Ok. Letās pretend āmouthyā in a running chat has an absolute definition that does not include threatening.
Or better yet, it means exactly what Zecarlo says it means.
You win.
Iām going to eat dinner. And quite possibly post it in the food porn thread. Sunday is cheat day. And not for the irony 
Can you give an example? Iām asking seriously because I actually can picture this.
It all falls under the reasonable person standard.
Would a reasonable person in that situation feel threated and in danger of serious bodily harm or death?
Other things also come into it - disparity of force, size, training, male or female - etc.
Seems pretty risky based off only words.
And I have heard āreasonable personā definition has a lot of variability.
Of course.
But, I will say in todayās world - it is being taken more on the side of the person shooting in a lot of states.
Take a recent case where the Door Dash guy or some delivery service was picking up food in the mall and the YouTube guy that pretends to puke on people and harass people came up to him and started his shit. The guy told him to leave him alone and the guy followed him - nothing threatening was said, but the delivery guy shot the YouTube idiot and it was ruled self-defense last week.
You can make a great solid argument these days that you have no idea what people are going to do and if you try to disengage and they follow even without threatening words - you are justified.
You donāt know what that person has on them, do they have aids, are they violent, are they going to strike you from behind, etc. Bottom line is just leave people the fuck alone.
Actual threats of violence are illegal. I think there is a difference between someone making a violent threat, the response to which would get judged given the variables you mention, and someone getting mouthy, like calling your mom a whore or telling you to f off. I mean, we come here and criticize the younger generation for getting easily triggered by words, and how some even equate words to violence; for example, the woman who says the guy calling her honey āliterallyā raped her. We are going to turn around, not you specifically, and say running your mouth should earn you a dirt nap. I know we would like a world where you can slap around the guy who insulted your wife but would we be ok with the person who gets misgendered doing the same?
If they are immediate and in the same vicinity - yes.
How you act / approach is a big deal too.
The one question my attorney said has to be answered is of capability. Is the person actually capable of carrying out the threat?
Is a guy in a wheel chair at the bottom of the steps actually capable of coming up and doing what was threatened? No.
Was the guy in the youtube video capable of inflicting harm?
Well, he was pursuing the guy even after being told to stop, gesturing and moving at the guys head, etc.
Yeah. Heās capable.
Just as quickly as he was shoving his phone at the guy, it could bea knife or gun.
Iāve seen plenty of times when āHey, you have a smoke?ā turns into a sucker punch or stabbing/mugging to not let people who approach like that within 3 or 4 feet. Any closer and something bad is going to happen.
Exactly, which falls into actually being an immediate threat under the reasonable person standard.
I donāt let anyone get close to me like that without reacting very aggressively. People are crazy and like you said - you have no idea what he is going to shove in your face or body, punch you, spit on you, etc.
Leave people the fuck alone or fuck around and find out like the YouTube idiot.
I donāt think claiming the other guy was mouthy would qualify.
Politicians must abide by all laws/policies they support:
ā¢ Ban a certain type of firearm? Your private security team or secret service agents can no longer carry those particular firearms.
ā¢ Declare a war or proxy war or āpolice actionā? Your kids and grandkids must be the first boots on the ground. And you have to at least go there.
ā¢ Want to ban gas appliances? Your $21,000 Viking range has to go first.
Ukraine is a proxy warā¦ solutionā¦ distract an increasingly dumbed down populace withā¦ sex identity BSā¦ pornā¦ āracismāā¦ an open borderā¦ social media cancerā¦ distrust in law enforcementā¦ presto
And I agreeā¦
In a Match 1981 article, Roger Fisher suggested the idea. He said "My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, āGeorge, Iām sorry but tens of millions must die.ā He has to look at someone and realize what death isāwhat an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. Itās reality brought home.
When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, āMy God, thatās terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the Presidentās judgment. He might never push the button.ā
That is awesome. Never heard that before. Of course, it would be nice if every world leader had to abide by it. Also, some might enjoy itā¦
I keep a very sharp, sturdy fixed blade handy at all times. Especially in close congested high foot traffic areas.
Dude did very well with that pistol, but only because douchebag was busy being a douche. He was waaaay within the (i canāt think of the name) distance, and telegraphed the draw like Yosemite Sam.
Youāll have to pry it from Nancyās cold bony hands. Along with her icecream.
And babyās blood extractor.
She has a maternity farm in her basement laboratory to get stem cells fresh from the chord.
Or is it for hatching her own human centipedes?
I dunno, but either way, its gross.
Thank goodness, after 2 months Iād given up hope of ever hearing from you.