It doesn’t matter what indecent words were or weren’t said to jones. Only if there was a valid threat of physical attack is a physical defense justified. No matter how it turns out for drejka, what mcglocklin did was absolutely improper and unlawful.
Youree reallly stretching it with your statement about drejka menacing or threatening jones. His physical actions suggest absolutely nothing of the sort took place so unless you have a valid report of him threatening jones, all you are doing is making up crap to further your agenda
The doctrine relates to the principle of self defense, particularly in the law of homicide, and it is to the effect that a true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to flee from an assailant who, by violence or surprise , maliciously seeks to take his life or do him great bodily harm. The victim of an aggressor has no invariable duty to retire to a place of safety. See state v Haakenson, (N.D.J213 N. W.2d 394)
That doesn’t say what you think it says. There was no basis for a claim of self defense in regards to jones or mcglocklin. Neither was physically attacked or assaulted therefore there is no right to act, let alone claim it was self defense. Drejka was the only one eloglble to make a claim of self defense here. Drejka was not threatening to take anybody’s life nor do them great bodily harm which if you read your own citation, is a requirement for the true man doctrine to apply.
and our US Constitution does in fact make it lawful to use indecent speech. So, is it ok to use such speech? That isn’t a legal question but a moral question based on one’s personal opinion. It is LEGAL to use such speech and its use does not justify a physical attack in response.
The law cannot mandate civility nor can it alllow vigilante attacks against one being uncivil.