Someone mentioned that charges should be pressed agains Mr.Aldrin for punching some ambush “journalist” in the snoot.
Why is punching people so bad? On the one hand a lot of people say “violence is never right!” but film and book sales seem to indicate that a lot of people think that “violence is ok if usied in the correct setting”.
Now maybe the best way to decide this is to change the laws to allow a jury to decide if the punch-ee had it coming rhather than just deciding if the punch-er did do the punch-ing.
Short of shooting people, wouldn’t our society be improved by the judicious application of an occasional nut kick or broken nose? And I’m not just saying that only men get kicked here, as a devout feminist I think women shoud have just as equal an opportunity to get punched in the tit for acting the ass as a man shoud for getting his scrotum stomped for the same.
Anyhow, the fairness of applied violence on women is another topic entirely.
Should juries be able to determine that an attack was “fair” and therefore nullify a civil or other complaint that would amount to simple assault? Not like an aggrivated murder charge, or a case where someone just beat someone retarded, but a simple poke in the nose, or similar. Hey, if this worked out, there could be a new li8ne of industry for people who couldn’t do the punching themselves, you could hire a sort of “process server” whose jopb it was to punch someone out. They could even go about it in a very civil manner, “Excuse me sir or madam. I’m here to punch you on behalf of “your name here”. Is now a convenient time for you? If so, would you like it in the stomach or in the face? I’m liscenced and bonded to punch people in this state and am trained in first aid. Here is my card, remember to call Qwik-Jab Retribution services if you ever need to punch someone out but are unable to perform the task yourself.”.
Tricky one; I’d say he had it coming (not a particularly precise legal definition, I’ll admit); accusing Buzz of being a thief and a liar straight out like that was calculated to cause offence, IMO.
Even shooting people can be perfectly justifiable under the right circumstances. I’ve yet to see the Aldrin video, but if a larger man walked up to me, yelled at me, accused me of being a thief and started poking me with a large book, it would be lucky for him if I wasn’t packing heat. Simple obnoxiousness wouldn’t justify me blowing the clown away, but if he starts taking on the aspect of a potentially dangerous stalker (apparantly Aldrin’s encountered this guy before) I’ll defend myself first and answer questions afterward.
Aldrin is very famous, and fame attracts wierdos. Aldrin’s particular claim to fame happens to attract an especially wierd kind of wierdo. I’ll bet he’s run into moon-hoaxers before, and the vast majority were just harmless nuts, but Aldrin has to be aware that any of them could turn violent and he should act accordingly to avoid them, discourage them, and if need be drive them away with physical force for his own protection.
Juries can and do give people free passes, if a claim of self-defense is plausible. In this particular case, Aldrin just has to testify “Look, the guy was hassling me. I told him to leave and he wouldn’t. He jabbed me with his book and I clobbered him. By the way, here’s the medal the President gave me when me, Neil and Mike got back to Earth.”
They’ll acquit faster than you can say “nullify.” As well they should.
Hey, I think the guy was being an obnoxious asshole as well, but Aldrin can and should be charged with battery. End of story. Being harangued by a person you find unpleasant is not generally considered sufficient provocation to justify violence, and IMO that’s the way it should be. What about all the domestic violence cases where the person who attacked his or her spouse tries to justify the act by claiming “s/he just wouldn’t shut up”?
As I understand rule of law, the punishment of someone for an infraction is left to the system, imperfect as it may be. If, for example, the ‘journalist’ committed simple assault (and I think a case could be made that he did) it was up to Aldrin to have him charged, rather than clock him.
At the trial, Aldrin can try to convince the judge or jury that he felt a clear and immediate physical threat from the guy he punched. If he can convince that this was the case, so be it.
