“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Thermal]

No they don't but, they can easily negate the self-defense "Defense".

For example, if some guy talks to a Mexican or a Biker about his Gonads on his Mother's Chin, then whatever happens next may not be determined "self defense". Self-Defense, would be conflict de-escalation...and no provocation! Many people lose sight of this and end up on the wrong side of the law too often.

Lots of guys in Prison for this.

In my state, either party probably could still claim self-defense. If the biker claimed that the nads-on-chin remark put him in fear of eminent bodily harm (that the guy was clearly about to start swinging), he could legally launch preemptive defense. The first guy could say that 'talk is cheap/just kidding around' and claim self-defense over any assault by the biker. Self-defense laws are dicey as hell, juries can find almost any outcome.

 

[Thermal]

Using violence to suppress speech? That's not what MD is talking about.

That's right. MD is talking about responding to a provocation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes.

People respect strength.

Good luck with that. I guess it's time to pick a 3rd party and try to find some viable candidate. Both our 2 main ones are going down in flames.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No they don't but, they can easily negate the self-defense "Defense".

For example, if some guy talks to a Mexican or a Biker about his Gonads on his Mother's Chin, then whatever happens next may not be determined "self defense". Self-Defense, would be conflict de-escalation...and no provocation! Many people lose sight of this and end up on the wrong side of the law too often.

Lots of guys in Prison for this.

You've misunderstood the scenario. Or I failed to explain it well. Either one is sufficient.

Situation:

Bob: Says words that are offensive and inflammatory
Steve: Punches Bob
Cop: Arrests Steve for assault
Steve: Claims it was self-defense because of "fighting words"

Me: No... it doesn't work that way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think the hilited is highly subjective, in particular with loosely defined terms like provocation (ie: what is and isn't reasonable). Would you consider any words to be sufficient to get rowdy in response to? If the words suggested a credible threat to your personal safety, would you?

Prohibitions against assault are just and fair. I don't think that's at all subjective.

Credible and immediate threat is the only case in which I would sanction preemptive violence as self-defense.

Calling someone names isn't a threat. None of the things that you seem to accept as "fighting words" that justify or excuse violence in response qualify as threats in my eyes. I'm fairly confident that the law would agree with me on that assessment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's right. MD is talking about responding to a provocation.

Your bar for what constitutes justifiable provocation is too low for limbo.

 

[Thermal]

Your bar for what constitutes justifiable provocation is too low for limbo.

Challenge accepted

 

[Jules Galen]

You've misunderstood the scenario. Or I failed to explain it well. Either one is sufficient.

Situation:

Bob: Says words that are offensive and inflammatory
Steve: Punches Bob
Cop: Arrests Steve for assault
Steve: Claims it was self-defense because of "fighting words"

Me: No... it doesn't work that way.

This is true, and it works that way where I live. However, there is more:

Bob: Says words that are offensive and inflammatory
Steve: Punches Bob
Bob: Defends himself from Steve's onslaught.
Cop: Arrests Steve and Bob for fighting
Steve: Claims it was self-defense because of "fighting words" No...just no.
Bob: Claims he was innocent and just defending himself. Nope...won't work.

That's what I meant.

 

[Thermal]

Prohibitions against assault are just and fair. I don't think that's at all subjective.

Credible and immediate threat is the only case in which I would sanction preemptive violence as self-defense.

Calling someone names isn't a threat. None of the things that you seem to accept as "fighting words" that justify or excuse violence in response qualify as threats in my eyes. I'm fairly confident that the law would agree with me on that assessment.

The provocation defense is legally recognized in the U.S., though, and is considered mitigating in sentencing (commonly used to reduce murder to manslaughter bc 'heat of passion'). If provocation/fighting words are mitigating in capital cases, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not reasonably apply to lesser crimes. Is it not more reasonable for a person to be provoked into an assault than a killing?

