[Yo-Yo]

Yup. There is a legal principal called "fighting words" and personally abusive epithets are considered fighting words. The bigot was punched, and he subsequently fell to the ground and hit his skull.

If indeed the black man has been arrested and is charged, he has a good deal of case law to help him with acquittal.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions in the Zimmerman case (with my emphasis):

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

[dragnet2]

So if your kid gets drunk and calls me a name, would it be OK with you two if I break their jaw and stomp their skull into the sidewalk?

You got a problem with that?

[Revolting cat!]

The bigot

The bigot? Been train well, haven't you. And if the Negro fellow had used the word, would he have been "the bigot" as well? The bigots are name callers slavishly following the MSMs and the establishment's instructions on political correctness.

[Hulka]

What state?

Texas doesn’t have “fighting words.”

[Gene Eric]

>> Yup. There is a legal principal called “fighting words”

Your characterization of the alleged boorish behavior is ridiculous.

[Livin_large]

Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected “free speech” under the First Amendment. If the hearer is prosecuted for assault, claiming fighting words may establish mitigating circumstances.

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

August 19, 2010, 5:16 pm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words