Police arrest at least 20 as protesters clash at pro-Trump rally in Berkeley

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, bcking said:

We do not absolutely know that this woman did nothing wrong

 

However, I would say we do absolutely know that the man did something wrong. His life wasn't at risk from this woman, he responded inappropriately. 

Findlaw backs you up...even if the folks on this site say otherwise

Self-Defense Overview

 161  88.3K

 Download article as a PDF

 

It is a universally accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime. In the United States legal system, each state allows a defendant to claim self-defense when accused of a violent crime, as does the federal government. The specific rules pertaining to self-defense vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however. This article offers explanations of the broad concepts that make up self-defense law in the US, but you should check the laws of your particular jurisdiction to understand the specific requirements for a claim of self-defense.

Introduction

Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible? What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist? What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?

As you can see, self-defense is more complicated than it first appears. In order to handle the myriad situations where self-defense arises, states have developed rules to determine when self-defense is allowed and how much force a victim can use to protect themselves. As mentioned, the exact rules differ between states, but the considerations are largely the same.

Is the Threat Imminent?

As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.

Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. 

To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!

Imperfect Self-defense

Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.

For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.

Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.

Proportional Response

The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Isn't that true about everynoe who was present that day? All the Trump supporters clearly were able to take off a Friday to head up to Berkeley.

you clearly are not playing fair, what applies to Berkeley hippies and not to clean cut defenders of the constitution 

 

 

https://mic.com/articles/174306/berkeley-riots-video-appears-to-show-white-supremacist-nathan-damigo-punching-protester#.TOh5cNjy2

 

The white supremacist, a 30-year-old student at Cal State Stanislaus, is the founder of the alt-right group Identity Evropa. According to the L.A. Times, the group describes itself as a "generation of awakened Europeans ... [who] oppose those who would defame our history and rich cultural heritage." To apply, aspiring members are asked to indicate whether "you and your spouse/partner [are] of European, non-Semitic heritage."

In 2007, Damigo was convicted of armed robbery after robbing a cab driver he suspected of being Iraqi at gunpoint. He spent four years in prison for his crime, the L.A. Times notes, where he became influenced by such books as My Awakening by Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

Many on social media are calling for Damigo's arrest in the wake of his alleged punching, and a web page has been set up by the Stop Hate Alliance imploring CSU Stanislaus' leadership to expel the student for his actions. 

 

At least 20 arrests were made during Saturday's protest, SF Gate noted. Though billed as a "peaceful, free-speech" rally celebrating Patriot's Day, the event quickly descended into a battle between alt-right Trump supporters and liberal "antifa" — meaning anti-fascist — demonstrators. 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by ccneat

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, ccneat said:

Like I admitted off the bat I didn't watch the video. Nor did I say anywhere I condone what he did. I refrained from commenting on that subject simply because I didn't know enough about it, until it went into more general lines and wasn't so specific to this incident. I don't know what she did or didn't do, I just know that when they act like a man they shouldn't be surprised if they are treated as such. I have the utmost respect for ladies my wife is one. But I have come across many women in my life who acted like anything but, and I just don't think they should have been surprised if they ever got treated as such by anybody(not me though). Regardless, I don't see what posting one pic of one frame out of the whole thing is supposed to say. We already know he punched her. What new information is in your picture? This thread is only proving more what we have been talking about, how the left likes to shame anyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs and thoughts, and tries to create outrage by showing only what they want people to see. Trust me, I've seen it happen many times with Israel/Palestinians as well. They'd show you a video, or a frame, no context, no explanation as to what actually took place. That's how you get the masses to believe what you want them to believe.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Like I admitted off the bat I didn't watch the video. Nor did I say anywhere I condone what he did. I refrained from commenting on that subject simply because I didn't know enough about it, until it went into more general lines and wasn't so specific to this incident. I don't know what she did or didn't do, I just know that when they act like a man they shouldn't be surprised if they are treated as such. I have the utmost respect for ladies my wife is one. But I have come across many women in my life who acted like anything but, and I just don't think they should have been surprised if they ever got treated as such by anybody(not me though). Regardless, I don't see what posting one pic of one frame out of the whole thing is supposed to say. We already know he punched her. What new information is in your picture? This thread is only proving more what we have been talking about, how the left likes to shame anyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs and thoughts, and tries to create outrage by showing only what they want people to see. Trust me, I've seen it happen many times with Israel/Palestinians as well. They'd show you a video, or a frame, no context, no explanation as to what actually took place. That's how you get the masses to believe what you want them to believe.

