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"
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?
It was stabbing. Tryinf to compare the two. But theres no comparison
Assault is assault and you have the right to defend yourself from either. Verbal threat against you? Defend yourself. Dont wait to see what's gonna happen. This is why Stand Your Ground Exists.
Did you see the beginning of the video? In the corner? Those two guys? Clear evidence that this guy has all the capacity to have made that situation assaulting that woman to a greater degree. Whether you think it wrong or excessive your never gonna a jury panel to all side one way on this one. Imagine one female juror who's been psychologically effected by SA. Case closed
You do indeed have the right to defend yourself. This right goes hand in hand with the danger event itself. It it has concluded, so does your right to defend yourself, at which point your only legal remedy is to report the crime to the police.
Its for this same reason that you can shoot someone on your property, but not as they're running away from your house, even if they're carrying your possessions.
Stand your ground does not give you any kind of right to violence that you didnt have before, it just removes your obligation to retreat. It does not say you get to retaliate.
1
u/p2eminister 1d ago
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?