- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
If the main issue you have is defining assault, then whether or not the victim in this was being a jackass is irrelevant. Put it this way: if an old lady was walking down the street with a sign that said "Have a nice day," and someone came and tried to yank it off her neck, choking her with the chord that it was hanging by, would that be assault? If so, then so is this.
If not, then, while I disagree with you, I at least see your point and acknowledge it's value.
If it's assault, then whether or not it was justified assault is the question, and we can stop arguing about the difference between a massive beatdown and what happened here, because the court cannot leave the determination of just punishment up to a mob.
We can't divorce common sense from the application of the law. The old lady in your example isn't acting in a way that would provoke any reasonable person.
The atheist in our case study is acting in such a way.
This raises the bar on the definition of assault, in my opinion. The atheist is acting in a way that invites confrontation, therefore he bears some responsibility for the consequences.
I would charge the muslim with assault if he had struck the atheist with a closed fist, or inflicted actual physical harm on him. Not as it stands.
We can look at it another way.
How anti-social would someone need to be to assault the old lady in your example? Bat**** crazy, pretty much.
How anti-social would you say the muslim's actions were in comparison? Clearly, his actions are much more understandable.
The one is clearly a danger to society, the other is arguably a rational actor.