I have no idea what that woman did or did not do to provoke him, but there are those on this site who feel even verbal provocation  would warrant this behavior.  She had a black bandanna on her face which inidcates she was part of the anti fascists.  I don't know all the circumstances of this altercation and I am not defending her....What I am saying is that if a convicted felon and avowed anti Semitic white nationalist punching a 110 lb woman in the face is not bad enough optics for the MAGA folks to disavow this man, what is? 
 

https://mic.com/articles/174306/berkeley-riots-video-appears-to-show-white-supremacist-nathan-damigo-punching-protester#.TOh5cNjy2

 

The white supremacist, a 30-year-old student at Cal State Stanislaus, is the founder of the alt-right group Identity Evropa. According to the L.A. Times, the group describes itself as a "generation of awakened Europeans ... [who] oppose those who would defame our history and rich cultural heritage." To apply, aspiring members are asked to indicate whether "you and your spouse/partner [are] of European, non-Semitic heritage."

In 2007, Damigo was convicted of armed robbery after robbing a cab driver he suspected of being Iraqi at gunpoint. He spent four years in prison for his crime, the L.A. Times notes, where he became influenced by such books as My Awakening by Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

Many on social media are calling for Damigo's arrest in the wake of his alleged punching, and a web page has been set up by the Stop Hate Alliance imploring CSU Stanislaus' leadership to expel the student for his actions. 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by ccneat

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

So you feel there are appropriate situations to hit a woman then? Sorry but in the old days, many of the older generation raised their men to have some class and self respect - and that you do not put your hands on a woman ever. There is no situation where it is appropriate. My grandfather was quite thoroughly happy to take out the Nazi trash back in WWII and he didn't care about their feel feels. He had the barrel of a gun to defend his country. This woman only had her words. It's not the first time this man has done this and he is a disgrace to the military where he was 'discharged' from. If little Nazi fanboy want to be a real man, he can turn his back and slink away into the filth where he came from. He and the rest of his ilk, wherever they appear, are there to incite violence.

Yes there are appropriate situations. Back in the day Me and the boys got in a heated argument with some rednecks. The woman came around the corner and pulled a gun. She got decked. No Ragrets 

[Dashinka 24,437]

2 hours ago, Inikamoze said:

Just anti fascists were covered up? I would say you are offending all fine upstanding members of society who happen to live or rent out basements.

They should allow these Neo Nazis to air their vile views rather than have them go underground, free speech and all that so that the wider public see these "brownshirts" are alive and kicking. Grandpa may have fought all those years ago to eradicate this failed tyranny.

 

You seem more upset at the anti fascists in all of this (your prerogative) but no thoughts on the other side? It's ok if you have certain sympathies on that front as I'm not here to judge... I would however look to educate.

Umm, yes, these idiots should be able to express their political views no matter how vile they are.  We do have a first amendment that does not discriminate the type of political speech being espoused.  In my opinion, it is much better that we do allow these idiots to do what they do, so we can identify them and marginalized them as best we can.  So unless you want to limit political free speech, then we have to tolerate it, but we don't have to support it or believe it.

[yuna628 9,665]

3 hours ago, Inikamoze said:

So we are at the depths of advocating punching women about half the size of a man who no doubts has had plenty of experience in hand to hand fisticuffs (discharged from the army so has had combat training?).

 

seems fair yeh? No shame,

 

would you say that you coming up against a UFC fighter would be legit and if he sucker punched you then we should all applaud that too? UFC fighter double the size of you and an obviously trained athlete. You wouldn't catch me stating that it's ok to be hit in that scenario yet you are happy to stand behind this guy with all his bravery.

 

Anyone checked his medical condition? He might be allergic to braids so was a fight or flight situation.

Yep. That's how low we as a nation have sunk. It's disgusting.

3 hours ago, ccneat said:

 So if that was your daughter or sister you would say...hey she had it coming?  

