While you may think that in 2017 poker rooms across the country are filled with enlightened people who laugh when people say **** you to them, they are not. And even if it were a mixture of types, the point is that since you are dealing with a total stranger, you have no way of knowing whether he is one of your new, enlightened types or an old school, those are fighting words type. And considering the fact that his response to "dealer square up the table" was to push OP's chips over, I'd lean towards him being more on the fighting words side than the laughing side. So it is in your best interest not to say such a thing to an unknown person if you are trying to minimize the likelihood of a physical altercation occurring.

I guess I can agree that if the assailant were Vulcan, he might not have had violent intent. I don't think that has much to do with the situation at hand though.

Vulcan grab may have been a misnomer.

THIS is a primary reason to ask authorities to "get it on the record"

I actually agree with this. This verbal threat is worse than a 1-handed shoulder grab. I'm far more willing to hug it out with someone who Vulcan neck pinched me than someone who sustains a verbal grudge.

(To be fair, Villain tried to grab OP a second time so that definitely adds some weight to the side that says we should report - just not enough IMO.)

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that Villain broke any laws by saying those things so trying to press those charges is difficult.

Contrarianfest 2017.

Why does everyone in this forum insist on arguing which person to assign 100% blame to, rather than what percentage blame to each person?

As much as I agree with you overall, the person who struck first is going to face the plurality of punishment.

His post also completely misses the point of the thread.

1. Paragraphs, look into them.

2. No, antisocial behavior (and I am not conceding that telling the dealer to square the table is antisocial) is not justification for escalation. Yes, OP could have been more graceful, but if you look at behaviors that are reasonabel and unreasonable, OP's actions are much more reasonable than the assaulter. Touching someone else's chips, then touching their person are both quantum leaps in escalation.

3. And I cannot emphasize this enough, please make better use of white space.

I would press charges 100% of the time

Physical violence should not be tolerated

OP was NOT the instigator by any means. He's under no obligation to "greet the table" or any other such nonsense. Nobody has the right to touch another player's chips in a game and anyone who does deserves to be treated the way OP treated him. Nobody ever has the right to assault another player no matter what the other person says to him.

That being said, I wouldn't press charges. There was no real damage done. I would insist the guy gets banned for life and leave it at that. The other guy is a major douche and definitely wrong for doing it but I don't think it warrants slapping him with a criminal record.

If you knew that the assailant already had a criminal record or he had done something like this in the past, would that change your mind?

This is a trick question in the literal sense. The goal is to trick him to say yes, and then point out that if nobody files charges, nobody down the line will know, boom mind blown.

The reason it's a trick (and not a bona fide justification) is because you won't know charges have been pressed in the past when you're deciding whether to press charges this time. That is, while someone pressing charges in the past may increase the punishment for your case, you don't know that and have to decide whether to press charges with no knowledge of prior history.

The fact that you don't know whether it's happened in the past is yet another reason to press charges. If it hasn't happened before, it is extremely likely that there will be a light or no sentence. If it has happened before, it's time for that person to be removed from society.

There are a lot of collateral consequences to a criminal conviction that have nothing to do with actual sentence

I'm sure the assailant carefully weighed the risks and benefits of assaulting the OP before doing so.

Seriously though, what undeserved or unreasonable "collateral consequences" are you talking about?

The use of force is never justified to resolve a dispute that escalated froma verbal to a physical one. However, it is perfectly acceptable to use force to remove someone from society for a physical dispute that resulted in little to no injury. Bah.

Agreed.

I presume you won't ban me for "off topic" posting if it answers a direct question?

California tried the "get tough on crime" stance in the 1990s, sent thousands of people to jail for minor crimes. They took peoples' juvenile brain farts - including minor physical violence such as this - and harshly sentenced people to "remove them from society" during their most promising years. Peoples' sentenced compounded as they were introduced to more prison life than non-prison life. Now there's a whole generation of people who are locked up for minor infractions, major infractions that only occured in prison, or because they're basically institutionalized and truly no longer able to function in society. The prison budget is bloated and is competitive with the education budget in terms of size and scope.

Casinos, often located in high crime areas, further stress the local police with a litany of minor crimes - degens swiping $1 chips, drunk and disorderlies, etc. There's some fractional deaths that are attributed to police tending to a bruised shoulder instead of stopping an argument between two gangs before the guns come out.

If you live in some kind of utopia where the police have unlimited time and unlimited jail space and the judges are thoughtful and considerate, and the system as a whole focuses on the benefit of society rather than meeting legislative quotas, then I readily admit my opinions have no place in your society.

Still not willing to address the issue of little to no injury from tha physical altercation?

That doesn't matter to me, as been established previously. The fact that it happened is good enough.

So does physical violence or a physical altercation ever justifiably occur in your world or is it simply all criminal conduct?

Not in response to words. Maybe you can provide a counterexample though.

"Fighting words."

It seems to me you are advocating that initiating a physical altercation is always criminal, no matter the result. What about defense of property or stand your ground laws as counterexamples?

I think we would agree that physical violence as self defense or defense of others can be justified. But i am having trouble understanding when you would think initiating a physical altercation is allowable and not simply criminal conduct.

I'm pretty sure I've already said self-defense is fine. That's not the situation in the OP.