Here, questionable does, indeed, mean that I’m pissed off about the kick. As I said, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to condemn him for the kick. “Questionable” arises from one hypothetical possibility that would make my anger inappropriate. Legal doctrine requires the assumption of that hypothetical possibility until conclusively proven otherwise.
I continue to straight up accuse her of assault. Two counts of simple assault, two counts of battery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon.
I continue to defend his initial push, as well as the final shove. I do not defend the throwing of the liquid in her face: It was provoked, but it was unjustified. I provided a reasonable doubt as to the kick; his kick is only defensible if that doubt exists.
You keep trying to sound like you know the law and you don’t.
The law requires the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have incorporated that standard into my analysis.
You’ve proven that with your misunderstanding of what intent means.
Intent is not particularly relevant here. Only justification is relevant. The only unjustified acts of his were the throwing of the liquid (which was a provoked act and likely excusable) and possibly the kick (which could potentially be considered justifiable as I have previously described.)
Her unjustified acts include the initial grabbing of the glass, the initial striking with the hands, and the continued menacing with the beer bottle.
Is there some part of this that I have not properly or adequately considered?
Intent and justification are two separate concepts. “Intent” refers to the actor’s internal state of mind. “Justification” refers to the external conditions the actor faces at the time of the action.
As we cannot know the contents of the minds of either participant (nor can the participants know the minds of eachother) “intent” is not the relevant model for this discussion.
I don’t care what the hell you read dude lmfao you’ve been running around with your chatgpt ass answers thinking you’re right and saying shit that you then contradict yourself with.
Remember when you said intent didn’t matter? Justification did? Fucking idiot.
Remember when you said she committed ASSAULT!!! and his actions were “questionable” and then it made you sad he kicked her?
You’re fucking stupid. Shut up and stop defending this man who absolutely committed assault three goddamn times.
Remember when you said intent didn’t matter? Justification did? Fucking idiot.
Yes. I do. And I stand by that, as I have explained.
Remember when you said she committed ASSAULT!!! and his actions were “questionable” and then it made you sad he kicked her?
Indeed. I remember both. And I remember that I’ve addressed every concern you’ve raised about those conclusions.
chatgpt
While I am reasonably certain that nobody reading along would actually think my comments are from chatgpt, I feel compelled to specifically deny that any of my published comments have been generated by any sort of LLM. The closest I have come to an LLM is the image of a rabbit with a “cigar cutter” I use as an avatar. I seem to recall criticizing various AI works in the past, and may have quoted or attached examples here on lemmy or in other media, but any such use would clearly delineate my content from any AI content. I cannot guarantee that external links I have provided are entirely devoid of AI content.
For context:
This is what you said.
You’re a fucking moron.
Questionable here means you’re mad? You fucking absolutely disgusting shit. Shut the absolute fuck up
Here, questionable does, indeed, mean that I’m pissed off about the kick. As I said, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to condemn him for the kick. “Questionable” arises from one hypothetical possibility that would make my anger inappropriate. Legal doctrine requires the assumption of that hypothetical possibility until conclusively proven otherwise.
No it doesn’t stop trying to change definitions. You played defense for this man’s actions and straight accused her of assault.
You keep trying to sound like you know the law and you don’t. You’ve proven that with your misunderstanding of what intent means. Shut up
I continue to straight up accuse her of assault. Two counts of simple assault, two counts of battery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon.
I continue to defend his initial push, as well as the final shove. I do not defend the throwing of the liquid in her face: It was provoked, but it was unjustified. I provided a reasonable doubt as to the kick; his kick is only defensible if that doubt exists.
The law requires the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have incorporated that standard into my analysis.
Intent is not particularly relevant here. Only justification is relevant. The only unjustified acts of his were the throwing of the liquid (which was a provoked act and likely excusable) and possibly the kick (which could potentially be considered justifiable as I have previously described.)
Her unjustified acts include the initial grabbing of the glass, the initial striking with the hands, and the continued menacing with the beer bottle.
Is there some part of this that I have not properly or adequately considered?
Holy shit you’re stupid you genuinely do not understand what intent means in a legal sense.
Intent is justification you moron. You didn’t Google it once.
I have read this article on general intent and this article on specific intent. I have also read this article on justification as well as this article on self defense which also discusses justification.
Intent and justification are two separate concepts. “Intent” refers to the actor’s internal state of mind. “Justification” refers to the external conditions the actor faces at the time of the action.
As we cannot know the contents of the minds of either participant (nor can the participants know the minds of eachother) “intent” is not the relevant model for this discussion.
YOU’RE NOT A LAWYER.
I don’t care what the hell you read dude lmfao you’ve been running around with your chatgpt ass answers thinking you’re right and saying shit that you then contradict yourself with.
Remember when you said intent didn’t matter? Justification did? Fucking idiot.
Remember when you said she committed ASSAULT!!! and his actions were “questionable” and then it made you sad he kicked her?
You’re fucking stupid. Shut up and stop defending this man who absolutely committed assault three goddamn times.
Yes. I do. And I stand by that, as I have explained.
Indeed. I remember both. And I remember that I’ve addressed every concern you’ve raised about those conclusions.
While I am reasonably certain that nobody reading along would actually think my comments are from chatgpt, I feel compelled to specifically deny that any of my published comments have been generated by any sort of LLM. The closest I have come to an LLM is the image of a rabbit with a “cigar cutter” I use as an avatar. I seem to recall criticizing various AI works in the past, and may have quoted or attached examples here on lemmy or in other media, but any such use would clearly delineate my content from any AI content. I cannot guarantee that external links I have provided are entirely devoid of AI content.
Lmfao shut the fuck up nobody cares, you are not a lawyer, stop asking chatgpt to write your posts.
Are you a cuck? Do you enjoy being berated? Shut the fuck up