Should violence ever be used to resolve disputes between humans?

Not verbal disputes, no. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen though (obviously). I mean, if someone calls my mother a whore there is a fair chance I'm getting physical, but that's still on me for responding that way, I have other options.

Yes! " There is a time to every purpose under heaven"

Sounds like an entertaining OOT thread topic.

It'd be great if you could stick to relevant issues, but that seems like too much to ask of you given your previous posts itt.

So maybe you could at least address why you think that reporting a simple assault to the authorities would ruin a first-time offender's life.

Because the op provoked the "villain" TWICE, and now you think he should get a criminal record for reacting poorly.

If you're allowing other people to put hands on then you shouldnt tell people to **** off. Hes not right putting his hands on you but man up and handle it yourself and keep the cops out of it. You need to be able to protect yourself and not hope for security to save you. As played move on and take a jiu jitsu class or something.

Not at all. He shouldn't get a criminal record for reacting poorly. He should get a criminal record because he assaulted someone. That way, if this behavior becomes (or already is) a pattern, he can be removed from society.

Telling people to "man up" and "keep the cops out of it" isn't a great way to remove criminals from society.

What are you, 14?

Seems like you are the only one unwilling to answer the question addressed to you.

You keep mentioning off-topic/irrelevant issues as opposed to having a debate in good faith about the subject of the OP, which is whether he should press charges when physically assaulted and why or why not.

You haven't provided any reasonable rationale for why the criminal should get a pass or why you insist that reporting his crime to the authorities is necessarily equivalent to ruining the criminal's life.

Cursing some one is provocative. Putting your chips down and asking the dealer to square the table is absolutely not.

Neither is moral or legal justification for escalation to physical violence.

The pivotal action here was the assault. Exactly one person was in control of whether or not that assault occurred. That one person should be accountable for the decision to assault.

Under specific parameters, it is often an inescapable outcome. This is very very far from one of those situations.

I was once battered (technically assault is verbal or at least doesn't involve physical contact) slightly worse than OP playing poker in a casino (on a cruise ship with electronic tables so no dealer). One could also conclude something I said instigated the event, though I did not say f!!! you. And I actively tried to deescalate the situation. I certainly could have responded physically and not waited for security.

I can promise you had I done so, the onboard security would have blamed us both and treated us the same. Instead they placed all the blame on him. And yes I wanted to press charges but misdemeanor battery is not a high priority for the FBI. If this would have ruined his life was not my concern. He is responsible for his actions and the ramifications from them.

Your idea that one must respond physically and should not wait for security or police to intervene is ridiculous. Sure I could have done so. And if the threat of harm escalated enough, I would have. But the better outcome was wait, take the minor battery and allow security to arrive.

When it comes to physical violence, the casino is not going to worry about who got physical first. Everyone one throwing punches or fighting will be banned. If you did not start it a day or week or month later they might lift your ban if you are lucky. But why take that risk over very minor injuries?

I like how these posts are right next to each other, as if you were intentionally highlighting the fact that you claim anyone who thinks there may be a grey area between verbal and physical equivalent to people who find fighting acceptable.

If the OP reversed the roles and asked what he should do after some punk cussed him out, of course the answer is "don't get physical." And in an ideal world, people don't start physical fights after verbal provocation because in an ideal world there's no verbal provocation to begin with.

As someone above already pointed out, we live in a non-ideal world. This thread is not about whether to punch people in the face. It's about what to do when someone punches you in the face.

One option is to stick to your belief that no amount of verbal provocation could ever justify the smallest amount of physical contact; the person who touched you should face the full extent of the law. Also don't Google "fighting words" because you're going to find out the answer isn't as black and white as you think.

The other option is to take a deep breath and look at the situation with a little bit of life experience. How badly were you hurt? Did you escalate the situation in any way? If you offered a handshake, would he accept?

