Both of the scenarios listed above are deemed criminal laws. But in some cases, assaults and batteries may be pursued by the state as civil laws. Below, we will go into detail about the exact definitions and requirements of both assault and battery. Again, each state has a different definition of assault. But in general, assault means an attempt to hurt another person. In some cases, this can include threatening behavior and outright threats against someone else.
One could also say that assault refers to an attempt at battery. This means that for assault charges to actually be brought to court, it is not necessary for actual contact to occur.
A simple threat or attempt at battery will suffice to bring a case to court. Once again, each state has different definitions of battery, and each jurisdiction within the state may have different statutes defining what battery is as well. He needed help, and even more help as he tried to recover from being knocked down. Wearing a swastika armband is not an infallible sign of Nazism anymore than wearing a Napoleonic hat by a psychotic is a sign that the wearer is the man himself.
Americans seem to be experiencing a fad for seeing Nazis under their beds. To me it is painfully obvious that this jerk was trying to provoke a violent response by his behavior and verbal abuse. Behave like that and guess what people may punch you. So my sympathy for him is close to zero. So a standard tactic of Neo-Nazis douches is to deliberately provoke via disorderly behavior and verbal slime physical attacks so they can be portrayed has victims.
I am amazed how often, over and over again people fall for this. Sure, some are a bit over-eager to call people nazis at the slightest sign of political difference. On the other hand, this guy was openly flaunting his affiliation with nazism. In the s, the Nazis were able to convince the majority of Germans even at the height of the Nazi era, only a third of Germans were party members that their violence was legitimate because their opposition on the left — the German Communists — also used violence, and often did so with as little provocation as the Nazis did.
If you want to use violence to defend yourself from violence, I doubt that very many people would object. But if you want to use violence preemptively, you are giving your enemies a gift of PR greater than anything they can possibly manage to produce on their own.
And these unengaged people are enough to turn either side into an overwhelming majority without any difficulty whatsoever. Which is assault and, if contact made, battery, the same as punching someone. I have but one life. If the punch killed the fucker I would be totally nonplussed by it. It would have been justified under the natural rights of self-defense. This is true even if, as I agree, the law has no business ruling such a case a legitimate use of force.
Saad is, it would seem, not against punching them. Such boldness. Until then, stop wanking and calling other people sniveling. Imagine that! A person can hold truly vile beliefs, but those people have only comitted a crime when their theoretical violence becomes actual.
If, on the other hand, you believe that violent rhetoric should be met with preemptive violence… does that then apply to your violent rhetoric? Recall that you are currently endorsing — even encouraging — attacking political opponents for their violent rhetoric. Here we have encountered one of multiple problems with the preemptive strike as a tactic: it is endlessly recursive. Person A represents a threat, therefore person B should attack… but now person B represents a threat to A… person A should now preemptively attack… but now etc etc ad nauseum.
Proactive self defense is indistinguishable from aggression. He threw a banana at someone and called them an ape. Plain old bullshit. Sometimes it is true — lots of commenters skip the comments when commenting — but part about the thrown banana?
Of course I saw that, I quoted it to address it directly! Name the mental disorder. Be specific. And tell is which version of the DSM are you using. A few quick comments: 1 Is it okay for Christians to punch abortion supporters? Is it okay for Palestinians to punch white belly dancers? When do you go to the police or the polls and when do you just start punching?
Any sort of logical process or do you just behave on a feeling? They are not equivalent. That said, I apologize for extending you the benefit of the doubt that you might have overlooked it rather than being dishonest. I will not do so again.
So the Jewish author advocates non-violent means; the neo-Nazi types violence. People here seem overwhelmingly in favor of initiating violence — which are they more like? Through the power of listening, and treating these people with their heinous views as humans first and foremost, they were able to alter the destinies of those they encountered.
But according to your comment 43, throwing a banana and punching are equivalent. But is it something I need to do? Should I inform my grandmother that she needs to commit acts of violence? Should I tell everybody? You can read whatever you want into it, like a passage from scripture. Why would we need to do any better?
Heads or tails, the fascists win. ContraPoints made an excellent video on recognizing and decoding fascists where she discusses many of these tactics. What precisely are you advocating? Punching so-called Nazis as a pre-emptive defensive response? How is this punching limited in scope? If they punch back, what do you do? If they pull out brass knuckles or a gun or a car, then how do you react?
Just keep punching no matter what because of your limited scope? Or do you escalate as well? How are you planning on limiting their response? I would truly appreciate a better argument than just mere name-calling.
I actually feel this particular punch was less justified than if the Charlottesville white terror march had been met with large scale violence. I agree that in the case of this individual Nazi, calling the police might have been the better option since he did in fact do things that are against the law.
My example that you responded to was an analogy to Charlottesville and not to this Nazi dude. Is it that you keep confusing the issue with the free speech bullshit Americans have been programmed to believe?
Each of those three things are inherently threatening and a danger to public safety. The presence of a Nazi in public being a Nazi is a threat. A group of Nazis appearing in public is a very specific threat. Just how many minorities do you need to tell you this? Where are the enormous multi-city protests and marches pushing for that? Listen up Wibberals, these fuckin Nazis pukes want to beat, torture and kill you. Many have. Until then, by any means necessary. Saad I would have no problem punching someone who was an immediate physical threat to me or someone close by.
