He probably has a gun or a lawyer. Or both. You have a conscience. Its not worth it.
If you were in high school, you could have punched back without landing in jail and being sued for everything you have. Not so as an adult.
You may have even gotten away with this with careful planning 50 years ago, when certain disputes were routinely settled in the parking lot. Those days are past. What madsircool said.
He doesn’t have a gun; they’re in Canada (“Grade 12” etc). And he doesn’t have a lawyer; they’re 22-23 [Sophomore year (15-16) + 7].
McJesus it is against the rules of this message board to plan criminal activity. Therefore, purely hypothetically, if a young Canadian man (not you!) were still pissed about an attack 7 years later, I would definitely advocate that he go beat his tormentor’s ass! If the Young Canadian doesn’t do it, when is it going to stop bothering him?
He should definitely add, just before Bully A loses consciousness, “This is for Bully B!”
Just kidding, McJesus. Grow up and forget about high school. You may be bigger and taller, but you’re clearly not a fighter, so you run a very high risk of being his bitch. Again.
I think you’re about ten years out, at least when you’ve had a lot to drink.
A punch 7 years ago isn’t worth a fight now. Go over it, you certainly have better things to spend your energy on. Besides, he’s probably now a very different person from who he was in high school. And hopefully, so are you.
So one guy jokingly punches the other in the stomach very lightly and the other guy actually punches him back in the face for real? And everyone (on the first page anyway) thinks this is a reasonable exchange? The face puncher sounds like a nutcase. Maybe you should have been able to get a sense of that before joking w/ him, hard to say without being there. Or maybe the lesson is don’t ask questions on this board that assume the audience has experience with common social interactions.
Oh, there’s someone here who doesn’t understand how to interact with people alright.
I mean, the idea that someone should physically assault another person, then be immune to the consequences by claiming he was joking?
That’s the realm of poorly socialized 12 year olds.
The idea that physically defending yourself from a physical assault makes you a nutter?
That’s the realm of the worst bullies.
How much physical interaction did you have with other young men growing up? Did you play sports? Have brothers or friends that you rough housed with?
I think the problem is that to most people who grow up doing such things, a joking punch to the stomach as described is immediately seen as just that, while those who did not experience this growing up or who are very uncomfortable with physical contact for some other reason perceive it as an actual threat. This message board is unsurprisingly heavier in the non physical contact crowd than the general population.
No one is reasonable on this story. None of the punches are okay. Since no one was seriously injured, it doesn’t matter whether one was less reasonable than the other. It’s all petty assault and none of it should have happened.
Since that is pretty much what this thread is about, I’d say it very much matters whether one action was less reasonable than the other. If guy A playfully nudges guy B in the stomach and guy B stabs at him with a knife but misses, the two actions are not equal simply because no harm was done.
A playful nudge in the stomach is not an attack, and not a petty assault. Someone who doesn’t yet feel comfortable with you or is not comfortable with physicality may feel it is an invasion of personal space. Individuals with psychological issues or very limited experience in interactions with other male members of the species may interpret it as an attack. But whatever the perceptions, it is no way comparable to a punch in the face, which has the potential of doing serious and permanent damage.
Hitting is assault and battery. Don’t hit. Don’t hit back. Don’t hit first. Don’t hit second. Don’t hit third. Period.
There is only one, simple answer to the OP’s question: You aren’t “allowed” to hit this guy, no matter what he did in the past.
It is assault. Its unwanted contact. Its also a sign of one person trying to show dominance. Depending on the place of the incident and its social context it can do serious psychological damage. Whats the point? If you need to show dominance and think you are tough go to an MMA or boxing gym and throw on the gloves.
Unwanted contact = assault? Rather overreactive, don’t you think? I’m sure nobody will object when I punch someone in the nose for shaking my hand too vigorously (which is infinitely more likely to cause injury than what the OP seemed to be describing) or hugging me when I don’t ask for it.
Where did you get that from?
Give me a break. I won’t say no situation ever existed where that is possible, but let’s stick with what we are dealing with.
You have a complete misunderstanding of what took place. It seems pretty clear it was meant as a friendly gesture.
Yeah. I always accentuate my friendly gestures with a suckerpunch in the stomach. A punch by its very nature is an aggressive act. When you do it in a public place in front of other people its an act that if you dont respond is seen as weakness. The OP was also much bigger than the punchee. Just about everything was wrong with his action.
Completely irrelevant - these two people are passing acquaintances at best though likely closer to strangers. There is no shared expectation, or history for that matter,of rough housing.
The common law definition of “battery” is an unwanted touch. Period. Any unwanted touch is battery. There is no ambiguity. It doesn’t matter the intended meaning of the touch. T
he level of harm caused by the touch only tells you the seriousness of the battery. Even if there’s no harm, it’s still battery.
“Assault” is attempted battery, thus, any attempt to touch someone without his or her permission is assault.
That wasn’t my point. I was more trying to get a sense of how it was that some of the posters seemed to have a complete inability to understand how a “punch” to the stomach could be a friendly gesture and not a life threatening assault that called for the use of lethal force in response. My hypothesis was that they grew up in situations where physical contact, sports, or roughhousing was absent. Similar to how some dogs when taken from their mother and litter mates at too early of an age do not understand friendly play cues from other dogs and respond with inappropriate levels of aggression.
As to whether this was a good scenario for a friendly play cue… hard to say without being there.
So the person who hugs me without permission has assaulted me? This should illustrate how using legal definitions to determine appropriate response doesn’t necessarily work.
Assaulted and battered. But yes. An unwanted touch is battery.
That legal definition works perfectly well in non-legal situations. Don’t touch people who don’t want to be touched, whether it’s a handshake or a hug or a playful punch. There’s a good rule for not being an asshole.
So if someone assaults and batters me with an unwanted hug, do you think it is a reasonable response to punch them in the face?