"Would you guys mind pushing over a bit please"

Why would you link the two?

Treading lightly and being accomodating referred to going to a cardroom where a lot of simple-minded people drink and make emotional decisions about money they really shouldn't be losing.

If the context of when to do this and when not to do this wasn't clear, let me be clear - should you ever find yourself in the boardroom defending your project to the CEO, you should absolutely not be treading lightly nor accomodating. And in part that is because the person sitting next to you has a very low probability of being an unemployed painter whose family is going on food stamps because he just donked off his unemployment check.

I'm giving advice on the poker table, not life in general.

So, to be clear: do you report all the physical violence you see in sports games on TV? When two competitors get into a heated argument and one guy takes a swing at the other guy, he's a menace to society and we should lock him up?

you must be trolling with these responses

if not you need to consider getting help

wat

He might be onto something. Poker is a sport! It's on ESPN!

Your position appears to be that anyone who physically engages with anyone is a threat to society, and that we should expect them to continue/escalate their behavior unless we take legal action.

My primary disagreement is with the word "anyone" in that sentence. Fundamentally, I think there is a certain amount of physical engagement we should tolerate.

Four criteria I think we should use:

1. We should tolerate a certain amount of one-off outbursts that happen, especially when emotions and alcohol are in the mix, like clubs, bars, sports competitions, and anything involving money. Note that these places typically have higher levels of security in anticipation of physical violence - and internal rules about provocation and escalation.

2. We should tolerate a certain amount of retaliation when people feel have been provoked. The provocation doesn't need to be intentional. I'd point to the episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David accidentally signs "**********" to the husband of a deaf woman he just pissed off as an example of unintentional provocation.

3. Our tolerance should go down in proportion to the amount of damage inflicted. Two people shoving each other on a basketball court should not be treated with the severity of someone who knocks someone else out with a punch.

4. We should be less tolerant if there is an apparent disparity between the physical capabilities of Villain and OP. Again, there doesn't need to be an actual disparity, just the perception of one.

The OP's case meets at least 2.5 of these criteria, perhaps all 4.

---

To be crystal clear, since you either don't or pretend not to understand an awful lot - let's change the OP's scenario in four ways to highlight some closely related scenarios I think pressing charges would be more justified.

1. OP and Villain have a history. They got into a (verbal) fight the previous week, the floor got called and Villain was told to cool it (whether or not OP was also warned). Then the following week this exact scenario happens. This now appears less like an emotional outburst and a calculated attempt to hurt OP.

2. OP and Villain have no history. OP asks the dealer to square the table, Villain immediately jumps up and chokes him. This is far more disturbing and could indicate some deeper problems with Villain that necessitate legal intervention.

3. Villain attacked OP, but managed to injure OP seriously. And by seriously I would set a bar at "OP cannot immediately continue to play." If OP needed to go to the hospital, or even a Band-Aid, or had to go walk it off because Villain kicked him in the nuts, all of these would tilt the scales in favor of preasing charges.

4. Villain is a 250 lb male and OP is a 90 lb female (and for all I know she is - but that seems like a point that would have come up if true). Despite complaints from men's rights advocates and women's rights advocates, I think the vast majority of us are OK with "pick on someone your own size" style laws.

Point 3 though relies on purely on results rather than intent. Lets say villain draws a knife, lunges for OP, misses and is taken away by security. OP doesn't even have the neck bruises he actually received, he is unscathed. So do we let that go as well?

You can ... drumroll ... use your judgement.

You'll note Point 4 also requires ... judgement. Are a 250 lb male and 200 lb male matched? What if they're the same weight but one guy is short and fat and the other is tall and muscular?

You'll note that the OP's question is entirely about judgement. Nobody questions the OP's legal right to press charges. He definitely can if he wants to. It's about the OP's good judgement.

I might not press charges if the dude is a reg. I don't want him waiting for me at my car some random night.

Correct, with the exception of self-defense/defense of others.

Incorrect. How did you get the bolded from this?

Why? It seems like your criteria are nothing more than an elaborate scheme to allow violence.

EDIT to add: The following is absurd on its face. If you truly believe it, then there's not much sense in debating this subject further.

I agree it seems to you that way, which is why I take to task your hypocrisy when you allow violence that you see at pickup basketball games or bar fights to go unreported.

But you don't report it, do you? The reality is that you go through a criteria list that probably looks an awful lot like mine.

You're on the basketball court and one guy charges into another guy who got into the lane too late. One guy pushes the other, what do you do - call the police because circumstances be damned someone just crossed a "bright line" into "physical violence"? Or do you pull your guy away from the other and ask him - even if he's not at fault - to cool it and shake hands afterwards?

You're at a club and you accidentally bump into a drunk, he spills his drink and swings an elbow at you. Do you spend the rest of your evening filing a police report for the sake of his "next victim," or do you walk away and try not to cross paths again?

You go through the exact same decision to decide when to make a stand and when to let **** slide. You just don't admit it.

Not only do I believe it, but in many jurisdictions the law believes it as well. The doctrine is called "fighting words" and quite simply the law recognizes that sometimes words are worse than physical actions. Not always, mind you - but the principle of there being a bright line between verbal and physical is totally unjustified.

