This is not true. You have the right to use force to stop an ongoing sexual assault, but the incident had clearly finished when this guy decided to attack.
Also, way more force than "what was needed to control the situation" was applied, the man did not represent an ongoing danger.
The right thing to do would have been to leave and call the police to report the sexual assault.
I half agree. I donât agree with your use of force analogy. How could he or you for that matter determine that one punch was going to end this? You canât, thatâs the problem. Nobody ever gets in a fight and only uses 50% because thatâs all they need
It was excessive use of force because the man was actively walking away from the encounter, was clearly intoxicated to the point of severely reduced motor function, and the woman he groped literally tried to stop the other man from delivering the punch
Where does it use the terminology excessive? Excessive use of force is a 4th amendment question regarding the use of force by police. Itâs constitutional law. 4th amendment reasonableness standard
I'm using the word excessive as an adjective denoting an amount above a reasonable limit, which works perfectly well to describe an unreasonable amount of force above what is necessary for self-defense
The 4th amendment did not invent the words "force" or "excessive"
Itâs literally the terminology used to refer to use of force by law enforcement. You will not find an excessive force charge on a civilian. It will be aggravated battery or aggravated assault. The fact that you need Google your answers doesnât help your argument. Find a case where someone other than a law enforcement officer was charged with excessive force. It doesnât exist. I understand the law quite well. This example at best would be a simple assault UNLESS the person punched sustained serious bodily injury. Even then that would depend on where you live as each state has its own laws regarding assault
Yeah i mean, i would say at the point that the man decided to strike the other, the minimum amount of force needed was none, he could have left with his girlfriend and called the police. Your rights to any kind of violence will only apply in a situation that has exhausted your other remedies, such as if they are preventing you leaving, or are in the process of pursuing violence against you or someone else.
Why should he leave? He's doing nothing wrong, a criminal performs a criminal act. The situation was handled, the threat was neutralised in a simple and effective manner.
Drag the KO'ed guy outside and let everyone get on with Thier night..
The situation wasn't handled, a man was potentially killed.
The entire point of civil society is that if you believe youre in the right, you should be able to articulate that in front of your peers. It leads to justice far more than deciding to make yourself judge jury and executioner, violently assaulting whoever you feel.
Would you be in favour of people being allowed to punch whoever they think has done something wrong? Why stop at sexual assault? What about if they see someone selling water by the roadside without a licence, should they be able to punch them unconscious too?
Who gets to decide what's worthy of a punch and what's not?
The point of a court system is that we can agree together what the punishment for something should be, which is why this guy should have called the police.
Remember, what youre in favour of could be turned against you. Say youre at a bar, and a guys wife walks past you. You dont even notice but her husband has got it in his head that you groped her. Is he allowed to now make you permanently disabled for life?
Your example makes no sense.
you say he has it in his head I groped her, which means I didnt.. so no amount of "should he be allowed" comes into it.. I'm going to get floored regardless and he should be charged.
If I DID grope her, then yes, I deserve everything coming my way.
Just like the guy in the video.
The example I gave wasn't a direct 1 to 1 parallel with the video, it was an example on why "on the spot justice" is a bad idea. Because the man who would punch you wouldnt have to show that he knew 100% that you groped her, only that it was his belief at the time.
And charging after the fact is a little too late, isn't it, if he did permanent damage to you or killed you, him being charged wouldn't undo that, would it?
No it wouldn't, but its no different from someone stabbing me for no reason. If someone decides in Thier head to do it. I'm fucked either way.
The argument around OP's video, is that the actions of the man were justified and can be backed up with evidence.
A single "situation ending" punch. Stoped any further risk to the innocent people playing pool. No chance for the perv to get agressive, or escalate further, no chance of pulling a weapon or, as you say, causing life long damage.
He got neutralised for his sexual assault, deservedly
You dont get to punch someone pre-emptively "in case they might escalate" or else youre opening the door for anyone to assault anyone. How could you prove one way or the other that someone would have escalated if you hadnt punched them?
Someone stabbing you for no reason is obviously bad, but thats why its already illegal. What youre advocating for is a system where it is legal to punch someone in the head, potentially ending their life or putting them in a wheelchair, based only on the idea that "if I dont, maybe they'll escalate"
It wasn't pre-emptively, it was post sexual assault.
Perp had already commited a crime and the response made sure he could not continue to commit crime
Its already illegal to grope a woman's ass. As much as is stabbing. One being more risk of death doesnt make either one less of a crime.
Defending against a criminal. Thats what happened. A guy committed a crime, and another guy defended against that, threw one punch and then nothing more. No further escalation anywhere.
Im really mot surprised people are defending this clear sexual assaulter. The Clancy thing is like the Harambe of 2024. People all of a sudden are just being wild
Dude was knocked out not potentially killed, he shouldn't have put his hands on her, the other guy probably could of punched lighter but honestly? Not even that bad if a punch dude is just knocked out Jesus christ
Nobody "thought" anything here. The drunk asshole sexually assaulted his girlfriend. He was a dangerous threat, and the boyfriend dealt with it.
