To justify a kick while on the ground she must have said something the equivalent of “I am going to murder your cat while you sleep” and I doubt that is what happened. What likely happened is she said something that hurt his ego and instead of expressing his reaction verbally, he acted like the man child he is and started flailing his arms and legs. If this is the case he should be banned from every bar with a ten km radius of where he lives and from all the dating apps too.
To justify a kick while on the ground she must have said something the equivalent of “I am going to murder your cat while you sleep” and I doubt that is what happened.
To justify the kick, he merely needs a reasonable belief that she was getting up to continue striking him, and that his use of force was intended to stop this continued threat.
She had just regained her balance and she was getting up. The kick knocked her back over, putting her back on the ground.
The kick pissed me off, but it is not unreasonable to believe she was rising to continue her initial attack. Some level of force against her is justifiable under that condition.
Which initial attack? She was getting up and probably using arms as balance. Why would you extend out your arms in a wide angle if you are trying to attack? There are myriad ways to attack from that position including a punch or going for the throat or taking something from the table and throwing it, none of which she seems to do. You can at this point only speculate that she was trying to attack not really prove it.
On a second look it is also not super clear if she was using arms as balance as she was moving towards him at the same time. It is still not clear what was her physical intensions though. Maybe she would just push him because she got angry? I think nevertheless kicking someone without the clear intention of equivalent physical harm can not be justified.
The grabbing of the glass was unjustified, but not an attack. The throwing of the liquid at her was unjustified (but provoked), and also not an attack. The initial “attack” was when she stood up and began striking him in the face.
She was getting up
The rest of your comment on this point is irrelevant. She was knocked done because she had attacked him, and she was getting up before he had a chance to back away. If he reasonably believed she was getting up to continue striking him, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.
You can at this point only speculate that she was trying to attack not really prove it.
Correct. Absolutely correct. I can’t prove it; he can’t prove it. But, if you look at the laws governing use of force, he doesn’t have to conclusively proven her intention to continue the attack. All that has to be shown is that a reasonable person in his position would believe she continued to pose a threat, and he is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop that threat.
With him on trial, I don’t have to prove she intended to continue her attack. With him on trial, you have to prove his belief that she would attack is unreasonable, and/or that the kick was more force than was necessary to stop that attack. Unless he confesses that his intent here was to cause harm rather than to stop her from causing harm, I don’t think that burden can be met.
I think nevertheless kicking someone without the clear intention of equivalent physical harm can not be justified.
That is incorrect. The standard is not “clear intention”. The standard is “reasonable belief”. As soon as she began striking him, she opened the door to a reasonable use of force to stop the threat she posed.
From what I see, she never striked him. The point where you claim she is striking him on the face is only her getting up and extending her arms. It might be anything from trying to strike him on the face to an angry push. Pushing someone that you think is trying to push you? Yes reasonable. But for anything more than that, It does not seem to even provide enough evidence for a reasonable belief of anything more than a shove.
It might be anything from trying to strike him on the face to an angry push. Pushing someone that you think is trying to push you? Yes reasonable.
You have conceded that she used force, and that he was justified in using some degree of force to stop her. We don’t have to answer the question of whether it was a strike or an angry push. All we need to know is that he was, at least at this specific moment, justified in using some level of force to stop her. You’ve indicated that a “push” was a reasonable level of force.
You are justified in using any level of force you reasonably believe necessary to stop a threat of harm. She attacked him in some way, he pushed her to the ground. She immediately rose to her feet: can you conclusively demonstrate that, at this specific moment in time, it was wholly unreasonable to believe she was rising to continue her attack?
If you can’t conclusively prove she was harmless at this point, then, under use-of-force laws, the kick could (potentially) be justified as an attempt to stop her continued attack.
We don’t have to answer the question of whether it was a strike
This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?
You have conceded that she used force,
Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove. I wouldn’t even consider it a lunge, so as it stands, it is a very hard sell for reasonable grounds for suspecting harm. Nevermind proportionality aspect of kicking the woman who may or may not have tries to push you. And this is something you have been glossing over.
