But, no, the likelihood is precisely what matters to OP’s question. We can’t go around assaulting other people because, in the unlikely, absolute worst case scenario, they might be intending to assault us.
So, because the situation has the potential to escalate to violence, OP can be justified in preemptively so escalating it himself?
I don’t think it was. However, people make mistakes. Maybe OP was standing next to he guy’s car. Maybe there had been recent break-ins at the lot. Maybe not, of course. Who knows what he was thinking? But, “I have really very little idea of what’s going on, but this is riskier than I’d like, so I’m going to maybe kill this guy without even trying to prevent the outbreak of violence” is not ok. You have to make some effort to avoid a fight before starting one yourself.
YwtF has said, so clearly, so many times, that s/he doesn’t think this.
:mad:
True, it seems I lost track of who had said what. Sorry.
Not that that’s his fault (it isn’t), but in post #175 he quibbled with my post #173, where my position seems really, really similar to his. I assumed he was disputing my discussion of probability because it had some bearing on a disagreement about the larger question in the thread. Hopefully you can see where the mistake might be made.
Yes I can see that. I take back my :mad: and give you a nice neutral ;).
Maybe that would be a good question for a new thread, because it has fuck-all to do with this one. This thread was about whether split would be justified in using deadly force in the situation as he described it. I haven’t seen any argument that would lead to a “yes.”
I’ll go ahead and answer your question - no I don’t think it was reasonable. Not that it matters.
It matters because it explains why the guy made the OP fearful and concerned about his personal safety.
You wanna go ahead and dismiss that as irrelevant? Free country and all, so do that. But that dismissiveness is exactly what the OP has complained about in this thread.
You are not the only person who brought up probabilities in this thread. I was really addressing anyone who thought that should factor into the OP’s decision to act, not you specifically.
Truth is, most people who find themselves thrust in a situation that feels life or death aren’t going to be in a state-of-mind to calculate risk based on assumed probabilities. I would even go so far as to say if they find themselves capable of doing mental math, then that means they aren’t truly in a life or death situation.
Well certainly we’re not doing mental math or assigning exact probabilities in that situation, but we do (or should if we’re not incapacitated by terror) have an intuitive sense of what is or isn’t relatively likely to be happening. It’s heuristics, not arithmetic.
But of course the probability (however derived) matters, because OP is asking if violence is justified, and it’s only justified if he has good reason to think an imminent attack from the other guy is, well, likely. If OP initiates because he wrongly feels that an attack is imminent, that’s a mitigating factor in how blameworthy he is, but he’s still not justified.
I think of it like this.
Suppose its at night and I’m walking down the street, visibly female and alone. The neighborhood is of questionable character and I’m pretty defenseless if shit-starting starts.
A car slowly sidles up next to me and the driver rolls the window down. He says “hey there honey” in a slurred way and then leers at me as I try to make my way. The car inches along in a menancing fashion. Rather than egg him on, I say nothing and keep on trucking.
Suddenly he stops the car and hops out, along with another drunk dude who riding shotgun. They both come up rushing towards me.
In that instant, all that will be running through my head is how to protect myself. While it might be prudent to first consider whether it is more probable that these guys just want to flirt rather want to hurt me, in all likelihood I won’t be able to do that. Running and getting ready to spray them with mace will be dominating my thoughts.
Now for lethal force, you might say I should do something more before pulling out my concealed gun and pulling the trigger. I agree with this, but not because of any question of probabilities. I believe lethal force should be a last resort; retreat comes first. So if I run, screaming my head off, and these knuckleheads give chase, then I won’t be above shooting them.
This is how I see the how probability thing. I don’t think the OP was in the type of fight or flight situation that would merit force because I believe his instinct would have been to run, not stand there pondering probabilities.
You keep trying to convince us that split was justified in being concerned and frightened in that situation. We all agree with that. Everyone would be. What I would have going through my mind at that time would be “Is this guy about to attack? What are my options if he does? Can I whip out my blackjack in time to defend myself? Can I run? Can I de-escalate by calmly talking to him?”
Exactly. split’s thoughts should have been running or getting ready to defend himself, not preparing to do his own attack if his ride hadn’t arrived when it did.
