could shoot a spit-wad at someone and cause them to flinch and
lose their balance and step off the curb and fall into the path of the oncoming semi. Does that mean you're guilty of murder if someone was
waving a gun in your face and already fired four shots that missed and
you then shot the spit-wad and they died?

What about if they already fired four shots and missed so you whipped
out your gun and put one straight through the heart?

A punch "by itself" is illegal. Shooting someone in the chest "by
itself" is illegal. But neither the real-life punch or the hypothetical shooting was "by itself." They were both accompanied by a LOT of other actions that we could not, without more info, say if they were
self-defense or not.

Again, many invented scenarios. I think we have reached an end to this conversation. You seem wrapped up in the idea that you should be allowed to attack someone while escalating a situation, even to the point of killing them. It looks like you want
to believe the world is simple with situations that appear to be clear cut. The reality is they are seldom clear cut. Laws like "stand your ground" are mostly about pandering to public opinion and only serve to give people the idea they can shoot who
they want, when they want, just by "feeling" threatened like the guy who killed the 9 year old girl. Why don't we make it illegal to kill anyone other than a criminal who is immediately threatening you? Oh, we do, but that doesn't stop people from
thinking they can fire random shots in the general direction of someone who stole $20 from them, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/18/2022 11:19 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 10:31:45 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/16/2022 2:36 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote: >>>> On 2/11/2022 9:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/10/2022 9:09 PM, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense. >>>>> So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and >>>>> likely convicted on that basis.

Note: I am not a lawyer and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Starting off with the "Complication: what if there are consequences of >>>> your punch?" (we found that Pusher fell, hit his head on the pavement
and is now in a coma and might not survive.) It doesn't matter if Pusher >>>> got a small bruise from the punch or if Pusher dies from the punch. If >>>> the punch was self-defense, it was self-defense no matter the end results. >>>

Labeling the punch as "self-defense" does not justify it. Walking away would also be self-defense.

A lot of states have "stand your ground" self-defense laws (although, I
agree that in many cases, "just walk away" can be the best way to
de-escalate a situation.)

I can't see a purpose to "stand your ground" laws. They are difficult to apply since it requires knowledge of someone's state of mind. Worse, it allows for senseless killings, like the guy in the movie theater who was shot and killed for throwing

popcorn at someone. It hasn't gone to the jury, so we'll see which way the wind is blowing. I have to question anyone's state of mind who brings a gun into a movie theater.

I don't really agree with them fully, either. But we're discussing the
law, not opinion, so your opinion and mine are worth only 10x what we're
paid for them (10x nothing is still nothing, ya know.)

Moving on to the first question, from RichD and the reply from Barry.
IMHO, it's not a case of retaliation. Puncher has turned and is walking >>>> away. Pusher pushed Puncher from behind. At the very least, this could >>>> be considered misdemeanor battery. Puncher, at this point, has no idea >>>> what Pusher will do next and and doesn't know if Pusher will wind up
performing more severe actions so he puts up a defense.

Yes, just as he had no idea the pusher would push him. Why didn't he mount a self-defense prior to being pushed when he had no idea what the pusher would do?

There is *NO* "pre-emptive strike" self-defense law that I've ever heard
of. I.e. the attacker has to do something that makes you fearful. So
simply walking up to someone and shooting them simply "because he had a
gun strapped to his hip and I didn't know if he was going to turn and
shoot me or not" is murder. And we both can agree there.

"Fearful" is a state of mind. I don't see anything that specifies what must produce the state of mind. I'm trying to apply the law as I understand it. I don't see a difference in the two situations, guy with weapon looking like he might shoot me and

someone who pushed me and my being fearful that he might push me again. Actually, I see a lot more justification for shooting the guy with the gun that I perceive as a threat.

It ALL depends on the circumstances and I'm not saying the punch is
always justified/justifiable. I'm simply saying it MIGHT be justified.
And the law doesn't expect someone to be a mind-reader, etc. Usually
it's a case of the jury seeing the evidence and saying to themselves "if
that was *MYSELF*, would I have been in fear of danger to myself?"

But if someone was waving the gun in your face (even if they didn't fire
or otherwise touch you in any way with either part of their body or part
of the gun, including "touching" you with the bullet) then you'd
probably be well within your rights to shoot him first (or at least
allow his face to pummel your fist.)

