You call someone a slur like nigger, faggot or turkroach and

You're still in deep shit, it may not be a hate crime, but it will assault with a deadly weapon/attempted murder.

>>32400398
youre not really allowed to provoke people in an attempt at getting them to attack you so you can claim self defense

Words hurt anon! They just hurt monkeys and mudslimes more!
That's why it's ok for them to kill you for using your words.
But it's not ok for you to use them!

>>32400398
Don't worry about it, Tyrone is going to butt-fuck you to death before you finish drawing your gun, the fags at Stormfront are never going to get to hear your cool story bruh.

>>32400398
You can't just shoot people if they assault you. There has to be reasonable expectation of life endangerment.

>>32400486
Exercising your right to free speech is hardly considered provocation. If anything, they were attempting to deny you your rights

>>32400515
that only protects you from the government. if you call your boss a faggot he can fire you. if you call a black man a nigger he may just hit you

>>32400504
This isn't the fucking playground. You lay hands on someone you're fair game to get shot.

As for OP's question, fuck if I know.

>>32400547
Provoking them before that forfeits any right to self defense you had though.

>>32400531
And that's called assault.... I though he was gonna kill me! Ooops, dead nigger.

>>32400574
yeah except you provoked him. which is not legal. have fun in prison

>>32400398
Depends. Are there any witnesses?

>>32400574
Literally wouldn't fly in court. You called him number 11 and he went after you

>>32400582
Wow, what pussy ass state do you live in?

>>32400515
there's something called fighting words that you're guilty of in that case. that's non-protected speech and you're going to be found liable. racial slurs fall pretty squarely in fighting words.

tl;dr get fucked whiteboi

>>32400617
what fantasy land do you live in?

>>32400503
Did you just assume my race?

>>32400617
Anon I hope that you're trolling. Because nobody this retarded should be able to carry a gun.

>can i legally bait people into attack me so i can legally shoot them?

what do you think

>>32400627
So in the eyes of the law, I'm not allowed to defend myself from getting beaten to death because I called someone a nigger?

>>32400398
Words hurt anon, a jap called by grandpa gaijin on okinawa and he lost his leg from it.

Dead "people" tell no tales.

>>32400398
By all rights, nothing you could verbally say short of making a viable, immediately practicable threat could justify physical assault, so unless you were deliberately trying to get them to assault you per >>32400486 you would have a legitimate claim to self defence. In the modern climate of racial hairtrigger insanity, good luck with that. Even if you are cleared by the legal system, you're gonna be back in court every six months for the self-defence trials for the BLM activists you'll be fending off for the rest of your life.

>>32400664
lets put it this way. if you walk up to a black guy and call him a nigger, and then he hits you and you shoot him. you will not be able to claim self defense because you started it. simple as that

>>32400664
yup

>>32400664
You started it. It's not self defense, it's bait. Much like you're doing now


good job

>>32400663
Calling someone a nigger doesn't warrant physical violence

Maybe they were being an actual nigger. Have you considered that?

>>32400664
That's correct, you are liable for whatever happens to you. In court it would mostly be deemed that you caused the situation because you're a moron.

File: lolno 1.jpg (29KB, 312x338px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 312x338px

Actually, most of you are wrong.
"Fighting words" is disorderly conduct.
A very minor offense.

It's true that if you call someone a nigger unprovoked and they punch you or something, you're the only one getting in trouble,
but if the other party escalates it to the point where you are in legitimate fear of death or serious bodily harm, then the fact that you said nigger doesn't make you a murderer for defending yourself.

>>32400711

it however removes your right of self defense. you cannot provoke someone into attacking you and then claim self defense.

>>32400724

By your logic, I can just casually gun down anyone who calls me a mean name.
That's not how it works.

>>32400617
Not that guy, but even in the fun-owners utopia that is AZ your ass is getting arrested and charged with murder. By baiting you've demonstrated the textbook definition of premeditation, any remotely competent DA could sleep through the trial and you'd still lose.

Good luck dude.

>>32400705

as a rational person you should know that nothing good has ever come from calling someone a nigger irl, all it ever does is raise tensions and makes people do stupid things. you obviously just want to rile people up for your own gain.

>>32400732
youre either a retard or a troll. either way you probably shouldnt be allowed to own guns

>>32400740

Nope.
I actually have a criminal justice degree too.

Thanks for totally avoiding addressing the argument though.
Made it very clear who I'm dealing with.

>>32400738
I call people faggots all the time.

Only occasionally do they lash out violently

>>32400758

what point are you even trying to get across tho

You would probably get hit with manslaughter charge and possibly a hate crime charge (You escalated the situation with a slur).
Legally, you may be in the right. But morally you're wrong and I wouldn't expect a jury to feel much sympathy.

>>32400758
the argument has been addressed 10 times over now. you cant provoke a fight and claim self defense. if you even had a high school diploma you would know that

>>32400775

that's because faggot has been an acceptable slur for a while, and is only recently starting to be seen as distasteful. calling someone a nigger has been off limits for decades.

honestly do you even talk to people outside of 4chan

>>32400758
Your degree was a waste of money if you can't even answer this case study correctly

>>32400779

If you can't understand that already, then there's no point in discussing it.

Well, I'm sure you COULD understand,
but due to cognitive dissonance, you are subconsciously choosing not to.
And there's nothing in the world I can do to change that.

>>32400642
What's wrong, ese? Choo some kind of nigger lover?

>>32400732

there's obviously proportionality too. but the situation OP described is one where he loses the right to self defense because he was inciting violence/using fighting words.

>>32400781
>>32400804

You need to critically reread what I posted and then try again.

Guys, guys... What if OP is actually a nigger? I mean, just walking up to somebody and calling them a name in the hopes you get to cap their ass sure sounds like nig-nog behavior to me.

I think OP is actually confessing an act of niggering that he committed.

>Inb4 flim-flam the zim-zam

>>32400825
>walking up to somebody and calling them a name in the hopes you get to cap their ass sure sounds like nig-nog behavior to me.


not really, threads like these are very popular on /k/ and /pol/. losers just want to find ways to legally kill people they don't like.

>>32400398
>>32400664
It might be considered "imperfect self defense", which would be prosecuted as manslaughter. Sure, it is self defense, but if you created the situation that led to the act, you are liable. The question would be if you gave the other person justification to assault you, such as making a credible threat of acting in a threatening manner.

A good example is our friend George Zimmerman. He acted in a way to make Trayvon feel threatened, Trayvon fought back, adn got shot. Sure, Zimmerman acted in self defense, but he created the conditions that directly led to the assault. If the prosecutor wasn't an idiot he would have been brought up on a manslaughter charge and sent to prison.

TL, DR: You can't start a fight and shoot the guy when you're losing.

>>32400819

Are you being serious?
Can you not understand the point I made at all?

Let's take out calling someone a nigger, and replace it with a shove.

Say I shoved you.
Then, you react in a way which puts me in fear of death or serious bodily harm.
Maybe you pull out a big knife, start choking me and slamming my head on the ground, pull a gun, whatever.
I am well within my rights to defend myself, and I can easily provide examples and sources to this.
The fact that you escalated a simple shoving match to deadly force is what's important here.

Okay, now replace the shove with me calling you a nigger.
Do you understand now?

I don't think I can be any more clear.

>>32400840

Subtle.
Not bad bait.
I like it.

>>32400857

why are you shoving people? that's like exhibit A for how to get in a fight with someone.