 

[mgidm86]

The provocation defense is legally recognized in the U.S., though, and is considered mitigating in sentencing (commonly used to reduce murder to manslaughter bc 'heat of passion'). If provocation/fighting words are mitigating in capital cases, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not reasonably apply to lesser crimes. Is it not more reasonable for a person to be provoked into an assault than a killing?

Then read about the laws and gain understanding. I just read about provocation defense to address your quote. Now I know more than I did.

I don't think "fighting words" equals provocation in most cases, if ever.

Heat of passion is first of all, difficult to prove, and second, we're talking about punching someone whom you disagree with, not dismembering someone you just found in bed with your spouse.

Issues of the heart have been deemed important enough to sometimes "excuse" bad behavior to an extent. Right or wrong, it has been that way for a very long time. Apparently, humans are known to snap under certain extreme conditions.

Did the guy who punched Spencer lose control of himself, or did he just happen to be passing by and willingly insert himself into the incident?

Did the Berkeley rioters come to the school intent on doing damage to it? Seems that way, after all they arrived masked with bats, pepper spray and other items.

Perhaps I am not explaining this well, but I don't really feel I should need to.

It's simple, sticks and stones. Most people here seem to agree so that's as far as I'm going with this.

 

[sadhatter]

The provocation defense is legally recognized in the U.S., though, and is considered mitigating in sentencing (commonly used to reduce murder to manslaughter bc 'heat of passion'). If provocation/fighting words are mitigating in capital cases, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not reasonably apply to lesser crimes. Is it not more reasonable for a person to be provoked into an assault than a killing?

If your head is clear enough to think "I'm just going to strike this person once as I don't want a murder charge" is clear enough to make you liable.

 

[Thermal]

Then read about the laws and gain understanding. I just read about provocation defense to address your quote. Now I know more than I did.

Thank you for the constructive advice. Surprisingly, I already have.

I don't think "fighting words" equals provocation in most cases, if ever.

Heat of passion is first of all, difficult to prove, and second, we're talking about punching someone whom you disagree with, not dismembering someone you just found in bed with your spouse.

Yes. I know. I think the same principle applies, to a lesser degree. I would think it is easier to be provoked into punching that to be provoked into freaking dismembering someone, and I thought that would go without saying.

Issues of the heart have been deemed important enough to sometimes "excuse" bad behavior to an extent. Right or wrong, it has been that way for a very long time. Apparently, humans are known to snap under certain extreme conditions.

Good point. But murder is something I think many people are normally incapable of, but can still be legally considered to have been provoked into it. Isn't it reasonable to be more easily provoked into a lesser offense? In Demeritt v Trahan (1999), linked below, the Louisiana Appellate court found:

Simply put, defendant argues this court should find that words alone, no matter how provocative, will not defeat the aggressor defense under any circumstances absent reasonable fear of physical harm.

We do not agree.   Words may, under certain circumstances, justify a battery under La.R.S. 23:1081.

This case had a lot to do with examining the meaning of the words provoked/unprovoked, but the Opinion got me really thinking about this. Another interesting Comment from the University of Chicago poses defining designated fighting words, and demonstrating that we may be moving back towards the original Chaplinsky v N.H concept of fighting words (in a more limited sense):

However the harms and benefits of such an approach balance out, the mere likelihood that a law designating a particular offensive word or symbol as a type of per se fighting word is constitutional illustrates the direction in which the Supreme Court jurisprudence is moving.

Did the guy who punched Spencer lose control of himself, or did he just happen to be passing by and willingly insert himself into the incident?

No one is suggesting that the provocation standard for murder precisely applies here, but that the principle transposes.

Did the Berkeley rioters come to the school intent on doing damage to it? Seems that way, after all they arrived masked with bats, pepper spray and other items.

Yeah, I've been saying that for pages now. I don't get your point?

Perhaps I am not explaining this well, but I don't really feel I should need to.

It's simple, sticks and stones. Most people here seem to agree so that's as far as I'm going with this.

Yeah, appeals to popularity are a getting to be a theme.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1357184.html

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5330&context=uclrev

 

[Thermal]

If your head is clear enough to think "I'm just going to strike this person once as I don't want a murder charge" is clear enough to make you liable.