 

 

I guess some people would these days. But I wonder how many of them could look their wives and daughters in the eye and tell them ''nah it's okay to let that Nazi punch you, you probably deserved it anyway for telling them how horrible they are.. you surely did something to provoke a Nazi that would be perfectly happy to murder us all where we sleep" I tend to think there's a lot of big talk around these parts, but when 'push comes to shove' they'd do anything they could to protect their women, at least I hope so.

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

The main problem to this is we have lost our sense of respect for women

...or anyone for that matter. But the fact that there are some in society that say it's totally okay to punch a woman for whatever reason they see fit, really speaks volumes.

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

I don't advocate punching women but I find the last two pages to be kind of silly. I didn't watch the video and I'm not necessarily talking about this particular case, but if you guys think that somebody can threaten you or even hit you and there should be nothing done to stop that just because they identify as a certain gender then you're all off your rocker. I'm sorry, ladies deserve all the respect in the world. But being born with certain parts however acting nothing like a lady doesn't automatically entitle you to the same. Even my wife would agree and does and has agreed to that(in private conversations we've had about these things in the past). People's actions towards you should be based on your own action, not on whether you kind of resemble a woman or not. That said if it was me personally, I don't see myself ever doing that no matter the circumstances. But in principle, I believe when it is warranted it is warranted. 

It is never warranted to assault someone. No one should be touching each other. Usually that type of thing should end you up in jail. How many immigrants are on the effects forum claiming ''she made me do it and now she's threatening me with jail, will it effect my status?" No one made you use physical force. You don't touch one another. Period. If someone touches you, you don't touch them. If they have a weapon and you can successfully disarm/disable them sure. But punch them in the face because their words hurt your feelings? No. And I am continually disappointed that on this forum no one can ever once take a step back and stop defending the most despicable of these supporters, even if the people they assault have viewpoints you don't agree with. Because had we as a nation been like that during WWII, none of us would be alive right now.

2 hours ago, bcking said:

We do not absolutely know that this woman did nothing wrong

 

However, I would say we do absolutely know that the man did something wrong. His life wasn't at risk from this woman, he responded inappropriately. 

We live in an eye for an eye society apparently, which is just how the fascists would want it.

30 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Yes there are appropriate situations. Back in the day Me and the boys got in a heated argument with some rednecks. The woman came around the corner and pulled a gun. She got decked. No Ragrets 

No. There are no appropriate situations. You and the ''boys'' got into an argument with rednecks? Okay? Why? Was it worth it? How about doing the right thing and walking away. How about not escalating the situation? What provoked the lady to pull the gun? Did someone get all threatening that she felt the need to protect her kin? Did anyone go to jail? Redneck brawls happen weekly around these parts - threatening with weapons and assaulting people usually lands both parties in jail for a sobering up.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

6 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Yep. That's how low we as a nation have sunk. It's disgusting.

I guess some people would these days. But I wonder how many of them could look their wives and daughters in the eye and tell them ''nah it's okay to let that Nazi punch you, you probably deserved it anyway for telling them how horrible they are.. you surely did something to provoke a Nazi that would be perfectly happy to murder us all where we sleep" I tend to think there's a lot of big talk around these parts, but when 'push comes to shove' they'd do anything they could to protect their women, at least I hope so.

...or anyone for that matter. But the fact that there are some in society that say it's totally okay to punch a woman for whatever reason they see fit, really speaks volumes.

It is never warranted to assault someone. No one should be touching each other. Usually that type of thing should end you up in jail. How many immigrants are on the effects forum claiming ''she made me do it and now she's threatening me with jail, will it effect my status?" No one made you use physical force. You don't touch one another. Period. If someone touches you, you don't touch them. If they have a weapon and you can successfully disarm/disable them sure. But punch them in the face because their words hurt your feelings? No. And I am continually disappointed that on this forum no one can ever once take a step back and stop defending the most despicable of these supporters, even if the people they assault have viewpoints you don't agree with. Because had we as a nation been like that during WWII, none of us would be alive right now.

We live in an eye for an eye society apparently, which is just how the fascists would want it.

No. There are no appropriate situations. You and the ''boys'' got into an argument with rednecks? Okay? Why? Was it worth it? How about doing the right thing and walking away. How about not escalating the situation? What provoked the lady to pull the gun? Did someone get all threatening that she felt the need to protect her kin? Did anyone go to jail? Redneck brawls happen weekly around these parts - threatening with weapons and assaulting people usually lands both parties in jail for a sobering up.