>>32400840
>>TL, DR: You can't start a fight and shoot the guy when you're losing.

The hell you can't if that fight is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death

>>32400781
To be fair it's more a question of level of response, if OP calls a coloured gent a nigger, the man punches him once, and OP shoots him, then OP really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

If OP calls the same gent a nigger, then man tackles him, pins him down, and beings raining blows on OP's head, then OP has far more legal room to claim he acted in self defense.

>>32400857
holy shit you fucking retard. you cannot provoke a fight and claim self defense. thats it. end of story

>>32400503
oy vey

>>32400886
even then he might still go to jail

>>32400857
You're still the one that started the encounter.
Self-defense could work both ways there: You claim defense because they came at you with a weapon, they claim self-defense (If they live) because they say you assaulted them first and they feared.

A big factor is the question "Was there an attempt to descalate the situation?" If the answer is "No.", then you're chances of successfully claiming self-defense do not look good.

>>32400865
zimzam went out looking for trouble, he was just as at fault as trayvon was.

>>32400919
your* chances of successfully claiming self-defense do not look good.
My bad.

>>32400398
>Look up "Fighting Words" on wiki to see US laws
>There was a guy who was arrested for calling a cop a Fascist

Land of the Free, ladies and gentlemen.

>>32400857
That doesn't fucking matter, you escalated first while you were carrying a gun. Good fucking luck with that in court.

Spoiler alert: don't escalate in a situation you provoked, especially if you have a weapon.

>>32400929
When does zimzam get out of prison? ...oh that's right, he was found not guilty

>>32400398

Calling someone a nigger = rude, but not a crime

Attacking someone because they called you a nigger = a crime

>>32400888

Go look it up, my man.
If you need help, I'll provide some if you ask nicely.

>>32400919

>Self-defense could work both ways there: You claim defense because they came at you with a weapon, they claim self-defense (If they live) because they say you assaulted them first and they feared.
A simple battery doesn't give someone grounds to escalate to deadly force.
Neither does calling them a nigger.

>A big factor is the question "Was there an attempt to descalate the situation?" If the answer is "No.", then you're chances of successfully claiming self-defense do not look good.
That's not actually correct.
In some states you may be required to attempt to retreat from the encounter, (duty to retreat, basically) but once the person you insulted/called a name pulls out a lethal weapon for example, you don't have to try to deescalate.

>>32400947

that doesn't mean he wasn't a dumbass for getting himself in the situation in the first place.

>>32400947
Only because the DA went full retard and overcharged with murder, instead of manslaughter.

>>32400945

If you don't believe me, you have the same google I do.
Pretty much any online law resource will back me up. Take your pick.

>>32400962

in context it could add to a hate crime.

>>32400970
Uhmm OK there Monday Morning criminal trial attorney..

>>32400398
Depends on the state/country. Some places have free speech, others don't.

>>32400504
That's only true in weak cuck states actually.

>>32400964
oh please provide some sources, im very interested

>>32400995
Please use capital letters you fucking mong

>>32400964
What if they, or the Prosecution in the trial, say that they could see the defendant's weapon?
>This guy walked up to me, insulted/shoved me, and clearly had a weapon. I feared for my life in this racially motivated encounter and went to defend myself with my own weapon.
No matter how it is spun, it is clear who started the encounter. The one that used a slur or shoved the other for no reason.

>>32400995

Since you asked so nicely:
2 seconds in Google later...

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/limits-on-self-defense.html
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/self-defense-laws.htm

>>32400976
I understand the law is the law but there are so many other factors that go into it. In this political climate the last thing anybody wants is a publicized court case over a white dude shooting a black dude, especially if the white dude called him a nigger.

>>32400989
People were saying that before the trial even started. That there would not be a conviction because the charges did not fit what happened.

Depends on the state, every state has different self defense laws and legal precedents.

For example in Florida you can't "provoke" a fight and them claim self defense
http://volokh.com/2013/07/16/provocation-and-self-defense/

>>32400977

Self-defense is not a crime.

>>32401032

It depends on if the guy who was insulted had a legit fear of death.

>>32400837
Soon it will be illegally killing.

Zimzam did nothing wrong.

>>32400837
uh not everyone you dont like is a nazi

Most people when verbally provoked by random people will start saying slurs

Black people do it immediately to white people. Does that give them the right to shoot me if I punch them in the face for calling me a cracker?

>>32401078
In this case he's black and some guy, who is clearly armed, shoved him and called him nigger.
If I was black and someone did that to me I'd be pretty damn scared. I'd also try to deescalate, but if that wasn't possible there's not much other courses of action than to defend myself.

>fucking with people you don't know
>not avoiding confontation
>doesn't know how to not be an asshole

Literally what are you doing if you're carrying a gun

>>32401240
Being an asshole is not a crime...

>>32401301
It is if you shoot somebody because you're an asshole.

As well it should be.

File: earp.jpg (145KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1200x1200px

>>32400398
GO AHEAD. SKIN THAT SMOKEWAGON.

OP, you just realized how Old West law enforcement works. You grow an enormous dick in the name of justice, you find the sons-of-bitches whom you know to be sons-of-bitches, and you stick your dick in their eye. When they go for their gun, you turn their heads into canoes. Everyone in town then praises your dick in the name of justice.

Modern british "police" do the opposite.

File: 1447211429740.gif (796KB, 320x286px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 320x286px

>If someone offends me, I have the right to violently assault them!

Christ I didn't know we had so many SJW's on this board

>>32400564
>"provoke" someone
>now you can't fight back while they beat your face in

>>32401592

no, you lose your right to not go to jail if you shoot somebody you call a racial slur if they swing at you.

File: 1472593987963.jpg (76KB, 740x531px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 740x531px

>>32401620
Rephrasing something doesn't change it's meaning

>>32400398
its not a crime to call someone a nigger. it is a crime to assault someone because they said something that hurt your feelings. unless someone can prove you were intentionally trying to provoke the other person so you could shoot them, youre fine.

ITT:
Stormfags with no concept of appropriate social behavior, self defense law, or appropriate reaction.

Fist fighting is not generally considered justification for use of lethal force. Yelling slurs at people you dislike for no reason is not considered free speech. Kindly kys, fags.

So is using non-threatening words (nigger, faggot, cuck, pussy) now grounds for somebody to legally attack you or not?

I don't believe that chimping out on somebody because they said Jean things is legal. Where do you draw the line? If some calls you a poopy-butt do you legally get to punch them because they provoked you? Does it have to be racial? Is "white boy" racial? If someone calls you that can you legally swing?

I always thought that you can't use physical force against somebody legally for using words unless the words caused you to feel immediate danger like "I'm gonna kill you" or something along those lines

this thread is filled with bait but whatever.
no one has the right to hurt you just because you hurt their feelings. If they try to attack you when you did not attack them, you are justified to defend your life

muh feeling. do not tread

>>32401692
>Fist fighting is not generally considered justification for use of lethal force. Yelling slurs at people you dislike for no reason is not considered free speech.
wrong on both accounts, nigger.

>>32401712
>Jean
Mean

>>32401692

when the only black people you see are on the nightly news and in music videos, it's a little more understandable

>>32401712

you don't get to punch somebody just because they called you a slur, but at the same time, you are probably guilty of inciting violence by calling somebody a slur so you don't get to shoot back.

tl;dr stormfags

>>32401692
>Yelling slurs
Is "idiot" a slur? If someone calls you an idiot for no reason can you legally punch you in the mouth? How many times can you legally hit them before they can use deadly force? What if they fight back they go to kail?