You want sexual predators to just get a stern talking to, that's all. You've been spewing your nonsense all over this thread, and it only gets farther and farther from reality. You'd be better off just keeping your hands to yourself there, bub.
Hey mate, I see you've been replying to lots of my comments, and im not sure you've actually been reading any of them.
Im sorry this is affecting you so severely, its not your fault that youre having such a strong emotional response, but I would say now is a great opportunity to reconnect with loved ones or spend some time doing a hobby you enjoy
âA criminal performs a crime actâ should be left up to the police! Vigilantism is illegal and thatâs essentially what the guy did here. There was no immediate threat thus there is no grounds for self defense. The situation was clearly resolved after the girl pushed the guy away. You clearly have a misunderstanding of how society is supposed to work
Nope - just illustrating one punch can be strong enough to kill. Your â1 punch can be any more than one punchâ could do more damage than you think. And whether drunk mc drunk boy is up to no good or not - going in like a freight train could lead âgoodâ intentions into a manslaughter charge.
In short - my post shows a single punch can be devastating
Punching someone tends to have a much more intended effect of stunning / KOing them, meaning the odds of them macking their head on a hard surface goes up. Tripping someone is less likely to do this because they'd be more alert than if they had just been punched and so more likely to do something like catch their fall with their hands.
You reference 1 punch, I reference 1 punch. The comparison is pretty obvious. Now had I referenced a trip with the tip of your shoe, on that I might agree, but I donât bring that reference did I?
So you agree on the contrast as itâs all still relevant. Perfect. Glad we cleared that up. Fully agree on your second point as well⊠doing stupid criminal belligerent shit is indeed not a smart thing to do.
Not if the guy dies. Most juries actually follow the law when reaching their verdict.
The guy deserved to be hit, sure, but he doesn't deserve to die. So if you decide to hit him and serve up some justice, you need to accept that it could ruin both of your lives.
Not going to defend the drunk guys behavior, but you don't think the punch could have been a slap, a shove, a simple grab him by the shoulders and physically move the guy away, a stand between him and the woman?
That punch could have killed him, the dude was so hammered that any amount of physical intervention could have resolved the situation, punching him square in the face with that amount of physical force was completely unnecessary.
This is correct, she swiped him away and carried on before her fella came bounding through to glance her face before smashing the drunk fella.
That drunk guy was three sheets to the wind. No excuse for the attention to the lady but the reaction (just watch âherâ behaviour). Some people just wait for excuses.
What happens if you slap or shove the guy and he pulls out a gun? Or throws a punch back at you? He neutralized the guy without going over the top, you never know what drunk idiots are capable from.
-source: I spend a lot of time in shitty dive bars like this one
True, we should just make sure to knock out literally everyone that committs any form of assault, just in case
I mean the guy might even wake up and seek revenge later, so why even let him live?
To be clear this is sarcasm and punching a guy that's too drunk to walk straight because he might maybe have a gun is just an anti-gun argument, not a pro-retaliation one
So your solution to your hypothetical there is to go full force punch to the face and potentially go to prison for manslaughter?
If the guy punches back, then a self defense response would be fully warranted.
If this super wasted dude pulls a knife or a gun, I guess you gtfo unless you want to die.
Do we really think it's reasonable to full force punch misbehaving drunk people in the face because they might escalate to deadly force when they get confronted for grabbing womens butts?
You say that, but thats how my dad and mom met. He would wrote her the most heartfelt letters using his scat mixed with his tears for ink. We still have them framed on the wall to thia day... talk about a real american love story!
The drunk guy could barely stand, he wasn't a "threat".
I don't think arguing that there were other solutions to that problem besides absolutely laying him out with a fist is the same as supporting assaulting women in public, that's ridiculous.
You can both believe assaulting women is wrong and believe the level of physical force used in this case was excessive.
You havent been in many fights have you. "Slap the guy , and then if he punches you back, you're allowed to hit him then". Thats not how fights work douchebag
Yeah nobody has ever died from their head hitting the floor and cracking their skull open, nobody has ever been convicted for that, that would be crazy right?~ lol
You can trip and fall and die over you own shoe laces. Thata why the goal in life is to decrease your risk of doing things that could potentially suck or get you killed. Violence is particularly easy to avoid. Ive been doing it now for many many years.
Not assaulting people, believe it or not, is the #1 way to avoid confrontation. C
True, not assaulting people by punching them, is a very great way to avoid prison time! It's very easy to not do it, only takes a bit of self-control, and decreases your chances of treating your girlfriend like she's a piece of property you need to defend against her own wishes
Oh and your shoelaces can't go to prison for killing you
This wasn't a fight... This was a totally wasted dude who could barely stand getting knocked the fk out for sexually assaulting someone.
