THE LEGAL GUIDE TO PUNCHING A NAZI

---

 If you’re going to legally punch a Nazi in the face, you need to know the right legal arguments to back yourself up. The justice system loves jargon, and if you don’t use the correct legal terms, you might as well tell the judge, “Your Honor, he had it coming,” and see how that works out.

So, here’s the Legal Bullshit Translator—a full guide to self-defense laws, legal precedents, and case law that explain exactly when you can throw hands and how to justify it in court.

Attack 

What it legally means: An intentional action meant to cause harm to another person, including physical strikes, violent force, or attempts to do so.

How to use it in court:

“I defended myself because I was being attacked. The individual initiated an attack by raising their fist and moving toward me aggressively, leaving me no choice but to respond.”

What won’t work:

“He called me a slur, so I decked him.” (Legally, words alone aren’t an attack—tragic, we know.)

Menacing

What it legally means: The act of intentionally making someone fear imminent harm, usually through threatening words, gestures, or body language.

How to use it in court:

“The defendant was menacing me by repeatedly stepping toward me with clenched fists while making threats.”

What won’t work: 

"He was just standing there looking racist, so I hit him.” (You need more than just a bad vibe.)

Posturing as Assault 

What it legally means: An action that clearly signals an intent to harm—such as raising a fist, stepping aggressively into someone’s space, or making a movement that looks like the start of an attack.

How to use it in court: 

"The individual lunged toward me and pulled back his arm as if to strike. I responded in self-defense.”

What won’t work: 

"I saw him stretch and thought he might be winding up, so I swung first.” (You need clearer intent than that.)

Reasonable Belief of Imminent Harm 

What it legally means: A rational person in your situation would believe they were about to be attacked and had to act immediately to prevent harm.

How to use it in court: 

"Given the individual’s aggressive approach, raised fists, and shouted threats, I had a reasonable belief of imminent harm and responded accordingly.”

What won’t work: 

"I just had a bad feeling about the guy, Your Honor.” (The law doesn’t care about your gut instincts—it wants proof.)

Duty to Retreat

What it legally means: In states without Stand Your Ground laws, you may be legally required to try to escape or avoid a fight before using force—unless doing so is impossible or unsafe.

How to use it in court (if your state requires it):

“I attempted to move away, but the aggressor followed me and escalated their behavior.”

What won’t work:

“I could’ve walked away, but I really wanted to fight him.” (That’s just an admission of guilt.)

Justifiable Force 

What it legally means: Using only the amount of force necessary to stop the threat and nothing more—meaning you can’t knock someone out and then continue the beatdown for fun.

How to use it in court:

“I used the minimum force necessary to neutralize the threat and immediately disengaged when it was no longer necessary.”

What won’t work:

“I hit him once, and it felt great, so I kept going.” (Legally, restraint is key—even if morally, we understand.)

Mutual Combat 

What it legally means: Both parties explicitly agreed to a physical fight, meaning it’s not assault as long as no weapons, serious injuries, or third-party complaints are involved.

How to use it in court:

“We mutually agreed to engage in a fair fight, and I acted within those terms.”

What won’t work:

“I assumed he wanted to fight, so I swung.” (Verbal agreement matters—don’t guess.)

RELEVANT CASE LAW (AKA “WHAT TO SAY WHEN EXPLAINING YOURSELF TO A JUDGE”)

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) Established that a person under attack does not have to retreat before using self-defense if they reasonably believe they are in danger.

How to use it in court: "Per Brown v. United States, I had no duty to retreat and acted within my legal rights to defend myself when I perceived imminent harm.”

Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895) Held that a person who is lawfully present and facing an attacker does not have to retreat before using force to defend themselves.

How to use it in court: "Beard v. United States establishes that I was not required to flee before defending myself against an aggressor.”

State v. Martinez, 52 P.3d 1276 (N.M. 2002) Further reinforced that Stand Your Ground laws mean a person has the right to meet force with force when faced with an imminent threat.

How to use it in court: "Martinez confirms my right to use force proportionally to the threat against me.”

State v. Shelly, 176 P.3d 582 (Wash. 2008) Ruled that if both parties agree to fight, neither can later claim self-defense unless the fight escalates beyond what was agreed upon.

How to use it in court: “In State v. Shelly, the court held that mutual combat is legally recognized when both parties consent, which was the case here.”

Commonwealth v. Delgado, 679 A.2d 223 (Pa. 1996) Held that physical posturing, aggressive movement, and raised fists can be considered assault, even without physical contact.

How to use it in court: “Delgado confirms that the aggressor’s raised fists and threatening stance constituted an assault, justifying my defensive response.”

State v. Cook, 319 N.C. 620 (1987) Established that a person can use force in defense of another if they reasonably believe that person is in imminent danger. 

How to use it in court: “Under State v. Cook, I was legally justified in intervening to protect another individual who was in clear danger.”

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) Ruled that force must be proportional to the threat—meaning you can stop the threat but not go full Mortal Kombat after they’re down.

How to use it in court: “Per Tennessee v. Garner, I used only the force necessary to end the immediate danger and disengaged as soon as the threat was neutralized.”

If you ever find yourself in court explaining why you punched a Nazi, these are the terms and cases that will make you sound legally sound instead of just really, really enthusiastic about punching Nazis. Know your rights, use them wisely, and if all else fails, at least make sure someone gets it on video.

This guide is for educational and satirical purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you find yourself in a courtroom citing case law you learned from an internet article, please remember that you are responsible for your own actions, decisions, and ability to read the room.

However, all legal definitions and case law referenced in this guide are factually accurate and applicable within the United States legal system. If you are in a U.S. court of law, these precedents and definitions are legally recognized—assuming you know how to argue them properly. If you don’t, hire a lawyer, because “I read it in a funny article” is not a recognized legal defense.

We do not encourage, condone, or incite violence—we simply believe that if the law allows you to stand your ground, defend yourself, or challenge a Nazi to a legally sanctioned fight, then you should at least know how to do it properly.

-You understand that laws vary by state, and you should consult a licensed attorney before making any life choices based on a snarky legal guide.

-You will not attempt to sue, blame, or otherwise hold us liable for your courtroom strategy, jail time, or inability to control your fists.

-You recognize that satire is protected under the First Amendment, even if your feelings aren’t.

-You accept that all legal definitions and case law cited here are accurate within the U.S. legal system, but whether you successfully use them in court is entirely on you.

Now, go forth and use this knowledge responsibly. Or at least better than Congress uses loopholes.