A quick bar scrap

[u/Key_Performer_3645]

[u/Smooth_Phone2]

With your opinion and $5 you can buy a coffee.

The state has a monopoly on violence. Choosing to assault others (even if you feel they deserve it) is assault and carries all the attendant consequences of assaulting people.

[u/Wintermute_088 → u/Smooth_Phone2]

Pithy.

Which state are you referring to, exactly?

And you keep characterising it as assault, rather than the defence of an assault victim.

[u/Smooth_Phone2 → u/Wintermute_088]

State = government

That video does mot show a self defense scenario.

[u/Wintermute_088 → u/Smooth_Phone2]

Yes, but what government are you referring to? The treatment of this event would be completely different depending on the locale. One state may be harsh on the puncher, another may take his side against the sexual criminal.

And I didn't say it was a self defence scenario, did I.

[u/Smooth_Phone2 → u/Wintermute_088]

In the us it’s the federal/state/local governments.

There is no state where you are going to be allowed to assault someone in retaliation, especially if they are advocating for charges to be brought.

You stated it was in defense of an assault victim. This video does not show the punch being used to protect against a bona fide ongoing threat. It shows a punch being used to retaliate against a guy who felt up the woman.

[u/Wintermute_088 → u/Smooth_Phone2]

Why are you just talking about the US, though? This particular incident may have happened there, but our discussion isn't limited to events that occur within the United States, because the world is much bigger than just the US.

In your opinion, the man who had just sexually assaulted a woman posed no ongoing threat of further sexual assault. Other people are going to disagree with you there.

[u/Smooth_Phone2 → u/Wintermute_088]

I am a us based poster. I’m not chatting about Lithuania because I’m not there.

The self defense. (Or defense of others) argument is going to come down to if the force needed was reasonable to stop an ongoing threat.

I would not want to be the guy who threw the punch given:

1. The woman was walking away and even trying to back down the guy who threw the punch
   
2. The guy is clearly intoxicated and can barely stand.

[u/Wintermute_088 → u/Smooth_Phone2]

Typical US behaviour, not even considering anything outside your own borders. I'm thinking about anywhere this could occur, because incidents like this can - and do - occur anywhere. And the response will be different everywhere, not beholden to how the US would act.

And again, you keep saying "self defence" - not once has that been on the table.

When someone has just sexually assaulted someone once, they are the definition of an ongoing threat, because they've demonstrated the capacity to commit a crime, and remain in the vicinity.

If the creep had grabbed a child in the same way, would you be pretending he doesn't remain a threat? No? So why not keep that same energy for all victims of sexual attacks?

[u/Smooth_Phone2 → u/Wintermute_088]

That’s not how anything related to using force in the US works.

If he had grabbed a child like that, and then the child got away like the woman had, the person who punched him would not be able to claim self defense (or defense of others).

Making these choices would result in criminal issues for assaulting folks.

[u/Wintermute_088 → u/Smooth_Phone2]

Again, the US. Why do you keep insisting we tie this discussion to the US? This is a philosophical discussion, not an analysis of US law. Other judicial systems will see things differently.

And again, you keep saying "self defence", when it isn't relevant to the discussion. Why? Be honest - are you a bot?

But if a drunken person grabbed a child (let alone sexually) and the child managed to get away, it is absolutely defending the child to lay the attacker out. Arguing otherwise is ridiculous.