I have been offline for a couple of days because I just took the final exam for my last class to get (yet another) Bachelor’s Degree. This time, it was a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. When I went to campus to take those exams, I carried a can of pepper spray and an expandable baton on my person and a firearm locked in my truck. Why? Because of the behavior in the video that JKB over at GFZ posted. Watch the video on the right:

As I posted in the comments there, Florida law says:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

Assault doesn’t include a physical touch:

An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

What is battery? While assault is defined as the threat to cause physical bodily harm, battery is the actual act of doing so. it is the crime of battery if you touch another person against his or her will or deliberately cause an injury to another person, however temporary or minor that injury may be. From the state statute:

The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

Under section 784.03 of the Florida Statutes, indirect contact, such as throwing an object, can constitute battery if the indirect contact was intentionally caused by the accused and was against the other person’s will. Even spitting can constitute a battery. Mohansingh v. State, 824 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) For that reason, I believe that shining a strobe in someone’s eye is either battery (the strobe is causing pain and disorientation), or assault (shining the light is intended to temporarily blind the victim and make it impossible for that victim to detect or defend against an attack).

Note that the law requires intent to touch, strike, or cause injury. That is referred to as mens rea.

All the law requires for nonlethal self defense is that you be in a place where you lawfully can be, and are the recipient of someone else’s imminent delivery of unlawful force. So:

  1. Are you where you can lawfully be? Yes. I am a student here to take an exam.
  2. Is the other person threatening to imminently use, or are they using unlawful force?
  3. Would a reasonable person believe that the attacker intended to touch, strike, or injure you in any way?
  4. Would a reasonable person believe that the person was about to (or was already attempting to) carry out that intent?

This meets the absolute lowest threshold for self defense. The real issue here is that you probably will get arrested, and it will cost you some money to defend yourself in court. Make sure that you have good CCW insurance, so it will pay for your legal defense.

I want you to note that there are perhaps half a dozen people that are assaulting him. That means the attackers will likely gang up on you, and that will likely mean that someone will be shot by the end of the fight.

Think about where this is headed.


Anonymous · May 7, 2024 at 5:31 am

While I am in complete agreement that those strobes are, no doubt, temporarily debilitating and disorienting; my cooler head tells me that they, and their operators, are curated and trained to troll. The intent to draw out a violent response seems very well rehearsed and it would be too easy for many, in that situation, to act as such. It’s not so much that the cameraman was brave, as I don’t believe the altercation would have escalated – except on his terms – but that, rather, he proved to be exceedingly calm and patient.

All that said. I’m of the opinion that matching fire with fire would be appropriate and could never be argued to be escalating things. To wit: I imagine that a few million candlepower, cordless, search light or a big Sunpak potato smasher camera flash would go a long way to leaving those clowns unable to ascertain what direction to point those little strobes. Just sayin.

    Divemedic · May 7, 2024 at 6:21 am

    So you would s8mply turn around and walk away, forfeiting the degree you worked for?

      Anonymous · May 7, 2024 at 7:10 am

      No sir. I would be more inclined to giggle at their little flashlights, ask them where they got them and then show them that I bought one too! Of course mine is much bigger, to the tune of several million candlepower, cordless, searchlight. They would, of course, be blinded in amazement at the size and capability of mine at which point I would merely walk through the visually stunned mob. 🙂

Dirty Dingus McGee · May 7, 2024 at 6:59 am

There are far to many in this world who have yet to find out that actions often have consequences. To the point that when there actually ARE consequences they are confused and can’t understand why THEY are now the “victim”.

And this is just one of the reasons I’ve concealed carried almost daily for the last 35 years.

    Divemedic · May 7, 2024 at 7:24 am

    Just remember that it is illegal to carry a firearm on a college campus in Florida.

      Dirty Dingus McGee · May 7, 2024 at 2:46 pm

      As I have zero reason to be anywhere near a college campus in Florida, I should be ok. On the remote chance I was to find myself on one, concealed means just that. Having dealt with the Florida law regarding “imprinting” (unless it’s changed recently), I’m more careful these days.

Aesop · May 7, 2024 at 7:58 am

While he was, strictly, exercising his right to free movement, he wasn’t going past their commie camp by happenstance. He’s guilty of trolling, in that he’s doing the 20-year old equivalent of holding his hand in their face and saying “I’m not touching you”.

1) Obviously, no campus security is there to adjudicate and prevent this kind of happy horseshit.
2) Neither is anything like law enforcement.
3) So he’s basically put himself in the position of walking into the lion’s den, goading them as much as humanly possible, and resolving to taste bad if they attack.

Not very bright, at any level.

When the US Navy does “freedom of navigation” exercises, they don’t send in the Peace Corps. They send in an effing carrier task force, loaded for bear, with ZFG and no sense of humor.

Yes, these are violent, half-witted extremists. Yes, they’re breaking multiple laws merely by their presence.

So either make a plan, take a team, and start shooting them in job lots on the first provocation; or else stay your ass home and stop poking the bears.

Filming yourself getting threatened, and having your final words on camera be “Help! Help! I’m being repressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!” is funny in a movie, and five-star asinine in real life. It’s not brave, it’s jackassical.

This kid wasn’t bright enough to do either thing of the actual bright things, and he’s literally depending on his cell phone camera and the kindness of hostile strangers.

You might as well wear a Klan hood for a stroll through Harlem, and point out to the inhabitants that you’re merely exercising your First Amendment rights. Film it for the class discussion afterwards, anyone who’d like to try that.

Once somebody lays out half a dozen of these @$$holes on a shutter, they’ll be identified posthumously beyond any doubt as the outside agitators they are, and the pitifully few actual students will disappear like fog on a sunny day, forever.

If anyone’s going to do that, using something in the .30 caliber range, and some excellent glass, from range, is probably the only chance for getting away with it. But unless you’re pulling cover for idiots like this kid, and waiting for the other guys to start pummeling him, that’s simply premeditated capital murder.

Which might feel good, and might even do good in the long run, but in the short term, it’s a tough way to choose to make your point, and the response, from all quarters, is probably 180° out from anything you should want.

Matching stupid with stupid is always a bad choice.

Smarter thoughts?
This reply is already too long. So shameless blog-plug for my place:

Not instigating.
Just musing.

Big Country Expat · May 7, 2024 at 11:57 am

Yo DM!
Any suggestions for good CCW Insurance that won’t break the bank here in FLA?

Jonesy · May 7, 2024 at 3:08 pm

While I don’t agree on deliberately provoking these hamassholes for a response like this kid is doing, the arrogance on display stunning. Surrounding him and calling him soft…hahaha….they really need the consequences of a painful reality check. They’re all pussies, but unfortunately, the law is rarely on our side. Just being physically stopped from moving about freely should be enough to warrant a equal and opposite reaction, or the minimal force necessary to go on about your business. In today’s world, that make you aggressor in the eyes of the lib media and prosecutors.

Comments are closed.