I’m unsure if this is better in GQ (for a factual answer) or QZ (because COVID related) but I’ll go with the latter. I am old, tall, and may walk unsteadily, so I often carry a cane or hiking stick, often with spiky ends. With my arm extended, that end is 5-6 feet away. Consider these conditions:
[ul]
[li] I am in a jurisdiction under “6-foot social distancing” orders.[/li][li] I’m in a public space like a plaza or a business space like a market.[/li][li] Someone, masked or not, approaches me, and I have no retreat space.[/li][/ul]
Am I justified to extend my cane to warn the person to stay back?
Am I justified to touch them with the cane to enforce distancing?
If they keep coming and I draw blood, is my assault unjustified?
I hope not to encounter such a situation but Ya Never Can Tell.
If you were to give some clear verbal cues about why you were brandishing your stick, as opposed to just pointing it at someone and muttering, “You’re all doomed!” I’d say you’ve developed decent grounds to protect your bubble as though your life depended on it.
I would think almost certainly not justified. There is no reasonable fear of harmful or offensive contact unless you have reason to know that the person has the virus. Just a fear that they might have the virus is, IMHO, no different than thinking that the guy standing next to you in normal times might pick your pocket or pull out a knife.
That calculus might change if, say, 40% of people walking around have the virus, but the chances that person who is standing next to you has the virus is so negligible as to make force an excessive response.
Reminds me of the confused 86 year old woman with dementia killed with a head injury when she was shoved to the ground by someone angry she got too close.
You hurt them it’s battery, you threaten them it’s assault. They fall, hit their head and die, it’s manslaughter. You’d deserve your jail time and hopefully your sense of guilt and regret. A loud “Excuse me! Six feet please!” is allowed and should suffice.
I suspect the outcome of that situation would largely depend on two things: first, your jurisdiction; second, whether you can convince others (police, prosecutor, judge, jury) that the details of the event made your reaction appropriate. I mean, if someone who is clearly a zombie approaches you, of course you’d be justified in defending your life at the expense of theirs; but if you’re in a grocery store, the other person is wearing that store’s uniform and carrying some boxes of pasta to place on the shelf behind you, then you’d find it difficult to convince anyone you should not be held responsible for your act of violence. Then again, if someone is infected with SARS-CoV-2 and intends to kill you by infecting you, they might still be able to convince a jury a few years later that they were entirely innocent in the entire encounter.
If you fear for your life and you have a reasonable sense of the risks you are facing, act appropriately – if you are primarily motivated by a common survival instinct, I suspect most jurisdictions would not be more harsh on you than the infection you might have warded off. But the best way to avoid being found culpable by a court is to avoid being haled into court, and the best way to do that is to be conscientious in your dealings with other people.
And now for something completely different. Peopleofwalmart. Com first page has a guy who has taken those six foot foam sticks for a pool and placed them around him
Which brings us to a Stand Your Ground complication. And that seems relevant because of the ridiculous [del]murders[/del] ground-standing people get away with.
Ok a tad over the line with the delivery, but the spirit of the observation I think remains relevant. Under the right, and not far-fetched circumstances I think there is precedent under SYG laws where we could see Rio position himself such that a passerby would get within six feet of him as a matter of course, and Rio could brain said passerby and go on his way without seeing the inside of a courtroom.
I believe the “stand your ground” debate, regardless of one’s position, is accounted for in my use of the phrases “reasonable sense of risks” and “act appropriately,” which will vary depending on time, place and context. I’ve studied enough law to provide a substantial answer to the original post and also to acquire sufficient skill to avoid forming any definite substance in said answer.
(As an aside to the OP – I doubt anyone who has enough knowledge to answer your question would do so outside the context of an established attorney-client relationship. In the future, you might be better served by posing questions like this as a hypothetical: “Suppose Steve, who often carries a cane or hiking stick as a mobility aid…” This isn’t a matter of evasiveness but rather one of fairness, as the nuances of fact and law – and, I believe, personality – are decisively important with edge cases, and if it weren’t an edge case it probably wouldn’t be a very interesting question.)
