She doesn’t brandish the bottle at all. She picked it up and stood still, in a defensive posture. Which is fully understandable since he’s assaulted her twice already.
Feelings are clearly running high in this thread but I’m going to stand by the argument I’ve made elsewhere, instead of the knee jerk reactionary shit.
If you can’t flip the gender roles this exchange and make the same conclusions, you’ve come to the wrong conclusion.
She initiated indirect physical contact. She initiated direct physical contact. She initiated escalation to potentially deadly force. And in her face book post she at least confirms the first two parts, with video evidence to corroborate. She needs a real lawyer because the argument that because she is smaller and physically weaker will end up with her catching charges.
She initiated this. She said she initiated this. The video evidence says she initiated this. She took the first step up each element of the escalation ladder (indirect use of force -> direct use of force -> use of deadly force). She made no efforts to de escalate.
If you want her to win, she needs a fucking lawyer. Because even a basically competent lawyer is going to be able to present her own words, her Facebook post on this, and be able to show that she knew she was the party to step up the escalation ladder.
She needs a lawyer and to press charges because if she doesn’t, he will. And with the evidence as presented here, he’d have a pretty solid case for self defense. Yes he used far to much force and went to far. But he at no point initiated this. Each turn of the wheel has him responding to her escalation. He tried two times to leave the situation. The first time unsuccessfully because she was brandishing a weapon. These are material facts that she acknowledged in her Facebook post, and which can be plainly seen in the video. It doesn’t matter if we think his use of force in response is excessive, if she keeps stepping up the escalation ladder.
Nope it does not and again you’re not a fucking law expert stop talking like you are. You’re so wrong all over this page you fucking dork.
The entire situation decides intent. Her intent all over is general, touches the bottle with no intent to do harm or anything not illegal, not offensive. Grabs the bottle with general intent, is not swinging it or brandishing it or showing intent to use it as a weapon, no crime.
He throws the drink in her face, general intent. Once he physically interacted with her that is no longer general and it switches all his actions to specific intent.
You’re fucking dumb literally shut up dude holy fuck
While I don’t subscribe to this “general/specific intent” model, your own arguments demonstrate otherwise. Your arguments below rest on the premise that one of the parties started with general intent, and then switched to specific intent. Two parties are interacting. Their intentions change in response to eachother’s actions. The entire situation doesn’t describe intent; there are intentions behind each and every individual action.
Because neither we nor any party involved can know the contents of any mind but their own, none can actually know intent. I reject the “intent” model specifically because the minds are unknowable to anyone. The “justification” model resolves this problem: None of the parties needs to know why the other party is doing what they are doing; their actions provide sufficient context to speak for themselves. Still, for convenience, I will try to frame my position in your terms.
He throws the drink in her face, general intent.
Good. You concede that the throwing of the drink in the face was what you call general intent. I’ve readily conceded that this act was provoked, but unjustified. We now appear to be in agreement that the throwing of the drink was not particularly important to the events at hand. You deem it a misdemeanor. I’ve said that it could qualify as disturbing the peace. We’re basically on the same page with regard to the throwing of the drink.
Once he physically interacted with her that is no longer general and it switches all his actions to specific intent.
His first physical interaction with her (after all the “general intent” actions involving the drink) was being struck in the face by her.
We can safely presume that Her specific intent was to cause him harm. We can safely presume that his specific intent was to stop her from harming him. The “intent” model shows the same thing that the “justification” model shows.
She doesn’t brandish the bottle at all. She picked it up and stood still, in a defensive posture. Which is fully understandable since he’s assaulted her twice already.
The guy is the aggressor.
If you’re this woman’s lawyer, she’s going to go to jail.
Hey thanks for confirming I don’t have to take any of your comments seriously ever again.
Feelings are clearly running high in this thread but I’m going to stand by the argument I’ve made elsewhere, instead of the knee jerk reactionary shit.
If you can’t flip the gender roles this exchange and make the same conclusions, you’ve come to the wrong conclusion.
She initiated indirect physical contact. She initiated direct physical contact. She initiated escalation to potentially deadly force. And in her face book post she at least confirms the first two parts, with video evidence to corroborate. She needs a real lawyer because the argument that because she is smaller and physically weaker will end up with her catching charges.
She initiated this. She said she initiated this. The video evidence says she initiated this. She took the first step up each element of the escalation ladder (indirect use of force -> direct use of force -> use of deadly force). She made no efforts to de escalate.
If you want her to win, she needs a fucking lawyer. Because even a basically competent lawyer is going to be able to present her own words, her Facebook post on this, and be able to show that she knew she was the party to step up the escalation ladder.
She needs a lawyer and to press charges because if she doesn’t, he will. And with the evidence as presented here, he’d have a pretty solid case for self defense. Yes he used far to much force and went to far. But he at no point initiated this. Each turn of the wheel has him responding to her escalation. He tried two times to leave the situation. The first time unsuccessfully because she was brandishing a weapon. These are material facts that she acknowledged in her Facebook post, and which can be plainly seen in the video. It doesn’t matter if we think his use of force in response is excessive, if she keeps stepping up the escalation ladder.
I love you fuckin idiots that think you know the law.
Google specific and general intent. Learn something.
Specific intent to cause harm is a massive fucking problem
Battery with general intent is a misdemeanor.
That describes both her grabbing of the glass, and his splashing her with the contents. General intent, not specific intent.
That describes her lunging across the table and hitting him. A specific intent to cause harm.
I agree with the parent comment: if you raise this “general intent vs specific intent” argument as this woman’s lawyer, she’s going to jail.
Nope it does not and again you’re not a fucking law expert stop talking like you are. You’re so wrong all over this page you fucking dork.
The entire situation decides intent. Her intent all over is general, touches the bottle with no intent to do harm or anything not illegal, not offensive. Grabs the bottle with general intent, is not swinging it or brandishing it or showing intent to use it as a weapon, no crime.
He throws the drink in her face, general intent. Once he physically interacted with her that is no longer general and it switches all his actions to specific intent.
You’re fucking dumb literally shut up dude holy fuck
While I don’t subscribe to this “general/specific intent” model, your own arguments demonstrate otherwise. Your arguments below rest on the premise that one of the parties started with general intent, and then switched to specific intent. Two parties are interacting. Their intentions change in response to eachother’s actions. The entire situation doesn’t describe intent; there are intentions behind each and every individual action.
Because neither we nor any party involved can know the contents of any mind but their own, none can actually know intent. I reject the “intent” model specifically because the minds are unknowable to anyone. The “justification” model resolves this problem: None of the parties needs to know why the other party is doing what they are doing; their actions provide sufficient context to speak for themselves. Still, for convenience, I will try to frame my position in your terms.
Good. You concede that the throwing of the drink in the face was what you call general intent. I’ve readily conceded that this act was provoked, but unjustified. We now appear to be in agreement that the throwing of the drink was not particularly important to the events at hand. You deem it a misdemeanor. I’ve said that it could qualify as disturbing the peace. We’re basically on the same page with regard to the throwing of the drink.
His first physical interaction with her (after all the “general intent” actions involving the drink) was being struck in the face by her.
We can safely presume that Her specific intent was to cause him harm. We can safely presume that his specific intent was to stop her from harming him. The “intent” model shows the same thing that the “justification” model shows.
Your education was a waste of taxpayer money