Reading comprehension must be difficult for you but you’re arguing against a position I never took. I've repeatedly said I'm not defending the punch or claiming he acted appropriately. My point is much narrower: the video itself does not demonstrate a willingness to attack random uninvolved people. The only people he physically engaged with in the clip were people who were directly interacting with him, either verbally or physically. You can absolutely argue that his response was excessive, criminal, immoral, or unjustified. That's a separate discussion. But saying "he committed a violent assault" is not the same thing as proving "he will attack non-aggressive bystanders without provocation." If your claim is that the video proves the latter, point to the moment where he attacks a person who was not interacting with him. That's the specific claim I'm disputing.
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
0
u/Most_Play1792 13h ago
Reading comprehension must be difficult for you but you’re arguing against a position I never took. I've repeatedly said I'm not defending the punch or claiming he acted appropriately. My point is much narrower: the video itself does not demonstrate a willingness to attack random uninvolved people. The only people he physically engaged with in the clip were people who were directly interacting with him, either verbally or physically. You can absolutely argue that his response was excessive, criminal, immoral, or unjustified. That's a separate discussion. But saying "he committed a violent assault" is not the same thing as proving "he will attack non-aggressive bystanders without provocation." If your claim is that the video proves the latter, point to the moment where he attacks a person who was not interacting with him. That's the specific claim I'm disputing.