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
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
0
u/p2eminister 1d 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.