4 ms·
I get and agree with the premise, but wouldn't someone punching a murderer to be fall under Defense of Another technically and not assault and battery? I think
by kipchak 7y ago
I get and agree with the premise, but wouldn't someone punching a murderer to be fall under Defense of Another technically and not assault and battery? I think in that case saying someone was advocating assault and battery would be technically and practically untrue.
- BoorishBears 7y agoThis is great proof of the point: - You would still technically be committing the legal definition of those crimes, you just have a valid defense, under the rights afforded by defense of others - You could aways weasel out by saying you're referring to the physical acts, not the legal definitions of those terms Once you start arbitrarily shedding context, it becomes easier and easier to flat out lie, using the "truth", then weasel your way out once held to task for it.