So if someone attacks me in a crazed drug rage, and I fight back, we both get punished the same? That's as crazy as the jaw clenching toasted chick. Ridiculous.
I'm ok with both of them getting a $500 fine. Although I would prefer if she also needed to attend some sort of drug rehab.
That said, I'm in agreement with the guy being fined. He didn't "fight back" she hit him and walked away. He got up and followed her, pushed her and grabbed her.
Follow and talk, fine, retrain is ok too. But he was aggressive.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following User Says Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
So If i put my hands on you, i get free reign to beat you up without getting punched back?
awesome
how can i reach you and does the City of Edmonton accept AMEX for my $500 fine?
If you put your hands on me I should be able to do enough to get your hands off of me without some sort of Old Testament, over-the-top, non-proportional vengence.
If you punch me in the arm I can put you in hospital? Is that how it should work?
A lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that in Canada you are allowed to defend yourself to the point where the other person is no longer a threat.
The initial post I quoted suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can "beat the crap out of them". If he had suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can do enough to stop them I could understand. But it seemed to me that he was suggesting much more than that. Is that what you're suggesting?
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
If you put your hands on me I should be able to do enough to get your hands off of me without some sort of Old Testament, over-the-top, non-proportional vengence.
If you punch me in the arm I can put you in hospital? Is that how it should work?
A lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that in Canada you are allowed to defend yourself to the point where the other person is no longer a threat.
The initial post I quoted suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can "beat the crap out of them". If he had suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can do enough to stop them I could understand. But it seemed to me that he was suggesting much more than that. Is that what you're suggesting?
If you put your hands on me I should be able to do enough to get your hands off of me without some sort of Old Testament, over-the-top, non-proportional vengence.
If you punch me in the arm I can put you in hospital? Is that how it should work?
A lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that in Canada you are allowed to defend yourself to the point where the other person is no longer a threat.
The initial post I quoted suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can "beat the crap out of them". If he had suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can do enough to stop them I could understand. But it seemed to me that he was suggesting much more than that. Is that what you're suggesting?
Taking out the fact that this was a guy and a women aspect, you punch someone in the arm and he puts you in the hospital, that's on you IMO. Why should some one who has had their personal rights and space violated continue to have the terms in which they defend themselves dictated by their attacker?
You put someone in a position to need to defend themselves that's all on you. I'm not suggesting the law agrees with me, but if it doesn't its rediculous. If some random walks up to me and starts punching me, why should I have to only fight back at the level at which I've been attacked. It's stupid logic that puts victim in a position where they feel like they have to continue and see how far their attacker takes things before they can end a situation. I have to wait for someone who's attacking me to try and knock me out before I can do the same? Ridiculous, if someone attacks you unprovoked and you put them down to whatever level you needed to to feel safe and secure that they wouldn't hurt you anymore I say good for you.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
If you put your hands on me I should be able to do enough to get your hands off of me without some sort of Old Testament, over-the-top, non-proportional vengence.
If you punch me in the arm I can put you in hospital? Is that how it should work?
A lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that in Canada you are allowed to defend yourself to the point where the other person is no longer a threat.
The initial post I quoted suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can "beat the crap out of them". If he had suggested that if someone "puts their hands on you" that you can do enough to stop them I could understand. But it seemed to me that he was suggesting much more than that. Is that what you're suggesting?
Absolutely
You can't attack a complete stranger and not expect the stranger to fight back when you back off
Are you seriously telling me that I could throw some haymakers at you, get a couple good punches at your face then walk away and you would do nothing?
not as awesome but it's at least worth a $500 fine If i can get collect aeroplan points on my AMEX
Last edited by Pizza; 05-11-2014 at 09:21 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pizza For This Useful Post:
You can't attack a complete stranger and not expect the stranger to fight back when you back off
Are you seriously telling me that I could throw some haymakers at you, get a couple good punches at your face then walk away and you would do nothing?
not as awesome but it's at least worth a $500 fine If i can get collect aeroplan points on my AMEX
True, but you can attack a complete stranger and know that if you are grossly overmatched and get the **** absolutely kicked out of you, your attacker will be charged. You are allowed to defend yourself with a "reasonable" amount of force. You are not allowed to be consequence free if you overreact.
Otherwise, every time someone bumped someone else in a crowd, there'd be a beatdown murder that the bumped person gets away with.
You are allowed to defend yourself reasonably. You are not given free reign to beat the **** out of someone because "they started it", and are clearly overmatched.
In your example, you throw some haymakers at me. Little do you know that I am a black belt. I break both your arms and fracture a few ribs for good measure. Do you honestly think I should get away with that scott free? "Defending yourself with reasonable force" has some pretty good leeway, but that's a bit much, don't you think?
Taking out the fact that this was a guy and a women aspect, you punch someone in the arm and he puts you in the hospital, that's on you IMO. Why should some one who has had their personal rights and space violated continue to have the terms in which they defend themselves dictated by their attacker?
You put someone in a position to need to defend themselves that's all on you. I'm not suggesting the law agrees with me, but if it doesn't its rediculous. If some random walks up to me and starts punching me, why should I have to only fight back at the level at which I've been attacked. It's stupid logic that puts victim in a position where they feel like they have to continue and see how far their attacker takes things before they can end a situation. I have to wait for someone who's attacking me to try and knock me out before I can do the same? Ridiculous, if someone attacks you unprovoked and you put them down to whatever level you needed to to feel safe and secure that they wouldn't hurt you anymore I say good for you.
Situation 1: you start swinging at a person, they give you a shot in the chops knocking you to the ground, you discontinue your attack. This is fine.
Situation 2: you start swinging at a person, they give you a shot in the chops knocking you to the ground, you discontinue your attack. They decide to play soccer with your head or practice UFC ground and pound on you. Not ok.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
True, but you can attack a complete stranger and know that if you are grossly overmatched and get the **** absolutely kicked out of you, your attacker will be charged. You are allowed to defend yourself with a "reasonable" amount of force. You are not allowed to be consequence free if you overreact.
Otherwise, every time someone bumped someone else in a crowd, there'd be a beatdown murder that the bumped person gets away with.
You are allowed to defend yourself reasonably. You are not given free reign to beat the **** out of someone because "they started it", and are clearly overmatched.
In your example, you throw some haymakers at me. Little do you know that I am a black belt. I break both your arms and fracture a few ribs for good measure. Do you honestly think I should get away with that scott free? "Defending yourself with reasonable force" has some pretty good leeway, but that's a bit much, don't you think?
Situation 1: you start swinging at a person, they give you a shot in the chops knocking you to the ground, you discontinue your attack. This is fine.
Situation 2: you start swinging at a person, they give you a shot in the chops knocking you to the ground, you discontinue your attack. They decide to play soccer with your head or practice UFC ground and pound on you. Not ok.
I was in this situation in July. Got in an accident and the guy starting swinging to hit me so I hit him with a right cross and broke his nose. I stopped attacking him as he was rocked and bleeding all over the place but he went nutz and started swinging a screwdriver and punching my winshiled. Called the cops and I didn't get in any trouble for the fight but he did for dangerous driving and vandalism.