That's called brandishing the weapon. The state of mind of being "fearful" doesn't require a weapon be brandished. That's the problem with a law being contingent on state of mind. I've seen some people who can give a dirty look that would probably

be considered a threat and acted upon by law enforcement. They get a lot more leeway in who they stop and question.

Yes, unfortunately, they do get away with a lot more than the average
person. But many laws (and defenses) require trying to determine a
person's state of mind (either "did they mean to commit the crime?" aka
"mens rea", or, as in this case, "were they fearful for their own
safety?" and in both, the case can be very subjective.)

Now the current situation is midway between those two. *BEFORE* the
push, Pusher may not have been threatening but maybe had just been very
angry. So Puncher tries to walk away. Then Pusher pushes him and says
"Don't you walk away from me. I'm going to kick your a**!" (we don't
know what was said at any point so this is hypothetical.) Before that
point, Puncher may have thought he *could* just walk away and avoid harm
but after that point, Puncher may have been more fearful for his safety
if he didn't fight back.

Yep, entirely hypothetical. Threats do not require analysis of a state of mind. That would be justification in a way that can be clearly codified. "State of mind" is not so easy to define or to measure.

Even a threat can't be that easily codified. Is "we wouldn't want to see
you on crutches tomorrow, would we?" a threat when it comes from Guido
and just a safety warning when it comes from the ski instructor? The
demeanor or the circumstances leading up to that question are important,
as well as trying to discern the speaker's "state of mind."

If someone assaults you (I'm just going to equate "assault" and
"battery" here even though in many areas, they aren't quite the same)
and you have good reason to think the assault will escalate/continue,
you have the right to defend yourself against further assault. A push in
the back IS an assault, even if a fairly mild one, and the circumstances
may have warranted a belief that it would be followed by more
forceful/aggressive assaults.

Of course, but, "may have" is the problem. There's no reasonable method of determining a state of mind or if it was reasonable. Arm chair quarterbacks got to pick apart the situation and justify the beating of Rodney King. In other cases innocent

people went to jail for being black or other biases. Justifying a killing because of someone's state of mind is ripe for abuse.

Until we run into some Vulcans who can do a mind-meld with the person,
in some cases that all we have. "Is it a perfect system?" Of course not.
"Does it result in someone going free that should have gone to jail or
someone going to jail that should be free?" Of course it does. But that
applies to a LOT of cases/laws. We'll never have a perfect system but we
can try.

Was there any reason to think the push was not coming? Not knowing what to expect is common among non-prescient beings. The question is, what made the puncher think he needed to punch rather than shove, or leave or any of a dozen other responses that

don't include a risk of serious harm or death?

And we don't know the full circumstances. Nor does a punch carry a large
risk of serious harm or death. MOST punches cause some pain and
discomfort for several days but nothing past that (how many boxers die
from the first upper-cut?)

Lots of boxers have died in the ring. What are you talking about???

My point is the puncher had other options. Punching can lead to permanent injury or death. Walking away is seldom given enough thought in such situations. You keep saying we don't know the circumstances and you are right. That doesn't provide

justification. If you are going to punch someone, the burden of proof is on you to show it was justified.

And I never claimed otherwise. I simply was replying to Barry's original
"I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense" to show
it's not always that simple or cut-and-dried.

But a use of force CAN warrant a larger use of force back if the forcee
feels that the forcer will escalate the level of force. You're justified
to shoot the person waving a gun in your face, even if he didn't shoot
first, and you don't have to stop at just "waving a gun back at him." If
he fired a gun at you and missed, do you only get to fire to one side of
him? "Hey, can you hold still a moment? I need to fire back but I don't
want to accidentally hit you since you missed me. Yeah, that's good.
Stand just like that and I'll shoot to one side by about 6 inches."

Yet, there is no way to establish what anyone "feels". That's the sticky wicket.

Now let's say that, instead of pushing Puncher, Pusher walks over to
Puncher's car and keys the side of it. *THEN* Puncher is definitely
retaliating when he cold-cocks Pusher (aka Scratcher) and it was
*definitely* retaltiation and not self-defense of any kind and *Puncher* >>>> is the one who's guilty of, at the very least, misdemeanor battery and >>>> possibly more, depending on if Scratcher recovers (of course, Scratcher >>>> is guilty of vandalism as well although that may be of little comfort to >>>> Puncher as he becomes the "wife" of Big Bubba, his cellmate.)

