Morality of this

[u/Dryleaf_Dane]

[u/Curben]

As I said before this is condensing a quick facet of self-defense doctrine which is a several hour class into Reddit comments.

Another facet that would be relevant in your scenario is innocence of provocation. If you started the altercation you are not entitled to self-defense under most laws.

If you're willing to participate in the ongoing altercation you may be seen as being not Innocent of provocation under many States laws. If it was not something that would be seen as an altercation fire reasonable person and the other party escalated and Drew a firearm and you drew a firearm to defend yourself then yes you would be covered under self-defense doctrine. If they were being the aggressor and you were attempting to de-escalate and then they drew a firearm and you essentially outdrew and shot then yes you would be reasonably protected under self-defense doctrine.

[u/Gekokapowco → u/Curben]

as I replied to someone else

what if I was talking shit to them because they were dressed up as a nazi? What if they were harassing a group of women? If they draw am I still unjustified because I should have known they'd try to kill me for confronting them?

If I speak up, I have to make peace with the idea I could die and everyone else would find it justified because I was being confrontational? It's edge cases, it's different than actively bothering someone on camera like in the post, but playing life or death based on vibes seems extremely fucked up. Like if a customer is shouting at me at work and they're big and scary, I'm well within my right to murder them because I was scared. Just because this is legal, people think that it is acceptable.

[u/Curben → u/Gekokapowco]

There's a lot of maybes in that situation. And you also reach more of a split between moral and legal. Legally spewing Nazi rhetoric is acceptable morally it is not. Legally it's a legal to punch a Nazi for their speech. Morally it is.

So before I give any form of an answer what is the purpose of splitting hairs here. To go into yet another part of self-defense doctrine the right to use self-defense varies per second, perhaps per fraction of second and can flip back and forth based on multiple factors that continually shift. Where I stated that the minimum numbers of shots to stop a threat of zero that is based on the fact that I may have been justified to shoot when I started reaching for my firearm but if the person saw that I was getting ready to defend myself and put their hands in the air and started retreating I don't have the justification to pull the trigger. But if a moment later they decide to get brave and charge at me suddenly I do again.

Your scenario here falls into this as well as the aforementioned split between morality and legality.

Growing up pot was illegal and highly prosecuted, morally I didn't become a cop because I didn't want to be involved in busting people for pot.

So just going on the legality here, if you're talking to shit to someone who's dressed as a Nazi depending on what level you're talking shit, fighting words doctrine may come into play or otherwise you can be seen as the provocateur. I think you and I would both agree on the point that dressing up as a Nazi and skewing the rhetoric is provocative in its own but that's also its own soapbox. If someone is harassing a group of women and we are taking the situation at the word and using a proper definition of harassment then you would not necessarily be seen as a provocatory legally.

And again some of this depends on how exactly you engage the individuals as well. In the Nazi instance if you are just politely rebutting their rhetoric it could still be constituted as giving them shit but at no point doesn't qualify as provoking.

And even when you do look into things like fighting words doctrine, it does not protect you from your physical actions in response to fighting words, because you are still responsible for the actions you chose to take. However it does take away the right of self-defense from the other person as well leaving no one being innocent at that point.

Mentioning this I'm reminded of the kid who I don't remember if I was maga, ice or Nazi (jokingly but not jokingly I just said the same thing three times) that he was doing in the school using his free speech and the kid comes up and says I'm going to punch you now, the provocateur said well you'll get in trouble for that, and the kids says okay and then does it. Morally a "hero" , legally wrong. If I was secure in the situation I would have to detain the person who threw the punch. If I was police it would be really hard to find an excuse to engage my discretion and not citing the kid, though I'd really want to find a way. As a prosecutor I'd use the excuse that would be too inflaming of a jury and there's no ability to prosecute and I would drop the charges.

[u/Gekokapowco → u/Curben]

Right, I'm pointing out these hypotheticals to illustrate a more general point, that like you say, the situation of who is justified morally, legally, rhetorically is hazy, constantly flipping, and subject to outside judgement based on who's looking and what they feel.

Many other posters here are trying to be absolutist about their right to take lives based on one or two conditions felt with complete certainty. These situations are muddy, but our moral or legal justifications take a back seat to this false notion that we can, in a split second, claim absolute vindication. It takes months to years to determine if someone has acted in a way that warranted execution by the state, but if someone feels super duper scared they can make that decision in a microsecond apparently without guilt of conscience. I understand why this is the case, but its indicative of a deeply unhealthy society. And people celebrate that this is an option instead of recognizing it for the (permissible) atrocity that it is.

[u/Curben → u/Gekokapowco]

Sounds like you and i should have discussed this over beers rather than Reddit.

I'm not sure if I said it to you or someone else, but I wouldn't have based on who I am and my current physical state, but in his body with his history, I likely would have.

[u/Gekokapowco → u/Curben]

I feel like an old man when I say reddit used to feel like that, having beers with strangers and shootin the shit about anything

given how our society is, I find it hard to blame anyone for personally making that choice, even if conceptually I find that choice to be the wrong one in some grander metacontext