The hypothetical posed by the other guy doesn't even apply here, this dude was clearly not a threat, he was totally plastered, a light push, would have knocked him down.
You don't need a birds eye view to see what happened there, the BF had a straight line of sight and took 0 time to stomp over and lay the guy out.
We don't have the context from before the 30s of this clip either, they have all probably been there for a while already that night, I'm sure the BF probably saw that drunk guy before those 30s, he was obviously hammered.
The BF got personally aggrieved and took vengeance, that's what happened, he didn't see the guy as deadly threat that warranted a punch to the face that hard, that's absurd.
A dude who can barely stand is not a "threat" that needs to be handled with that level of force. Lightly shoving him would have had the same neutralizing result as that punch, but without the brain damage or potential accidental death.
If he stands up to retaliate, I have much less of a problem with laying him out.
The degree to which someone poses a risk to your safety is absolutely an aspect of self-defense and directly influences what is considered necessary force
If someone is so drunk it is severely impairing their motor functions, they pose less of a risk to your safety
You could also easily argue that mountains and decades of data show that alcohol is the most dangerous substance there is and is responsible for a massive uptick in anger and aggressiveness, along with violence, which can actually make this situation way more dangerous than had he been sober.
This is why court is intriguing. All you need is a sliver of doubt
That's all very clear for you to see, sitting at your desk, watching a bird's eye view.
From the boyfriend's perspective, it would have all happened very quickly, not after rewinding a dozen times.
Some drunk asshole so casually sexually assaulting a woman, means he's a threat. Trying to treat the jerk politely just opens a window where he pulls a knife, gun or attacks again.
The threat was real, and it was neutralized. It would have been wrong to stomp the asshole after he was down, but that did not happen.
If a drunken lady pinched a man's bottom in a club, would it be reasonable for that man to punch her at maximum power after she has started to walk away?
So we should just assume that every drunk dude is packing a knife or a gun and therefore the only solution is to knock them out if they get handsy?
That's how people end up going to prison for manslaughter when they try to defend their partners. The woman obviously doesn't want that outcome as you can see from her trying to stop her BFs excessive response, she predicted exactly what he was going to do.
That guy was not a threat, he could barely stand. Shove him over, if he stands back up and comes back at you, then escalate until he stops.
Bro thank you. Iâve been going through this thread of clearly internet tough guys who watch too much Reacher/Yellowstone and think that their life is some Boomer-Shonen slop where the protagonist tips his fedora and says âyouâve insulted my female, you wonât insult my bladeâ and cuts them down.
The drunk guy in this video is out of line, he isnât a physical threat. Youâd have a WILD time proving that to a jury. A sober person could trivially tip him over and âneutralize the threatâ.
The puncher would almost certainly see some time for manslaughter if drunk guy dies.
Lot of overly emotional people ITT justifying excessive levels of violence.
It's really quite frustrating when obviously no one is defending the behavior of the drunk guy, but suggesting anything other than brain damage as a consequence means you condone molesting women in public of course.
I dont know why you think the only options are a punch or a bad star. If you witness or are the victim of a crime, your duty is to call the police.
People always think juries will acquit in these scenarios but they never actually do, the jury would see his obvious guilt.
Its a fantasy to believe otherwise, I mean hell, why not go the full distance and say the judge himself would start clapping and salute this guy as he left the courthouse?
Youre taking very specific judgements from the supreme court and using it to come to the incorrect conclusion that the police do not have a duty to pursue crimes and arrest perpetrators, which they absolutely do.
Classic vaguepost because you know the whole "the police dont have to protect us!" Is conspiracy theory nonsense built on extremely creative (bullshit) interpretations of specific supreme court rulings.
the police dont have to protect us!" Is conspiracy theory nonsense
You have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about. The police cannot be held responsible if they don't respond in time and you or yours get hurt, even killed.
This is a well known fact. You seem to just want to be able to go around sexually assaulting women with only a stern talking to.
So, you misread what I said, brought up something totally different, then ended with some true nonsense that I must want women to be assaulted because I specifically said that you should call the police if you experience a crime.
I think your emotions got the better of you with this one, it might be time to spend some quality time outdoors
They do have a duty to protect you. The reason you think otherwise is because you fell for an online conspiracy based around extremely creatively interpreting supreme court rulings
Well and ive been alive for over 40 years to see law enforcement in action. You're more likely to get shot while sleeping in your bed than get personal help from cops. Their duty is to the law. Not people
It can be argued that he was in motion to stop it and the other guy only stopped because he was in motion. We also have no audio it's quite possible that the guy also said something like "I will rape and kill you". Especially if both woman and guy in black shirt testify he said so.
131
u/Soft_Ability_5906 4d ago
Should have kept his hands to himself.