I have not seen anything described here that indicates the punch was necessary after the shove. I would expect there to be some other evidence such as the body language of the pusher or verbal threats or possibly an act such as drawing back a fist to

indicate an escalation. If the shove was not enough to cause you to lose balance, it seems a far cry from a threat of "imminent harm". I would simply leave. Was that not an option for puncher?

Original post: "You exchange heated words with a person. You turn away,
he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him."
There's not enough evidence either way. And I never said a punch is
ALWAYS warranted. I simply said it *CAN* be self-defense.

If you use a punch, the repercussions are your responsibility. Just like the guy who fired at the fleeing bandits at the ATM killing a 9 year old girl. We like to imagine a perfect world where we can stand up for ourselves and vanquish the villain.

Reality is that guns are seldom the answer to any question and a punch is seldom the answer either.

Did Pusher push Puncher and then turn to walk away himself and Puncher
said "hey, you!" and then cold-cock Pusher when he turned back around?
If so, I'm in COMPLETE agreement that it was unjustified.

Did Pusher push Puncher and then, when Puncher turned around, go to take
a swing at Puncher but missed and then Puncher punched Pusher/Attempted-Puncher? If so, Puncher was completely in the RIGHT.

But we don't know since all we know is "words were exchanged, Puncher
turned to walk away, Pusher pushed him in the back and then Puncher laid
out Pusher." Based on that simple set of facts, "was it self-defense or
was it retaliation?" is unanswerable.

Think of this as a bear encounter. You have no reason to think you are going to punch your way out of the situation. Maybe the bear would not like a punch on the snout and leave, but if you are truly concerned about your safety after being shoved,

doesn't it make much more sense to back away from the bear? How would you know that your punch would do anything other than provoking an even more extreme response? No, escalating a physical confrontation is seldom the right thing to do for many reasons.
The possibility of serious harm or death for either party is enough to make the punch unjustifiable without more evidence of threat.

Are you REALLY comparing an argument between two people that are
possibly the same size/weight/age and a confrontation between someone
who weighs 90kg and that has really no defensive methods other than a
punch and a bear that weights 250kg and has long sharp claws and teeth
and saying the best move in one case is also the best move in the other?

You love to invent scenarios. I especially like the fact that, to you, the difference is that you don't want to punch a bear, but you are good with punching a pusher who is "possibly the same size/weight/age". Actually, running from a bear is a

terrible defense. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Running? Bears can run at 35mph (fastest human can run at 27mph.)
Climbing a tree? Nu-huh. Bears can climb. SLOWLY backing away while
looking at the bear out of the corner of the eye and trying to act as non-aggressive as possible? That might work and is actually probably the
BEST option. Bear has you laid out on the ground, all clawed up and one
arm in his mouth? Punching it is about the only option at that point
(but the odds are that you're not going to win the fight at that point.)

But another person about the same size as you is more of a fair fight
but also may be less inclined to let you just be "SLOWLY backing away
while looking at the person out of the corner of the eye and trying to
act as non-aggressive as possible."

Any time you physically attack someone you run the risk of inflicting serious harm or death. Manslaughter or even second degree murder are potential charges in such a case. At very least the punch is illegal by itself.

Yes, you could shoot a spit-wad at someone and cause them to flinch and
lose their balance and step off the curb and fall into the path of the
oncoming semi. Does that mean you're guilty of murder if someone was
waving a gun in your face and already fired four shots that missed and
you then shot the spit-wad and they died?

What about if they already fired four shots and missed so you whipped
out your gun and put one straight through the heart?

A punch "by itself" is illegal. Shooting someone in the chest "by
itself" is illegal. But neither the real-life punch or the hypothetical
shooting was "by itself." They were both accompanied by a LOT of other
actions that we could not, without more info, say if they were
self-defense or not.

