Comment: You are missing the point,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: And I keep telling you (see in situ)

You are missing the point,

You are missing the point, because the law isn't the point. We both agree that the old man should receive any jail-time or fine, so leave the law out of it.

I'm discussing behavior. My original comment, if you bother to read it, is my take on the video. I see an annoying reporter, and I see an old man who punches the annoying reporter in the face. In the thread, I see people not just saying that the old man is within his rights (which I agree, he is), I see people morally justifying his violence (which I do not agree, and thus, is my point).

My argument is based on the facts that as the reporter was NOT violent, threatening violence, or physically intimidating, the old man's violent display was not that of self-defense, but that of aggressive stress alleviation. I do not believe in violence for stress alleviation; I believe in violence only for defensive purposes; and thus... the point. The point is not the law. The point is that I'm bothered by the number of folks who claim to be non-aggressive non-violent, yet they believe that people "deserve" violence being done to them in certain cases. That is absurd, is the whole point of anything I've said on this topic. I outlined pretty straightforwardly.

If you can't understand that humans shouldn't partake in violence unless defending themselves or others, then yes, I do pity you, and anyone else who thinks like you. If you can't understand why people don't 'deserve' to be treated violently, then yes, I do pity you and anyone else who thinks like you.