If someone pushes you, or slaps you or something...

If someone pushes you, or slaps you or something, do you think you should be able to legally pull out a knife or gun and kill them? Or do you think if they don't have weapons, you should only be able to defend yourself with your fists.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_gjvwBiu_gs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You should be able to do whatever you want, just be prepared for the legal shitstorm that will ensue. You don't say "I felt threatened," and get to walk away, you've gotta go to trial and shit.

Yes. And I think this should be extended to any personal offence taken. If somebody is mean to you, you should have every right to kill them to protect your mental health.

Junior year of high school a guy spit on me as I was walking the halls. This individual was notorious for starting fights with people he knew would not fight. I was not a fighter but at the time my parents were fighting every single night and my home life was an absolute hell. I fucking snapped and started swinging. I just went straight at him swinging as hard as I could, and he dropped. I stood there as he struggled to get up. He was visibly wobblie, but he put up his fists for more. This time when I knocked him out he fell against the brick walls half upright with his knees bent and his face against the wall. I didn't stop hitting him with my right hand. With each punch his head was bouncing off the brick wall. I was in complete tunnel vision and when I started to pull out I could hear a female teacher screaming to stop. My buddy pulled me off the guy and we left. He went to the hospital with a concussion and a ruptured ear drum. I got suspended and had to go to court.

Verdict: Not Guilty - Judge asked what happened and cut me off after my first sentence " I felt something splatter all over me and realizes Ian had spit all over me" Judge stopped me there and said that was assault with a bodily fluid and I was defending myself.

Depends on the circumstances. If a criminal attacks a cripple, the cripple should be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves. The cripple doesn't have the means to adequately defend themselves against an able-bodied attacker and that should be taken into account, provided the cripple wasn't being a real shitheel to start with.

In which case, fuck that cripple.

Why would it have to be a cripple? If you don't believe you can beat the guy who attacked you, should you just have to sit there and take his abuse without being able to kill him via a weapon?

A push or a slap no, although those would be battery and criminal matters.

Anything more like a punch then up to lethal force should be legal.

There's a legal doctrine called disparity of force. If the person is big and strong enough to hurt you even without a weapon, you are allowed to shoot. Check out some Massad Ayoob videos.

youtube.com/watch?v=_gjvwBiu_gs

If someone is even slightly approaching your weight category then that someone can beat you down.
Even some real small fucker can do it by a lucky shot.
Expecting someone who just assaulted you to stop jumping on your downed body out of some random sportsmanship is a really fucking "progressive" thing to do.

TLDR fuck this "disparity" nonsense

Justice is determined, imo, by what a reasonable could/should conclude. If soemone starts a physical altercation with a reasonable man, would the reasonable man be justified in the logic of, if I fight back, would not my aggressor continue to escalate teh violence to the point where lethal force was neccessary to control him/stop him. I beleive the answer to this question is YES.

A sentient creatures are endowed by thier creator with both the ability (and therefore the natural right) of self defence, I dont think anyone would argue this.
The only question then that remains to be considered is: Should a reasonable man conclude that someone who has initiated the use of force will escalate that force in ordr to achieve whatever thier goal happens to be. If the answer to this question is YES, then the use of lethal force is justified in every violent encounter.

I also think that the law should be reverse onus, so that once it is established who initiated force, that person must then demonstrate that lethal force was NOT required to stop them, and that they attempted after the use of force to deescalate the situation.

I also believe that any time a member of a group of people initiates force against a lone person, or significantly smaller group, then lethal force reaction should automatically occur. And anyone who is there "friend" who is nearby ie "part of the group initiating force" is also part of the crime, in that they loan strength of intimidation just by virtue of thier numbers . In this circumstance a reasonable man ought to conclude that he MUST use lethal force, since it is virtually impossible for a man alone to subdue multiple opponents without incapacitating/killing them.

Absolutely yes.

People should have the common decency not to use physical violence against their own people under any circumstances. People who cannot keep their reptilian brain under the control of their neocortex should be removed from the gene pool. If some nigger chimps out and so much as slaps you, then yes, I think you should be able to legally kill them.

My martial arts training taught me that my opponent deserves three strikes, or three opportunities to realize their mistake, before I am allowed to retaliate.

Why should the "non agressive" person in the encounter have to take the chance that they will lose. they were the law abiding citizen, they did not initiate the use of force, now you want them to "fight fair" ... that in and of itslef is "not fair"

No NO NO .... they are being attacked, they and only they, should be allowed to determine the amount of force they feel is neccessary to stop ILLEGAL violence from being enacted upon them

never put your hands on another man. youre liable to get a wide range of responses. its one thing for a 1 on 1. but never randomly fuck with someone

Appropriate response. If the attacker is just being a dick, you shouldn't use deadly force. However, if your live is in danger, you should be allowed to defend yourself with all means available.

But anyone who knows fighting will explain this to you .... fights, most fights, are over in first five seconds, you dont have time to consider whether or not you need to take two steps back or defend your life
when that first spit, slap, or push occurs you have very little time, and an adrelaine rush to decide whether to use overwhelming force immediatly or flee .... only overwhelming force has a chance to stop the attack, and your average person does not have the ability nor the training to be able to make a split second decision as to what constitutes overwhelming force and lethal force and where that line is drawn, especially considering that the line is blurry ie what might be overwhelming against one attacker would be lethal to another

No I say. A reasonable law abiding man going about his lawful business who is assaulted should NOT be expected to be able to make such a decision. We must allow this reasonable man the benefit of the doubt. civilization itself hangs on this very idea.

a couple years ago, somewhere in the midwest, a female cop was out at a bar off duty with her friends and "slapped" a guy on his ass-jokingly. she was fucking with him here and there, later in the night i guess the guy got fed up, pulled out his heater and blasted her and her friend, a male. he killed them both. he got off on minimal charges i dont even know if he did any jail time. early morning here and too lazy to look it up, probably was around 2013-14

How does a reasonable man "know" whether his life is in danger or not? His attacker btw has already shown himself incapable of self control. How far will his attacker take this?
The reasonable man has a split second to respond, or he could (and on numerous occassions, has ) died because he thought his attacker was also reasonable.

You should always expect the worst. Thw fact that you have deadly means at hand doesn't mean you have to use them. Still, better safe than sorry.

>Appropriate response. If the attacker is just being a dick, you shouldn't use deadly force. However, if your live is in danger, you should be allowed to defend yourself with all means available.
Look what I wrote here --
How the fuck am I to know if the punch/slap is going to be the last one. Will they stop after I've fallen down. Stupid.
I can give you that when you know the attacker and know him to be utterly harmless (a weakling tard midget gnawling at your ankle etc.) then it might be nice from you to show some restraint.
But some random person just assaulting you - why would you assume he's going to be restrained in his actions any further as he has just demonstrated his incapability in that department by laying hands on you
Seems so that we agree then

Context.
"push" is a very vague term.

"slap" is less vague but still not really something you can give a broad-stroke rule to

If someone outright attacks you, you should have the right to defend yourself. This can include shooting them.

Someone pushing you, then backing up and creating more space and not following it up with any more aggression wouldn't be considered an "attack". Someone pushing you, then pushing you again and trying to force you to the ground WOULD be considered an attack.

this is perfect.

just go down to melbourne, yell at some commie fucks til they yell back then just kill them. i support

Depends on why they pushed you. If they did it to push you out of line or something because they wanted your space, then it's an attack, or if they did it just to intimidate you or hurt you, you can see plenty of fights start off with a push, then it's an attack. They definitely don't need to push you twice.