Can you really say anything to somebody and they can't 'legally' hit back?

[njtt]

Are you seriously surprised that it is illegal to physically attack someone (who is not already physically attacking you)? Good grief!

[UltraVires]

@jtur88

I would say the operative words would be CREDIBLE and IMMEDIATE threat. If a person utters a threat, you would be justified in taking physical defensive action if the person was capable of carrrying out the threat, and threatening to do so in a timely manner, and the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to regard the threat as genuine. Courts are often guided by the “reasonable person doctrine”, in which all kinds of evidence can be overlooked if a reasonable person would know better. An example would be the hotel with a sign that says “Free Breakfast”. The reasonable person doctrine would limit the hotel’s obligation to serve breakfast only to hotel guests.

There mere threat of "I am going to . . . " leaves itself open to alternative defensive measures, such as reporting the threat to the proper authorities. or simply walking away.

As I think about it, I believe you are correct. I know that insanity pleas rarely work, but this hypo is pretty rare as well. I would try the old “irresistible impulse” defense to socking a guy who said he was planning at some future time to rape my daughter.

Practically, though, I can’t imagine a cop or a prosecutor arresting or bringing charges against a man punching a guy in these circumstances.

But, I agree, I think that the OP was looking for non-self defense or defense of others scenarios that would apply. I don’t think that there are any, legally and by the book, justifications for force when you are simply being insulted.

[Critical1]

I cannot remember the show but it was a guy who had left Scientology and was helping others who had also left when the Church kept sending 3 guys to harass him at his home, he would film them all the time until one day one of them said the wrong thing and got socked for it. reviewing the video evidence the judge dropped all charges.

granted this was over a period of time not some random one time thing.

[aceplace57]

A question for the discussion.

Does the newer bullying laws mitigate this? If for example a guy is constantly saying stuff about your wife as you walk to the store. Day after day he’s out there on the corner making your life hell. Not responding simply encourages the guy to get even more outrageous.

At what point would that be bullying? Or some chargeable offense?

[TriPolar]

@aceplace57

A question for the discussion.

Does the newer bullying laws mitigate this? If for example a guy is constantly saying stuff about your wife as you walk to the store. Day after day he’s out there on the corner making your life hell. Not responding simply encourages the guy to get even more outrageous.

At what point would that be bullying? Or some chargeable offense?

Charges are different than hitting back. There’s a lot of situations where someone could be arrested for their behavior or sued. And plenty more where the police will have a word with someone, and once that’s on record, repeat behavior will more likely lead to charges.

[md2000]

@jtgain

I’m reminded of Buzz Aldrin punching the moon hoaxer who wouldn’t leave him alone. Buzz walked around asking everyone to “Get this guy out of my face” and when he had enough, he decked the guy. The DA refused to press charges.

Years ago, Jean Chretien, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, was doing a presentation to an assembly of Boy Scouts in a park in Ottawa. Some nerdly looking guy at the back was heckling him with a bullhorn over an unrelated issue. (Try doing that with the president of the USA - you won’t get within 5 blocks!)

When the PM began walking through the crowd, the guy with the bullhorn got closer and closer. Eventually Chretien, obviously royally pissed off, grabbed him by the neck and started choking him. Then his bodyguards jumped in, wrestled the heckler away and charged him (the heckler) with assault. During the melee with police, apparently he chipped a tooth. IIRC the guy was released and charges dropped later, but Chretien was never charged. It helps to be in charge of the system.

[Martini_Enfield]

Not quite what the OP was asking about, but there’s also the principle of Absolute Privilege*, where pretty much anything said in Parliament (at least in a number of Westminster-based countries such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) is immune from civil actions, contempt of court proceedings, and so on arising from their remarks.

This has famously been used (in the UK) to reveal the name of a footballer about whom details of his private life were covered by a “superinjunction” (a legal gagging order making it illegal to reveal certain details about an individual/company, and - more importantly - making it illegal to even reveal that such a gagging order exists), and also to get around the Official Secrets Act by declaring that a prominent yet techically “Secret” building in the centre of London (and which everyone could see, and was not in any way secret at all; and there was no reason to keep it a secret) actually existed and was located at a specific address.

*No, not a premium Vodka

[lawbuff]

@Martini_Enfield

Not quite what the OP was asking about, but there’s also the principle of Absolute Privilege*, where pretty much anything said in Parliament (at least in a number of Westminster-based countries such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) is immune from civil actions, contempt of court proceedings, and so on arising from their remarks.

The U.S. Constitution has a similar provision for Congress members, for what is said on the debate floor, they shall not be questioned elswhere.

They are also Privileged from Arrest while going to and from a vote, per the Constitution, but this only applies to arrest on the Civil Process.

My state has a Privilege from arrest statute for those going to and from voting, going to and from court, to and from worship service, but again, it is only on the Civil Process, which is basically an arrest for debt fraud, sort of a Debtor’s Prison comparison.

[Acsenray]

@Colibri

BlinkingDuck’s OP, and the post quoted above, imply that the motivation of the attacking party is anger, rather than responding to an immediate threat (“inflammatory,” “getting angry,” “lashing out”.) While responding to a credible threat may be a legitimate defense, punching out someone just because their words made you very angry would be less so. (This is not to say that in some cases, as Buzz Aldrin’s, authorities might decide not to charge someone who was only provoked verbally.)

I believe that this is the right answer. “What he said pissed me off” is not a defense to a charge of battery.

[Bricker]

@jtgain

Well, practically speaking, you can be arrested for pretty much anything that some cop decides you did wrong. In that situation, the fact that the perp threatened “rape” even at a future point in time would allow for reasonable defense of the third party…i.e. your 12 year old daughter.

Aren’t you in law school now?

What does the affirmative defense of “defense of another” typically require?

[DelightfulExperiment]

It depends entirely on jurisdiction.

In most jurisdictions, it’s up to the judge you get. There’s a huge variance between what one judge or another will rule.

There is usually a line, but it’s blurred by the subjectivity of the legal system.

Also usually factored in is the amount of damage you did. If you broke somebody’s nose vs. slapping them, for example. Keep in mind that it’s always possible to kill somebody by hitting them (in the case of very bad luck, particularly if they fall).
Good rule of thumb: Just don’t hit people.

[GusNSpot]

I may chose to die for you.
I won’t die because of you.
The sanctity of life isn’t.

Bout covers it for me.