• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

          • minorkeys@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              23 hours ago

              It has more than one meaning, though.

              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.