Again, many invented scenarios. I think we have reached an end to this conversation. You seem wrapped up in the idea that you should be allowed to attack someone while escalating a situation, even to the point of killing them. It looks like you want

to believe the world is simple with situations that appear to be clear cut. The reality is they are seldom clear cut. Laws like "stand your ground" are mostly about pandering to public opinion and only serve to give people the idea they can shoot who
they want, when they want, just by "feeling" threatened like the guy who killed the 9 year old girl. Why don't we make it illegal to kill anyone other than a criminal who is immediately threatening you? Oh, we do, but that doesn't stop people from
thinking they can fire random shots in the general direction of someone who stole $20 from them, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 12:46:32 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/18/2022 11:19 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 10:31:45 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/16/2022 2:36 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/11/2022 9:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/10/2022 9:09 PM, RichD wrote:

You exchange heated words with a person. You turn
away, he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him.

Are you guilty of a crime?

Complication: what if there are consequences of your punch?

IANAL, but I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense. >>>>> So if there are any consequences to the punch, you could be charged and >>>>> likely convicted on that basis.

Note: I am not a lawyer and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Starting off with the "Complication: what if there are consequences of >>>> your punch?" (we found that Pusher fell, hit his head on the pavement >>>> and is now in a coma and might not survive.) It doesn't matter if Pusher >>>> got a small bruise from the punch or if Pusher dies from the punch. If >>>> the punch was self-defense, it was self-defense no matter the end results.

Labeling the punch as "self-defense" does not justify it. Walking away would also be self-defense.

A lot of states have "stand your ground" self-defense laws (although, I
agree that in many cases, "just walk away" can be the best way to
de-escalate a situation.)

I can't see a purpose to "stand your ground" laws. They are difficult to apply since it requires knowledge of someone's state of mind. Worse, it allows for senseless killings, like the guy in the movie theater who was shot and killed for throwing

popcorn at someone. It hasn't gone to the jury, so we'll see which way the wind is blowing. I have to question anyone's state of mind who brings a gun into a movie theater.

I don't really agree with them fully, either. But we're discussing the
law, not opinion, so your opinion and mine are worth only 10x what we're
paid for them (10x nothing is still nothing, ya know.)

Moving on to the first question, from RichD and the reply from Barry. >>>> IMHO, it's not a case of retaliation. Puncher has turned and is walking >>>> away. Pusher pushed Puncher from behind. At the very least, this could >>>> be considered misdemeanor battery. Puncher, at this point, has no idea >>>> what Pusher will do next and and doesn't know if Pusher will wind up >>>> performing more severe actions so he puts up a defense.

Yes, just as he had no idea the pusher would push him. Why didn't he mount a self-defense prior to being pushed when he had no idea what the pusher would do?

There is *NO* "pre-emptive strike" self-defense law that I've ever heard >> of. I.e. the attacker has to do something that makes you fearful. So
simply walking up to someone and shooting them simply "because he had a
gun strapped to his hip and I didn't know if he was going to turn and
shoot me or not" is murder. And we both can agree there.

"Fearful" is a state of mind. I don't see anything that specifies what must produce the state of mind. I'm trying to apply the law as I understand it. I don't see a difference in the two situations, guy with weapon looking like he might shoot me and

someone who pushed me and my being fearful that he might push me again. Actually, I see a lot more justification for shooting the guy with the gun that I perceive as a threat.

It ALL depends on the circumstances and I'm not saying the punch is
always justified/justifiable. I'm simply saying it MIGHT be justified.
And the law doesn't expect someone to be a mind-reader, etc. Usually
it's a case of the jury seeing the evidence and saying to themselves "if
that was *MYSELF*, would I have been in fear of danger to myself?"

And there is the problem. Typically a trial is about the evidence. Facts. Information of what happened and what people did. Adding the complication of what people were thinking makes the law vague and hard to apply. You could say, "
unconstitutionally vague". The guy in the movie theater who was shot for throwing popcorn at the other person most likely did not see that as a deadly threat. It would seem the guy with the gun thought popcorn was deadly enough of a threat to have shot
the guy throwing the popcorn. No one will ever know what was in either mind.

How about we have laws that allow you to defend yourself in the presence of an actual deadly threat? Popcorn can be specifically excluded from that list by statute unless it weighs over 40 lbs.

But if someone was waving the gun in your face (even if they didn't fire >> or otherwise touch you in any way with either part of their body or part >> of the gun, including "touching" you with the bullet) then you'd
probably be well within your rights to shoot him first (or at least
allow his face to pummel your fist.)

