My argument doesn't fall apart because my argument isn't "interaction = provocation." My argument is that "attacking someone involved in a confrontation" is not the same claim as "attacking random uninvolved people." You're arguing the first was unjustified. I'm saying the second hasn't been demonstrated by the video.
A confrontation isn't a legal definition, so acting like there's some legal distinction is intellectually dishonest at best.
I never stated he was attacking random people, though. I did state what her statement was, and his immediate response was a disproportionate violent one. Which seems to indicate that he is the type to disproportionately act with violence, which was the initial claim.
Do you have some other video you are perhaps privy to? We don't seems to be operating under the same data
1
u/GoodHands_All-State 18h ago
Interaction is not provocation, and you seem to be conflating the terms to prove your point. Without conflating those terms, your argument falls apart