>>32401738
>inciting violence
Name calling is inciting violence? So if you shoot somebody who attacked you for calling them a name you get a charge for inciting violence or do you get a murder charge?

>>32400994
Land of the free in a state whose motto is (now) Live Free or Die

I suppose fascist was a worse insult in 1942

>>32401756
If only you had a gun, you could kill yourself. Settle for hanging. It's a bit more painful but works just the same in the end.

File: 1403201376877.jpg (123KB, 1067x653px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1067x653px

>>32400947
Even if the fight had gone the other way and Trayvon caved ZimZam's head in on that sidewalk he could've walked too.

Because he was being followed by a stranger (who turned out to be armed and deliberately following him), and he literally stood his ground.

Both acted like retards and a big part of self-defense laws are predicated on perception, meaning in this particular situation nobody was right and somebody had to die.

Though yeah, if the prosecutor had gone for manslaughter instead of murder ZimZam probably would've been found guilty.

>>32400398
"Fighting words" are explicitly not protected by the US Constitution. So yeah if you deliberately provoke someone to attack you so you can shoot then you're breaking the law.

I'm still gunna do it

>>32401779

both

File: misato gonna make columbine look like a fugin joke.png (393KB, 908x600px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 908x600px

Bottom line is you provoked those protestors then fired at them for retaliating. In the end you "started it". You're in trouble, bud. /k/ still loves you though. sorta

>>32401887
>provoke someone to attack you so you can shoot them

Do people really believe calling somebody a name is provoking them to attack you?

>>32401887
7/10. im legitimately not sure if youre b8ing or an actual retard.

>>32400664
>getting caught

i kill them later in their homes

no one finds out

File: 1444924432112.jpg (51KB, 604x340px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 604x340px

If you shoot them, how are they going to tell the police you called them a nigger?

>>32401600
If you provoke a fight you better be ready to back it up with your fists. If you are getting beat up you are a faggot if you shoot, that's just how it is. Don't be a bitch boy.

So from what I gathered from this is

>Someone calls you a faggot
>You punch them
>They punch you back
>They go to jail because they called you a faggot and nothing happens to you

Is that correct? How many times can you legally punch them before they can legally defend themselves then?

>>32402002
Something like 10-20% of people who are shot die as a result.

>>32402011
So if someone calls me a gay boy i can start punching them legally? How many times can I punch them?

>>32402026
You can't legally assault them.

File: 1444924510950.jpg (15KB, 285x287px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 285x287px

>>32402027
>Implying I don't carry .50 African Eliminator

>>32402055
Not according to the cucks in this thread that say your constitutional rights don't apply when concerning an individual.

>>32400398
>telling the police you called him a nigger
History is written by the Victors.

Witness testimony is given by the surviving person.

Unless there is video evidence of you race baiting someone into a fight then shooting them there is zero reason to even bring this into the equation.

>>32400623
Fighting words are literally things like "I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot you". Racial slurs are not fighting words and are protected speech as long as you are not using them from a position of power or authority (for example, can't call your black employees niggers, violates EO, but they also can't turn around and slug you for it legally).

>>32400683
Except yes you can.

One is a constitutionally protected act.

The other is unprovoked assault and battery.

>>32400781
I think it would depend on what you used to provoke the fight, if it was a direct threat, then I would see it not being justified, however if it was a normal argument that turned south, it could go the other way.

Another aspect I find most of these threads don't address is what amount of retreat would make the would be attacker unjustified, IE; You call someone by a racial slur, they begin walking up to you, however in response you run away, after attempting to disengage, if the guy kept coming at you, would the shot be justified.

Even then, personally, I think it should still be viable to shoot in self defense if one party attacks another as long as the defending party hasn't made a threat, implied or otherwise, no amount of non threatening speech justifies violence.

>>32400738
And what does that have to do with the legality of either action?

Oh that's right, nothing.

In case you haven't noticed, there's plenty of stupid shit you can do that isn't illegal.

>>32402101
No, that's a death threat. Fighting words are personal insults which have the potential to disrupt public order. All you had to do was to Google "fighting words". The case in which the supreme court affirmed that the restriction is valid involved a Jehovah's Witness calling a cop a fascist.

>>32402143
So is using "fighting words" grounds for physical assault then?

>>32400935
Fucking with fellow citizens is looked down poorly in America.

Unlike bitch countries like the europoos or the 3rd worlders who overreact and send in a fucking police squad for hurt feelings and PC, fellow citizens in America can deal with unruly assholes first.

Meaning if you wanna talk that shit, you better back up your bark with some bite. Because America is the most heavily armed society in the world, which tends to make folks more polite. Freedom is the greatest responsibility, and does not save you from the consequences of your actions.

But hey, at least we won't charge you more taxes to pay for cops to beat your un-PC ass, the 'victim' can do it for you.

>>32402117
>unprovoked
thats where youre wrong

>>32402167
>better back up your bark with some bite
Like a gun?

>>32402165
Its a mitigating circumstance.

Its almost like self defense outside of the home is tried on a case by case basis.

Then there is socitial norms, and the other guy has the right to self defense. If you run at a guy screaming 'NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER BOOGALOOGALOO!!!', and he (and a jury) reasonablely belives he felt like his life was in danger, you could be shot.

>>32402253
>run at a guy

That's different than just calling someone a nigger though

>>32402187
More like a fist.

>>32402316
>100lb 5'2" girl calls you a dick
>you start to mercilessly beat her because she provoked you to violence with her words
>she's not allowed to shoot you
>"just make a fist lol:)"

File: hes really ashamed you know.png (1MB, 680x461px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 680x461px

>>32400976

Ok, think about this. Just fucking listen for a moment, without bringing "but the law gives me the right to shoot niggers if I provoke them cuz free speech." Just think about this as if you're wishing peace for everyone, even those who are shits to you:

You have a gun. You go about your day. It is your job to be the most non-confrontational person in the world. Gandhi should look to you as a man of honor and peace. You know who your best friend is today? Everyone.

Some men of a darker completion call you names? Move on, it's only words. If you yell back, a gun is instantly a part of this confrontation. If he attacks you, you almost need to pull it, because if you don't, and participate in fisticuffs with him, he may take your gun and shoot you with it. It could be avoided by just ignoring him and moving on, or otherwise deescalating the situation.

Should that guy not fuck around with anyone? Yes. Is he also being a shithead by instigating it by calling you names first? Also yes. But as a gun owner, you are supposed to be the bigger person.

Play around with "but legally" and "free speech" and "it's not against the law" all you want. You may technically be correct, but in situations like this, it's the worst kind of correct. You're just being an asshole, and making gun owners look like assholes. You know what a better solution is?

Making sure no one gets shot, dipshit.

>>32402288
Walk, run, etc. Come up to a random person and calling them names, etc, is way outside of current social norms.

>>32402379
>come up to a random person
Never said that

Very much depends on the situation, on the details

If you "instigate" the situation, you have to attempt to flee/deescalate first

>>32402377
>Some men of a darker completion call you names? Move on, it's only words

askhully dats grounds to legally assault dem cuz dey pruhvoked ya

>>32400398
I don't remember the court case but being provoked still keeps you in the wrong if you actually aggress first.

