theprisoner wrote:
No, whoever throws first punch is considered guilty and instigator. vandalism is certainly a criminal offense, despite "mitigating circumstances " like "emotional distress" or whatever. 'para-legal' responses are an individual personal judgment call.
The reasonable "lawful" responses are either 1. ignore (bullying will continue likely, nothing is resolved), or 2. tit for tat response (assertive , shows you have modicum of self respect, not a push-over or defenseless target for abuse)
I don't think that is entirely the case. Common law and state law varies considerably. Common law revolves around practicality and public interest while state law revolves around the explicit black and white.
A scenario like Jamsey mentioned appears to be a case where he can raise a public interest defence that can repeal state law. Literally, even if the law explicitly says someone was assaulted a jury can just rule that the "victim" was so at fault that he thoroughly deserved it (which he did) and declare someone innocent.
A case like this seems to be a prime example where a jury could throw out state law in the public interest of the "greater good" so to speak.
It'll be worth Jamsey speaking to a solicitor to point him in the right direction of how he can respond as I'm certainly not one and have little grasp of the law but he might be surprised as to what options a solicitor gives him.