I was with you at the beginning, Askia, but now you’re beginning to sound like a psycho. I have nothing against bigots getting beat-downs, but I think you’ve misinterpreted the meaning of “fighting words”. Fighting words are not protected speech - they don’t fall under the auspices of the First Amendment. And Wikipedia backs me up on that. I’ve never heard of them being used as a justification for responding with violence. I think you’re majorly confused about the meaning of the phrase.
[QUOTE=Askia] Linty. If I had a gun, and if I could not simply leave, and was sufficiently humiliated/fearful of my safety/angered by someone threatening me with threats of violence and slurs, and I was absolutely convinced this person wasn’t just mouthing off and intended me future harm, I would shoot the bastard; I might try and shoot the bastard dead; and in either outcome I would take my chances with the courts cops and police. I won’t get into any ideological ruminations about What will this solve? or How will that fix things? or Aren’t you against the death penalty? I’m a peaceable kind of guy until I have to defend me and mine.
[/quote]
Which is it? Are you fearful of your safety? Or are you pissed because someone called you names? There’s a big difference there.
Um, didn’t you call yourself a “peaceable guy”? You try your best to cripple people who insult you?
Perhaps you should examine the law.
Last I heard, being called a nigger is not “reasonable expectation that [you] may be grievously injured”.
There’s something discomfitting about the way you seem to enjoy thinking up these scenarios in which you’d be justified in using violence. Like I said, an asskicking for a guy who uses a racial slur - well, it certainly wouldn’t upset me any. But talking about guns? Or trying to cripple somebody? The law is not on your side on this, pal.
There’s a lot of tough talk going on here. I hope it’s just talk.
Do you mean the word was “a-hole” or “asshole”? You’re not being very clear here.
[QUOTE=Askia] Rick. If you fail to see the proximate threat in the circumstances of that picture, you may consider yourself struck from my character witness list, too. If you don’t get that, you don’t get me.
[/QUOTE]
But you keep changing what the circumstances are.
The example cited by the OP did NOT include a threat of physical violence; in fact, the guy’s friend specifically cited that as being a reason it wasn’t justified.
A reasonable threat of physical violence is justification for self-defense irrespective of whether or not someone uses a racist slur. If you’re in a situation where a reasonable man would fear for his safety then it doesn’t matter if the threatening party is calling you a horrible racist slur or not. If Cletus, Earl and Billy-Joe are coming at me with tire irons, I don’t care if they’re calling me the Pope of San Francisco.
Okay, so you want to go around punching people if you think they deserve it. (Actually, now you’re saying “Cripple,” suggesting a much higher level of violence.) I trust you’ll forgive me if I don’t see that as being a whole lot better. the problem with letting people do that is that everyone’s going to have a different opinion about who deserves it. And it’s my experience that folks who consider “Crippling” those who deserve it as being a viable option tend to have very wide interpretations of who deserves it.
And yeah, you ARE introducing violence into the discussion. The OP was about slurs; indeed, it was quite specifically as to whether escalation to violence is justified in response to a slur. You keep adding “threats of violence,” which is not, necessarily, the same thing. Read the OP’s description. If three white guys back you into a corner in an alley and slowly advance towards you hissing racist slurs, that’s a threat, and self defence is wholly justified. Some little guy shouting out “Screw you, nigger” to a larger guy who’s been goading him for a long time isn’t the same (that being the OP’s description of the events) and it’s crazy to pretend a slur deserves the same response in all cases. The response must be context-dependent. You’re not going to “Cripple” anyone who calls you a “nigger,” are you? Would you do it in all these cases?
Three white guys with tire irons advancing on you in an alley
Some black guy greeting you in a friendly way and he just came from a Chris Rock show, so he’s trying to sound cool
A crazy old man on a street corner yelling obscenities at cars, passersby, dogs, etc.
A racist old woman who you accidentally bumped into on the street, as she’s picking up the groceries she dropped
A three-year-old who heard the word on TV
I’ve offered no legal opinions and haven’t any interest in yours. Of course the courts will mitigate punishment if you’re provoked; that’s simply common sense, and has been for centuries. And if there was a physical threat present, that can trigger a legitimate claim of self defense.