A seventy-some year man being harrased by another man half his age, nearly half a foot taller, and some 70+ pounds heavier (IIRC), trapped against a wall, and being prodded roughly by a book while the person spouts off rantings, while you’re calling out for someone to call the police. Self defence seems more than justified. I’d be pretty freaked out, too. If you’re being assaulted, you can use reasonable force to stop it, and it seems plenty reasonable to me. Plenty of cases of self defence never result in the defender being charged, and I think this should be one of those cases. It was a fanatic who was getting more and more agressive in his harassment, and trying to detain Buzz against his will.
It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving moron
While the OP was inspired by what I read in the Aldrin thread, I’m not specifically referring to that incident as a general premise.
What I mean to say is, why is assholish behavior tolerated but punching someone for assholish behavior not tolerated? El_Kabong “but Aldrin can and should be charged with battery. End of story. Being harangued by a person you find unpleasant is not generally considered sufficient provocation to justify violence”
Why? Peing punched in the face is also unpleasant. But why shouldn’t someone get a poke in the eye if he or she is asking for it? “Domestic violence” may fall under another category, but then again maybe not I think like anything else it would depend on the circumstance. Why is it you are so all fired ready to accept generally rude behavior but a simple, efficient left hook should get one incarcerated or something along those lines? Shouldn’t people provoking this violent outburst be subject to some sort of justice? What about simple manners?
I’ll be right up front here, if I enter a men’s room after someone I want to find it clean. I think there would be more clean men’s rooms if a person had to consider getting knocked out as a consequence of turding on the seat or pissing on the hand towells. Same goes for any public space. Why was it Spock got applause (both on film and in theaters) when he pinched the moron with the boom box, but I would be arrested for a similar act? Does not the majority of respectful citizens agree on some commonly held beliefs on what is a decent way to treat our fellow citizen? And those who don’t treat their fellow citizen with respect, why should we extend them a courtesy of our civil facade when they act in a manner contrary to the promotion of civil welfare? If folks act the ass, I think it is foolish to treat them in a manner in which we treat folks who don’t act the ass.
Your right not to get punched in the stomach shoud be revoked when you go out and harass people, spray them with cologne, agressively panhandle, use coarse or abraisive language in public conveyances, or any number of every day things that we have become sadly accustomed to. Frankly I’m sick and god damned tired of the crap-hole we are allowing our society to become because we are all so enlightened and high brow. If any of that self important delusion were actually true, then this would be a non-issue.
Oh, I’m also for flogging news persons who exploit minor trends or use hyperbolie to the derth or reality.
Oh, one additional thing I left out of my last post.
When I was a kid pretty much any adult could spank a kid for being a dipshit. As a result there was copnsiderably less dipshitty behavior amongst kids at the time. Now I hear kids talking about being a “ho” and dropping "F’ bombs all over, I mean little kids. Like 10 and younger. Of course I swore when I was a kid, but certainly not casually or as brazenly. I held swear words in reverence and was cautios with the use and application. How can a kid be having fun saying “fuck” if there is no danger in it?
There are a lot of “ifs.” We don’t know the full story and neither does anyone else until a thorough investigation into the sequence of events. On the surface it looks like Aldrin was provoked, at least, and this guy has been pestering him before. Just the same, news reports are notoriously incomplete as has been pointed out elsewhere on the SDMB.
As to the general question, if an “annoying jerk” could be assaulted at will who would be safe? We are all thought by a few others to be “annoying jerks” at times.
When I was a kid, teachers could beat you with a cane (for e.g. running in the corridor), throw wooden board cleaners at you (they might hit the wrong pupil, but no-one complained because we were scared) and ignore bullying in the playground (“it’ll make a man of you”).
Dyslexia didn’t exist - the kids were just ‘wilfully stupid’.
Somehow I don’t want to go back to those ‘good old days’.
I behave well, because my parents would be disappointed if I didn’t. Since I was brought up in a loving violence-free house, I fully respect their values.
If anyone touches you, sprays you, splashes you, or otherwise intentionally comes in physical contact with you without your permission (accidently getting bumped in a bar does not count, sorry) that is “assault” and you have every right to unleash the fury.
