Agreed. Good on Matt for adjusting his stance based on new info but "assault is justified because it was a nigger chimping out over hurty words" is clearly a reddit-tier argument.
Pretty obvious someone graduated a DEI-infested university.
Well homo I would just beat the dogshit out of you if you attacked me. The difference is I wouldn't escalate force and get myself in trouble for using lethal force. Also you started the shit talking so you just defeated your own point. Still no quote of me saying that Fox was justified in attacking Chud though
Provocation will almost always nullify self defense claims.
If that is true, then the attack itself is de facto justified by the provocation (ie hurty words). Otherwise it would be treated as it should be; an (physically) unprovoked escalation which certainly justifies a response in kind.
Nope. That's not how that works. Both could and would be charged. One would just have more serious charges than the other. It would then be up to a jury to decide. In alot of these cases the initial attacker doesn't even survive to face charges or the DA chooses to not pursue them. Fox would have still been committing assault regardless of provocation
Agreed. Good on Matt for adjusting his stance based on new info but "assault is justified because it was a nigger chimping out over hurty words" is clearly a reddit-tier argument.
Pretty obvious someone graduated a DEI-infested university.
Find me a single comment where I said the assault was justified even under provocation you gutless faggot
Woah there, watch out, you're "provoking" me. I might have no choice but to respond with physical violence...
I tell you what, go fill out a Butthurt report and give it to HR and I'll wait for them to come talk to me about how mean I'm being :(
Well homo I would just beat the dogshit out of you if you attacked me. The difference is I wouldn't escalate force and get myself in trouble for using lethal force. Also you started the shit talking so you just defeated your own point. Still no quote of me saying that Fox was justified in attacking Chud though
That is literally not even close to what I said. Another retard
If that is true, then the attack itself is de facto justified by the provocation (ie hurty words). Otherwise it would be treated as it should be; an (physically) unprovoked escalation which certainly justifies a response in kind.
Nope. That's not how that works. Both could and would be charged. One would just have more serious charges than the other. It would then be up to a jury to decide. In alot of these cases the initial attacker doesn't even survive to face charges or the DA chooses to not pursue them. Fox would have still been committing assault regardless of provocation