[QUOTE=Askia]
I never claimed a right. But it gives me a somewhat Credible Defense against Goading Jackasses who deliberately try and Pick A Fight and Go Too Far Threatening Me.
At this point there seems to be a rush to judgement to presume my conviction. Last I checked, the courts still looked favorably upon non-violent people with no history of criminal behavior who exercise self-defense when they feared for their safety and have a reasonable expectation they may be grieviously injured. You won’t hear too many black people say this, but I’ll still shoot the bastard and take my chances in court.
[/quote]
Pretty much everyone else nailed the specifics as to why you are so wrong on this, so I’ll just sum up my viewpoint.
You are combining ignorance of the law, anger, and a willingness to do violence over words. I’ll say it again: Prisons are full of people who believed in what you posted above just a little too deeply. If you go and beat the shit out of someone over a slur, or–God help you–cap his ass, it doesn’t matter what your “reasonable expectation” is. You will do time. Go check the law again, and this time, take off the blood-colored glasses.
As far as this thread is concerned, you are the very personification of the Angry Black Man Stereotype. You’re talking smack, railing against some imaginary white guy who disses you, and bragging about capping his ass on a whim. Right here, right now, you are thug life in action. When white people shy away from innocent black college students in clubs and give them funny looks, it’s you they’re thinking about.
… aaAAaaaand I’m back. Let’s read the viewers’ mail. First up, The Violent Response To Verbal Provocation is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Chorus, featuring you with the face and C&C Music Factory. Let’s listen to this popular group.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Unless someone is physically threatening me and I’m reacting in self-defense, then there is no excuse for me to lash out violently. It might be understandable but not right.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
There is absolutely no excuse for physical violence as a response to verbal provocation. In your scenario, the black guy who did the beating should have been arrested and jailed for what he did.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I don’t agree with ANY of you. In the real world, from my learned experience, a verbal provocation is OFTEN a reason – and an acceptable excuse – for physical violence in response. Talking trash about a person’s kid at a Peewee baseball game could get you knocked out. Talking shit about my Moms will get – at a minimum – a punch in the face. Calling me a nigger will get you hurt in most instances, and nobody who knows me will blame me. There’s such a thing as verbal grenades. Don’t lob them in my vicinity.
That said, a physical response not an acceptable excuse for every verbal provocation; it does vary upon the situation. But if I decide that’s it, I’ve had enough – I’ve got damned good reason.
[QUOTE=wm–]
Seems to me the problem with all this tough talk is the likelihood of “fighting words” being heard heard out of context or just misunderstood. You can take back a tongue-lashing if it turns out the guy really said “knickers,” but not a punch or bullet.
[/QUOTE]
If you point a realistic toy gun in a confrontation with the cops, you can’t blame the cops for shooting your ass.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
This is another of the myriad instances of why “vigilante justice” is nearly always bad. Certainly, nearly all the time the attacked deserved to be physically punished, if not always beat up. But if we condone this even socially, if not legally, then we’d have people beating up people all the time and claim that “fighting words” were uttered. Even if they’re lying (of course, no one would lie about racial slurs, right? Right?)
[/QUOTE]
Speaking for myself, most of the time after the physical altercation with strangers, you HAUL ASS. The police might not even be called as a follow-up. Even if they do come, they might not be inclined to pursue the matter further: “So you called the guy a nigger and he beat you up? Okaaaaay.”
[QUOTE=Ceejaytee] Askia: What about this specifc example in the OP? Black guy #2 says that black guy #1 was being a jerk to the smaller white guy for a long time. What if the little white guy threw out the N-word because he was angry, and/or feeling threatened? Is it okay to beat up someone for using a racial epithet when you’re the one who started the mess in the first place?
[/quote]
Look, the black guy in the OP was wrong. On the other hand, if you’re inclined to throw out racial slurs to big black guys, you MUST want a physical fight: the fight escalated the minute you threw out fightin’ words. Seems to me the black guy was giving the somewhat suicidely-mnded white guy what he wanted. I expect some of you will want to disagree with me, but hey. Do not tease the angry bear.
[QUOTE=Pazu]
In other words, if I persistently pick on some guy until he says, “Get off my case, you fucking chink!”, am I justified in unleashing my Stereotypical Asian Dude Kung Fu Powerz™ on him?
