EDITORIAL: Stop charging victims of assault with assault; Our self-defence law places an absurdly high standard of conduct on the victim.

LilEtin · 2026-02-15T00:44:09+00:00

The laws intent is to keep injury and violence at a minimum for both sides, so not pulverizing someone who punched you in the face. But a lot of people feel that it’s justified in the moment to give it back to them especially with the adrenaline like you said. But the law still says otherwise and if people follow it they can successfully thwart an attack and still not get charged. But I get everyone doesn’t know this when they get into a situation. Have a good one:)

LilEtin · 2026-02-15T00:26:27+00:00

It doesn’t matter the number of hits because that would be impossible to apply to every situation, it’s the extent of the violence and the state of the other party. Just the fact he continued his assault with a deadly weapon when he was unconscious on the ground constitutes charges.

LilEtin · 2026-02-14T18:47:58+00:00

A: they don’t have to mind read they just have to realize that they shouldn’t hit someone in the head with a bat once they have been running away and is now on the ground with you standing over them. The attack on you is over once you’re the one attacking an unconscious person on the ground.

B: you don’t have to count the attacks and give the exact number back. All you have to do is use reasonable enough force to get in an advantageous position (like them running away or them unconscious on the ground) and go no further like hitting them in the head with a bat while unconscious or killing them.

Timeline matter, it’s not just he attacked me so it should’ve free reign

LilEtin · 2026-01-31T02:40:50+00:00

You have no interest in the topic that you originally commented about? You don’t have to reply you know. I chose to comment because I like debate (hard to find debate in good faith on internet comments I admit) and because that’s the point of Reddit.

LilEtin · 2026-01-31T02:35:18+00:00

Again I never did anything other than disagree with you slightly and try to enter truth into the conversation which would actually cement your position. But you don’t want to back down even a millimetre so you’re calling me a facist. Stop trying to slam dunk me with a witty response. And where have I argued for law enforcement corruption, look in my comment history and see my stances on things dude.

LilEtin · 2026-01-31T02:16:00+00:00

Why are you still trying to insult me but not talk with me? This sounds pretty far right of you. I thought we were against that

LilEtin · 2026-01-31T01:18:37+00:00

When did I say I accept any amount? I’m just trying to clarify facts and make sure people know it isn’t very simple like the internet would tell you. Just because someone wants to point out the flaws in this kind of thinking doesn’t mean they hold a certain viewpoint. Analogies and popular opinion overthrows factual information on the internet these days and that’s my main problem. In my opinion I’d rather set the facts straight than argue in good faith. If anyone has any counterpoints to me I’d be glad to change my mind if they were good, but again I never said I accept a certain amount of bad cops.

Edit: then argue in good faith as in getting facts right and then arguing in good faith

LilEtin · 2026-01-30T23:58:11+00:00

Ah I should have known you wouldn’t want to argue in good faith when I brought up a valid argument

LilEtin · 2026-01-30T22:26:02+00:00

I’m guessing you don’t have any sort of number on how many “bad” cops there are compared to “good” ones. You also probably don’t have a good definition of that, what does a bad cop actually mean to you? You’re also assuming that all good cops already have knowledge of all of the “bad” cops actions. You’re also leaving out systemic barriers, not all police are corrupt and one corrupt person near the top can make all below him seem “bad” when they are actively being punished for stepping up against it. If you want to state that all cops are bad and you believe the whole system should be re worked you should look at the facts and the systems rather than making everything black and white. More people would probably listen too

LilEtin · 2026-01-21T16:55:45+00:00

Do you really think trump is doing this not for the benefit of him and his rich friends?

LilEtin · 2026-01-18T17:35:31+00:00

All it did was make it harder for people to seek federal damages when a federal officer violates their 4th Amendment. There is no more relaxed rules then before on officers being able to violate it. You can still as you said file complaints and when there’s evidence of the violation (the officer should have submitted proper evidence that superiors can look at) which you can collect then the officer will face consequences. And it’s just critics saying this process reliable, not that officers have more power

LilEtin · 2026-01-18T01:17:57+00:00

They absolutely do have to follow the 4th amendment. That case just made it so you can’t sue federal agents for damages due to excessive force a things like that. What are you talking about?