If you can’t conclusively prove she was harmless
At this point we are acting only on suspicion. I don’t think one can conclusively prove that she was initially trying to be harmful either. But lets assume that he really suspected that she meant physical harm and pushed her. At that point, until she gets up and tries to attack (assuming that was her intention to start with), the threat is assumed to be paused. Otherwise what is the difference between one kick and ten kicks? What you defend suggests he should be able to kick her as long as she tries to get up which is open to abuse. So kicking at that point is considered retaliation and it is your duty to retreat if you are in a public space and not your home.
But lets assume that he really suspected that she meant physical harm and pushed her. At that point, until she gets up and tries to attack (assuming that was her intention to start with), the threat is assumed to be paused.
Correct, except for
and tries to attack
She doesn’t need to try to attack. He merely needs to reasonably believe she is continuing her attack.
the threat is assumed to be paused.
While she is on the ground and unable to attack, that is true. If she stayed on the ground, he would have no justification to continue. But, she didn’t stay on the ground. She was back on her feet and beginning to stand when she was kicked.
Otherwise what is the difference between one kick and ten kicks?
Kicking the attacker before they attempt to continue their attack would not be justified.
If an attacker keeps trying to get up and fight 9 times, the 10th kick would be justified.
Kicking the attacker before they attempt to continue their attack would not be justified.
If an attacker keeps trying to get up and fight 9 times, the 10th kick would be justified.
Exactly, “trying to get up AND fight”. But the latter part is absent in this video, just trying to get up is not indication of attempting to continue the attack. Getting up and moving towards the person? Maybe. But it is not possible to justify kicking someone trying to get up in any reasonable way under these circumstances.
This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?
It is clearly visible in the video. When you conceded that it could be an “angry push” rather than a “strike”, I didn’t need to belabor the point. An “angry push” is sufficient to justify a forceful response.
Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove.
You say “Nope” and then describe only circumstances where she used force: a “shove” (previously “angry push”) is a use of force.
Nevermind proportionality aspect
“Proportionality” is not a factor in the use of defensive force. The relevant consideration is “reasonably believed necessary to stop the threat”.
Where defensive force is justified, substantially greater force can be justified. If a relatively lesser threat cannot be reasonably stopped except with a substantially greater defensive force, the substantially greater defensive force is justified.
“Reasonably believed to be necessary to stop the threat”.
The threat in this case is the use of her arms to [strike|angry push|shove] him, which is the forceful behavior she was engaging in when she initially stood.
You have to show that it was unreasonable to believe she was attempting to continue this behavior if you want to demonstrate that his use of force was unjustified.
Can you provide a screen shot of the moment where her hand actually connects with his face in the form of a strike? I am rewatching the video and not seeing it.
You say “Nope”
I said Nope because I did not say she shoved him or pushed him. All I said is her movement towards him could be anything from wanting to punch him to push him.
“Proportionality” is not a factor in the use of defensive force.
To justify a kick while on the ground she must have said something the equivalent of “I am going to murder your cat while you sleep” and I doubt that is what happened. What likely happened is she said something that hurt his ego and instead of expressing his reaction verbally, he acted like the man child he is and started flailing his arms and legs. If this is the case he should be banned from every bar with a ten km radius of where he lives and from all the dating apps too.
To justify the kick, he merely needs a reasonable belief that she was getting up to continue striking him, and that his use of force was intended to stop this continued threat.
She had just regained her balance and she was getting up. The kick knocked her back over, putting her back on the ground.
The kick pissed me off, but it is not unreasonable to believe she was rising to continue her initial attack. Some level of force against her is justifiable under that condition.
Which initial attack? She was getting up and probably using arms as balance. Why would you extend out your arms in a wide angle if you are trying to attack? There are myriad ways to attack from that position including a punch or going for the throat or taking something from the table and throwing it, none of which she seems to do. You can at this point only speculate that she was trying to attack not really prove it.
On a second look it is also not super clear if she was using arms as balance as she was moving towards him at the same time. It is still not clear what was her physical intensions though. Maybe she would just push him because she got angry? I think nevertheless kicking someone without the clear intention of equivalent physical harm can not be justified.
The grabbing of the glass was unjustified, but not an attack. The throwing of the liquid at her was unjustified (but provoked), and also not an attack. The initial “attack” was when she stood up and began striking him in the face.
The rest of your comment on this point is irrelevant. She was knocked done because she had attacked him, and she was getting up before he had a chance to back away. If he reasonably believed she was getting up to continue striking him, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.
