I've got a question

bravenrace wrote: Thanks. Those are good points. But tell me, what if the person walks away and the other follows them, continuing to scream inflammatory remarks? What if the person cannot physically remove themselves from the situation, and the other pushes them to their limits?

If someone physically prevents you from controlling your body as you intend, you have the right to use enough force necessary to overcome the physical force they are using against you.

Now, someone antagonizes or goads someone until they snap and do something illegal or immoral. That illegal/immoral act is 100% the responsibility of the person who committed it. The antagonization is 100% the responsibility of the antagonizer. A did not necessarily cause B.

Here is another hypothetical situation: let's say my fiancee were a verbally abusive woman (she is not, but we'll go with it for the sake of pronouns). She delights in yelling at me and tormenting me and tries to get me to lose my temper. If she starts and I begin losing my temper, I do not have the right to haul off and smack her. It is my responsibility to remove myself from that bad situation. If I try to walk out the front door to get to my car to drive away, and she puts herself in my way and tries to push me back and not let me escape, it is totally legitimate to shove her or slap her out of my way. At that point, it is her fault for trapping me in the situation.

The above is totally different from the rape scenario though. Yelling and shouting and cursing at someone is a form of attack. Waggling your private parts at someone is not. If one person is just taunting someone with something they can't have... "Look at this delicious piece of cake! Mmm... it's so tasty. I am going to eat it all in front of you and not let you have any..." that's kind of sucky, but not violent. If the person who did something wrong did it just because they were being "tempted", they are 100% at fault legally and morally.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to EastCoastMojo: Thanks. Those are good points. But tell me, what if the person walks away and the other follows them, continuing to scream inflammatory remarks? What if the person cannot physically remove themselves from the situation, and the other pushes them to their limits?

Laugh.

Seriously. It is easy to deescalate a situation by changing your attitude. Laughing in someone's face should cover it.

There is no such thing as not being able to remove yourself from the situation.

You keep trying to lump the responsibility into a neat little "share the blame" package. It is NEVER someone else's fault if you are a azzhat.

What you seem to be missing is that it is NOT a single situation, or a single event of fault. It is at least 2, probably much more.

The person poking the bear is 100% at fault for their indiscretions.

The person who looses their temper is 100% at fault for their (separate) indiscretions. If he yells, he's at fault once. If he yells and then swings, he's at fault twice.

Both are to blame for their lack of regard for the dignity of the other (the bigger sin).

Most confrontations involve multiple infractions, and multiple unique instances of blame.

As a parent, I teach my kids to be 100% responsible for their actions. If the fight is 98% the other guy's fault, you need to be 100% responsible for your part (even if it was only 2%). But I take it a step further. True repentance would mean you are 100% responsible for your part (the 2%) with NO EXPECTATION of the other person accepting blame for anything.

So, there is no shared blame. Accept responsibility, seek forgiveness, expect nothing in return. Rinse and repeat.

SVreX wrote: As a parent, I teach my kids to be 100% responsible for their actions. If the fight is 98% the other guy's fault, you need to be 100% responsible for your part (even if it was only 2%). But I take it a step further. True repentance would mean you are 100% responsible for your part (the 2%) with NO EXPECTATION of the other person accepting blame for anything.

This brings up an interesting point. There is a difference between Responsibility and Fault. You are always 100% responsible for your own actions. You are never responsible for anyone else's. They are. That does not put you at fault in a scenario.

If someone attacks me, and I overpower them and injure them, I am responsible for that. However, if they were the aggressor and left me the choice to be injured or injure them, they are at fault.

I will say that looking to distribute blame never leads to a healthy resolution.

If this "situation" is happening between you and someone you love, you two need counciling to reestablish good communication.

Thanks for all the replies, guys. I really appreciate every one of them.

The law does recognize contributory negligence when attempting to distribute damages, but criminal behavior is not a thing of degree. You ever broke the law or you didn't. Having sex with a woman against her consent is against the law.

As far as provocative behavior, you cite some "obvious" examples, but if we lived in another society, it would be just as "obvious" that I was inviting your assault if I went out in public with my hair uncovered. Or if I went to the market unescorted by a male relative. Both of those acts are considered so obviously irresistible, that men in those societies literally cannot stop themselves. Does that help put it in perspective?

Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote: The law does recognize contributory negligence when attempting to distribute damages, Margie

except in NC when it comes to MVA's

Marjorie Suddard wrote: The law does recognize contributory negligence when attempting to distribute damages....

As Marjorie says, most of these situation are pretty clear that Criminally the one who commits the act is wrong, but Civilly (as in a civil suit) a degree of blame can be distributed.

That is of course unless the "taunting" is in someway illegal. E.g. if someone runs over your child, killing them, and you beat him severely, you are both Criminally wrong. Civilly though, the murder would likely get most of the blame.