For anyone interested in law...

Post Reply New Topic

Is it self defense if you attack someone who is setting you off on purpose?

For instance if someone was given many warnings about an intense hypersensitivity to smoke and so that person routinely went out of their way to smoke in fount of the person, and the hyper sensitive person ends up attacking the smoker, would the person have protection legally?

I mean our hyper sensitivities hurt just as much and sometimes more than physical assault.

I'm no expert, so my advice isn't serious, but I definitely have an interest, so I will give my take.

You are absolutely right that assault doesn't have to be physical. Psychological or other types of attacks are just as punishable by law, especially if it's clear the other person knows the effect it will have.

I think self-defense would be tricky to justify though. For self-defense, it is necessary that you demonstrate that you feel threatened for your own safety or for that of another person significantly enough and you have no other option but to defend yourself. The force of your action would also have to be appropriately equal to the threat that you are receiving (for example, you can't shoot someone who is just threatening you verbally). It would be hard to convince people that having someone smoke next to you is equivalent to a physical attack (although I agree for someone really hypersensitive that might be the same), and it would also be hard to prove that you don't have the option of going away when the person smokes instead of resorting to violence. Maybe the person can claim an altered mental state due to their condition though, which might be a more successful defense.

The person would be 100% justified to report the smoker to some authority and have them punish them or find a way from preventing this person from doing that in the future. This would definitely be the better course of action. That being said, the smoker sounds like a real scumbag.

The best answer is "It depends".

If the smoker was in a "No Smoking" area, then the smoker could be prosecuted for violating the law. If the non-smoker had ample opportunity to leave an area that wasn't so restricted, then any aggressive action taken by the non-smoker could get him arrested.

Again, it depends. Location, local regulations, and local laws will determine what behavior by the victim is appropriate.

I was once assigned to work in an enclosed space with a heavy smoker. While he never smoked inside the space, the stench from his breath and clothing was so sickening that the boss let me go home early on the first day. That night, I enjoyed a large meal at a Mexican restaurant, and had the leftovers for breakfast. By the time I got to work, I was so badly bloated that I could barely walk. Once we got back into the room, it was obvious that my co-worker couldn't have cared less about how sick he was making me, so I let loose a few "silent, but deadly comments" of my own. He couldn't get out of that room fast enough. The boss just laughed at his complaints and told him to get back to work. We finished the job, but not before my co-worker demanded that the employer "do something" about stinky people. The employer forbade all noxious aromas -- including tobacco smoke -- from company property if anyone complained about them. So I had to "do something" about my "digestive issues", and my coworker had to stop smoking on the premises. I bought some Beano, and he got a job at another company.

Win-win!

DISCLAIMER: This is not Legal-Advice. I do not offer Legal-Advice. If you need Legal-Advice, then seek yourself out a competent lawyer or attorney or other competent counsel (if you can even find such a thing), and please be advised. This information is strictly for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

Alright, now that I have «legally» covered My ass: Only if your FACTS and EVIDENCE are ESTABLISHED ON AND FOR THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD. IF the «hyper-sensitive» can PROVE that the «smoker» HAD KNOWLEDGE of the hyper-sensitive's condition, and yet the smoker chose to act in a manner so as to PROVOKE the hyper-sensitive, then the smoker's actions became tortious.

«The extent and duration of emotional distress produced by tortious conduct depend upon sensitiveness of the injured person.»
Bean v. Best, 1958, 77 S.D. 433, 93 N.W.2d 403.

«In estimating damages recoverable for personal injuries, the jury is entitled to consider plaintiff’s age, and condition of life, the physical injury inflicted, the bodily pain and mental anguish endured, all the expenses incurred in treatment of the case, and any and all damages appearing from the evidence to have resulted or which will result from the injury, including temporary or reduced capacity to earn money.»
Davis v. Holy Terror Min. Co., 1906, 20 S.D. 399, 107 N.W. 374.

Ultimately, the more you KNOW about the LAW, the more likely the action becomes self-defense. The LESS that you KNOW about the LAW (what are essentially CONTRACTS), the LESS likely you can pass off the ACTION as self-defense. Personally, I have nothing BUT CONTEMPT for these court-systems, and I personally have NO faith or trust in lawyers (liars) or attorneys (BAR members in particular), and I'm just going to quote one more Supreme Court reference (something that you typically NEVER see a BAR member do in their documents).

«The length of time during which pain or other harm to the feelings has been or probably will be experienced and intensity of the distress are the two factors to be considered in assessing damages for “humiliation”, and in determining this all relevant circumstances considered, including sex, age, condition of life, and any other factors indicating susceptibility of injured person to this type of harm.»
Bean v. Best, 1958, 77 S.D. 433, 93, N.W.2d 403. [Under-Line Mine]

And if there are any lawyers who are DUMB ENOUGH to CHALLENGE Me in court then BRING IT ON! ! I will (legally) kick his ass (metaphorically) so damn HARD in the court-room that he'll be crying crocodile-tears! With that said, I have a bunch of work to get back to completing, and it ironically happens to be law-related.

I will just end with one more reference : A «Married With Children» episode existed where Al punched someone in the face, then sued him for breaking his wrist on that guys face, and won the law-suit. THIS is the kind of «society» and «system» that we have and these are the kinds of results you can expect from the court-system. NOBODY IS SAFE FROM PROSECUTION UNLESS THEY KNOW HOW TO RESERVE/PROTECT THEIR OWN RIGHTS by the way.

Actually, I was inaccurate, I have one last reference to dump here after all, for good measure, regarding the IRS:

Interesting