As for our buoyant shopper, I have more sympathy for him than my neighbors who treat social distancing with disdain.
Please give one example where a SYG law would come into play simply by being within six feet of someone over generalized Covid-19 fears.
No. I am an attorney. This whole “I am an attorney, but not your attorney” stuff is generally overblown. The test is would a reasonable person believe that an attorney/client relationship has been formed. I think it is overly protective to make that disclaimer on a general internet messaging board as nobody here could seriously think that I have agreed to represent them by making anonymous comments to an anonymous person.
I do sympathize with people wanting others to observe social distancing, but not the idea that the person will enforce it with personal ad hoc violence. As another poster said, just firmly tell the person to please step away. Even though the law does say to stay six feet away, a violation of that law does not become an assault or battery.
But here’s my question - is 6’ a recommendation of how far people should stay from each other, or a prohibition against getting that close to someone?
-If the former (which I believe), I feel the onus is on the individual to decide whether or not to go somewhere that he/she might come w/in 6’ of someone else. It does not guarantee you a right to an inviolable 6’ radius around you wherever you go.
-If the latter, sure, go ahead and jab someone w/ your spiky hiking stick.
Another wrinkle, does the OP think he can only jab someone “defensively”, or can he apply it “offensively”? Say he’s in a store, examining product on the shelf. Someone else comes down the aisle near him. I assume this is the sort of situation where he wants to jab at someone. But what if someone else is examining product, and taking a long time to decide. Can the OP jab the slow shopper to speed him along?
Hell - why stop w/ “pointed sticks” (or bananas! :D)? Why not draw your concealed carry to encourage someone to back off?
Like I said, hard to believe the OP was intended seriously. I think one “benefit” some folk are deriving from this crisis is an excuse to criticize other peoples’ behavior and choices.
It’s a recommendation. And the whole point is that it’s unlikely that any sneeze or cough will travel more than 6 feet (although that’s not 100%). I do think people are taking that 6 feet rule a bit too seriously. Try to keep your distance, especially if your going to be in close proximity for a while, like standing in line. But you aren’t going to spontaneously catch the disease if you get within 5 feet of someone.
I agree. Especially w/ asymptomatic people. Which is why I think it silly when people scurry past me walking down the sidewalk - which is certainly their prerogative.
I do have issues w/ prohibitions against social gatherings - in IL, no gatherings of any size outside of immediate family/household. IMO, social gatherings where people keep their distance - especially outside, bear precious little risk. But, I am not eager to incur criticism from neighbors.
The entire idea behind social distancing is the assumption that every person out there might be infectious. Viral shedding by asymptomatic people can occur, so the safest approach is to assume everyone is infectious.
I’ve suggested before, for folk who are very concerned about this, the safest approach is for them to affix a plastic bag securely over their head. That way, they can be 100% certain that they will neither get nor transmit cooties.
Thank you for the correction. I find quite informative these instances where the practice of law is diametrically opposed to the lessons I received in law school.
I think using a minimum amount of physical force to maintain social distancing is completely and totally fine. This would obviously start with speaking to the person, and like extending your arms (or cane, since you have one) to push against someone intruding on your space.
I have a hard time seeing that a violent shove (like the one in the new article above) or a punch can be justified unless someone is doing something quite aggressive, like making a point of coughing on you.
It does not strike me reasonable to argue that no touching is permissible, as the government is literally telling people to maintain space between you and others. I don’t see that as advice that people must continually retreat if people are intentionally intruding on them.
That’s quite possibly the most ignorant thing I’ve read today, congratulations. So tell us, you with your giant brain, what measures you would use to protect yourself from something you can’t see, and which is known to be transmitted by well-appearing people? So far the best I’ve heard is “keep distant from even well-appearing people”, but it’s evident you have the One True Failsafe. So please, share it with the group! Or wait, here’s a n even better idea! Why don’t you wrap yourself in a black Hefty and seal it up? That way you won’t have to see people doing what little they can to keep from getting sick!
