She is still a perpetrator, she doesn’t need to be charged or convicted. She violently assaulted someone. That is not in dispute. That she isn’t charged is a mercy given by society because of the circumstances. The victim of her assault could still press charges if they wished.
Failure of society to address a grievance when it suits you does not justify forming a mob and violently attacking someone. She is not ethically justified violently assaulting someone because her feelings are hurt.
Do you understand the legal concepts of “Instigation” and “incitement”?
The person who throws the punch is not always the person legally responsible for the punch being thrown. When his unreasonable actions rise to the level of “instigation” or “incitement”, he becomes responsible for the actions she takes against him.
You do understand that she’s not being charged with that, right?
What I am saying is that if I deliberately try to piss you off enough for you to take a swing at me, I become criminally responsible for the violent acts you take against me. That’s “instigation”.
“Instigation” is why she isn’t being charged with assault and battery. She’s not responsible for the violence on the bus. He is.
In this context, you’re actually going to argue that you intended something other than the legal meaning?
Me:
The person who throws the punch is not always the person legally responsible for the punch being thrown. When his unreasonable actions rise to the level of “instigation” or “incitement”, he becomes responsible for the actions she takes against him.
You:
So the way she tried to incite others to commit felony assault?
I was being charitable when I suggested you were simply ignorant of the meaning.
You seem overly hostile though.
I am reasonably confident I am arguing with an unreasonable, intellectually dishonest person. I do not believe you are arguing logically, rationally, or in good faith. My hostility arises from that belief.
She is still a perpetrator, she doesn’t need to be charged or convicted. She violently assaulted someone. That is not in dispute. That she isn’t charged is a mercy given by society because of the circumstances. The victim of her assault could still press charges if they wished.
Failure of society to address a grievance when it suits you does not justify forming a mob and violently attacking someone. She is not ethically justified violently assaulting someone because her feelings are hurt.
Do you understand the legal concepts of “Instigation” and “incitement”?
The person who throws the punch is not always the person legally responsible for the punch being thrown. When his unreasonable actions rise to the level of “instigation” or “incitement”, he becomes responsible for the actions she takes against him.
So the way she tried to incite others to commit felony assault?
You do understand that she’s not being charged with that, right?
What I am saying is that if I deliberately try to piss you off enough for you to take a swing at me, I become criminally responsible for the violent acts you take against me. That’s “instigation”.
“Instigation” is why she isn’t being charged with assault and battery. She’s not responsible for the violence on the bus. He is.
Nobody joined her so she failed at it and that’s why.
Yeah, you used the word “incite”, but it doesn’t actually mean what you seem to think it means.
It has more than one meaning, though. If you can’t infer the one I meant, you could just ask for clarification. You seem overly hostile though.
In this context, you’re actually going to argue that you intended something other than the legal meaning?
Me:
You:
I was being charitable when I suggested you were simply ignorant of the meaning.
I am reasonably confident I am arguing with an unreasonable, intellectually dishonest person. I do not believe you are arguing logically, rationally, or in good faith. My hostility arises from that belief.