[/QUOTE]
“Justified” is such a judgmental word… but yes. “Get off my case!” is assertive. Adding “You fucking chink!” is aggressive. Do Not Tease The Angry Bear.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
The guy in the OP it seems also had a history of picking on the guy who used the N word. So he certainly wasn’t blameless, nor was it understandable. Maybe I shouldn’t speak here, since I’m as white as white can get. But retaliating against some scumbag racist by beating the shit out of him or shooting him is only going to get YOUR ass in prison. And reinforce his racist ideas. Is it worth it? Besides, for all you know, the guy’s a freaking black belt, and kicks the shit out of you. Or he has a gun of his own.
[/QUOTE]
You’re making quite a few assumptions here, the main one being that my shooting a racist scumbag will land me prison. I tend to doubt it. I don’t know if it’ll be worth it, but I can say that I’ve never once regretted any physical fight I’ve ever been in, even the ones I lost.
[QUOTE=gytalf2000]
The thing that really bothered me about the first guy’s attitude was the fact that the second guy pointed out that he had bullied the white guy for a long time. The word that he actually used was “a–hole”, a word that is not in my regular vocabulary – “You had really been an a–hole to that guy for a long time!” It just seemed like he felt he could treat white people (ones who were a lot smaller than him, anyway!) any way he wanted, but, man, if someone ever called him the “n-word”, they were really in for a beating! The fact that the white guy (who was about as big as both the black guys put together!) agreed with such thinking was very disturbing!
[/QUOTE]
Look, I have limited insight into bullies and the friends they hang out with, but my experience with black ones and white ones and female ones is the same: they all have a warped sense of self-worth, and they can be stood up to as long as you’re fearless and assertive. The minute you try to match their aggression with no intention of doing so physically, you’re probably toast. Throwing out verbal grenades like “nigger” at people like this just the excuse they need to do what they wanted anyway. Angry Bear.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
I was with you at the beginning, Askia, but now you’re beginning to sound like a psycho. I have nothing against bigots getting beat-downs, but I think you’ve misinterpreted the meaning of “fighting words”. Fighting words are not protected speech - they don’t fall under the auspices of the First Amendment. And Wikipedia backs me up on that. I’ve never heard of them being used as a justification for responding with violence. I think you’re majorly confused about the meaning of the phrase.
[/quote]
Yes. Being confused on a racial matter. That sounds like me. :rolleyes:
I’m big enough, and savvy enough, to admit it’s both.
Not always, but as it happens, yes. Once any confrontation escalates to the physical, I attain a helpful aggressive mindset I’d like to call, I Don’t Give A Fuck. I’m peaceable until I go there. There’s no hypocrisy here, just a necessity of getting into character.
It has been in MY experience, a point I’d bring up in court, if it ever came to that.
“If you find my answers disturbing, Vincent, you should cease asking me questions.” Sam Jackson, in a script by Quentin Tarantino. I love those guys.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Three white guys with tire irons advancing on you in an alley
Some black guy greeting you in a friendly way and he just came from a Chris Rock show, so he’s trying to sound cool
A crazy old man on a street corner yelling obscenities at cars, passersby, dogs, etc.
A racist old woman who you accidentally bumped into on the street, as she’s picking up the groceries she dropped
A three-year-old who heard the word on TV
[/quote]
I’d do my best to do my worst, which may not save me.
Depends on whether I like the black guy. Every brother ain’t a brother. I’ve gotten into fights with black guys who called me “nigga,” too.
Crazy old men are highly entertaining.
If she were a KNOWN racist on the order of Rev. Fred Phelps and gays, I’d crush her eggs, step on her toes and kick her canned goods into moving traffic, all the while going, “Whoops. Whoops.” Don’t change the mindsets of known racists. Being old, hateful and bitter will not save you.
the three-year old better not be a disciple of the racist old lady.
I don’t get what we’re arguing about if we’re in essential agreement on this critical point.