That's called brandishing the weapon. The state of mind of being "fearful" doesn't require a weapon be brandished. That's the problem with a law being contingent on state of mind. I've seen some people who can give a dirty look that would probably be

considered a threat and acted upon by law enforcement. They get a lot more leeway in who they stop and question.

Yes, unfortunately, they do get away with a lot more than the average
person. But many laws (and defenses) require trying to determine a
person's state of mind (either "did they mean to commit the crime?" aka
"mens rea", or, as in this case, "were they fearful for their own
safety?" and in both, the case can be very subjective.)

It is rare that a trial involves mens rea, very rare. That's because most laws are about actions, not thoughts. Run a red light, no mens rea involved. You didn't return the $100,000 the bank put in your account by accident, no mens rea involved. Most
laws are pretty clear. Laws can be good or laws can be bad. Involving what someone is thinking, or any other indeterminate issues is a bad idea.

Now the current situation is midway between those two. *BEFORE* the
push, Pusher may not have been threatening but maybe had just been very
angry. So Puncher tries to walk away. Then Pusher pushes him and says
"Don't you walk away from me. I'm going to kick your a**!" (we don't
know what was said at any point so this is hypothetical.) Before that
point, Puncher may have thought he *could* just walk away and avoid harm >> but after that point, Puncher may have been more fearful for his safety
if he didn't fight back.

Yep, entirely hypothetical. Threats do not require analysis of a state of mind. That would be justification in a way that can be clearly codified. "State of mind" is not so easy to define or to measure.

Even a threat can't be that easily codified. Is "we wouldn't want to see
you on crutches tomorrow, would we?" a threat when it comes from Guido
and just a safety warning when it comes from the ski instructor? The
demeanor or the circumstances leading up to that question are important,
as well as trying to discern the speaker's "state of mind."

You just constructed an example that shows how easy it is to codify. These two cases are distinguishable based on other evidence, as this is something they do put people in jail for.

If someone assaults you (I'm just going to equate "assault" and
"battery" here even though in many areas, they aren't quite the same)
and you have good reason to think the assault will escalate/continue,
you have the right to defend yourself against further assault. A push in >> the back IS an assault, even if a fairly mild one, and the circumstances >> may have warranted a belief that it would be followed by more
forceful/aggressive assaults.

Of course, but, "may have" is the problem. There's no reasonable method of determining a state of mind or if it was reasonable. Arm chair quarterbacks got to pick apart the situation and justify the beating of Rodney King. In other cases innocent

people went to jail for being black or other biases. Justifying a killing because of someone's state of mind is ripe for abuse.

Until we run into some Vulcans who can do a mind-meld with the person,
in some cases that all we have. "Is it a perfect system?" Of course not. "Does it result in someone going free that should have gone to jail or someone going to jail that should be free?" Of course it does. But that applies to a LOT of cases/laws. We'll never have a perfect system but we
can try.

Try and fail? We are talking about encouraging people to kill other people. Your arguments have become trite.

Was there any reason to think the push was not coming? Not knowing what to expect is common among non-prescient beings. The question is, what made the puncher think he needed to punch rather than shove, or leave or any of a dozen other responses

that don't include a risk of serious harm or death?

And we don't know the full circumstances. Nor does a punch carry a large >> risk of serious harm or death. MOST punches cause some pain and
discomfort for several days but nothing past that (how many boxers die
from the first upper-cut?)

Lots of boxers have died in the ring. What are you talking about???

My point is the puncher had other options. Punching can lead to permanent injury or death. Walking away is seldom given enough thought in such situations. You keep saying we don't know the circumstances and you are right. That doesn't provide

justification. If you are going to punch someone, the burden of proof is on you to show it was justified.

And I never claimed otherwise. I simply was replying to Barry's original
"I would consider this retaliation rather than self-defense" to show
it's not always that simple or cut-and-dried.

But a use of force CAN warrant a larger use of force back if the forcee
feels that the forcer will escalate the level of force. You're justified >> to shoot the person waving a gun in your face, even if he didn't shoot
first, and you don't have to stop at just "waving a gun back at him." If >> he fired a gun at you and missed, do you only get to fire to one side of >> him? "Hey, can you hold still a moment? I need to fire back but I don't
want to accidentally hit you since you missed me. Yeah, that's good.
Stand just like that and I'll shoot to one side by about 6 inches."

