“Civil discourse” involved fisticuffs when someone disagrees with you? Is that what you’re saying?
Again, no. A ‘screamed obscenity’ is no justification for hitting someone. Not ever.
Of course, if the protest is on the other side of the roadblock, and you choose to plow through it in order to be able to then claim to be in fear of being dragged out of the car by the people that you are trying to run over, does that change it at all?
If they want to justify and legalize vehicular homicide for protesters, I only ask that that apply to any and all jaywalkers.
Good thing i’m not defending it, nor would I in court 
If you’re not defending it, I’m not sure what the hell you think you’re doing. You’re blaming the victim for being hit.
My read of Kearsen1’s argument is that punching someone who yells “fuck you” should be prosecuted as battery, but that it is unreasonable to yell “fuck you” at people and be surprised if they respond with violence. I don’t think this amounts to victim blaming until it is implied or stated that the victim is at fault, and the perpetrator less responsible, for the battery.
~Max
James Fields tried that one as a defense; unsuccessfully.
I don’t think people often find themselves unexpectedly in the middle of a demonstration, caught in the middle of multiple street blockages that they couldn’t avoid, with no way out that doesn’t involve running people over. Generally it’s possible to see people in the street in time to reverse course and get out of there.
And even if one does: that doesn’t make it permissible to run over people who aren’t actually attacking you, just because someone was actually attacked in 1992. If you’re walking down a street on which people have been mugged, and realize there are several people walking down the block behind you and getting closer, you’re not supposed to turn around and start shooting just because they’re justifiably making you nervous.
My read of Kearsen1 ’s argument is that he explicitly said that his position didn’t rely on “Fuck you” being battery, and that you are right and the he does think that yelling “Fuck you” at, well, anyone is equivalent to poking a rabid bear with a stick and that you have the temerity to do so you deserve whatever the person decides to do to you.
And he is most definitely stating that the victim is at fault, and that argument is never made except as a way to reduce the fault applied to the attacker, who was ‘provoked’.
I’m afraid the only person who can clarify whether Kearsen1 believes the punch should be prosecuted as battery, or the insult, is Kearsen1. As to whether it is victim-blaming to say a victim deserved to be punched while holding that the person punching deserves to be prosecuted, well, I’ll be content agreeing to disagree. You are free to evoke further debate from me by either following the link to the victim-blaming topic, or by making your own dedicated topic on that question, or by sending a private message.
~Max
I’m sure you’re right…but I’d prefer to take my chances with the legal system. (To be specific, I’m talking about having my car stopped by people who are demonstrating threatening/violent behavior, such as pounding on my car windows, screaming threats, etc. Not people who are just standing there.)
A very bad thing happened in the past, and that has remained with me (in the fantasyland, of course, of this kind of discussion. The closest road stoppage was a month ago, on a freeway not a mile from where I live…but it was non-violent. I wasn’t involved in any way, but wouldn’t have felt the need to run anyone down. Up the ante, and I’ll take the action of a jury over the action of a riot.)
Well, yes, if people are actually attacking you, if you’ve got reason to think they’re just about to break through the windows, that would change the situation. (I don’t think just shouting would be sufficient, or a random bang on the car that’s not a serious attempt to get in.)
I took
to imply that the fear of being dragged from the car came from being among demonstrators and thinking of what happened to Denny, not from having people actively trying to break the windows while screaming threats. If I’d been trying to describe the latter situation, I’d have said not that the fear arose from remembering Denny, but that it arose from the beating on the windows and the threats.
Still dubious that you’d be justified in running over people who weren’t attacking you, though; although I suppose you might be able to avoid that.
I already stated, numerous times that the punch was assault or battery. Begbert2, is just fighting his fantasy fight with no regard for the words i’ve written, as happens all to often here. The victim isn’t at fault, but he is complicit by the choice he made to be profane in the way he went about protesting.
Protest civilly and likely no hurt befalls him.
An interesting contradiction in only nine words.
Good to know where you place the limits of free speech.
Indeed, its a tough pill to swallow that your actions may have repercussions that you don’t like, or approve of.
Parenting 101: Tell your kids it is ok to shout at someone they do not know a hearty Fuck You!, as the law is on their side!
Or that are illegal and unjustifiable. It’s an unfair and sometimes truly shitty world where criminals break laws and hurt victims. And even worse, people will come along and then try to blame the victim in order to justify the actions of the criminal. That is sometimes a tough pill to swallow, agreed.
You said that they were not at fault, but that they were complicit.
So, were they complicit or not? Your statement contradicts itself. Just seeking clarification.
That is good advice. Kids should be taught their civil rights, and not be intimidated out of using them because there are criminals who may want to shut them up.
I don’t know if I would use those exact words, but you have the right sentiment.
Of course, if we lived in an authoritarian nation, where the law is not on your side when it comes to speech, then maybe parents should have a different talk with their children.
It’s actually fucking terrible advice if you want your kid to be safe and not hiding behind some police action that will do nothing to prevent the ass beating he/she may take in the meantime. Of course, if you are of the mindset that as long as they get to do what they want, freely then sure, advise away.
Complicit may be the wrong term, please replace it with always responsible for their own actions.
You mean like the guy who punched someone who said mean words? Shouldn’t he face consequences? You’re arguing that the scales are balanced.
Yes running coach! You are getting it!
He is ALSO responsible for his actions! Now we are getting somewhere.
Has he been arrested and charged? if not, then no, he’s not being held responsible.
Regardless, shouting mean things and being beaten for it is not equal to the person doing the beating getting away with it. Though you seem to be fine with it.
It is irrelevant whether he has been charged, or will be charged to my feelings that he runs the risk of going to jail for his actions. He is still responsible for them regardless of police action, or not.
And I am fine with it. They both got what they wanted, which is why I said it was a win-win.
You only consider it a win-win because an insult against Dear Leader was met with violence. It appears the assailant is not facing any jail time.