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
Pretty much everyone else nailed the specifics as to why you are so wrong on this, so I’ll just sum up my viewpoint. You are combining ignorance of the law, anger, and a willingness to do violence over words. I’ll say it again: Prisons are full of people who believed in what you posted above just a little too deeply. If you go and beat the shit out of someone over a slur, or–God help you–cap his ass, it doesn’t matter what your “reasonable expectation” is. You will do time. Go check the law again, and this time, take off the blood-colored glasses. As far as this thread is concerned, you are the very personification of the Angry Black Man Stereotype. You’re talking smack, railing against some imaginary white guy who disses you, and bragging about capping his ass on a whim. Right here, right now, you are thug life in action. When white people shy away from innocent black college students in clubs and give them funny looks, it’s you they’re thinking about.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I reject the notion that I will go to prison. And while it’s sweet of you to think I’m the very personfication of the Angry Black Male Stereotype – I’m just a barely passable imitation. A realer version of the stereotype would have cussed all y’all out by now. LOL.
Look, dude, you obviously didn’t even read what you linked to. In summary, it says exactly what I did: there is no Constitutional protection for “fighting words” and laws can be made prohibiting them, on account of their likelihood to provoke violence.
It did not say, nor have I ever heard, that fighting words are some sort of legal defense for violence. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence for your claim - that you are legally entitled to respond to fighting words with violence - and once again, I’m telling you that should you do so, you’re in for a rude awakening.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Look, dude, you obviously didn’t even read what you linked to. In summary, it says exactly what I did: there is no Constitutional protection for “fighting words” and laws can be made prohibiting them, on account of their likelihood to provoke violence.
It did not say, nor have I ever heard, that fighting words are some sort of legal defense for violence. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence for your claim - that you are legally entitled to respond to fighting words with violence - and once again, I’m telling you that should you do so, you’re in for a rude awakening.
[/QUOTE]
Sigh. Look again. There is no Constitutional protection for the person who utters the slur.
[QUOTE=Askia]
Sigh. Look again. There is no Constitutional protection for the person who utters the slur.
Yeesh.
[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? The fact that a certain type of speech is not protected certainly does not excuse committing crimes against the person who uttered it! That’s absolutely ridiculous. Libelous speech isn’t protected either, but that doesn’t mean I have the right to hit someone because they published something defamatory. That’s a bizarre train of thought indeed.
Excalibre, I have never claimed that I had a right to assault anyone for using fighting words against me. I have only ever claimed, rightfully, the courts would likely recognize that I was provoked since being called a nigger by a white person is likely to cause the average black person to react violently, and very likely mitigate the severity of my sentencing, assuming I’m found guilty.
“In tort law one who uses fighting words towards another, and who
thereby creates reasonable apprehension in that person, may be guilty
of an assault despite the doctrine that words alone do not constitute
an assault. See generally Prosser, Torts 40 (4th ed. 1971)
See also defamation; slander.”
[QUOTE=Askia]
Sigh. Look again. There is no Constitutional protection for the person who utters the slur.
Yeesh.
[/QUOTE]
I really didn’t want to get back into this again…however this case does not prove your point.
All that item that you linked to says is that ‘certain words’ may not be protected under the first amendment. Digging a little deeper you can see that this involved a drunk man threatening to kick another persons ass. (his words) He was arrested and charged with harrassment. The supreme court overturned the conviction. In their ruling..
[QUOTE=supreme court ruling]
Likewise, the above analysis requires a finding that the ordinance element of “thereby creating a substantial risk of assault” is not met. SMC 12A.06.040. Furthermore, we find determination of whether a substantial risk of assault is created is not best gauged by the officer on the scene and deference should not be given to this determination. Whether a substantial risk of assault is created is a separate element of the ordinance which the City must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
[/QUOTE]
Antinor01. First of all, this was a state superior court ruling in Seattle, Washington, not the U.S. federal Supreme Court. Secondly, we’re only interested in the findings of the court regarding fighting words, not whether fighting words were actually used.
Of course it proves my point. The particular facts about the Seattle v. Camby indicated that what happened there was NOT fighting words, but by logical extension, defined what would be. "The Superior Court defined the issue as “[w]hether under the City’s harassment ordinance there must be an additional element that the addressee was in fact provoked to the point where there was a substantial likelihood of assault on the speaker.” Threatning to kick someone’s ass isn’t. Using the slur “nigger” – what is widely regarded as one of the most contentious verbal slurs in the English language, especially in an interracial altercation – meets the standard of “fighting words” pretty much everywhere I can think of and may warrant a lesser sentence for assault under mitigating circumstances.
