I saw a longer video (maybe not the full one) that showed him turning around and engaging with them a couple of times, and someone threw what looked like juice at him - didn’t seem to be the bottle, just the liquid, and then he pushed past several people to punch that specific woman. I don’t think he can claim self-defense even if they had pushed him down before, because he walked pretty far to get to her without anyone attacking him or even stopping him.
Him. Provocation is usually a mitigating factor, but not a complete defense, and it’s not like she just randomly threw a drink at him, there was an argument leading to it.
Even when it would be a defense it certainly wouldn’t excuse him in this circumstance.
Thanks, that’s the first I’ve heard of this legal concept.
It may be … sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge.
…
In extremely rare cases, adequate provocation has resulted in the defendant never being charged with a crime. In one famous example
Though in this case, doesn’t throwing a drink at somebody in itself constitute an offense of some sort? Could both parties not be prosecuted? I suppose AG bias might come into play then?
If someone was advancing on him after that it likely could be legally considered self-defense. But it sounds like he was pushing past people to go attack her. That’s not self-defense, that’s revenge.
I saw a longer video (maybe not the full one) that showed him turning around and engaging with them a couple of times, and someone threw what looked like juice at him - didn’t seem to be the bottle, just the liquid, and then he pushed past several people to punch that specific woman. I don’t think he can claim self-defense even if they had pushed him down before, because he walked pretty far to get to her without anyone attacking him or even stopping him.
IF she threw the liquid at him, and he punched her in retaliation, who’s actually in the wrong, legal-wise?
Edit: From the downvotes it seems people think I’m defending the guy. I was not, this was an actual question.
Him. Provocation is usually a mitigating factor, but not a complete defense, and it’s not like she just randomly threw a drink at him, there was an argument leading to it.
Even when it would be a defense it certainly wouldn’t excuse him in this circumstance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(law)
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Thanks, that’s the first I’ve heard of this legal concept.
Though in this case, doesn’t throwing a drink at somebody in itself constitute an offense of some sort? Could both parties not be prosecuted? I suppose AG bias might come into play then?
What’s the famous exaaaaammmmmpppple?!
:p
Buzz Aldrin, punching a flat earther
You’re the best!
If he hadn’t assaulted her he might have been able to make her pay his dry cleaning bill.
You can stop pretending to be a JAQing off American, btw. You outed yourself to all the native speakers.
I live in Norway, who’s pretending? Not my fault if you make assumptions.
Yes? I don’t quite get the hostility. I’m curious about the legalities, nothing more.
Here’s a hint: stop editorializing when you’re JAQing it. Makes it a little obvious.
I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. I appreciated your 1st explanation. The rest, IDK what’s up with it.
If someone was advancing on him after that it likely could be legally considered self-defense. But it sounds like he was pushing past people to go attack her. That’s not self-defense, that’s revenge.
Unlike crossing state lines to get a gun
Yeah, it wouldn’t be self defense since he wasn’t in any danger. Possibly provocation as the other commentor pointed out.
Can’t you just pull a Rittenhouse? You know always claim self-defense even after waving around a gun and fake cry on the stand?