I would even argue that if someone is aggressively in your face, that could be considered justification to open a can of Whoop-AssTM
Seriously, why is it ok for a grown adult to follow you down the street with a video camera 2" from your face essentially saying “I’m not touching you!! Can’t get mad!..Not touching you!”?
Shit…When my brother would do that when we were kids, it would start a three hour battle royal. And cameramen don’t have the protection of Mom and Dad to prevent a punch to the head.
Kind of a side note - I am reminded of a Chris Rock routine where he suggests keeping guns legal but make the bullets real expensive. “Ya know that motha fucker had do do something ta piss someone da fuck off ta get his ass shot with a $5000 bullet”.
Maybe there should be a similar rule about punching people.
Quite simply, because assholish behavior is in fact punishable under the law, and is not the same level of violence as a punch. It just isn’t.
The ‘journalist’ was not specifically asking for a poke in the eye. He was, obviously, attempting to get a hostile reaction from Aldrin, but that is not the same thing. As for Aldrin, he was in a public setting with dozens of people present. He could have asked for assistance, and certainly could have requested that someone get the police, or withdrawn to a place where person harassing him could not follow.
Failing to punch someone you consider rude is not ‘accepting rude behavior’, it is simply behaving in a civilized manner. The law provides means to prosecute persons for harassment. For example, if Aldrin felt truly threatened by this person on the basis of past behavior, it should be no problem to obtain a restraining order.
Wow, got a few issues there, don’t we? In any event, I disagree that our society is necesarily bcoming more of a ‘crap-hole’. Prove that it is with some hard facts; then maybe I’ll give a bit more weight to your moaning. Or maybe not.
Look, it shouldn’t be so hard to understand; what you personally deem unbearably offensive may not match the views of people in general, and you are not the best arbiter of punishment, especially if you are making your decision in a state of emotional agitation. Examples:
Getting sprayed with cologne earns a punch in the stomach, in your view? Seems a bit extreme for something that can be washed off if you don’t care for the scent.
Say the cologne sprayer is a pregant woman, and your retaliatory punch causes her to lose the baby. Her tough luck, in your view?
I’m simply appalled that some of the resondents to this thread seem to have not the slightest idea how the law works, and why it is set up that way. I strongly urge the you to do a bit of resarch, as if you would act out any of the scenarios you suggest, some of you folks are likely to be facing assault charges at one point or another.
Right. As far as I know no legal definition of “annoying jerkiness” exists. Even if one did, if you hit someone for that “offense” an investigation has to be made to determine whether or not you acted within the law. If a man breaks into your house and you shoot him, whether or not you acted in self-defense is investigated and the prosecutor makes a determination as to filing or not filing charges.
If what you say her was what happened, then you would have a point, however, the moon-nut was not merely an asshole. He was a trerspasser, and committed assult himself. If you’ve seen the video tape you will see that Aldrin did everything he could to avoid a confrontation. The action was done to prevent furhter assaults. Otherwise you are basicly demanding that Aldrin just “relax and enjoy it”.
Sorry, but sometimes you cannot wait for the law. I’ve had aggrressive panhandlers on my case that needed shoving or punching to get them from committing greater assaults on my person. I could not wait for the cops and pressing charges would have been a waste of time.
Sorry. Aldrin’s actions were in pure self-defense. The video indicates that to me pretty well. He’s lucky that the hotel personel were not more along the lines of the security gaurds in the movie “Casino”.
For the record, Buzz had called the police and was attempting to get away from the harassment. I agree that assault should not be condoned, but the minute this jerk cornered an old man and started hitting him with a Bible Aldrin’s actions became self defense.
No, it should not be legal, except in ways it already is, such as self defense. Part of punching a jerk who richly deserves it is facing the consequences afterward. So while I may contribute to the Buzz defense fund and as juror in a civil suit tend to be less sympathic to plaintiffs who show signs of richly deserving it, I still think there needs to be consquences. If convinced that the facts of the assault showed it was a crime, as a criminal trial juror, I’d find the defendant guilty.
