Turncoat stated: source post
If you maim her, then she'll retaliate on your kids.
Technically you'd need to premeditate the maiming, if not admit to poor self control if you're assuming that you'll end up hitting first inevitably. Your kids by those conditions aren't in any danger.
That is... unless you're seriously trying to paint Sugar as some sort of wanton child beater.
What is your opinion on someone killing someone's children for getting maimed? Do you think it's a reasonable reaction?
I wouldn't meet Xena if she is armed lol, she sounds insane.
Turncoat stated: source post
But they have cake, alcohol, fancy dresses, and these days a fair deal of tradition tweaking to make it feel like it's their own. It doesn't even necessarily have to be a Christian wedding.
xena, try looking up the 'thin skull principle'. the concept is that you take your victim as you find them, so if your 'victim' (the person you maim for example) has a predisposition for a certain illness, you are responsible even if the outcome is disproportionate to your crime. this means if you decided to say, maim someone's arm and severe the nerves there, if that person had an illness that made them more susceptible to a heart attack, you would be responsible for their death, even though a wound to the arm is unlikely to result in death.
now i am not aware of this principle being applied in cases where the victim has in retaliation harmed those close to the perpetrator, but i would be happy to argue for this concept to be used in a new context, for the purpose of deterring others from such deranged, remorseless attacks.
Sugar stated: source post
"The fact remains. If I'm invited to a wedding, I'm not going to pussy out bc some idiot has been making threats on the internet at me."
me neither. anyway, just so we're clear, was i included in the 2 or 3? if not, you have nothing to fear from me
lol
I have nothing to fear from you anyway.
But no, you weren't one of the people to whom I was referring. As vile as you are, you're still smaller than I am.
You would have to hit first for me to respond with violence. And I would do my best to use reasonable force to just knock you down and keep you down until the cops arrive. Bruises but no maiming. (Unless you flail against my submission hold and rip your own joints apart :P)
The individuals to whom I was referring are all male and much bigger than I am. That, coupled with previous threats would be the mitigating factors that would likely lead to an acquittal, even though I'm capable of doing moderate to severe physical damage to a large man. I'd tryyy to keep it moderate, but who knows what would happen during a crime of passion? ;)
"i am not aware of this principle being applied in cases where the victim has in retaliation harmed those close to the perpetrator, but i would be happy to argue for this concept to be used in a new context, for the purpose of deterring others from such deranged, remorseless attacks."
^ This is hilarious.
The precedents set in this particular area of torte law (on wiki) were all cases of driver negligence (vehicular manslaughter) or attacks involving perps of equal or superior size and strength attacking a smaller and weaker victim. The one boy required a leg amputation and the other died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vosburg_v._Putney
Are you tryina tell me that you would even waste your time arguing that my maiming somebody (who you previously believed was you, so we'll call her you for the sake of our thought experiment) who is predisposed to homicidal fits of rage bc of her PD...
would make MOI responsible for her killing my children?
You would srsly try to convince a judge that I should pay you for your brittle batshit skull if you were to opt to cross at least one international border to murder my kids in retalliation for being assaulted?
lol. Just lol.
Cadaver stated: source post
You'd be put down like the dog you are.
Your use of passive tense makes it difficult for me to decipher whether that's another threat from you to throw on top of the pile.
Where does your first person pronoun fit in that statement?
But thanks to all of you for the push to look up some US criminal law.
The most likely outcome for all of this hypothetical shit would be deportation for me upon conviction, with my right to return to the US suspended for a lengthy period of time, pending some act (s) of contrition. Or possibly revoked permanently.
I'm still googling what the outcome would be if the case were acquitted as an act of self defense on my part.
Non-lethal assault with no intent to kill is only a misdemeanor, after all.
ahaha i don't give a fuck about wiki you moron, talk to me about case law not law for spastics with ADHD. furthermore, why are you giving me an introduction to the thin skull principle when i'm the one who told you what it was? you're so embarrassing lol
anyway i acknowledged i would be trying to set a new precedent and that the principle didn't generally apply to cases where the victim had harmed those close to the perp. good to know you weren't referring to me though, i would think you would know better.