>>32402377
>just ignore the blacks who are destroying our country
That solves all problems, no doubt
Be the bigger man, let them take over, turn the other cheek, and ignore their attacks on other whites

This sort of behavior is why millions of whites become victims every year, once upon a time we lynched uppity nigs, now we subsidize them...

>>32402424
If you know the person and attempt to bait then its generally mutual combat.

>>32402454
It's only when a cracker uses racial slurs is the black justified in his violent attacks or murder

Whitey on the other hand deserves it, because he's a dirty racist

>>32402479
>walk down street
>someone says "nice hat bruh you look gay"
>punch them in the face
>break their nose
>completely legal :^)

>>32402472
>just ignore the blacks who are destroying our country

Yes, if Tyrone calls you a cracker-ass honkey and says he's gonna fuck your bitch, it's totally the end of the world. Perhaps it is for you.

>Be the bigger man, let them take over, turn the other cheek, and ignore their attacks on other whites

If the 'attacks' are name calling, like has been discussed in this thread? Yeah. If that's an attack to you, you need to crawl back into your safe space.

If you're talking about blacks actively hurting other people, black, white, or otherwise, I would highly recommend and encourage using whatever caliber of justice you prefer [spoiler]or my favorite, .45[/spoiler].

>>32402519
Again, its case by case. You have a hard time with that concept?

Such cases (outside of civil) are decided by a jury.

>>32402186
Exercising constitutional rights is not a justifiable provocation to warrant violence.

>>32400711
>"Fighting words" is disorderly conduct.
>A very minor offense.
Penal code in my state specifically states the state does not recognize "fighting words" (meaning there is no such thing here) and any verbal utterance other than a clear threat cannot be considered cause for use of force. Therefore,

>>32400711
>It's true that if you call someone a nigger unprovoked and they punch you or something, you're the only one getting in trouble
is incorrect. You have committed no crime. They have committed assault. You have a legal right to defend yourself from assault, by the way.

>>32400819
>the situation OP described is one where he loses the right to self defense because he was inciting violence/using fighting words
Depends on your state of residence, friend. I can call you whatever I want as long and as loudly as I want in a public place and so long as I do not touch or threaten you I have given you no right to touch me or threaten me in any way. Further, if you do touch or threaten me, I am able to respond as I see fit to stop the possibility of harm to myself or bystanders. You're expected to be a big boy and not smack me because I called you nigger just like I'm expected to be a big boy and not smack you because you called me an asshole.

>>32400724
>you cannot provoke someone into attacking you and then claim self defense.
You can if it's illegal to attack someone because they call you names. Which it is in most places. Exercising my right of free speech in your vicinity does not abrogate my right to not get beat up by you.

>>32400711
>>32400732
>>32400758
If your criminal justice degree didn't tell you there are different laws in different states and you are, therefore, a fool to speak as you have, it probably came out of a Cracker Jack box and should be put back in said box. Unless you want to be a cop, because you've apparently got the requisite two-digit IQ starting with an 8 for that job.

>>32400857
>Let's take out doing something not only legal but constitutionally protected and replace it with assaulting someone. Because somehow, in my tiny mind, those are equivalent.

You're a fucking moron. Yelling "nigger" at somebody in the park all day is NOT the same as shoving them. Once you touch them, they get to defend themselves physically. Until that point, they have to defend themselves verbally.

>>32400398
Depends on the state. Explicitly illegal in my state, and probably all of them. Most US law is pretty based and reasonable.

Similar laws apply for assault in my state, if you accost someone, they're legally allowed to kick your ass and you're not legally allowed to do anything back. Of course if you're being hit you're going to hit back, but when police get there and hear the story it just gives them a basis on who/what to charge.

>>32400964
>A simple battery doesn't give someone grounds to escalate to deadly force.
If there is reason to believe there will be repeated blows, it most certainly does provide grounds to escalate immediately to deadly force.

File: I dont get it why do Americans want guns.jpg (487KB, 1311x1011px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1311x1011px

OP basically it comes down to a couple of things.

Technically, at the most basic legal form. You shooting a nigger you riled up should be legal. If two white men start cursing at each other, without threats, just plain hate filled words meant to hurt, whoever attacks first, pretty much proved himself to be emotional, unreliable, immature, and a violent cretin who resorted to violence. The attacker would be shot, and go to jail if he survived, and no one would bat an eye.

But liberals, cuckservatives, and everyone in between... will tell you that you should end up in prison, for riling up a nigger into a violent frenzy. Or hell, even just defending yourself with words against one....

Subconsciously, they know the black man cannot be held to a higher standard, they know the black man is like a dog, or a child in an apes body. Which is why they feel bad for the trap you set on the poor baboon.

>>32401104
Yes, because you're white... duhhh... you're not an ape, so you're held to a higher standard, which would be okay with me really, as long as liberals admitted that blacks are mentally inferior which is why we have to treat them like children.

>>32402737
No, it fucking doesn't.
Your mom will suck nigger cocks in hell you little stormfag shit. Make something of your life and stop complaining about niggers on the internet. They don't think about you nearly as much as you think about them.

>>32401315

Too bad for you, that we still live in a world where people are white and civilized.

Sooner or later, we'll make it into Africa though, don't you worry your nappy little hair, eventually you'll be able to kill a modafoka for looking at you.

>>32400486
That's all I did in Morrowind

>>32402790
Not him, but found the suburban white liberal pussy bubble world bitch.

I'm a beaner, living in the multicultural Utopia that is Los Angeles, and I've seen enough beaners and niggers fight, to know that even with fists, it turns deadly.

I've seen two people killed by punches and kicks to an unconscious man in a fist fight. Not even gang related. One was road rage, the other was a typical "stepped on my shoe" scenario.

You think an ape will leave you alone when he knocks you out? HA!!!!

>>32401032
>The one that used a slur or shoved the other for no reason.
One of these things is not like the other. Someone is too stupid to tell the difference.

>>32401620
>you lose your right to not go to jail if you shoot somebody you call a racial slur if they swing at you.
Incorrect most places.

>>32401658
>its not a crime to call someone a nigger. it is a crime to assault someone because they said something that hurt your feelings.
Correct.

>>32401692
>Fist fighting is not generally considered justification for use of lethal force. Yelling slurs at people you dislike for no reason is not considered free speech.
Astonishingly wrong twice in two sentences. Well done, asshat.

>>32401738
>you are probably guilty of inciting violence by calling somebody a slur
Depends where you live. Mostly: no.

>>32402377
You're right, but there's asshats about and it's fun to argue with them.

>>32402447
>If you "instigate" the situation, you have to attempt to flee/deescalate first
Not most places. Stand your ground laws are widespread in the US.

>>32402186
Nothing said to you, short of a direct threat, is sufficient provocation for you to assault someone.

You have committed homicide! It's just a question of whether or not it was justified in the eyes of the law.

On one hand, you failed do de escalate and because of that deadly force became necessary. That doesn't particularly lend itself to an aura of innocence about your legal figure.

On the other hand, chimchim went straight from verbal assault to impending death, and you really had no way of knowing he would. You only responded proportionately, and he's the one that came off worse for it.

Arguments could be made both ways, it depends on if it was clear you were deliberately provoking the guy and also if there are any witnesses to testify that you exchanged insults in the first place.

Because if it's your word against the corpse's, then he threatened you with your life in the process of trying to rob you and you shot him.