Correct. Absolutely correct. I can’t prove it; he can’t prove it. But, if you look at the laws governing use of force, he doesn’t have to conclusively proven her intention to continue the attack. All that has to be shown is that a reasonable person in his position would believe she continued to pose a threat, and he is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop that threat.
With him on trial, I don’t have to prove she intended to continue her attack. With him on trial, you have to prove his belief that she would attack is unreasonable, and/or that the kick was more force than was necessary to stop that attack. Unless he confesses that his intent here was to cause harm rather than to stop her from causing harm, I don’t think that burden can be met.
That is incorrect. The standard is not “clear intention”. The standard is “reasonable belief”. As soon as she began striking him, she opened the door to a reasonable use of force to stop the threat she posed.
From what I see, she never striked him. The point where you claim she is striking him on the face is only her getting up and extending her arms. It might be anything from trying to strike him on the face to an angry push. Pushing someone that you think is trying to push you? Yes reasonable. But for anything more than that, It does not seem to even provide enough evidence for a reasonable belief of anything more than a shove.
You have conceded that she used force, and that he was justified in using some degree of force to stop her. We don’t have to answer the question of whether it was a strike or an angry push. All we need to know is that he was, at least at this specific moment, justified in using some level of force to stop her. You’ve indicated that a “push” was a reasonable level of force.
You are justified in using any level of force you reasonably believe necessary to stop a threat of harm. She attacked him in some way, he pushed her to the ground. She immediately rose to her feet: can you conclusively demonstrate that, at this specific moment in time, it was wholly unreasonable to believe she was rising to continue her attack?
If you can’t conclusively prove she was harmless at this point, then, under use-of-force laws, the kick could (potentially) be justified as an attempt to stop her continued attack.
This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?
Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove. I wouldn’t even consider it a lunge, so as it stands, it is a very hard sell for reasonable grounds for suspecting harm. Nevermind proportionality aspect of kicking the woman who may or may not have tries to push you. And this is something you have been glossing over.
At this point we are acting only on suspicion. I don’t think one can conclusively prove that she was initially trying to be harmful either. But lets assume that he really suspected that she meant physical harm and pushed her. At that point, until she gets up and tries to attack (assuming that was her intention to start with), the threat is assumed to be paused. Otherwise what is the difference between one kick and ten kicks? What you defend suggests he should be able to kick her as long as she tries to get up which is open to abuse. So kicking at that point is considered retaliation and it is your duty to retreat if you are in a public space and not your home.
Correct, except for
She doesn’t need to try to attack. He merely needs to reasonably believe she is continuing her attack.
While she is on the ground and unable to attack, that is true. If she stayed on the ground, he would have no justification to continue. But, she didn’t stay on the ground. She was back on her feet and beginning to stand when she was kicked.
Kicking the attacker before they attempt to continue their attack would not be justified.
If an attacker keeps trying to get up and fight 9 times, the 10th kick would be justified.
Exactly, “trying to get up AND fight”. But the latter part is absent in this video, just trying to get up is not indication of attempting to continue the attack. Getting up and moving towards the person? Maybe. But it is not possible to justify kicking someone trying to get up in any reasonable way under these circumstances.
It is clearly visible in the video. When you conceded that it could be an “angry push” rather than a “strike”, I didn’t need to belabor the point. An “angry push” is sufficient to justify a forceful response.
You say “Nope” and then describe only circumstances where she used force: a “shove” (previously “angry push”) is a use of force.
“Proportionality” is not a factor in the use of defensive force. The relevant consideration is “reasonably believed necessary to stop the threat”.
Where defensive force is justified, substantially greater force can be justified. If a relatively lesser threat cannot be reasonably stopped except with a substantially greater defensive force, the substantially greater defensive force is justified.
“Reasonably believed to be necessary to stop the threat”.
The threat in this case is the use of her arms to [strike|angry push|shove] him, which is the forceful behavior she was engaging in when she initially stood.
You have to show that it was unreasonable to believe she was attempting to continue this behavior if you want to demonstrate that his use of force was unjustified.
Can you provide a screen shot of the moment where her hand actually connects with his face in the form of a strike? I am rewatching the video and not seeing it.
I said Nope because I did not say she shoved him or pushed him. All I said is her movement towards him could be anything from wanting to punch him to push him.
Simply not correct:
https://www.cvpsd.org/post/proportionality-in-civilian-self-defense-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters