Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[JakeStarkey]

I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.

You cant assault someone because they scream at you. Or your wife, Your kids, Law in all 50 states

Nonsense. This case will be continued with new investigators. Watch. You can't be pushed to the ground and then have no threat to great bodily harm or death, yet shoot the pusher. Does not work that way.

 

[kaz]

I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.

You cant assault someone because they scream at you. Or your wife, Your kids, Law in all 50 states

That didn't contradict what I said, brainiac

So you learned a lesson. Good.

Going playground. I'd say good move given the stupid crap you've come up with so far

 

[OODA_Loop]

Going playground. I'd say good move given the stupid crap you've come up with so far

What stupid crap specifically ? Bring it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense.

Not at all. No state has verbal assault as grounds for physical assault.

Show me, Dont tell me.

This is the full statement in the next paragraph. You cut it to snark a reply, a violation of the rules to slice and dice. Do it again, and I will report it. Nuts, I reported it anyway. .

"Nonsense. This case will be continued with new investigators. Watch. You can't be pushed to the ground and then have no threat to great bodily harm or death, yet shoot the pusher. Does not work that way."

You ARE the one who said the 50 states don't have laws that make verbal assault as grounds for physical assault, yet you post no evidence, then demand I rebut your assertion. Nonsense. That is not how it works. Must have hit a nerve on you.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nonsense. This case will be continued with new investigators. Watch. You can't be pushed to the ground and then have no threat to great bodily harm or death, yet shoot the pusher. Does not work that way.

So the investigating cops don't what they are doing or are they corrupt ?

Think they made that decision and made recorded statements in a vacuum without counsel ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

You ARE the one who said the 50 states don't have laws that make verbal assault as grounds for physical assault, yet you post no evidence, then demand I rebut your assertion. Nonsense. That is not how it works. Must have hit a nerve on you.

i cant post what doesn't exist. Neither can you. Thus your obfuscation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you don't have anything on the 50 states, do you?

You can find a secondary source of good repute that support your claim.

 

[OODA_Loop]

This is the full statement in the next paragraph. You cut it to snark a reply, a violation of the rules to slice and dice. Do it again, and I will report it. Nuts, I reported it anyway. .

Show me the rule.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So you don't have anything on the 50 states, do you?
.

No the law doesn't exist thats the point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is your assertion only, so that does not count.

Post a reputable secondary source that supports your assertion.

 

[OODA_Loop]

That is your assertion only, so that does not count.
.

Law doesn't exist.

Post a state law which allows physical assault to verbal. Just one.

 

[OODA_Loop]

This is the full statement in the next paragraph. You cut it to snark a reply, a violation of the rules to slice and dice. Do it again, and I will report it. Nuts, I reported it anyway. .

You don't even understand forum rules so we take your legal opinions with a grain of salt.

Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box or alter the member names in "link-back" text..

 

[OODA_Loop]

That is your assertion only, so that does not count.

Post a reputable secondary source that supports your assertion.

Cant post a law that doesn't exist.

That is why you cant back up your claim that you can lawfully assault someone for words.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You certainly can post a reputable secondary source, but you won't
do it, so your assertion fails on the face of it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You certainly can post a reputable secondary source, but you won't
do it, so your assertion fails on the face of it.

A secondary source of a law that doesn't exist ?

What this all comes down to is you claimed you can lawfully assault someone for words and cant back it up.

Patently false.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You certainly can post a reputable secondary source, but you won't
do it, so your assertion fails on the face of it.

Legally speaking, does verbal antagonization ever justify physical assault?



Cliff Gilley, J.D. Criminal Law & Intellectual Property Law, Seattle University School of Law (2000)

Answered Sep 25 2014 · Author has 15.6k answers and 29.9m answer views
Not under any self-defense law of which I'm aware. Nearly all self-defense laws require a reasonable apprehension of harm for any justifiable use of force. Mere verbal taunting is insufficient to meet this standard, unless there is other, extrinsic evidence of impending harm (such as a person wielding a knife, even if they haven't attempted to use it).

https://www.quora.com/Legally-speaking-does-verbal-antagonization-ever-justify-physical-assault

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Oodles.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Thank you, Oodles.

Showing everyone who views this thread in perpetuity that you cant back up your words is thanks enough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^^^

Bless your snarky heart. You are welcome for allowing me to set the situation for you to step right into it.

If someone got into your face and started screaming at you, you could argue you were in fear of imminent and serious bodily injury.

If verbal abuse was such as for the individual to believe they were the precursor to an attack. It is not necessary to wait till you are actually struck to defend yourself. Such as if a man with a gun screams abuse, its not necessary to wait till he shoots you. If unarmed he abuses you and then advances on you can strike first. Particularly if it is very clear running would place you at a disadvantage in defending yourself.

https://www.quora.com/Legally-speaking-does-verbal-antagonization-ever-justify-physical-assault

 

[OODA_Loop]

^^^^ :roflmao:

If someone got into your face and started screaming at you, you could argue you were in fear of imminent and serious bodily injury.

If verbal abuse was such as for the individual to believe they were the precursor to an attack. It is not necessary to wait till you are actually struck to defend yourself. Such as if a man with a gun screams abuse, its not necessary to wait till he shoots you. If unarmed he abuses you and then advances on you can strike first. Particularly if it is very clear running would place you at a disadvantage in defending yourself.

https://www.quora.com/Legally-speaking-does-verbal-antagonization-ever-justify-physical-assault

Someone with a gun is not "words" now is it? Reach for some credibility. I don't blame you.