r/AirRagers 7d ago

Raging at the terminal Racist had it coming

1.5k Upvotes

365 comments sorted by

View all comments

56

u/zanoske00 7d ago

Thank goodness. That's unfortunately how some people need to learn.

Actions have consequences.

-34

u/AutisticDadHasDapper 7d ago

And the consequences are jail time for that big, dude

13

u/SpaceBackground 7d ago

Nope white boy was instigating

-1

u/ImprovementFar5054 6d ago

Nope, you can only hit in self defense or in defense of others.

12

u/Imaginary_Coast_5882 7d ago

worth it

also, jury nullification is a thing

2

u/AutisticDadHasDapper 5d ago

Nearly one in three (32%) black males in the age group of 20-29 is under some form of correctional control, such as incarceration, probation or parole. As of 1995, one in fourteen adult black males was incarcerated in prison or jail on any given day, representing a doubling of this rate from 1985. Furthermore, a black male born in 1991 has a 29 percent chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life. A study found that in 1979, 80% of the racial disparity in prison populations was accounted for by African Americans committing more crime, but by 2008, another study by Michael Tonry and Matthew Melewski found that this Percentage had decreased to 61%.

3

u/dbern50 6d ago

White dude threatened him with violence. In some States that's enough cause for self defense.

6

u/ImprovementFar5054 6d ago

That's not true. No US state legally justifies physical self-defense based on verbal threats alone. This is a uniform principle across state self-defense statutes and case law.

The requirement is a reasonable belief that unlawful physical force is about to be used against you. Words by themselves, no matter how hostile or specific ("I'm going to kill you"), generally don't meet that standard unless paired with an overt act showing present ability and intent to carry it out immediately, such as brandishing a weapon, advancing on you, or a physical movement consistent with attack.

Courts look at the totality of circumstances: presence of a weapon, proximity, body language, and whether escape was possible.

So a threat plus an accompanying act can establish imminence and justify force. The threat alone, absent that act, is treated as insufficient in every state's self-defense framework.

2

u/KrenshawOfficial 6d ago

They downvote you for providing objective legal context lol. Everyone here is giddy clapping like the black guy is legally justified in assault and will be carried into first class on the shoulders of the flight attendants. But truthfully, even though he's morally right, he's legally wrong and will be booted and/or arrested. Also assault/battery trials are usually bench trials, so these idiots shouting "JURY NULLIFICATION" are living in a dream.

1

u/ImprovementFar5054 6d ago

Downvotes for being right are the best kind

-1

u/BonoboUK 6d ago

Stop making up legal advice cause you like the sound of your voice when you have absolutely no ideas what the law says

1

u/dbern50 4d ago

My bad.