Wait a second. Professional athletes that are rich and famous get treated differently than the rest of us? Shocking! And all this time I thought everyone was treated equally 100% of the time.

I already used my judgement to determine that I personally would press charges in OPs shoes and said so earlier.

What I’m querying is how your rules work, it looks like the actual lack of major physical damage suffered is a key point in your position. I’m just asking if the intent to inflict major harm should matter to a reasonable person, or if the result is the yardstick.

Which is it, professional games on TV or a pickup game? You've said both now. For pickup games, I don't see any reason to put up with violence. What could an individual watching on TV realistically do about violence happening in a professional game? It's all on camera, so charges will be brought by a DA if he/she thinks it's appropriate to do so.

As for the bar/club, again, why would I not bring that to the attention of security and/or the police? Do you really want violent people walking around ready to attack other people?

You've heard of instances where words were used to successfully justify a physical attack? I'd be interested in reading them if you have them. If true, that's pretty insane.

and who decides these things?
so a 150 lb psycho can grab a 200 lb man by the throat and its ok ?
the 200 lb man has just had been in a car accident last week and has 2 broken ribs and had torn rotator cuff.
Is he suspose to wear a sign around his neck stating this so others can judge if he is able to defend himself?

grow up and stop making excuses for these deranged people.

booze is not an excuse to behave improperly

We can do both. The TV games are a hyperbolic example, to highlight the fact that you stance isn't really about some grander plan to protect society, but really about a hypersensitive reaction to getting physically hurt.

Case in point.

On some level, your desire to see people punished is tempered by some sort of practical limitation.

If you start asking what one can "realistically" do, then I could troll you by saying something like your inaction is an excuse for tolerating violence. Note that picking up the phone and reporting the physical violence you just saw is easier than filing a police report.

To be clear, I happen to agree with the sentiment that realistically I'm just going to stand by and let something slide unless intervention is appropriate, just with a more realistic and appropriate view of the words "realistically" and "appropriate."

REALISTICALLY, how much damage did he do to the OP? Is him getting banned by the casino (which is happening whether you press charges or not) sufficient? What's an appropriate punishment here?

REALISTICALLY, if you press charges when the Villain thinks this is a minor scuffle that should have been settled 1-on-1, do you make your future life safer or more dangerous now that a convicted criminal might bear a grudge and know your poker schedule?

Your life must be filled with police reports and lawyers.

Or, if I read your grammar correctly, you simply haven't encountered these situations before so this is all theortical?

Don't pretend to be surprised. We - you and I - already argued this in the "can I as a white person use the N word" thread a few months ago.

I would start with this: look up what the relative punishments are for murder vs attempted murder, fraud vs intent to defraud, etc.

I think you'll find that the clearest cases of actual, intended damage and clearest cases of minor/unintended damage are easily separated, but there's a huge grey area. People may be punished more severely for a foiled murder attempt than for whatever the lowest manslaughter is.

And that will highlight the grey area here. You want to show that a one-paragraph rule won't cover every single case? All you had to do was ask.

Here, let me nitpick for you: I've set no objective criteria for evaluating the 4 points I've included. Is a situation which very clearly meets point #3 (but none of the others) better or worse than a situation that very clearly meets point #4 (but none of the others)? What about something which marginally qualifies for three od the criteria but not the fourth at all vs something which almost qualifies for three and solidly the fourth? Which is worse?

You got me. My rules are imprecise and subjective.

So what are you, as a principled citizen, doing to combat this?

Are you making a principled stand, calling out anything that crosses the bright line separating civilized society from physical violence, and pressing it to the full extent of the law?

Or do you, as a realistic human being, sometimes let things slide?

I’m not trying to trick you into confessing trivially obvious facts i.e. that your subjective opinion is in fact subjective or that a couple of posts don’t adequately summarise the entire body of law concerning assault.

I merely asked if you thought intent to harm should be a decisive factor or not, because, cards on the table, I do. You seem strangely defensive on this issue...it’s OK this isn’t a court of law, if it bothers you I’ll drop the issue.

crazy story. I'd say you handled it well. was just about to grunch and type he likely got permabanned. good to hear he did. aside from being right thing for casino to do, they take on some liability should they let mad man back in and strikes again

for sure.

Oh and slightly OT, 8-handed tables for the win !

lots more room for players , doesnt effect game play much for AND most importantly 8-handed maximizes rake in most NLH cash games for casino

I think it's fair to summarize our positions as you're OK with violence and I am not.

I reread that other thread and I made essentially the same points I've made here: physical attacks in response to verbal attacks are never warranted. You made the same points in that other thread that you think some verbal attacks warrant a physical attack. We have differing opinions, neither of which we can prove sufficiently to the other apparently. You say that the law agrees with you, but you haven't provided any evidence of that. I say that allowing physical attacks can cause permanent damage and leaving them unreported can result in habitual offenders. I haven't provided any hard evidence of that either.

From my perspective, it should be intuitive that violent people should be removed from society and reporting acts of violence helps to do so. But it seems to me like you're willing to allow violence to avoid police reports and lawyers. You do you.

Yes. Anyone who doesn’t should be ashamed of themselves.


This is what cowards do.