[QUOTE=Askia]
In the real world, from my learned experience, a verbal provocation is OFTEN a reason – and an acceptable excuse – for physical violence in response. Talking trash about a person’s kid at a Peewee baseball game could get you knocked out. Talking shit about my Moms will get – at a minimum – a punch in the face. Calling me a nigger will get you hurt in most instances, and nobody who knows me will blame me. There’s such a thing as verbal grenades. Don’t lob them in my vicinity.
[/QUOTE]
But none of this does anything except demonstrate your own misguided sense of when and whether violence is appropriate.
You’re right that “Talking trash about a person’s kid at a Peewee baseball game could get you knocked out.” You’re also probably right that talking shit about your mom or calling you a nigger might result in a punch to the face.
But all that shows is that you and the person at the the Peewee baseball game are people with an irrational predisposition to violence. You can deny it all you want, but the fact remains that if your first response to a lame insult like “Your mother’s a whore” or something similar is to punch the person out, then you have an irrational predisposition to violence.
Personally, i think that if someone is desperate enough, in an argument with me, to make a reference to my mother, then they’ve already demonstrated what an idiot they are, and no amount of beating is going to change that. And i’m comfortable enough, knowing what i know about my mother, to laugh off someone’s completely inaccurate description.
If someone insults your mother, and you get violent with them, then we may not have learned anything about your mother, but we’ve certainly learned something about you. Something rather troubling and contemptible.
I think it’s rather interesting that you’ve used the term “angry bear” quite a few times to describe the response you have to these insults. It seems to me, given your explanations here, that the level of savagery and lack of rational thought you give to this matter makes that label quite appropriate.
“Fighting words” have to mean something other than “really, really mean names”. Or else there’d be too much leeway when determining what is reasonably provocative or not.
What ever makes you doubt you’d end up in prison for that? Since when did angry, gun-toting black guys get the benefit of the doubt over dead white ones?
Would you say the same thing if you’d lost and died? Or how about ended up in prison? What would you be saying then? “Yeah, I lost ten years of freedom and my anus’s virginity, but at least I got to kick some racist ass.” Somehow I doubt you’d be so free from regrets.
I have an irrational predisposition to violence when specifically provoked. I can laugh off lame insults directed towards me all day long. We can argue all day and night about any topic under the sun, but 1) leave my family out of it 2) don’t ever call me nigger or anything even remotely comparable and 3) I agree with Ron Howard: when you go too far, you had best watch your mouth.
If that makes me contemptible, if you find that mindset troubling, if you find me less admirable, then I… shall struggle mightily… to find a way to live with that harsh jusdgement and damning prejudice in all the days of my life ahead in the three or four instances I think of it after I hit the reply button and the long nights while I sleep like a baby.
By the way, man … do not mock The Angry Bear. The Angry Bear does appreciate mockery. It fills The Angry Bear full of GRRRRR.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
But none of this does anything except demonstrate your own misguided sense of when and whether violence is appropriate.
You’re right that “Talking trash about a person’s kid at a Peewee baseball game could get you knocked out.” You’re also probably right that talking shit about your mom or calling you a nigger might result in a punch to the face.
[/QUOTE]
To me, what’s more disturbing that the threats of punching people out is the implication that yes, he really would use that gun and walk away with a smile.
Oh, I’m sorry, I meant “run away like a scared eight year old who just broke a window.” For all his talk about how he has the right to shoot someone or knock them out, and how he would probably get off, and how fighting words are an acceptable reason for violence, he sure doesn’t seem like he wants to face the consequences of his actions.
And that in a nutshell is my problem with the whole gangsta’ thug-life dipshit mentality, whether black, white, or yellow. They talk tough, and they dress tough. They might work out all day in the gym until they’re buff, and they might carry around that glock, but once the shit goes down, they’re scared off their asses. Look behind the assault weapon and the biceps, and you’ll just see one more scared punk kid who’s too stupid, afraid, and insecure to just let something go or work it out the right way.
Just once I’d like to see one of these guys actually have the guts to shoot someone and stick around to see the results of their actions.
Well, OK, my problem is that attitude and the senseless beatdown/murder, but you get my point, right?
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
Just once I’d like to see one of these guys actually have the guts to shoot someone and stick around to see the results of their actions.