I mean, whoever escalated it to deadly force first is at fault for the death of the loser. Like if you tease some fag for being too faggy then they try to stab you by all means shoot the homo. But it's really hard to prove you didn't escelate it to that point and then resort to shooting after they faught back, especially if there are witnesses who said
You were fighting before hand. Typically shit like that gets ruled aggravated assault or aggravated
manslaughter just because you could have taken steps to avoid it in the first place.

>>32400965

That nigger was almost certainly about to commit crime and zimzam stopped him. Possibly saving lives at the risk of his own. He is a fucking hero.

>>32402822
Didnt read past the first line. It feels fucking great living in rural new England away from most of the white trash and Cali rot like yourself. Don't have to deal with any of you fags.

>>32400642
He call you bruh too! So he must be assuming you identify as male.

>>32401926

They retaliated? There has to be an actual physical attack, or physical threat to warrant a physical retaliation...

Hey... didn't they run for a block or two until they got surrounded, then attacked physically, BEFORE they opened fire?

What is it with degenerates like you who will do anything to protect these violent apes, the same ones who one day might do something to your family. Use some logic by reversing the situation.

>white pride rally
>blacks show up to tell them shit
>both legal displays of the 1st
>whites go full ape mode and can't handle the banter and go to physically attack the blacks
>blacks run for a while
>get surrounded by whites
>still blacks do nothing
>whites start attacking physically first
>then open fire.

If this happened, you'd be elevating those black men into Saint Hood. You're either a hypocrite with double standards... or, you know niggers are stupid and can't be expected to act like white men.

>>32402790
>I don't know shit, so I'll stoop to name-calling.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Scroll down to subchapter C.

>>32402880

Then why the fuck... are you telling Americans how they should, or shouldn't defend themselves... when we live completely different lives than you?

FUCKING RETARD HAHAHAHAHA

Think before you start ranting, god damn idiot, you must be one of those low IQ whites lol

>>32402880

>go to thread obviously posted by Americans
>tell americans to live like I do even though their world is completely different than mine
>get told why people shoot people in physical confrontations
>hurrr durrr... I don't live in the shitty world you do

Jesus Christ Eurocuck... then stfu

>>32400935
>>There was a guy who was arrested for calling a cop a Fascist
irony so strong you could turn it into a bridge

>>32402946
"New England" is in the US you fucking mongoloid.

>>32401887

you're wrong, you can't chimp out and attack someone for following you and then claim stand your ground.

>>32400398
constitution doesn't cover "fighting words"

Also are they armed? If no then you messed up.

>>32403065
>fighting words"
Those don't exist in most states, they're urban legend.

>>32400398
So, the fighting words exception happened but was mostly overturned by later interpretations because the original interpretation was found to be bullshit. Happens. So you do have a constitutional right to insult someone to their face. Kinda.

Then they punch you, and you shoot. You are now subject to local law. Another person is dead of 1+ GSW, so it's obvious a homicide was committed, which is a crime. The police will probably open an investigation to verify who committed the homicide (you). They collect the evidence, and then probably arrest you. The DA then decides whether to bring charges against you.

So you shouldn't incriminate yourself at this point (keep your mouth shut!), because the judge might dismiss your case if there's not much evidence that you committed the crime. But let's say the cops aren't bumblefucks and they find enough evidence, and it goes to trial, and your lawyer agrees to run the self-defense... defense. What happens is you are admitting to doing it but you have a "perfect justification" for it. It's called an affirmative defense.

If you live in a state or district where there is a law stating you have a duty to retreat or de-escalate, then you just fucked up, anon. Mind, even a lot of v. liberal states still say that you have no duty to retreat, so odds are good you don't. But if you do, you basically just confessed. Now you're guilty and you go to sentencing.

But if those laws don't convict you, then you still can be determined to have taken actions with the sole cause of provoking violence, which most state courts CAN use to find you are still guilty of homicide. Does your insult count for that? Probably not! But there's all sorts of extenuating circumstances, so, details matter, like whether you have a good lawyer or some overworked public attorney, and in the end, you still have 12 people deciding your fate.

>>32403364
You also have to have some proof that you feared for your life. A black eye, and nothing else, is not proof of that.
It's just proof someone punched you and you were too chickenshit to fight on equal terms. Especially in an encounter you started.

Some things are not codified in law but still are unspoken rules: 'Don't be an asshole' is one of them. And those things do come into play in the minds of jurors.

A duck can get upset cause you called it a duck?

A dog should bite you because you called it doggy?

Why do minority's get upset when you call them by the name in common usage?

Here's my state so I guess you lose your deadly force ability when standing your ground if you provoke somebody. Also you can't intentionally provoke somebody with intent to kill them (obviously) because that's premeditated

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

>carrying a gun and instigating or provoking fights that would require you to shoot in self defense
is this an anti-gun false flag thread?

>>32403637
>free speech is now considered instigating

>>32400398
i don't care if someone called you a mean name, you can't assault them for it you stupid nigger.

justified self-defense. opinjons can be inflammatory, but they are opinions, and we are not monkeys.

>>32403660
You do NOT EVER say that word. I am white, but if I ever heard you say the n-word, I would kill you. You are fucking sick.

Honestly, how do people like you still exist? Racist.

>>32403647
You can yell whatever obscenities you like in public, but directly singling someone out in order to get a rise out of them or get them to fight you is considered instigating.

>>32403681
>you can be justifiably assaulted for legally protected speech
No, nigrone. Chimping out isn't a valid response to being called what you are.

>>32403674
It's a word candyass. The black people I work with use it a hundred times a day.

But god forbid a white person use it! Then they think it's ok to chimp out.
That's the shit that's fucked up.

>>32403637
>>32403647
No, this is an ebin b8 thread. I don't know what's worse, the /pol/tards with aspergers flinging shit or the armchair lawyers making shit up as they go.

A) it will vary by state and sometimes local area, so everyone's answer will be different
B) none of this matters because this thread was made by someone with a sad life and too much time. I mean look at OP's picture! It's not even a FUNNY holocaust joke. Plus it's spongebob, so he probably can't legally buy cigarettes yet. You are all wasting your time. Good night

>>32403697
Jesus you're dumber than the niggers you insult. It is protected under free speech, but is considered instigating if something comes to fruition. If you are found guilty of instigating then manslaughter it looks really bad for you. Emotional stress or whatever is an acceptable thing to sue another person over in some states.

>>32403394
Right. I just tried to provide a strictly legal perspective. You are correct that all sorts of things affect the minds of jurors, but so do their instructions. They will be asked to consider things like reasonable doubt and stuff like that. And things like whether or not provocation can nullify self-defense might not even come up if the judge fails to instruct them thusly, the DA doesn't bring it up, or the judge denies it. I was assuming everything plays like clockwork and trying to give an average perspective across the laws of the 50 states, separate from accounting for culture and its many local differences.

Those local differences might give you results you don't expect, though. In some conservative locales, for instance, I would be extra cautious with my gun, because I would expect the jury to have some familiarity with guns and to thus have a personal idea of what is a reasonable situation in which to whip it out and what is not, and to evaluate it based on concepts like honor. In a more liberal area, you might be able to get away with more if you convince the jury you were ~traumatized~ by the event.

>>32403607
So the first clause only applies if it is "provocation by unlawful conduct" and I would expect the case history and precedents to verify that #3 is a bit more complicated, because there's the law, and then there's precedent, which is especially used to guide rulings on when two rights conflict (like this case).

But yes, insulting people and then falling back on your gun to save your ass is probably an especially bad plan in that district.