Yet, there is no way to establish what anyone "feels". That's the sticky wicket.

Now let's say that, instead of pushing Puncher, Pusher walks over to >>>> Puncher's car and keys the side of it. *THEN* Puncher is definitely
retaliating when he cold-cocks Pusher (aka Scratcher) and it was
*definitely* retaltiation and not self-defense of any kind and *Puncher* >>>> is the one who's guilty of, at the very least, misdemeanor battery and >>>> possibly more, depending on if Scratcher recovers (of course, Scratcher >>>> is guilty of vandalism as well although that may be of little comfort to >>>> Puncher as he becomes the "wife" of Big Bubba, his cellmate.)

I have not seen anything described here that indicates the punch was necessary after the shove. I would expect there to be some other evidence such as the body language of the pusher or verbal threats or possibly an act such as drawing back a fist

to indicate an escalation. If the shove was not enough to cause you to lose balance, it seems a far cry from a threat of "imminent harm". I would simply leave. Was that not an option for puncher?

Original post: "You exchange heated words with a person. You turn away,
he pushes you in the back. You turn around and slug him."
There's not enough evidence either way. And I never said a punch is
ALWAYS warranted. I simply said it *CAN* be self-defense.

If you use a punch, the repercussions are your responsibility. Just like the guy who fired at the fleeing bandits at the ATM killing a 9 year old girl. We like to imagine a perfect world where we can stand up for ourselves and vanquish the villain.

Reality is that guns are seldom the answer to any question and a punch is seldom the answer either.

Did Pusher push Puncher and then turn to walk away himself and Puncher
said "hey, you!" and then cold-cock Pusher when he turned back around?
If so, I'm in COMPLETE agreement that it was unjustified.

That goes against your argument of perceived threat. Or maybe that was someone else who said the counter attack was justified based on the perceived threat? The perception could have still been there. Oh, but we are judging the guy based on what "we
would do"... judging from the safety of our chairs in the jury room. That's the absurdity. Just like second guessing what someone did in the heat of the moment, when we get to watch the video, slowed 10x, freezing frames with no adrenaline in our
systems.

This is why I oppose laws that explicitly allow such self defense based on perceived threat and explicitly state that you have no reason to try to avoid the situation. Absurd.

Did Pusher push Puncher and then, when Puncher turned around, go to take
a swing at Puncher but missed and then Puncher punched Pusher/Attempted-Puncher? If so, Puncher was completely in the RIGHT.

But we don't know since all we know is "words were exchanged, Puncher
turned to walk away, Pusher pushed him in the back and then Puncher laid
out Pusher." Based on that simple set of facts, "was it self-defense or
was it retaliation?" is unanswerable.

Think of this as a bear encounter. You have no reason to think you are going to punch your way out of the situation. Maybe the bear would not like a punch on the snout and leave, but if you are truly concerned about your safety after being shoved,

doesn't it make much more sense to back away from the bear? How would you know that your punch would do anything other than provoking an even more extreme response? No, escalating a physical confrontation is seldom the right thing to do for many reasons.
The possibility of serious harm or death for either party is enough to make the punch unjustifiable without more evidence of threat.

Are you REALLY comparing an argument between two people that are
possibly the same size/weight/age and a confrontation between someone
who weighs 90kg and that has really no defensive methods other than a
punch and a bear that weights 250kg and has long sharp claws and teeth
and saying the best move in one case is also the best move in the other?

You love to invent scenarios. I especially like the fact that, to you, the difference is that you don't want to punch a bear, but you are good with punching a pusher who is "possibly the same size/weight/age". Actually, running from a bear is a

terrible defense. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Running? Bears can run at 35mph (fastest human can run at 27mph.)
Climbing a tree? Nu-huh. Bears can climb. SLOWLY backing away while
looking at the bear out of the corner of the eye and trying to act as non-aggressive as possible? That might work and is actually probably the
BEST option. Bear has you laid out on the ground, all clawed up and one
arm in his mouth? Punching it is about the only option at that point
(but the odds are that you're not going to win the fight at that point.)

But another person about the same size as you is more of a fair fight
but also may be less inclined to let you just be "SLOWLY backing away
while looking at the person out of the corner of the eye and trying to
act as non-aggressive as possible."

