Question

The young lift man in a City office who threw a passenger out of the lift the other morning and

was fined for the offence was undoubtedly in the wrong. It was a question of “Please.” The complaint

entering the lift, said, “Top” The left man demanded “Top-please,” and this concession being refused

he not only declined to comply with the instruction, but hurled the passenger out of the lift. This, of

course was carrying a comment on manner too far. Discourtesy is not a legal offence, and it does not

excuse assault and battery. If a burglar breaks into my house and I knock him down, the law will

acquit me, and if I am physically assaulted, it will permit me to retaliate with reasonable violence. It

does this because the burglar and my assailant have broken quite definite commands of the law. But

no legal system could attempt to legislate against bad manners or could sanction the use of violence

against something which it does not itself recognize as a legally punishable offence. And our

sympathy with the lift man, we must admit that the law is reasonable. It would never do if we were at

liberty to box people‟s ears because we did not like their behaviour, or the tone of their voices, or the

scowl on their faces. Our fists would never be idle, and the gutters of the city would run with blood all

day.

I may be as uncivil as I may please and the law will protect me against violent retaliation. I

may be haughty or boorish and there is penalty to pay except the penalty of being written down an

ill-mannered fellow. The law does not compel me to say “Please or to attune my voice to other

people‟s sensibilities any more than it says that I shall not wax my moustache or dye my hair or wear

ringlets down my back.​

Answer 1

Answer:

sympathy with the lift man, we must admit that the law is reasonable. It would never do if we were at

liberty to box people‟s ears because we did not like their behaviour, or the tone of their voices, or the

scowl on their faces. Our fists would never be idle, and the gutters of the city would run with blood all

day.

I may be as uncivil as I may please and the law will protect me against violent retaliation. I

may be haughty or boorish and there is penalty to pay except the penalty of being written down an

Explanation:

please follow me and brainliest

Answer 2

Answer:

1.in case if the burglar enters in one's house-(c) law allows retaliation with legal violence 2.I can say 'please' to somebody-(d) but there is no legal compulsion 3.no legal system can make a law against manners-(a) because it is not a punishable offence 4.the action against the lift-man was justified -(b)because he indulged in violence.

Explanation:

1. if a burglar enters in one's house  and physically assault the people in the house, then the law will permit to retaliate with reasonable violence. If the burglar attacks, it is a violence so we have the chance to fight against him. It won't become a legal offence, that is what the law says.
2. the law does not compel anyone to use the word 'please'  while talking .There is no legal compulsion to use such a word or way. It is our wish to use.
3. there is no legal charge against bad manners because according to law it is not a legally punishable offence. this is the matter discussed in this question.
4. the action against the liftman is justified because he threw the passenger out of the lift  and it is a matter of violence.as he was indulged in violence he was fined. Thus the action against the liftman is justified.

so , the answers are 1. option (c) 2. option (d) 3.option (a) 4.option (b)

#SPJ3