Ok, but is it fair to say that it might not be a calculated decision? I'm thinking more like a rage response than a weighed choice. Also, a lot of people might consider punching someone else, but (hopefully) very few would ever actually consider a murder for any reason.

 

[Jules Galen]

Then read about the laws and gain understanding. I just read about provocation defense to address your quote. Now I know more than I did.

I don't think "fighting words" equals provocation in most cases, if ever.

Heat of passion is first of all, difficult to prove, and second, we're talking about punching someone whom you disagree with, not dismembering someone you just found in bed with your spouse.

Issues of the heart have been deemed important enough to sometimes "excuse" bad behavior to an extent. Right or wrong, it has been that way for a very long time. Apparently, humans are known to snap under certain extreme conditions.

Did the guy who punched Spencer lose control of himself, or did he just happen to be passing by and willingly insert himself into the incident?

Did the Berkeley rioters come to the school intent on doing damage to it? Seems that way, after all they arrived masked with bats, pepper spray and other items.

Perhaps I am not explaining this well, but I don't really feel I should need to. It's simple, sticks and stones. Most people here seem to agree so that's as far as I'm going with this.

That's not how it works at all. See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed right-winger in the mouth and he goes home, and stays home. He quits talking and he doesn't vote. Because he ashamed of being whipped. That's why Liberals punch right-wingers in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Liberals figure oout that they can not reason with the right-wing hate.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.

Yeah, there are a lot of derogatory terms the Right uses: Pinko, Libtard, Tree-hugger, bleeding-heart, Moonbat...but those days are coming to a close, with a punch-in-the-mouth.

 

[Brainster]

That's not how it works at all. See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed right-winger in the mouth and he goes home, and stays home. He quits talking and he doesn't vote. Because he ashamed of being whipped. That's why Liberals punch right-wingers in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Liberals figure oout that they can not reason with the right-wing hate.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.

Wow, if there were more liberals who weren't girly-men and women, that might just terrify me.

Still, it seems a little too perfect that you support violence against those who have different beliefs. Especially with your pro-IRA views; it all fits.

 

[Jules Galen]

Wow, if there were more liberals who weren't girly-men and women, that might just terrify me.

Still, it seems a little too perfect that you support violence against those who have different beliefs. Especially with your pro-IRA views; it all fits.

Where did you get that? I am not supporting violence and I'm a bit shocked at your hysteria.

What? Do you think everyone who has a different opinion than yourself must be unhinged?

Get a grip. Grow the hell up.

 

[skyeagle409]

Sad doesn't even come close.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php

Yet look who started all of the violence. Look who is being targeted. This is bad even for Berkeley.

Berkeley is in a world of its own. If it's 12 noon in San Francisco, it's midnight in Berkeley.

 

[sadhatter]

Ok, but is it fair to say that it might not be a calculated decision? I'm thinking more like a rage response than a weighed choice. Also, a lot of people might consider punching someone else, but (hopefully) very few would ever actually consider a murder for any reason.

But if your defense is "I lost it" that kind of breaks down when you obviously were thinking rationally in regards to long term consequences.

 

[varwoche]

Masked goons pepper-sprayed Trump supporters in Orange County. They are reported to be "antifa" (a term I was unfamiliar with until this thread). Does anyone care to support these actions?

 

[Thermal]

But if your defense is "I lost it" that kind of breaks down when you obviously were thinking rationally in regards to long term consequences.

You're right, the 'lost control' defense falls flat in anything short of the most extreme circumstances. What I am kicking around is basically the older interpretation of fighting words defense- that some words are so vile that they are the equivalent of throwing a first punch. This is still actually a legitimate basis for an assault charge in the U.S., that the words alone inflicted enough damage to qualify as assault. What is not supported is a physical response to the assault, and that's where I am proposing a slight modification to existing law. Simply put, that you should be able to claim that you were goaded into throwing the first punch, when the adversary had (metaphorically) already thrown the first.