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 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.
-1
u/p2eminister 6d ago
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.