Since emotions may have calmed by now, I thought it may be helpful to look objectively at the slap seen around the world delivered by Will Smith on the person of Chris Rock. I think it may be helpful to examine this via the lenses of morality and the law. In addition, I want to explore the legal rights of a man to defend his wife/woman.
Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct held by a specified person or society. Morality determines the extent to which an action is determined to be morally right or morally wrong.
Law is the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
What may be considered moral may not be legal. And what may be lawful may not be moral. In the Divided States of America, the law at one time specified that segregation, discriminatory hiring, discriminatory housing, and discriminatory lending practices were all legal. The Civil Rights Movement and a large number of Black People believed that the laws that allowed the aforementioned were not moral. Therefore, to change the law and transform it to be moral, the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement adopted the strategy of non-violent direct action to protest, boycott, and disobey unjust laws to facilitate a change in the consciousness of America so that the country could see the fundamental inequity of the unjust laws and their impact on Black People with the goal of the country changing these laws.
Now let’s examine the moral and legal implications of Will Smith’s action when he slapped Chris Rock for telling a joke at the expense of his wife (Jada Pinkett Smith). In his apology to Chris Rock for slapping him, Will Smith stated, “Jokes at my expense are a part of the job, but a joke about Jada's medical condition was too much for me to bear and I reacted emotionally”. Before acting, Will Smith made the moral determination in the heat of the moment that his wife was unfairly made the fodder of a joke by Chris Rock and that he had a moral obligation to defend her honor and to prevent further humiliation to her. Thus, he slapped Chris Rock and told him to keep his wife’s name out of his mouth at the Academy Awards before millions of people across the world. That’s the moral lens through which Will Smith viewed what happened and the action he took.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is currently reviewing this matter to determine whether a moral punishment is merited in regards to Will Smith violating their Code of Conduct.
As a result of Will Smith’s action, social media, the entertainment industry, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are divided into at least four groups who view what he did from at least four moral viewpoints.
1. Will Smith’s action was morally wrong
2. Will Smith’s action was morally right
3. Those who choose not to judge but understand Will Smith’s action
The aforementioned represents the moral implications of Will Smith’s action.
What is enumerated below represents the legal implications of Will Smith’s action.
According to the law in California and all other states in this country, Will Smith committed a battery against Chris Rock although he may have felt that he was morally justified by his action. California law defines battery under Penal Code section 242 as willful or unlawful force or violence used on another person. Misdemeanor battery, also known as traditional “simple” battery, may be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 dollars, and/or by imprisonment in jail for a maximum of six months. Fortunately for Will Smith, Chris Rock chose not to press charges.
This concludes the legal implications of Will Smith’s action.
The incident, of Will Smith, defending his wife juxtaposed with the moral and legal implications already covered above, has some men wondering whether a man has a legal right to defend his wife/woman.
A man has the legal right to defend himself and/or his wife/woman when either of them are attacked or feel in danger, this is known as self-defense. Every state, including Illinois, has different laws that define what self-defense means. In Illinois, you can use reasonable force to defend yourself or someone else, or to defend your home or other property.
In each case the following conditions must exist to justify the use of force:
* There was imminent danger or threat to you, someone else, or your property;
* The threat was unlawful;
* You believed that a danger existed that required force; and
* You used force that was equal to the threat.
Legally, you cannot claim self-defense if you are the aggressor. You also cannot overreact, or act unreasonably, in defending yourself or your wife/woman.
There are 2 levels of force under the self defense laws
1. Regular force is force that prevents someone from moving or acting normally.
2. Deadly force is force that causes or is intended to cause serious bodily harm or death.
Under Illinois law, it is acceptable to use regular force to defend oneself or your wife/woman against some type of attack or entry into your property. If you are defending yourself or another individual, deadly force is appropriate if you are trying to prevent serious injury or death.
Deadly force is also appropriate if you are trying to stop a forcible felony, which includes arson, robbery, sexual assault, and battery.
It is legal to use deadly force to prevent a violent attack against an individual or third party in a residence or other type of building so long as certain conditions are met:
* The individual uses deadly force only against someone who is trying to get into the building violently, or
* The individual believes that deadly force is required to stop a forcible felony from occurring in the residence or building.
I hope this has shed some light regarding 1) the moral and legal implications of the slap seen around the world and 2) the legal right of a man to defend himself and/or his wife/woman.