Any time you physically attack someone you run the risk of inflicting serious harm or death. Manslaughter or even second degree murder are potential charges in such a case. At very least the punch is illegal by itself.

Yes, you could shoot a spit-wad at someone and cause them to flinch and
lose their balance and step off the curb and fall into the path of the
oncoming semi. Does that mean you're guilty of murder if someone was
waving a gun in your face and already fired four shots that missed and
you then shot the spit-wad and they died?

What about if they already fired four shots and missed so you whipped
out your gun and put one straight through the heart?

A punch "by itself" is illegal. Shooting someone in the chest "by
itself" is illegal. But neither the real-life punch or the hypothetical
shooting was "by itself." They were both accompanied by a LOT of other
actions that we could not, without more info, say if they were
self-defense or not.

Again, many invented scenarios. I think we have reached an end to this conversation. You seem wrapped up in the idea that you should be allowed to attack someone while escalating a situation, even to the point of killing them. It looks like you want

to believe the world is simple with situations that appear to be clear cut. The reality is they are seldom clear cut. Laws like "stand your ground" are mostly about pandering to public opinion and only serve to give people the idea they can shoot who
they want, when they want, just by "feeling" threatened like the guy who killed the 9 year old girl. Why don't we make it illegal to kill anyone other than a criminal who is immediately threatening you? Oh, we do, but that doesn't stop people from
thinking they can fire random shots in the general direction of someone who stole $20 from them, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.

Yeah, I see you didn't touch this issue. I would expect the guy who fired the shot to go to jail for a long time, but this will depend on the local laws and the state of mind of the jury.

I recall a similar incident that was recorded on the 911 call. A neighbor called police when he saw his neighbor's home being burgled. The dispatcher told him repeatedly the cops were on the way and to stay in his own home. The caller could not resist
when the robbers were leaving and took a rifle with him to shoot and kill the two robbers. He was not charged because it is legal in Texas to kill a robber even if they are unarmed and pose no threat. The cops pulled up just after he killed the two
guys.

Then there was the Halloween killing of the Japanese exchange student who spoke poor English. The home owner shot and killed the guy because he was saying "Trick or Treat" with a mask on in a heavy Japanese accent. The home owner also was not charged.

The list goes on. All legal killings because of what someone was thinking. The laws are crazy and should be changed.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:19:57 -0800, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 10:31:45 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

[quoted text muted]

I can't see a purpose to "stand your ground" laws. They are difficult
to apply since it requires knowledge of someone's state of mind.

Maybe related is the "every mans home is his castle" saying ?

If you are in your own home, surely you have nowhere to "retreat" to ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/19/2022 12:51 PM, Rick C wrote:

(mega-snip)

This is my final post on this subject.

Again, many invented scenarios. I think we have reached an end to this conversation. You seem wrapped up in the idea that you should be allowed to attack someone while escalating a situation, even to the point of killing them. It looks like you want

to believe the world is simple with situations that appear to be clear cut. The reality is they are seldom clear cut. Laws like "stand your ground" are mostly about pandering to public opinion and only serve to give people the idea they can shoot who
they want, when they want, just by "feeling" threatened like the guy who killed the 9 year old girl. Why don't we make it illegal to kill anyone other than a criminal who is immediately threatening you? Oh, we do, but that doesn't stop people from
thinking they can fire random shots in the general direction of someone who stole $20 from them, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.

Yeah, I see you didn't touch this issue. I would expect the guy who fired the shot to go to jail for a long time, but this will depend on the local laws and the state of mind of the jury.

I didn't bother responding to this specific paragraph as by now it's
become clear that you want to post about how you'd LIKE the law to be
and not how it is. You also want to completely distort and/or ignore
points made and you think the world exists in this absolute black and
white with no middle ground at all. Nowhere did I say I was in favor of shooting someone in the back or shooting someone that was walking/running/driving/fleeing away or shooting someone over $20.

