jjjou, I know you think you're trying to be smart by attempting to twist Rapini's words into a blanket statement that might include a few fringe examples and because you're okay with the fringe examples, it somehow discredits his point? I don't know.

To me, it's more telling that your stance allows physical attempts at harm to others as long as there are no long lasting effects. I can play your game too. So you think it's okay if I try to stab someone with the intent to kill but somehow miss? You think I should go unpunished for that?

If i tried to stab you with intent to kill using a stick of butter and it got all over your chest at your heart, are you advocating i be tried for murder?

Simple assault probably would be OK with me in this circumstance.

The guy grabbed OP by the throat. What are you even talking about? Maybe one of the facts we weren't told is that the assailant had gloves on with 4 inch thick padding on them. If that's the case, then I guess maybe this line you've now taken has merit?

Saving the world from butter killers since 2017.

if you go up to a stranger and shove butter into their chest hard with the attempt to injure, thats assault.

grabbing people aggressively and against their will is assault, regardless of the tool used.

the tool however can be used to determine the severity of the assault and of course can escalate all the way to attempted murder/murder.

hence the phrase "with a deadly weapon", not sure butter has yet been classified as a deadly weapon by the Trump administration but anything is possible I guess.

I was hoping you had a point this time, but I'm disappointed yet again.

If you are allergic to butter , would that count against the attacker??

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

I think you should note carefully where OP's injuries occurred and how many hands his assailant used.

With anyone else, I’d assume they know what murder is, but yours has shown to be a truly special case. So let me ask this about your hypothetical: Did I die?

We are no match for cosmic brain "So you should get charged with murder if you butter up someone's left peck? Check mate, wussies!"

That's not a counterexample. No matter how much you wish it were true, words are not legal justification for violence.

Losing a job. Many places of employment run yearly background checks and if you've been arrested for a drug charge or "violent" charge, you lose your employment. The spiral begins from there.

While it's true that those collateral consequences are outside the actual sentence, you're going to have a hard time arguing that it's "unreasonable" for a company to pass on the liability.

That seems reasonable to me as long as you've been warned in advance in your employment agreement or you're in an at-will employment situation.

I'm not an employment attorney, but an employment contract I reviewed a few weeks ago had a section stating that any arrest or conviction for any non-traffic crime is grounds for termination. It seems like those clauses would be pretty standard for a lot of jobs.

Why do you think that's unfair or unreasonable? I would think that it'd be a good deterrent to criminal behavior.

I don't know how else to explain it. A simple Google search will show you're wrong.

To be clear, since people have a habit of grunching outside strategy threads , I don't think "fighting words" applies in this situation. It's simply a counterexample - as requested - to the notion that there exists a bright line between verbal and physical. There exists no such bright line.

There is, by definition, no physical contact made when uttering "fighting words". So the line set by Rapini — that mere words are not a legal justification for violence — is still very bright and intact.

(Also, for anyone who might become more confused after taking your suggestion to do a simple google search, the term "fighting words", as it is commonly used in law, describes a free speech protection, not a justification for physical violence.)

Welp....

1. You escalated which is generally not a wise thing to do. "F U" are "fighting words" by legal definition.

2. But that's not to say that fighting words justify an assault. They do not. Also, legally speaking this was assault and battery, not just assault.

3. We can't tell you whether to press charges or not. It's your decision. I would.

4. You should've physically defended yourself once attacked. There was a non-zero chance of being choked out and it's prudent to make efforts to prevent that. You would still be legally covered under self-defense despite uttering fighting words.

Doesn't guarantee ****. At Commerce 7/10 times he doesn't get banned irregardless of charges. Many rooms put profit uber alles.

No, that's not how it works in a civilized society. You have a right to self-defense. And if you defend yourself you do not lose your rights to legal recourse against the attacker. It's not either or.

callipygian, you're simply wrong about "fighting words" justifying physical violence. My guess is you don't know how to explain whatever it is you're trying to explain because you're wrong. There does exist a bright line that words alone never legally justify physical violence. You can google that if you want instead of directing me to google an unrelated constitutional law concept when we're discussing criminal law.

FYI, I would have pressed charges as well, but I think your argument that you should do so since. You need to create a record/he will get a slap on the wrist is a short sided one. Almost all jobs are at will employment. If this guy loses his job because of his arrest, then he can’t feed his family etc etc and the downward spiral goes from there. You may think he deserves that and maybe he does, but arrests have a lot more collateral consequences that many people think of. Even in today’s day and age, many of my clients have lost jobs over relatively minor marijuana arrests that were later dismissed in court.

You're really going to make me Google this for you?

You live in Pennsylvania, or at least play there, right? You know what, even if you don't, I suppose you'll have to take my good word that I didn't cherry pick Pennsylvania for its unusual laws.

1. Verbally instigating a fight falls under PA disorderly conduct laws, which can be treated as high as a class 3 misdemeanor.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsyl...duct-laws.html

2. Simple assault falls under obvious laws against such behavior, the most trivial of which is fighting with mutual consent, which is also a class 3 misdemeanor.

https://www.themcshanefirm.com/pa-cr...-assault-laws/

---

ETA: I didn't check to see whether Pennsylvania has "stand your ground" type laws, but that's another avenue in which these issues tend to come up. Typically, the verbal threat has to be accompanied by some kind of show of force, e.g., someone threatens to cut you while holding a knife. But the end result is the same - the aggressor of physical violence is not liable for initiating contact, the verbal threat is taken on par with a physical action.