"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:59:48 -0800, Larry Jaques

wrote:


I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?


Watch the videos and make your mind up on who is the guilty party in the
incident. IMO the guy who actually provoked the incident and then threw
the
_punches_ is the aggressor, who now seems to be being feted for his
actions.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Not to judge the case, but in the US, the "fighting words" assault by the
white guy is not protected speech. He could be arrested for assault in many
states but wouldn't be, unless it led to further altercation.

The poke by the black guy is going to be treated as battery in most states,
because the "fighting words" assault is NOT a defense for the poke by the
black guy, anywhere in the US. The original, verbal assault may be a
misdemeanor but it is not a physical threat, so it doesn't justify physical
retaliation. Because the white guy walked away, there can be no claim of
immanent danger.

Most prosecutors would treat this without all of the complication. The fact
that simplified it tremendously is that the black guy was a parole violator.
g

--
Ed Huntress