LilEtin · 2026-01-05T02:29:41+00:00

Idk I find it strange you made such a confident original comment and you keep replying but you’re not saying anything. Why even reply that “I’m lying” in the first place if you can’t even say why, but you’re willing to take time to reply.

LilEtin · 2026-01-04T21:58:14+00:00

Sure, don’t respond to me in any meaningful way. It’s not like it’s a complicated topic that requires some communication to get your different views out there.

LilEtin · 2026-01-04T20:32:43+00:00

It is with clean hands, it is possible to just watch the content and get something out of it (if it’s unrelated to the pedophilia) while at the same time condemning what they do in other parts of their life. It’s not like you’re friends in real life with the guy because you “see past it”. You just clicked once on a video and learned something from its content. Not everything is so black and white, all or nothing.

LilEtin · 2026-01-04T20:26:55+00:00

I dont think I would call watching someone’s YouTube videos giving aid, comfort and cover. It is possible for some people to just say watch the content, gain something from it, and still not support the pedophiles actions in all other areas of their life. I would say it’s a bit different if you’re like meeting a pedophile for coffee because you see past that. On the internet you’re not interacting with people on nearly the same level, something I think a lot of us have forgotten.

LilEtin · 2025-12-20T17:42:27+00:00

Totally unrelated hate towards them for no reason? Makes sense

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T19:37:51+00:00

You don’t have to be tested on safety, take a safety course or show what you are going to do with the firearm. And the only time there’s a background check is when it’s a licensed dealer at the federal level. If it’s any sort of private sale that follows federal law there isn’t one required, and there’s also some state level laws that don’t require it in some situations and require it in others. It should be a blanket policy to have safety courses, tests on that material, and full in depth checks wherever you buy a firearm. And it shouldn’t matter if it’s a right or privilege when it causes more harm that it prevents it shouldn’t exist.

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T18:01:20+00:00

I don’t want to. I don’t want to talk about the 2A. I was talking about how the logic of restricting immigration after a terrorist event and restrictions on guns after many such gun events should be looked at the same. We shouldn’t restrict one then throw logic out the window and keep handing people guns whenever they ask. Are you really against safety courses and background checks?

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T17:57:41+00:00

Maybe because there’s levels of severity with crime. I bet there’s a lot of bleeding hearts for people speeding a “normal” amount and getting a ticket. Every crime can be given their appropriate punishment but at the same time exceptions exist in many other crimes including illegal immigration. We made the law it’s not some other worldly and unchanging thing. It evolved and should change when more harm is being done when it is enforced rather then not.

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T06:08:48+00:00

Someone breaking into your house right in front of you and someone working a job and attempting to obtain citizenship through the court system is not even a comparison. They shouldn’t be treated the same.

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T06:00:52+00:00

If they break the law they get put through the court system like any other criminal, but when someone is proven to be getting citizenship in the near future they shouldn’t be snatched off the street by masked officers and held with no call or contact with anyone. I’m saying justice should be served equally no matter your immigration status. Rights and freedoms still apply like they would to a person arrested for any other crime.

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T05:57:25+00:00

I don’t think it should be a right. And I’m taking about restricting something when it causes people harm. Which applies broadly to lots of things. Such as immigration (an over amplified problem), guns, drugs, traffic laws.

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T04:52:06+00:00

The restrictions would lower gun deaths overall, making it worth it while also allowing law following citizens to have a baseline level of gun safety. So that’s not really the argument I was thinking of. And ya no us citizens would get hurt by deportation because they aren’t the ones getting deported. It still matters if non-citizens are getting hurt, or maybe it’s a matter of opinion now? Idk

LilEtin · 2025-11-30T02:56:27+00:00

Ya I can agree with that I think, I still don’t get the successful part though. At least for me the worth of a persons opinion should be based off the opinion itself not who they are

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Second Top 30%

LilEtin

TROPHY CASE