>>32403711
Please explain how one can instigate while acting within the law.

Legal behavior does not justify illegal assault no matter how much Tyrone wants to pop dat cracka.

>>32403681
>You can yell whatever obscenities you like in public, but directly singling someone out in order to get a rise out of them or get them to fight you is considered instigating.
Incorrect.

>(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
>(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

I'd be willing to bet more than one state have that on the books.

>>32403674
>I am white, but if I ever heard you say the n-word, I would kill you.
So your sensibilities are more important to you than my rights. I understand. You're a textbook liberal. Black folk can defend themselves verbally just fine without you swooping in to help them. They aren't as stupid or as helpless as you deem them to be. Being an obvious racist and clearly speaking of blacks as if they were, in fact, inferior to you, you wouldn't understand that. Somebody's clearly shown themselves a racist, and it isn't the person to whom you were replying.

>>32403700
Come down to San Francisco and say that shit to me. I WILL NOT ALLOW IT.

You are a racist! You are a fucking racist!

>>32403701
Spongebob is like 30, actually

>>32403721
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE GONE THROUGH UNDER OUR WHITE SOCIETY. YOU DO NOT SAY THAT WORD. YOU DO NOT SAY IT EVER.

DO NOT. DO NOT EVER FUCKING SAY IT.

>>32403718
>verbal assault that entices the recipient to action against the speaking party
>what is the definition of instigation for 200 Alex?

>>32403721
Most states have this law where it must be accompanied by defamation/slander/etc., there are some areas in states that verbal/emotional abuse alone is reason for legal action.

>>32400840
Hahahaha, no. You didn't look at the evidence of the trial. Trayvon LEFT THE SCENE, Zimmermann lost track of him for a period of time, and then Trayvon CAME BACK and assaulted him.

>>32403736
>entices
No, this assumes that the person assaulting the "enticer" has legal justification to carry out the assault because they've been "enticed".

The truth is they have no such legal justification as they have not been legally enticed. Therefore the person shouting mean words at them cannot be charged with enticement.

>>32403729
You are triggered or trolling. For fun, let's assume triggered. True story:
>my family got its surname while on the Trail of Tears
>it was given to us by white people
>other parts of the family were forced to come to the New World to avoid prison
>great-grandmother was black, a child of slavery

I've got a very goddamn good idea what people of color have gone through under white society. I also know it's people like you who think we can't think or speak for ourselves who are perpetuating it. STFU, racist asshole.

>>32403736
>Most states have this law where it must be accompanied by defamation/slander/etc., there are some areas in states that verbal/emotional abuse alone is reason for legal action.
Do you mean "use of force" or "I'm gonna sue your ass" when you use the term "legal action?"

>>32403755
.0464353457234 seconds in google
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/liability-for-abusive-or-insulting-language.html

>>32403736
>INSTIGATION. The act by which one incites another to do something, as to injure a third person, or to commit some crime or misdemeanor
>to injure a third person
>to commit some crime or misdemeanor
Looks like you're the retard. Next time don't play armchair lawyer.

>>32403766
>assaulting the instigator
>not a crime or misdemeanor
Holy fuck.

>>32403755
In that case I apologize for speaking on behalf of a person of color. I have a lot of privilege and every day I wish that I wasn't born white. White people are fucking racist whether you want to admit it or not.

Also, again I don't want to demean you as a PoC, but you have really just internalized white supremacy. You are a slave vessel by which the will of racist white people can act. You don't really mean what you're saying.

>>32403770
Go back and read Tyrone. I'm talking about calling someone a nigger. Words are not assault.

File: Remember+children+these+are+the+same+people+who+blame+the+_7c51f5b846ed42c884bf97b1d7714961.jpg (88KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 546x700px

Keep /pol/ in /pol/, OP.

>>32403774
Jesus you're retarded.
>to commit crime or misdemeanor
Holy fucking shit.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
Jesus Goddamn Chirst
>Instigation can only affect a third party
>forget the bit where it says getting the person to commit a crime

>Say I shoved you.

Congratulations you just assaulted someone, you started the fight then gunned him down when he exercised his right to bear arms to protect himself. (Hint: the right doesn't magically start at guns)

Because you started the fight. You can't then claim it was self defense. Have fun in prison for murder, enjoy getting raped by Tyrone every day until you end up getting stabbed to death

>>32403787
I don't even know what you're saying at this point.

>>32403795
I'm calling you a retard. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough, would your preferred medium be crayons?

>>32403797
I honestly can't decipher any of what you said, so let's try again from scratch.

Explain how calling someone a nigger is committing a crime or injuring a third person.

>>32403809
How about you explain the source of me calling you retarded?
>instigation can only happen against a third party

>>32403765
That didn't answer the question I was asking. I was specifically asking >>32403736 what he meant when he typed a particular phrase. I have no interest in what some kid who gets on the internet to tell us "I can't tell you about your situation, talk to your own lawyer" says.

>>32403773
Oh, you've got it wrong. I don't need your pity or you to speak for me. I have a degree from an accredited university and a career I love. I have a wife and three children. I shoot guns, take vacations, and own my house and our vehicles outright with no debt. It's a good life and I'm not oppressed. Mainly I'm not oppressed because it pisses me off when people like you talk down to me and I let them know about it. I haven't "internalized white supremacy," I've learned that people who expect the white man (or the brown man or the black man or any other color you want to stick in there) to help them out are willingly subjugated. I've learned that hard work, study, and not being submissive to people who aren't me but think they know what's best for me is a good recipe for success. I've learned to hate people like you who look down on me and my kind with so much pity without knowing anything about us. I've learned to succeed by doing everything liberal racists like you tell me I can't because I'm suppressed by the white man's society. The white man doesn't care if I'm a Nigger or an Injun or a Gook or a WOP, he cares if I'm good enough at my job to make us both money. Unless the white man's a racist liberal. You can tell them, they talk down to you. It sounds like this:

>You don't really mean what you're saying.

I mean exactly what I'm saying, asshole.

>>32403819
>instigation can only happen against a third party
I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

>>32403723
I'm a racist because I don't like double standards?

Fucking kys. You fucking apologists are cancer on the human race. It's ok for some people to act like assholes but not others.
Travel to Africa asshole. See how much they care about your feelings there!
If they done chopping your white ass up that is.
Btw I'm 50% "prairie nigger" and proud of it, and I don't let words hurt my feelings!

>>32403820
Uhh, some states or rather areas in states it is legal to sue someone over emotional damage due to verbal abuse alone. You know, what you asked?

>>32403830
>>32403766
Take your (You)s and get the fuck out of here.

>>32403773
Please god let this be a troll and not a real person!

>>32403820
I am white, so I deserve that hate. I don't blame you for acting out like this. We did this to you.

The world would be so much better off if white people never existed. I just want all racists to die.

>>32401566
>Movie history 101
In real life history, the Earps were viewed as murderers that got away with it because they had tin stars on and Holliday was known to be a criminal that just hadn't been caught yet. Curly bill and the bunch waged a PR campaign against them to the point that most people viewed the Earps, Wyatt especially, as power mongering assholes that abused their badges until the early 1900s when enough evidence like personal testimony, journals and correspondence was compiled to show the Earps weren't all that bad after all.
Holliday was still a criminal that never got caught.

File: IMG_8032.jpg (74KB, 640x677px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x677px

>>32403846
Start with yourself. Set a good example for the rest of us!

Please film it so I can watch and learn!

