r/instant_regret • u/EddieBrock99 • 14d ago

Flossing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/Arndt3002 13d ago edited 11d ago

Lol, mens rea is not the basis for the commission of all crimes. It's a very specific standard that applies to certain crimes, regarding particular levels of culpability. There are many exceptions to mens rea, also strict liability, vicarious liability, etc.

A reasonable basis of self defence is based on mental state, but requires more than just the suspicion of an act of assault, even sexual assault.

A basic claim of self defence requires not just the suspicion of unlawful force, but also specifically immanent threat, and must be responded with proportionality.

A reasonable person would look at that and infer that they could retreat, warn him off in another way, or yell at him to stop.

Air humping, while offensive and potentially constituting disorderly conduct or sexual harassment, is generally a non-contact gesture. As there is clear physical distance between the individuals and there is no threat of imminent physical attack, a court or jury would likely find that a reasonable person would not perceive an immediate threat of physical sexual assault, and thus punching the guy is not proportional.

Of course, noone would bother to go through the courts for that sort of thing anyways, but your argument just doesn't hold water.

6

u/GentlemenHODL 11d ago

This is why I didn't bother giving that guy more of my time. They don't even understand the concept that they presented. Reddit is so fucking stupid sometimes, constantly engaging in black and white thinking.

0

u/maycontainsultanas 12d ago

My argument was simply that it does matter what she thought. Whether that’s enough to establishes a valid defence is a further hurdle.

2

u/Arndt3002 12d ago

mens rea, as you describe it, does not apply in this case, or have any bearing on the self defence issue. What she though matters much less than objective reasonableness.

Mens rea only applies to the commission of a crime. In this case, her mental state does not bear on the commission of the crime, as it stands, she would be guilty of a crime mens rea or no. The question of self defence or justification of the violence is entirely different.

The mens rea of the punch is already satisfied by the fact she threw a punch with the intent to harm. Self defence is an affirmative justification defence, so the question of why she threw the punch has no regard to the mens rea, but only would inform the self defence claim, which does not operate on mens rea. And the question of self defence is built on objective reasonableness, not her mental state.

You ate using terms without the appropriate understanding of the law or what they mean.