Everyone agrees that he was scared and justifiably so. It’s just that you can’t attack someone just because you’re scared. It has to be your only option left. In the OP, split was asking if he’d be justified in attacking, and the answer is “no.” If anyone disagrees with that, I’d like to hear his reasoning. So far I haven’t seen anything.
Actually, no we don’t all agree with that. Your own contributions to this thread show an annoying tendency to belittle the OP’s feelings.
Take for instance, your first post in the thread:
Because obviously the question struck him as bizarre, rude, and provocative.
If a creep on the street asked a female pedestrian “Hey, what you got under than skirt?” would you be wondering why she opts to ignore this? Silence could make the creep mad, maybe even violent, but so what? No one should be accusing her of escalating conflict just because she doesn’t return a rude question with a polite response.
I put that question in bold because it hits on the crux of the whole freaking debate here. There is no “good” reason for a stranger to approach someone in that manner; and that is what you’re missing. A jerk may think they have a good reason (just like that creep may feel entitled to know what’s under a woman’s skirt), but that doesn’t make them right, nor does it make the OP wrong in finding their actions offensive and hostile.
By accusing the OP of escalating things simply because he doesn’t want to humor a prejudiced jerk, you reveal a great deal of bias.
So now let’s look at what you’re saying now.
This is the first time in this thread that I’ve seen you acknowledge this, so pardon me for disagreeing. Up until now, you’ve faulted the for OP “escalating” things simply by not answering a jerk who you seem invested in portraying as potentially well-meaning and harmless.
No one disagrees with this. For the last couple pages, my only interest has been in refuting those who seem to be dismissing the OP’s claim to fear, not self-defense.
OK, I guess we’ve been talking past each other.
My earlier comments about split’s choosing to escalate instead of de-escalate didn’t affect the legal question, it was me wondering why he would choose the course of action that puts him in more danger instead of less. Legally, he didn’t have to answer, but if his goal was to stay safe and avoid violence, he should have de-escalated by talking to the guy.
Truth be told, none of know what would have happened if the OP had answered him. It assumes the guy’s question was in good faith, and there’s good reason to doubt that.
It kind of makes my skin scrawl to see people advocate that black people put up with questions like this or else be blamed for inciting violence. Do you understand why that might be?
I haven’t seen anyone blame split for inciting violence by not answering. We have challenged him on why wouldn’t he want to talk to the guy, because it would be in split’s own interest to do so. I have no doubt that the guy who walked up to split was an asshole, but just for the sake of protecting himself, split could easily have reduced the level of tension and confrontation by calmly explaining to that asshole why he didn’t need to be confrontational.
It’s just common sense in protecting yourself. The other guy gets all the blame, legally and morally, but why would you want to taunt an armed asshole? Just to be right?
People seem to be advocating that anyone in this situation try to de-escalate the situation, regardless of the races of the individuals. And no one appears to place blame on the OP for inciting violence by not responding to the question/accusation. The situation may escalate in part due to not responding to the question, but the violence is all on the person who swings or threatens first.
I’ve lost track of who was black and who was white in the OP, because it really doesn’t matter to the scenario presented.
Again, you are assuming this guy would be placated with reason, despite acting unreasonably by approaching the OP. You have no basis for saying this.
Refusing to entertain a rude question is not “taunting”.
Secondly, perhaps the question rendered the OP speechless. Perhaps he didn’t know what to say that wouldn’t make the guy flip out, given the effect the question had on his own emotional state (see example below). Perhaps the OP was just not in the mood to submit to an unearned interrogation that night.
Perhaps the OP knew he was capable of defending himself if it came down to it, so he didn’t have to submit to Jim Crow-style bullying if he didn’t want to. Does this make him a bad guy? I think not. If we both agree the aggressor here is fully responsible for his own violent actions, the OP could make this choice and still be morally be in the clear.
For a point of comparison, here is how kayaker said he handled a similar situation in the past back on page 1.
It seems to me he successfully de-escalated the conflict by making it be known he was not there for games. Where I come from, this kind of talk is called standing up for oneself. So is flat out ignoring someone and not giving into their silly demands. If the guy confronting you is armed and you’re not, then it’s a risky move. But if you’re both armed? It’s not as risky.
To put it bluntly, if a black man can’t even hold his tongue in the face of a belligerent jerk without earning a lecture about how he escalated a conflict, I really don’t know what to say anymore. I think this is something you either get intuitively or you don’t.