I agree that the Netherlands is not as dysfunctional as the US. But I’m sure if you decked someone who was merely in your way you would be arrested there too.
I want to punch this awful woman, but feminism won’t let me.
- Red Pill
But what if she was a harpy?
You are not being fair, and not giving the OPs question the analysis it deserves.
The way this plays out, if your big MRA decides to punch this woman in the mouth, is that he gets his ass kicked. Right in front of the police. They may come to his rescue, but only after they stop laughing, and the MRA is on the ground begging for his mommy.
Then, because he was the one who initiated violence, in front of a bunch of cops to testify to that act, and that she was only defending herself, he gets arrested and goes to jail. Most likely, the other occupants hear the laughing of the booking officers, and learn that their new celly is a guy that picked a fight with a girl and got his ass handed to him.
It’s gonna be a long night in lock-up until his bail hearing.
Does this satisfy your need for an answer?
These MRA types claim to care about men’s rights, but all they actually seem to do is fantasize about assaulting women (and going on the occasional murder spree).
It’s telling that most of us in this thread initiated a serious conversation about men’s rights, with the OP coming back in to say, ''This is all beside the point! Can I punch this lady or what?!!"
that’s what I’m seeing
He can absolutely punch that lady. Just the consequences might not be within his control or to his liking.
what they want is a “return” to the 1950s when men were men, women shut up and stayed in the kitchen, and kids only had minor problems which were solved within 23 minutes.
you know, because they think TV is real and Leave it to Beaver is a documentary.
'Zactly.
One of my mottos: “You can choose your actions or you can choose your outcomes. Not both.”
IME lots of people have a hard time with that distinction. By and large it’s an immediately recognizable symptom of an overriding selfishness in their character.
This is where you show that you’re just an angry little retard.
You deciding it is reasonable won’t change your guilty verdict in court.
I disagree. Per this guide to the self-defense statute:
The expressions “force is being used” and “threat of force is being made” are intended to be interpreted in accordance with the use of similar expressions and concepts in the assault provisions (section 265).
Turning to section 265, we find:
A person commits an assault when…(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose…
My bolding. Note that the threat requires an overt act (a cocked fist would be one example). Based on my reading, (though, again, I am not a lawyer), I conclude that threatening words alone are legally insufficient to create the threat of force.
In court, if the Crown Prosecutor chooses to charge the man with a crime. If so, the accused can claim self-defense, at which point the Crown bears the burden of disproving self-defense.
It’s only proper for the police to break up fights/stop assaults. People yelling at each other is a different matter, which doesn’t require active intervention, as no one is being harmed and no crimes committed.
Likely, the incident would be investigated, and the attacker charged with assault. As noted above, the person in this hypothetical is, in fact, guilty of assault.
What definition of “terrorist” are you working from, that includes non-violent protestors?
So at what point does sad little man turn to the nearby police officer and ask for assistance in entering the room? Is that sort of intelligent proactive effort too difficult?
At what point does he simply try to enter the room anyway and see what happens? Because if the ebil woe-man hurts you, the police officer is right there to see it and arrest her.
And you can argue that the Crown has to prove you didn’t act in self-defense, but you’re still going to jail, you’re still going to be found guilty. You’re just going to have a lot more difficulty in finding an attorney willing to fight your defense and you’re going to spend a lot more on it.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
My bolding. Note that the threat requires an overt act (a cocked fist would be one example). Based on my reading, (though, again, I am not a lawyer), I conclude that threatening words alone are legally insufficient to create the threat of force.
[/QUOTE]
You are wrong since Ss 36 of the code specifically includes words as being sufficient for provocation under the Self defense provisions.
In this case, this is hardly our budding pugilist’s main problem, however. The fact that cops were present when he was prevented from entering is much more pertinent to the success of his defense. If he had told them she was refusing to let him enter, then they would have gone up to her and said ok Miss, you have made your point, now please let the gentleman through. And she might have been forcibly removed by the fuzz if she did not comply/and/or arrested. He clearly had other, efficacious options to remedy the force being used against him and he did not, which makes any self defence claim unlikely to succeed.
Section 36 was repealed in 2012.
Sounds reasonable.
IANAL, but I would think that it would depend on the words used to justify provocation.
If someone is just standing there yelling about stuff, that’s not provocation. That might piss you off, but I do not see it as something you can claim defense against.
I would think that the words would have to include an actual threat of violence to be considered to be something you can defend yourself against. Otherwise, you could just punch anyone for “using words”.
In this case he was being prevented from entering a place he had a right to enter.
That has nothing to do with your earlier claim that “using words” was enough to justify self defense.
If someone is preventing you from entering a place you have a right to enter, is assaulting them self defense?
In full view of a police officer, without any attempt to engage that officer for assistance in entering the room.
Violence is not an acceptable answer here. If you folks are fishing for it, go back to your safe spaces in Reddit. I’m sure you can find all the assurances and support you need.