Timeline for Can a person purposely provoke someone to hit him and then report a crime?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2020 at 13:22 | vote | accept | user1034912 | ||
| Nov 12, 2020 at 13:22 | |||||
| Nov 11, 2020 at 4:46 | comment | added | user8675309 | @ChrisH And fighting words that are not an insult: "Sir, it is my honest intention to [specific act leading to grievous bodily harm] to your [loved one], and I shall begin forthwith. Good day!" | |
| Nov 10, 2020 at 14:28 | comment | added | user2357112 | This answer's logic is invalid. The fact that two things are individually legal does not mean that they are legal to do in combination. For example, it is legal to get drunk, and it is legal to drive motor vehicles, but it is illegal to do both at the same time. | |
| Nov 10, 2020 at 3:28 | comment | added | user8913 | Insults are a crime in Indonesia? That sounds like a very, very easy law to break, especially depending on what somebody else would consider "an insult"... | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 21:52 | comment | added | bta | Don't forget there's a jury of humans involved in any potential criminal trial, plus a wide variety of sentencing options available. If you clearly instigated the whole thing, they're likely going to be a lot more lenient than they would be for an unprovoked assault. | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 19:36 | comment | added | Yakk | @fectin The court found that the words used where plausible fighting words, but the statute was over-broad and hence invalid, so there was no offense. The problem the courts object to is failure to craft a statute that clearly covers (some?) fighting words, and doesn't cover any non-fighting words. Because if it (substatially?) covers non-fighting words, the statute is invalid even if this instance was used against fighting words. | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 19:34 | comment | added | Yakk | @fectin "The Court analyzed the history of Georgia’s application of the statute and concluded that it had been invoked repeatedly to punish the use of communications that were “not ‘fighting words’ as Chaplinsky defines them.” Thus, the Court concluded that the statute was overbroad because it was “susceptible of application to protected expression.” The Court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Wilson’s words would likely have been punishable under a more narrowly drawn statute drafted in conformance to the requirements of Chaplinsky." | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 15:22 | comment | added | fectin | @user31389 Fighting words are those that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." So, essentially a call to imminent and specific lawless action. However, while the supreme court keeps asserting that "fighting words" can be regulated, no set of language that has come before them in the past half-century has actually constituted fighting words. So, unclear what language would actually qualify. | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 13:56 | comment | added | Davor | @user31389 - I can't say I know more than you, but it seems that it's up to a judge to decide. But it seems lately that anything goes/ | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 13:11 | comment | added | Chris H | @user31389 from a purely logical point of view, this holds if some insults are not fighting words, but all fighting words are insults (i.e. fighting words is a subset of insults). I suggest an example of an insult that's not fighting talk Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries. | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 12:51 | comment | added | user31389 | @Davor This article first explains that fighting words are insults, and then that insults are not fighting words. I'm confused. Did I misunderstand something? What are fighting words if not insults? (I'm interested in the US section specifically.) | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 9:56 | comment | added | Davor | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 6:14 | comment | added | gen-ℤ ready to perish | If my culpability for throat chopping a rude little ***** is somehow eliminated then I want to have the quotes to back it up to the judge | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 5:51 | comment | added | user6726 | AFAIK this is a common law rule, and states with comparative negligence are the ones with statutes saying otherwise. I'll see if I find an explicit statute. | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 5:01 | comment | added | gen-ℤ ready to perish | “or even eliminate it, depending on the state” — Could you please cite some statutes? | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 1:16 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |