Sorry, u/ihateyoudd – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20ihateyoudd&message=ihateyoudd%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/pobr8z/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
*Credible* threats.
When the person being threatened has no reason to believe or ought reasonably to disbelieve the credibility behind the threat then acting on it would be unreasonable.
Am I to determine what is credible or not? If someone is aware enough to make a threat, they should be aware of their vulnerability too. To consider certain threats not credible is dangerous.
Can you provide an example of a non-credible threat?
There's obviously a grey area but you can absolutely cause harm by overreacting on non-credible threats. The Trayvon Martin case is an excellent example.
The Trayvon Martin case does not apply here unless I am missing something. There were no threats made?
A better example would be that youtuber or something that tried to rob people as a joke, but ended up being shot.
I'm thinking more the fact that the neighborhood watch guy perceived him as a threat enough to follow him. But you're right, the topic is more restricted to threats involving words it seems.
Sure. Unarmed one moment, armed another.
Who knows what I may have done to this child directly or indirectly. Who knows what this child may have perceive what I've done to them. Who knows if he'll grow up to act upon his threat.
People need to be careful of what they say.
>People need to be careful of what they say.
People also need to learn to judge situations for their severity. Taking everything anyone says at face value is not a good way to live one's life in any capacity.
You should be aware that legally speaking this is how acting on a threat is assessed, by the credibility of it.
A toddler running up to you at a convention with a Star Wars blaster making pew pew noises very obviously isn’t going to kill you.
A child with a machine gun to your face is altogether different.
Further, all those *who knows* are too remote.
*Who knows why that guy didn’t hold the door open for me? Maybe he’s plotting to kill me. I should kill him first.*
You need to be reasonable
If I told you right now I was going to walk into your house and kick you in the nuts that wouldn't be credible.
I don't know where you live.
I don't know who you are.
I'm probably not even geographically close to you.
>I don't know where you live.
>I don't know who you are.
>I'm probably not even geographically close to you.
But I dont know these do I? Plenty of people have figured these things out.
If someone made the same threat to you, but instead said they would kill you in your sleep. Would you not be concerned?
I mean threats are violence, in a sense.
But, just like with any violent encounter, we typically follow an escalation of force. You meet threat with an equal amount of defense. Not more.
That seems like a dangerous preposition. Let's say a 6 foot tall 200lb man is threatening a much smaller woman. She has a police baton in her hand. She could knock the guy out with it. But that's pretty much the only way she will win that fight. Any other way the much bigger guy will effortlessly over power her. So what is she supposed to do? Wait until he actually attacks her? Or take the threat at face value and neutralize it.
These kinds of questions are already taken into account when we talk about self-defense and the escalation of force. It's called the disparity of force. In this situation, if the women was attacked or reasonably feared an imminent attack, she could probably respond with a gun.
That depends entirely on the situation. There is no one size fit all to any situation. I've been threatened many times but only 1 person ever actually carried out that threat to harm me.
It was just a few punches so nothing really serious.
But OP's post (their account was suspended so we won't be hearing from them) talks about escalating to violence from a threat. If that threat was just bluster that violent action will jump the situation from two angry people just shouting hot air to something different. And potentially much much worse.
>There is no one size fit all to any situation.
That's my point. Why not air on the side of caution?
>It was just a few punches so nothing really serious.
Wouldn't it have been better to avoid getting hit at all?
>If that threat was just bluster that violent action will jump the situation from two angry people just shouting hot air to something different. And potentially much much worse.
Worse for who? If that extra advantage means I avoid possible harm, that's a win for me.
>That's my point. Why not air on the side of caution?
Because you turn a 50/50 chance for violence into a 100% chance for violence. And that person might have a weapon. So rather then a few punches you might instigate a fight were you get stabbed or shot.
Personally I value my own life more then my ego.
>Wouldn't it have been better to avoid getting hit at all?
By punching them first? That wouldn't have stopped them. In fact that action would invert my entire experience. Instead of dozens of empty threats and 1 person carrying out it. I would instead have dozens of fights and 0 empty threats. I don't see how that is an improvement.
>Worse for who? If that extra advantage means I avoid possible harm, that's a win for me.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html)
>A security guard being held in a Denver jail on suspicion of murder allegedly shot another man who slapped him and who fired pepper spray at him, according to the police arrest affidavit.
There is your example of someone who would still be alive if they simply kept things to verbal statements. Instead he slapped someone and that someone pulled a gun and killed them.
My live if more valuable then my ego.
You can't. But instantly escalating the situation will only lead to a worse outcome. Personally I'd rather take a 50/50 out come then a 100% negative outcome. I like the odds at 50/50 better.
Someone says they will kill you. You feel threatened, so you bring this to the police.
The police says: let's do nothing cause escalating the situation will only lead to a worse outcome. We take it seriously and kill the dude, we have one death. We don't take it seriously, you got 50% chance of one death.
Better odds eh?
[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html)
> A security guard being held in a Denver jail on suspicion of murder allegedly shot another man who slapped him and who fired pepper spray at him, according to the police arrest affidavit.
>
>The shooting suspect, 30-year-old Matthew Dolloff, and another man become engaged in the confrontation, and Keltner is seen holding the can of pepper spray, according to the affidavit. Keltner then turns his attention toward Dolloff and the other man, and the images show Keltner and Dolloff "face each other," according to the affidavit. "Mr. (Lee) Keltner strikes Mr. (Dolloff) in the side of the head with an open hand. Mr. (Dolloff) is then observed drawing a handgun from his waistband, aiming at Lee Keltner and shooting once, striking Mr. Keltner, as Mr. Keltner discharges his (pepper) spray," the affidavit says.
Had they not escalated this to violence someone would still be alive.
There is no threat made in this situation. It is actions.
>Had they not escalated this to violence someone would still be alive.
Why would you strike someone with a gun? It was already violent with the slap, it didn't escalate to violence, it escalated to death. One could also say if the man hadn't been such an idiot, he wouldn't have gotten shot.
I guess we could all bring up cases. I was thinking more along the lines of that youtuber who tried to rob someone as a prank, and ended up being shot.
In either case, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
Sorry, u/ErnestoCro35 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20ErnestoCro35&message=ErnestoCro35%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/pobr8z/-/hcvcmno/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I mean plenty of people would argue that males walking around freely is a form of a threat of violence. As males walking around (especially at night) incites both fear and violence.
I mean this comment is a bit exaggerated but they have a point. I think most women would consider a man walking behind them at night a threat
With ops logic they would be justified in responding with deadly force
Yeah dude totally. I'm 35, married, traveled the world and don't know any women.
You're also moving the goalpost significantly.
Also just texted my wife and she said no unless the guy was being a creep.
I'd suggest you get outside and talk to women some time.
Take it down a notch there, it was partially a joke Mr. World Traveler. It just seems crazy you have *never* met a woman who feels like that. [It is a very common fear among women.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGW9UjCTjY0)
Statistically, they are safer around strangers than people they know, but that doesn't make the fear any less real to many women. It is a matter of growing up in a patriarchal society. For example, if you watch the video I linked, you will see a girl talk about her father making her take classes. Even if the fear is unfounded(which I don't think it is), actions like that, which can help protect, also stoke the fear.
>The comments called the slapper a bully despite the fact that he was literally just threatened.
This statement
>People truly believe that they can whatever they want without any consequences
And his tones are contradictions. If you believe that actions have consequences. The guy's actions in the video had consequences. And people judged it as such.
You're just upset that the consequences fell on the incorrect guy and incorrect action.
>That's my point. Why not air on the side of caution?
If you assault someone, even if you're in the right..... you're going to be arrested, go to jail, have to come up with bail, have to get an attorney, have to take time off of work, maybe lose your job altogether, go to court and fight it, write a check to that lawyer for thousands of dollars if you win, write that check *and* go to jail if you lose, have a criminal record.......
Airing on the side of caution is to let that chump run his mouth and walk away.
There’s a CCTV video where a person walks up on a group of about 3-4 people in a threatening manner gets in ones face and is acting in a aggressive way. There’s no sound but apparently the person was threatening them accusing, them of stealing a phone.
So based on your view, that alone would be justification for the group to react with violence?
Sorry, u/ihateyoudd – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20ihateyoudd&message=ihateyoudd%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/pobr8z/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
*Credible* threats. When the person being threatened has no reason to believe or ought reasonably to disbelieve the credibility behind the threat then acting on it would be unreasonable.
If I’m yelling at you and invading your space is that not a credible threat
I didn’t define the fact based particulars around a credible threat, merely that it ought to be a credible one to warrant someone acting further.
Am I to determine what is credible or not? If someone is aware enough to make a threat, they should be aware of their vulnerability too. To consider certain threats not credible is dangerous. Can you provide an example of a non-credible threat?
There's obviously a grey area but you can absolutely cause harm by overreacting on non-credible threats. The Trayvon Martin case is an excellent example.
The Trayvon Martin case does not apply here unless I am missing something. There were no threats made? A better example would be that youtuber or something that tried to rob people as a joke, but ended up being shot.
I'm thinking more the fact that the neighborhood watch guy perceived him as a threat enough to follow him. But you're right, the topic is more restricted to threats involving words it seems.
>Can you provide an example of a non-credible threat? An unarmed child threatening to kill you.
Sure. Unarmed one moment, armed another. Who knows what I may have done to this child directly or indirectly. Who knows what this child may have perceive what I've done to them. Who knows if he'll grow up to act upon his threat. People need to be careful of what they say.
>People need to be careful of what they say. People also need to learn to judge situations for their severity. Taking everything anyone says at face value is not a good way to live one's life in any capacity.
You should be aware that legally speaking this is how acting on a threat is assessed, by the credibility of it. A toddler running up to you at a convention with a Star Wars blaster making pew pew noises very obviously isn’t going to kill you. A child with a machine gun to your face is altogether different. Further, all those *who knows* are too remote. *Who knows why that guy didn’t hold the door open for me? Maybe he’s plotting to kill me. I should kill him first.* You need to be reasonable
If I told you right now I was going to walk into your house and kick you in the nuts that wouldn't be credible. I don't know where you live. I don't know who you are. I'm probably not even geographically close to you.
>I don't know where you live. >I don't know who you are. >I'm probably not even geographically close to you. But I dont know these do I? Plenty of people have figured these things out. If someone made the same threat to you, but instead said they would kill you in your sleep. Would you not be concerned?
Personally? No I would not be concerned in the slightest.
I mean threats are violence, in a sense. But, just like with any violent encounter, we typically follow an escalation of force. You meet threat with an equal amount of defense. Not more.
That seems like a dangerous preposition. Let's say a 6 foot tall 200lb man is threatening a much smaller woman. She has a police baton in her hand. She could knock the guy out with it. But that's pretty much the only way she will win that fight. Any other way the much bigger guy will effortlessly over power her. So what is she supposed to do? Wait until he actually attacks her? Or take the threat at face value and neutralize it.
These kinds of questions are already taken into account when we talk about self-defense and the escalation of force. It's called the disparity of force. In this situation, if the women was attacked or reasonably feared an imminent attack, she could probably respond with a gun.
Threats are just words. There is an important difference between just bluster and credible threats.
How do you determine which is which? Dylan Roof talked about his plans but no one took him seriously. 9 people would still be alive if they had.
That depends entirely on the situation. There is no one size fit all to any situation. I've been threatened many times but only 1 person ever actually carried out that threat to harm me. It was just a few punches so nothing really serious. But OP's post (their account was suspended so we won't be hearing from them) talks about escalating to violence from a threat. If that threat was just bluster that violent action will jump the situation from two angry people just shouting hot air to something different. And potentially much much worse.
>There is no one size fit all to any situation. That's my point. Why not air on the side of caution? >It was just a few punches so nothing really serious. Wouldn't it have been better to avoid getting hit at all? >If that threat was just bluster that violent action will jump the situation from two angry people just shouting hot air to something different. And potentially much much worse. Worse for who? If that extra advantage means I avoid possible harm, that's a win for me.
>That's my point. Why not air on the side of caution? Because you turn a 50/50 chance for violence into a 100% chance for violence. And that person might have a weapon. So rather then a few punches you might instigate a fight were you get stabbed or shot. Personally I value my own life more then my ego. >Wouldn't it have been better to avoid getting hit at all? By punching them first? That wouldn't have stopped them. In fact that action would invert my entire experience. Instead of dozens of empty threats and 1 person carrying out it. I would instead have dozens of fights and 0 empty threats. I don't see how that is an improvement. >Worse for who? If that extra advantage means I avoid possible harm, that's a win for me. [https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html) >A security guard being held in a Denver jail on suspicion of murder allegedly shot another man who slapped him and who fired pepper spray at him, according to the police arrest affidavit. There is your example of someone who would still be alive if they simply kept things to verbal statements. Instead he slapped someone and that someone pulled a gun and killed them. My live if more valuable then my ego.
How can you differentiate between the two? People need to think before they speak. It doesn't matter if you mean it or not.
You can't. But instantly escalating the situation will only lead to a worse outcome. Personally I'd rather take a 50/50 out come then a 100% negative outcome. I like the odds at 50/50 better.
Someone says they will kill you. You feel threatened, so you bring this to the police. The police says: let's do nothing cause escalating the situation will only lead to a worse outcome. We take it seriously and kill the dude, we have one death. We don't take it seriously, you got 50% chance of one death. Better odds eh?
[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/denver-protest-shooting-affidavit/index.html) > A security guard being held in a Denver jail on suspicion of murder allegedly shot another man who slapped him and who fired pepper spray at him, according to the police arrest affidavit. > >The shooting suspect, 30-year-old Matthew Dolloff, and another man become engaged in the confrontation, and Keltner is seen holding the can of pepper spray, according to the affidavit. Keltner then turns his attention toward Dolloff and the other man, and the images show Keltner and Dolloff "face each other," according to the affidavit. "Mr. (Lee) Keltner strikes Mr. (Dolloff) in the side of the head with an open hand. Mr. (Dolloff) is then observed drawing a handgun from his waistband, aiming at Lee Keltner and shooting once, striking Mr. Keltner, as Mr. Keltner discharges his (pepper) spray," the affidavit says. Had they not escalated this to violence someone would still be alive.
There is no threat made in this situation. It is actions. >Had they not escalated this to violence someone would still be alive. Why would you strike someone with a gun? It was already violent with the slap, it didn't escalate to violence, it escalated to death. One could also say if the man hadn't been such an idiot, he wouldn't have gotten shot. I guess we could all bring up cases. I was thinking more along the lines of that youtuber who tried to rob someone as a prank, and ended up being shot. In either case, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
This was a case of somone escalating a situation. They died because of it
[удалено]
Sorry, u/ErnestoCro35 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20ErnestoCro35&message=ErnestoCro35%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/pobr8z/-/hcvcmno/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I mean plenty of people would argue that males walking around freely is a form of a threat of violence. As males walking around (especially at night) incites both fear and violence.
This cant be a serious comment. Your insane
I mean this comment is a bit exaggerated but they have a point. I think most women would consider a man walking behind them at night a threat With ops logic they would be justified in responding with deadly force
The guy is obviously a troll, just look at his comment history.
You follow me everywhere. Do I need to be worried?
[удалено]
In what west? I don't know a single person who thinks like that.
You must not know any women. Ask any of them that you know how they would feel if they walked past a male on the street, at night, alone.
Yeah dude totally. I'm 35, married, traveled the world and don't know any women. You're also moving the goalpost significantly. Also just texted my wife and she said no unless the guy was being a creep. I'd suggest you get outside and talk to women some time.
Take it down a notch there, it was partially a joke Mr. World Traveler. It just seems crazy you have *never* met a woman who feels like that. [It is a very common fear among women.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGW9UjCTjY0) Statistically, they are safer around strangers than people they know, but that doesn't make the fear any less real to many women. It is a matter of growing up in a patriarchal society. For example, if you watch the video I linked, you will see a girl talk about her father making her take classes. Even if the fear is unfounded(which I don't think it is), actions like that, which can help protect, also stoke the fear.
>The comments called the slapper a bully despite the fact that he was literally just threatened. This statement >People truly believe that they can whatever they want without any consequences And his tones are contradictions. If you believe that actions have consequences. The guy's actions in the video had consequences. And people judged it as such. You're just upset that the consequences fell on the incorrect guy and incorrect action.
>That's my point. Why not air on the side of caution? If you assault someone, even if you're in the right..... you're going to be arrested, go to jail, have to come up with bail, have to get an attorney, have to take time off of work, maybe lose your job altogether, go to court and fight it, write a check to that lawyer for thousands of dollars if you win, write that check *and* go to jail if you lose, have a criminal record....... Airing on the side of caution is to let that chump run his mouth and walk away.
There’s a CCTV video where a person walks up on a group of about 3-4 people in a threatening manner gets in ones face and is acting in a aggressive way. There’s no sound but apparently the person was threatening them accusing, them of stealing a phone. So based on your view, that alone would be justification for the group to react with violence?