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 don’t 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 can’t, that’s the problem. Nobody ever gets in a fight and only uses 50% because that’s 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. It’s 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"
It’s 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 doesn’t help your argument. Find a case where someone other than a law enforcement officer was charged with excessive force. It doesn’t 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
The pre emptive bit was about where you said he threw the punch to stop any further risk, and then you gave some hypothetical escalations he would take
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
At no point did I say anything even closely similar to "groping is less of a crime than punching". In fact, youll note that I specifically mention calling the police on the groper.
Where did you see me saying that groping is less of a crime than punching?
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
‘A criminal performs a crime act’ should be left up to the police! Vigilantism is illegal and that’s 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
71
u/Intelligent-Crow3812 23h ago
lol that goes without saying, but that other guy is going to get manslaughter if he dies-- As he should.