>>32403843
No nigrone. Go ahead. Explain how instigation can occur against someone who is not a third party. I really have no idea what your dumb ape brain is trying to say.

>>32403831
>I'm racist
>also prairie nig so it's okay guys

America has a severe education problem. If you paid a moment of attention in 9th grade history class, you'd understand how retarded you sound.

>>32403856
So, you instigate someone to commit a crime? Is assault not a crime? Therefore getting someone to assault you via instigation is then textbook instigation no? Or is it an exception?

>>32403854
Every day when I turn on the news and see what is going on, I wish that I were dead. I fucking hate my skin, and I fucking hate white people so much.

Racists are the scum of the Earth.

>>32403837
Apparently I didn't ask well. My apologies I meant to ask if the other anon was speaking of future civil or immediate physical remedies. A simple "suit" or "smack" would have sufficed.

>>32403846
>I don't blame you for acting out like this. We did this to you.
The only thing you've done is bother me a little bit tonight. Believe it or not, some of us lesser races are perfectly capable of distinguishing the behavior of individuals from that of the herd. You might take a lesson there. Hell, even I don't want all racists to die. I just want them to expect everyone to succeed or fail on their own merit. What's so complicated and angsty about that?

>>32403864
Never mind, you're too stupid, set in your ways, or superior to be convinced of anything by logic. Go find a comely woman, marry her, and make lovely babies. Teach them to think for themselves and indoctrinate them as little as possible. Have a nice life. And stop feeling sorry for me, I'm doing better than most people.

File: anBPYpb_700b.jpg (26KB, 552x432px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 552x432px

>>32403856
I'd stop arguing with this guy, fellas. He can go get cucked by Tyrone if he wants to and we can read the headlines the day after.

>unidentified male verbally harassed black male
>male shot 50+ and gang raped, authorities were only able to identify him based on his Stormfront ID card and pockets full of anime figurines

>>32403861
Yep that's some schizophrenia level of thinking senpai.

>you instigate someone to commit a crime
You aren't instigating unless you commit a misdimeanor against a third party.

>Therefore getting someone to assault you via instigationis then textbook instigation
>someone else breaks the law
>this means that you've broken the law
Honestly, what the fuck?

>>32403859
That what my cousin calls us. Yes he's a little racist but he's a good guy.

News flash dumbass! Every human being is somewhat racist.

If you don't feel like a minority, move! Somewhere on this earth someone will hate you cause your different. It part of the human condition.

The important thing is not to act on it.
Say like attacking people of a different race. Like I've seen countless blacks do to just about everybody, whites, hispanics, asians.
They don't get a pass to be assholes!

>>32403883
I didn't say you were breaking the law. Holy fucking shit. Goddamn. You said instigation can only affect a third party. I'm telling you you're retarded. Which based on the shit spilling out of your mouth you undoubtedly are.

>>32403891
Is is not instigation unless you commit a MISDIMEANOR against a THIRD PARTY.

Where is the misdimeanor? Explain.

>>32403885
I don't care about your views toward me on race, I just came here for the keks at your inherently flawed and archaic contradiction of a view.

Race literally means dick outside of college campuses and /pol/, you see. In real life, people don't give a shit, and are more pressed about carrying on with their day than worrying if Tyrone is packing heat behind them.

Also, Jew is not a race, deal with it and go back to your containment board.

File: 1427842952402.gif (168KB, 404x272px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 404x272px

>>32403723
>>32403729
>mfw I share a board with these people

>>32403899
It doesn't have to be a third party you imbecile. It CAN. CAN be a third party. Hell you can get someoen to punch their own face if you try hard enough.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/instigate

>it's another /k/ pretends to know the law episode

You cannot attack another person for insulting you. I don't care if they're making fun of your skin color, your new Jordans, or your fly ass whip. If you attack somebody because they said a word you didn't like.

Now if OP said
>"I'm going to kill you nigger"
then it changes everything completely.

File: 1329017977940.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>32400398
Baiting someone to rile them up is generally a shitty thing to do.

But physical assault is crossing a clear line.

>>32403911
That is dictionary.com. That is not a legal dictionary. It doesn't even say anything about legal matters. I quoted a legal dictionary here. >>32403766

>>32403903
Wrong anon dummy.

>>32403919
>OR
>or to commit some crime

>>32403917
It depends wholly on the way the context is applied. If the judge presiding over your case puts 2 and 2 together and finds out you did this purely to be instigatory, say goodbye to your case on defense.

Watching /pol/ threads does not make you knowledgeable about law, it just turns your brain to pond scum.

>>32403899
>Is is not instigation unless you commit a Misdemeanor against a THIRD PARTY.
You seem to have read something incorrectly. Instigation need not involve a third party. The actor (you, the first party) can commit instigation under the definition above by convincing someone (the second party) to commit a crime. Like telling your friend it's OK to speed because there aren't any cops on this road, EVER.
>friend listens to you, speeds
>gets pulled over
>"Sorry, Officer. Anon told me it was OK."
>Friend gets ticket for speeding
>Anon gets ticket for instigating
>never a third party involved

>>32403924
Can you read English you fucking spic? They are talking about the initial act being "some crime or misdemeanor" in order for it to qualify as instigating.

>>32403931
>Anon gets ticket for instigating
Confirmed for not knowing how the law works.

>>32403934
Your statement is incorrect. I suspect the spic has better grasp of the language than you do.

>>32403938
Instigating is a misdemeanor. Cops can give tickets for those. Or I could have been pedantic and said "Anon is guilty of instigation." Probably should have done the latter, asshats are too literal.

>>32403934
>as to injure a third person, or to commit some crime or misdemeanor
Really?

>>32403931
By convincing someone to commit a crime you are party to it and are commiting a misdimeanor by the act of "convincing".

This is different than calling someone a nigger. You are obviously not party to their retaliatory crime of assault.

>>32403944
>The act by which one incites another to do something
> as to injure a third person, or to commit some crime or misdemeanor
These are separate clauses. The first clause applies equally to both parts of the second clause. Learn English.

>>32403954
No? Who taught you English?

>>32403958
Hola mi amigo blanco.

>>32403954
Yep. Let me separate them for you, since you can't seem to get it.

>The act by which one incites another to do something as to injure a third person
OR
The act by which one incites another to do something as to commit some crime or misdemeanor

Learn to read.

>>32403949
I never said otherwise. I simply objected to >>32403899 being unable to grasp basic English.

>>32403980
Aaaaaaand I fail teh greentext. FML.

>>32403980
>doesn't understand basic grammar
"as to injure a third person" is not a valid sentence fragment that can be placed between commas. It can only be grammatically correct as part of another clause. You are objectively wrong in your """interpretation""".

I never had to, because I'm not an asshole.

Go back to /pol/

File: chucknorris.jpg (195KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1920x1080px

>>32403954
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/30516/should-i-use-a-comma-before-and-or-or

File: conjunction-junction[1].jpg (131KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 500x345px

>>32403992
Bright guy, fragments are what you put in jail between commas. The first part of that sentence applies to either condition laid out after. Those conditions are separated by comma and the conjunction "or." You need to go and take a ride on this train.

>>32403987
>>32403997
You keep saying this, and you keep not telling us what you're talking about. I'm starting to think you're inebriated.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-montana-man-sentenced-german-student-20150212-story.html

You can't bait people into murdering them

>>32402836
>>32402695
I like the fact how everyone refused to refute this man

>>32404209
See
>>32404156

>>32400398
>Hate crime

There is literally no such thing.