Is the law perfect? Of course not. Will it ever be perfect? Of course
not. Will people "get off scott-free" for things that you or I or John
Doe down the street thinks they should be locked away forever for doing?
Of course they will. Will people get locked away forever for doing
something that we think should have gotten them awarded the key to the
city? Of course they will. We live in an imperfect world and have to
deal with imperfect situations and ones we won't always agree with. It'd
be *GREAT* if we only locked away the guilty and every innocent person
was freed instantly but it'll never happen that nicely. And the below
shows the system doesn't always work. And I actually wonder if the Texas
case is true (if it is, it's definitely a law I'd disagree with.)

I recall a similar incident that was recorded on the 911 call. A neighbor called police when he saw his neighbor's home being burgled. The dispatcher told him repeatedly the cops were on the way and to stay in his own home. The caller could not

resist when the robbers were leaving and took a rifle with him to shoot and kill the two robbers. He was not charged because it is legal in Texas to kill a robber even if they are unarmed and pose no threat. The cops pulled up just after he killed the
two guys.

Then there was the Halloween killing of the Japanese exchange student who spoke poor English. The home owner shot and killed the guy because he was saying "Trick or Treat" with a mask on in a heavy Japanese accent. The home owner also was not charged.

The list goes on. All legal killings because of what someone was thinking. The laws are crazy and should be changed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 7:51:08 PM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 2/19/2022 12:51 PM, Rick C wrote:

(mega-snip)

This is my final post on this subject.

Again, many invented scenarios. I think we have reached an end to this conversation. You seem wrapped up in the idea that you should be allowed to attack someone while escalating a situation, even to the point of killing them. It looks like you

want to believe the world is simple with situations that appear to be clear cut. The reality is they are seldom clear cut. Laws like "stand your ground" are mostly about pandering to public opinion and only serve to give people the idea they can shoot
who they want, when they want, just by "feeling" threatened like the guy who killed the 9 year old girl. Why don't we make it illegal to kill anyone other than a criminal who is immediately threatening you? Oh, we do, but that doesn't stop people from
thinking they can fire random shots in the general direction of someone who stole $20 from them, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.

Yeah, I see you didn't touch this issue. I would expect the guy who fired the shot to go to jail for a long time, but this will depend on the local laws and the state of mind of the jury.

I didn't bother responding to this specific paragraph as by now it's
become clear that you want to post about how you'd LIKE the law to be
and not how it is. You also want to completely distort and/or ignore
points made and you think the world exists in this absolute black and
white with no middle ground at all. Nowhere did I say I was in favor of shooting someone in the back or shooting someone that was walking/running/driving/fleeing away or shooting someone over $20.

Is the law perfect? Of course not. Will it ever be perfect? Of course
not. Will people "get off scott-free" for things that you or I or John
Doe down the street thinks they should be locked away forever for doing?
Of course they will. Will people get locked away forever for doing
something that we think should have gotten them awarded the key to the
city? Of course they will. We live in an imperfect world and have to
deal with imperfect situations and ones we won't always agree with. It'd
be *GREAT* if we only locked away the guilty and every innocent person
was freed instantly but it'll never happen that nicely. And the below
shows the system doesn't always work. And I actually wonder if the Texas
case is true (if it is, it's definitely a law I'd disagree with.)

You misrepresent what I wrote and you construct straw man arguments. There is nothing else I can say about what you wrote.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/20/2022 1:50 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:19:57 -0800, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 10:31:45 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:

[quoted text muted]

I can't see a purpose to "stand your ground" laws. They are difficult
to apply since it requires knowledge of someone's state of mind.

Maybe related is the "every mans home is his castle" saying ?

If you are in your own home, surely you have nowhere to "retreat" to ?

The "home defense" law would be related but not quite the same. I.e. in
some jurisdictions, you can shoot someone in the back that's in your
home without authorization (there's the old joke about "go ahead and
shoot the Jehovah's Witness but then drag him inside." Of course
forensics would show he was actually killed while walking up your
walkway so it wouldn't work in practice) but if they got back out the
door, then it's probably illegal even if they're still on the porch.

So I don't think it's so much a "there's no place to retreat to" (you
may also be pinned into the corner in a park with a fence around it,
etc) as it is just the "every mans home is his castle (and he has every
right to defend it against an intruder.)" You CAN retreat back out the
door that he came in (if you're now on that side of him. Or out the back
door, etc) but yet I don't think any laws say you HAVE to retreat from a
home invasion situation, even if that same state says you need to at
least TRY to retreat if it's anywhere other than the home.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)