Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapini
wat
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.