Provocation is very much a defence.
Depends. ($ to me)
Not as much as some may think - I suspect there's some very limited circumstances where you'd have much of a defence with that tack.
In this instance, all he'd really had was whiny mithering, he walked over to camera guy TWICE, for what we can only assume is some physical altercation.
I feel it hard to buy into provocation THAT much, here, when he was already walking away, and Mr-Whiny just carried on whining.
Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.
Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.
This is just me - and it's not the booze talking, nor the drugs - but I would have found it hard to feel threatened or intimidated by Mr Whiny-I'll-mither-you-to-death. Irritated, annoyed, yes, but hardly threatened.
Yes I get the comments about crashing into him, but honestly - camera guy sounded more dweeb with a toy lightsabre, than any true threat.
And watch the video - does it look like Mr Rock Shox looked threatened when he stomped over - or did he look more angry and incensed.
It is a general point about provocation.
I am not putting myself in Mr. Fat's shoes. Just thinking towards how it might play in court.
The Police investigating will submit the case to the prosecutors if they feel there is a case to answer.
The prosecutors will likely look at some kind of breach of the peace option rather than assault, (or affray, as it is perfectly possible both may end up charged).
Only if there is third party evidence or an admission will they go for assault, and only if they feel they have a chance of conviction.
The provocation of threatening harm is certainly going to sway a prosecutor away from taking it further as an assault.
It is not important how 'serious' the threat was in Cam Boy's mind. It is how it will sound to a jury, that someone tailgating you on a high mountain trail threatened to run you off it.
Looking at the terrain forcing someone to crash off could potentially cause severe injury. The defence would certainly argue that Mr. Fat could reasonably fear severe injury as a result of that threat.
That then is considered to have affected his state of mind when he responded as he did at the end. This will not be taken out of context in a court case.
The doctor diagnosed me with hereditary diarrhoea. I can't understand, I wear a kilt.