I am sorry but you threaten me with severe bodily harm, man or woman your going to be felt  with. 

Act like a man and get treated like one.

So women in the military,  is it ok for the enemy to shoot back? Female shooter about to shoot up a school, is it ok to take her out? 

 

Sorry but there are a lot of cases, where violence against a female is justified 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Nature Boy Flair

[yuna628 9,665]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am sorry but you threaten me with severe bodily harm, man or woman your going to be felt  with. 

Act like a man and get treated like one.

So women in the military,  is it ok for the enemy to shoot back? Female shooter about to shoot up a school, is it ok to take her out? 

 

Sorry but there are a lot of cases, where violence against a female is justified 

You can keep going around in a circle ad absurdum or twist yourself into a pretzel, but the law is not on your side on this one. A woman aiming a gun is not ''acting like a man'' and punching someone in the face is not ''treating someone like a man''. Punching a woman in the face because your feelings got hurt is also not ''acting like a man''.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

You can keep going around in a circle ad absurdum or twist yourself into a pretzel, but the law is not on your side on this one. A woman aiming a gun is not ''acting like a man'' and punching someone in the face is not ''treating someone like a man''. Punching a woman in the face because your feelings got hurt is also not ''acting like a man''.

Speaking of twisted . Because my feelings are hurt ?  That's absurd.

 

Yes a woman pointing a gun at me is going to get her knocked the @#@@#  out,  unless I am armed , and then she most likely will be shot 

[yuna628 9,665]

26 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Speaking of twisted . Because my feelings are hurt ?  That's absurd.

 

Yes a woman pointing a gun at me is going to get her knocked the @#@@#  out,  unless I am armed , and then she most likely will be shot 

Feelings got hurt is in relation to the topic of this discussion, not your personal situation.

In your situation I certainly don't know the circumstances of the lead-up to the argument, or if the woman felt threatened to pull out her weapon. But I suspect if it were reported someone likely went to jail? And that someone may have been one or more of the individuals involved, doing the arguing, threatening, displaying a weapon, and the punching? That's how we do things in this county, yours may be different. But I suspect punching the lady may have landed both you and her in some trouble.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yuna628

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

21 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am sorry but you threaten me with severe bodily harm, man or woman your going to be felt  with. 

Act like a man and get treated like one.

So women in the military,  is it ok for the enemy to shoot back? Female shooter about to shoot up a school, is it ok to take her out? 

 

Sorry but there are a lot of cases, where violence against a female is justified 

the legal definition of violence is 

"the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force"   so take out someone on the battlefield? Self Defense?  Save lives by taking out an active shooter?  There are laws that cover all of those scenarios so your argument is a red herring. 

 

 

We did not say the Neo Nazis could not protest....or that the equally loopy counter protesters protest. 

 

 

What I asked was:  Can you really defend and associate with your MAGA movement  a guy who punches women who meets this description? 

 

The white supremacist, a 30-year-old student at Cal State Stanislaus, is the founder of the alt-right group Identity Evropa. According to the L.A. Times, the group describes itself as a "generation of awakened Europeans ... [who] oppose those who would defame our history and rich cultural heritage." To apply, aspiring members are asked to indicate whether "you and your spouse/partner [are] of European, non-Semitic heritage."

In 2007, Damigo was convicted of armed robbery after robbing a cab driver he suspected of being Iraqi at gunpoint. He spent four years in prison for his crime, the L.A. Times notes, where he became influenced by such books as My Awakening by Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Isn't that true about everynoe who was present that day? All the Trump supporters clearly were able to take off a Friday to head up to Berkeley.

Why would anyone need to take off Good Friday? 

 

Anyways what really makes this thread stink is no one seemed to get my Bane reference earlier in the thread. I'm reporting you all to get banned. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Yes there are appropriate situations. Back in the day Me and the boys got in a heated argument with some rednecks. The woman came around the corner and pulled a gun. She got decked. No Ragrets 

"and that's how i met your mother"

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, ccneat said:

"and that's how i met your mother, Trebek "

FTFY