Your (Rapini's) posts revolve around the idea that even if you weren't hurt, even if you provoked him, even if he would settle "out of court," you're going to press charges to protect society. And if you're like Steve0007 claims he is and go around reporting every instance of physical contact you see, I profoundly disagree but admire you sticking to your beliefs. But I suspect you're not - you're using the guise of protecting society to hide the fact that you just want to hurt the bad man who hurt you. While that may make you feel better, it's a really inefficient way of making societal change.

Let me make a compromise-based proposal. Why not agree to not press charges if he gives you his word that he'll voluntarily seek out anger management classes?

If anger management classes is what the judge decides on, I'd be fine with that.

Im pretty sure Rapani's argument is that if this is a complete one-off for this guy and he's really a good guy who had a bad day, this complaint would be plead down to a misdemeanor with very little punishment. Maybe anger management. If this guy does this all the time, which is likely, it's a service to society to not let him skate.

In my case (20+ years ago), it was the prosecutor who decided I was eligible for the diversion program, before I ever got up before a judge. 10 anger mgmt sessions (inna row, one per week, or it resets to 0) - sort of like group therapy, new members in each week, some members leave each week, rotating topics in class. Cost $30/session, well under the the fine I was looking at, assuming I only had to go to the 10 sessions. I made damn sure I did each one.

90% of the folks in these sessions also had to go to alcohol classes or AA/NA meetings. I was one of the lucky few who could stand up (proudly!) and say I did what I did while not under the influence. Yeah me. Admitting your guilt was part of the program, and could be used against you if you dropped out.

And I probably could have beat the rap, but I was willing to give the program a try. I'm a better person for having done the sessions.

Also, no record, which is nice, so I got that going for me.

And for the record, it wasn't for violence against a person, in a casino, at a poker table, in response to a verbal confrontation.

That is not only Rapini's argument, that's my characterization of Rapini's argument in the post you quoted.

And in that same paragraph, I repeated my challenge: if this were really about protecting society, about some higher good, you'd report every instance you saw of someone crossing a bright line between a verbal altercation and a physical one.

You probably saw 10 such instances on Sunday if you watch football. How many police reports did you file?

If the answer is zero, then you have exercised some judgement. (Appropriately so, in my opinion.) You've rationalized that the NFL will punish them. You've rationalized that nobody was seriously hurt. You've rationalized that it was an emotional situation and people may have acted rashly. You've rationalized that they were responding to a questionably late hit on their star quaterback.

I only ask everyone (except Steve0007, who claims that anyone who doesn't call the police is enabling violence) to extend that same judgement to minor altercations. Some guy pushes you at a pickup basketball game - call the police so he can't victimize anyone else, or let it slide? Someone at the club accuses you of bumping him and grabs your arm - call the police so he can't victimize anyone else, or defuse the situation and ignore the physical contact?

Nobody here has argued that OP's injuries were anything but minor. And if anyone wants to say, "I agree you should let minor scuffles slide but this was not minor," I disagree, but would agree to disagree.

Everyone uses judgement and lets stuff slide. I just admit it.

That's not what Rapini said. He advocates tough on crime, law and order, and 3 strikes you're out policy.

Yeah alright dude.

How do people consider ' **** you ' fighting words in 2017 ? lol I would probably laugh if someone said it to me in almost any instant ( then again I am not an idiot who pushes somebodies chips at the table )

I'm somewhere in the middle actually. I think all incidents like this should be reported because if it's truly a first offense / one-off situation, then realistically all that's going to happen is maybe a small fine, maybe a diversion program like anger management, or at worst probation. That's a warning that any normal person would internalize and adjust to moving forward.

On the other hand, if it's a pattern, then we know that person needs to be removed from society.

There's a difference between trying to choke someone (grabbing the neck to obstruct the airway) and what the OP described, which, for those who haven't watched Star Trek, is basically someone grabbing his shoulder near the neck.

And while OP may not have recognized the significance of using the phrase, several times it's specifically shown to be spectacularly ineffective when humans try it because only Vulcans (and half-Vulcans, as Spock's mother was human) are strong enough. It's specifically used as a non-violent way of incapacitating people.

You're letting your unfounded "any physical contact is reportable" prejudice cloud your judgement on how bad this physical contact was stated to be.