[/QUOTE]
Err, let me parse that better. I didn’t mean that I wanted to see them shoot someone. I meant that I’d want to see them accept the consequences of that murder after it had gone down.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
“Fighting words” have to mean something other than “really, really mean names”. Or else there’d be too much leeway when determining what is reasonably provocative or not.
[/quote]
Luckily, we’re dealing with “nigger” here. Not much leeway here in whether or not this is a fighting word or not. The authoritiative book on the word describes it as a fighting word, contemporary African-Americans regard it as a fighting word, white people know its a fighting word that might cost you your job, and every five year old kid knows saying it around black kids could lead to a bloody nose. So let’s not be disingenuous here.
Simple. I’m a not an angry, gun-toting kind a guy who goes around killing people. So for any circumstances that put be a) in a confrontation with a racist b) where I was called nigger c) and I felt sufficiently threatened to react and d) I somehow found myself armed with a gun and e) I made the decision to shootl the bastard, personal consequences to me be damned, I must have felt extraordinarily provoked.
I may not be free of regrets, true. I tend to stand by all my decisions and convictions.
[QUOTE=Askia]
Another wiki article that bears some revevance to the current discussion.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s look at that article, shall we?
[quote]
Provocation is generally the result of some conduct witnessed or experienced by the defendant. In some states, mere gestures, taunts or fighting words are insufficient. Circumstances that have traditionally given rise to a defense of provocation include:
[ul][li] A battery or assault inflicted by the victim on the defendant or a third party, but not with the degree of force or in circumstances that would give rise to a defense of self-defense — a particularly relevant issue in cases involving the “battered woman syndrome”.[/li][li]Mutual combat (which may be more formal duelling) — not operative in some states where self-inflicted provocation may be excluded from the defense.[/li][li]Discovery of adulterous conduct by a spouse.[/li][li]Although not a traditional provocation circumstance, some states have laws that a non-violent homosexual advance constitutes sufficient provocation to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Bolding mine.
Now, given that your location says “Stone Mtn,” i’m going to assume—not unreasonably, i think—that you’re in Georgia. If i’m wrong, let me know.
Let’s look at the Georgia criminal code, specifically the section dealing with an affirmative defense, which it what you would be arguing if you beat up a guy for insulting your mother or calling you a nigger. That is, you would be arguing that you did it, but that you were justified in doing it and that you should not be punished for doing it.
It appears to me that Section 16-3-21 of the Georgia Code is the appropriate one here. It says:
As far as i can tell, the Georgia criminal code makes no exception for verbal insults. It also makes very clear that force is only justified when it is “necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force.” We’ve all agreed here that if the person in question were actually making advances towards you or in some other way making clear that an attack was imminent, you’d be within your rights to defend yourself, but that’s a far cry from a simple insult, no matter how offended you might be by it.
The only reference i could find in the Georgia Code to “fighting words” was in Section 16-11-39, where it says:
So, the use of fighting words in Georgia constitutes the misdeneanor offense of disorderly conduct. But nowhere in the Georgia law does it say that responding to such words with violence—especially of the face-smashing or throat-stomping variety that you’ve been advocating—is acceptable or legal, or a defense against a charge of assault.
I admit i’m not a lawyer, and i’m certainly no expert on Georgia law, so if anyone with more expertise wants to expand on or take issue with my interpretation, i’m perfectly happy to be corrected.
[QUOTE=Askia]
I have an irrational predisposition to violence when specifically provoked. I can laugh off lame insults directed towards me all day long. We can argue all day and night about any topic under the sun, but 1) leave my family out of it 2) don’t ever call me nigger or anything even remotely comparable and 3) I agree with Ron Howard: when you go too far, you had best watch your mouth.
[/quote]
Fine, but you realize that this directly contradicts what you said earlier about being a “peaceable guy”? If you tend to beat people up when they piss you off, then you’re a volatile, violent person, not a “peaceable guy”. What do you think makes someone violent? I would say that a tendency to use violence under inappropriate circumstances qualifies. While obviously someone who randomly beats up little old ladies walking down the street is not “peaceable”, I don’t think not subjecting people around you to random violence is quite sufficient to qualify as “peaceable”.
There is something very, very wrong with you if you think that crippling someone is an appropriate response to a racial slur. The fact that you don’t recognize that is part and parcel of it.