Oh I know our stupid government thinks there is, but there isn't. A hate crime is just a crime committed because you hate someone over something stupid and superficial like their race.

>>32404235
>there is no such thing
>procede to describe what it is

Makes me think

A few years ago I got into a fight with a guy at a gas station. He said some distasteful things, maybe he was drunk or on drugs but we got into a fight and I was able to press charges on him.
Tldr being racist will ensure you get your ass kicked and pay some fines

>>32404249
My point was there's no reason for the designation "hate crime." If someone does something illegal, they can be punished for it whether or not their motivation was that they're an edgy racist or not.

>>32404275
Intent is a huge part of our law and sentencing, and has been for hundreds of years.

File: IMG_2651.jpg (64KB, 998x751px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 998x751px

>>32402764
>>32402783
>>32402871
>>32402472
>>32401725

4chan.org/pol

ITT: so many cucks who believe hurt feelings justify assault. It's not your fault though.

Society has failed you.
Your parents have failed you.
The Government has failed you.

The pussification of the American white male continues....

>>32404541
You can't run around trying to bait people into shooting them in self defense. This isn't a free speech issue.

>>32402593
Again the right to free speech is a government based thing; you have no idea about legality and have proven to be pretty much fucking stupid so far anon. Enjoy prison.

>>32400758
Your teachers failed you

>>32400398
Both.

>>32401725
What state do you live in I will want to move to this magical place

>>32404675
Denial

>>32404689
Awwwww almost had my hopes up for reduced racial double standards that would probably force more polite and civic minded behavior

>>32404561
calling someone a nigger hardly constitutes "bait"

>>be me
>>wife and I go to bar
>>attempt to enter bar but fat beaner on cell phone blocks door
>>excuse us, Sir
>>fat wetback rolls eyes continues to block door
>>I say "fucking mexicans" use alternative entrance
>>bar full of drunk wetbacks
>>come on, hunny. Let's go somewhere else
>>dirty mexican follows us in parking lot
>>pull 357 from door pocket of car
>>beaners shit selves and call police
>>cops arrive quickly cause shitty neighborhood.
>>cops disarm me and investigate.
>>cops return gun and tell me I did nothing wrong
>>lead cop asks why didn't I shoot. Says I should have shot....wink wink
>>fat wetback gets arrested for menacing and warrants.

God damn I lover being white

>>32404777
Been a while since I've seen a "soccermom" style tall tale on /k/, when did they fall out of favour?

>>32404775
Trying to bait people so you can murder them is neither polite nor civic minded

>>32404797
Shame on them for taking the bait, thus proving they are the ones who are not civilized

>>32404791
Except it really happened, Booze Hounds San Antonio TX Nov 2014

>>32404805
Unfortunatley for you and luckily for the rest of us we have laws and a justice system to determine who gets punished with what, rather than a system of vigilantes "testing" and executing people.

So much Cuckaforniastan in this thread!

He hurt my feels so I can assault him freely with no restraint. Are we living in perpetual 3rd grade?

>>32404846
>strawman

Not an argument

>>32404878

>>Strawman

I don't think you understand the definition of that word...

What I've learned ITT:

If a white guy calls me a chink I can legally beat the shit out of him because he said mean things to me. Good to know.

>>32404944
No, you'll go to prison retard.

But if he called you a chink for the purpose of provoking an attack, then you hit him, then he shot you he'd be going to prison.

>>32400547
> lay hands on
> life endangered
I'm all for self defense but I don't think I'll be shooting the next person that hits me. Measured response = no. I'm also 6'3" chubby buff, results may differ for manlets/women.

>>32400398

Idk about other countries, but here in Italy physically assaulting someone because you have been verbally provoked is a felony no matter the provocation.

However, if defending yourself you kill the attacker, especially with a weapon (which most people cannot carry loaded outside their home) you'll be at least investigated and likely tried for excess of self defence.

If you carried that weapon illegally, then you are screwed.

>>32405328

Excluding weapons, let's say you kill the attacker with a single hit from a chair instead. You'll be tried (for unintentional homicide), but you are likely to get off IF nobody can prove that you continued to defend yourself after the attacker was down (i.e: kept hitting him with said chair)

Tl;dr: be One Punch Man

>>32400821
Imagine a situation where you're at a bar, and one guy walks up to another guy and starts repeatedly yelling "fuck you asshole/nigger/etc." for no apparent reason. And when the guy getting yelled at throws a punch, the other guy pulls out a gun and shoots him to death. How the fuck would you feel if you saw that unfold? Nobody on earth would think "well yeah the guy deserved to die."

File: 1473382432399.jpg (55KB, 748x543px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 748x543px

>>32402593
I guess I can just break into peoples house and take their shit since the 4th amendment doesn't apply to me as a private citizen.

>>32405820
You wouldn't be arrested for violating the constitution, dumbfuck, but for theft. Constitutional rights are negative rights, meant as prohibitions against the government, not private citizens. How many criminal cases can you name where thieves have been convicted for violating the 4th? Oh, none? Funny, that.

Can you get your mother arrested for shunning you at Thanksgiving over you owning an 'assault weapon'? Is that a violation of the second amendment?

Please, keep them coming. This legal illiteracy is amusing.

>>32402567
It starts with name calling
The white is the "better man" and ignores it
Demonstrating his weakness
Then it escalates to sucker punches, rapes, robberies, etc
All because you wanted to be a cuck

File: 1450464056474.jpg (17KB, 403x312px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 403x312px

We're just making a mockery out of you because you're unironically defending violence because your delicate little feelings got hurt.

>>32400503

If Zimmerman's heroic triumph over the negro criminal Trayvon taught us anything it's that victory can be achieved, even in the face of defeat, even when it seems that defeat is all but certain, as long as you don't give up and believe in yourself.

File: 1474029055711.jpg (7KB, 155x202px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 155x202px

>>32406072
>Taking what is clearly a cheap jab at your position this seriously

You don't get to sperg out on people in public just because they call you an autistc faggot. I know people that struggle with social comprehension have issues understand that basic concept.

>>32402962
>Has no idea what irony is

>>32400664
Correct.

>Dead coon and nothing happens
>Dead coon and racist gets life in prison
Feel free to test the law, though. It's a win/win situation for me.

>mean words are justification for assault
That's not how it works you niggers.

>>32400989
Prosecutors regularly pursue heavy charges despite not having the evidence to support it instead of lesser charges that require less evidence because they want to make an "example" out of whoever did the crime (or because they're intentionally sabotaging the case). Had Zimzam been charged with the equivalent of negligent homicide or a lesser manslaughter charge instead of second-degree murder they may have actually secured a conviction.

>>32401957
The SCOTUS, and by extension the law, does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Why do retards keep posting this false dilemnia of "lol either assault is legal or I can kill bait"?

If someone assaults you over mean words they'll get arrested

>>32406717
And if that assault rises to the level that you fear for your life...you can shoot them

>>32400582
Dead people can´t talk

>>32402187
Exactly.

And if it escalates then things default to aggression aka who started it.

And that's between you and the jury to decide whose at fault.

>>32406717
>>32407637
that doesnt mean the instigator is getting off scott free

>>32400758
my dad works for Lego

Depends on witnesses.

>>32402695
The advantage of posting here is that no matter what you say, it's not a legal advice.

>>32402790
Can't flim flam