The policies that person might espouse are not an immediate physical threat. Hate speech should be against the law, with severe penalties. You must surely!? In any civilised society, people who advocate genocide would be arrested. It is based upon a deliberate policy of injustice of the worst kind. My sympathy lies with those who he would wish to enslave or murder. What kind of tax rate to implement, where to build a hospital, should cigarettes be banned, etc should all be discussed and debated without violence or threats.
The opponents moves should only be countered with valid moves of your own. You can no longer respond to that with a valid chess move. The table shaking must immediately stop. Either the government intervenes or the people intervene.
No third option. There are lots of meta-rules in chess, not just ones about the legal moves. The way such disputes are resolved needs to be consistently applied such that we can sustain a stable and fair society for everyone.
Preemptive acts of violence are definitely on the list of things that are not conducive to that. Police said they they received several reports Sunday of a man wearing a swastika instigating fights at Third Avenue and Pine Street. Perhaps the Nazi got what he wanted a fight and then discovered that the outcome was not what he thought it would be. When you are far to the left of the ACLU, demonized by the right, you might want to reconsider your position.
In , the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived.
Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago. It was just a goof! You know what? Sarcasm aside, I agree with you- most of those Nazis are all talk. Until, that is, they get a bit of power.
Then, the ones who really, truly mean it will start killing. Nazis throughout history have been proving they mean what they say, too.
They really do mean to kill us all. I WILL fight back. They need the edgelords. Just as long as they get their attention. Next thing you know, thousands of fresh-faced, clean-cut young men are marching through a major US city throwing Nazi salutes and carrying Pepe banners alongside Nazi flags.
If, on the other hand, they think that THEY might get hurt, it just might make them think twice. He and his buddies were all full of piss and ready to start the great extermination the night before, but when he realized that people would actually fight back, that he might actually get hurt?
He ran off with his tail between his legs. A truly pitiful showing. Where oh where were the legions of edgelords? One last time: Nazis today are no different from the originals. Their very existence is a promise to finish what Hitler and his supporters began. Guerss what? Folks got provoked. And yes, I have followed through.
I have in fact punched—and in a couple of cases kicked—actual fucking Nazis. Have you studies any other countries to see if anti-hate-speech laws really do lead, by necessity, to the Orwellian nightmare you imply they do? Jolly good show. So many of our social conventions, so many of our laws, so many things that we uphold as societal virtues were put in place by and for the protection of white men in power. Is it a moral good to punch a Nazi?
They want to be normalized. To have their ideas treated as worthy of debate, as acceptable free speech, so they can recruit more people. I want to live in a world where people wearing swastikas or rainbows or Black Power shirts can coexist without physically attacking each other! These are people who want me and everyone like me dead.
Their ideas should be abhorrent and fundamentally opposed to our shared humanity. Can you or your family afford that? I strongly disapprove of the way the DNC handles just about everything. Nazis are telling me that they intend to murder me, unlike any of the above groups. More than that, Nazis have shown time and again, through past behavior, that they absolutely mean it. I will fight back. To your points: 1. I will do what I must to survive. I hope to survive. I may not value my life all that much, but I will NEVER let them get their hands on me again, so long as there is anything I can do to prevent that.
Then i guess that is where we will never agree. OK, so one who admits to exercising a violent physical response to physically non-violent provocation.
You want a law would have to be constitutional amendment presumably to silence those whose expressions provoke you. So should they be locked up or just executed? And should some Christians be allowed to do the same to anyone involved in Planned Parenthood etc?
What about cultural appropriation? What if you are wrong? What if you are right? Hmm, no abuse of hate speech laws there at all. I am getting confused — do you consider Timothy McVey with approbation or dismay?
They do, every single fucking day. So do run-of-the-mill Republican policies, centrist policies, etc. They absolutely mean it too. Didn't receive the code? Don't have your phone? Please contact support. Create a new Playlist. Please enter the required information. Add Tag. Sign in to add this to a playlist. Sign in to remove this from recommended. You are now leaving Pornhub. Go Back You are now leaving Pornhub.
You are now viewing Pornhub in English. Switch to Russian. The key here is that. Accordingly, an attempt type simple assault may be committed even.
It is not necessary that PVT Roe actually. Assault consummated by a battery. A battery is an assault in which the attempt or offer to do bodily harm is consummated, or. If somebody is going to assault another person, they must show actions that prove this behavior. If an individual is acting in a dangerous way and intended harm to an individual, then assault will usually be proven. Battery is a bit different from assault, even though they go hand in hand.
For a defendant to be charged with this crime, they must have acted in an offensive and harmful manner and physically touched a plaintiff without their consent. There must be intent in these cases as well. The victim of this incident may consider it battery; however, if it was an accident, it was not an intentional act. Therefore, this would not hold up in court. In another case, such as a physical attack on a person, this could go to trial.Feb 23, · Assault and battery charges differ in each state. With that being said, in general, assault and battery is committed in the following situations. First, assault and battery includes someone trying to do something physical to strike or touch another person. Second, assault and battery includes someone committing an act of.