• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When is violence against women justified?

RiverDad

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
1,515
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When is violence against women justified? Don't restrict yourself to thinking about this only in terms of relationships, keep the issue broad.

What do you think of the events in these two videos? You should probably watch each video more than once if your position is dependent on the concept of self-defense.



 
I think that some slaps on the ass during sex is fine. But anything beyond that is not acceptable.

Also, violence against men should be seen as unacceptable.

To say that you should never hit a women is kinda like saying that sometimes you should hit a man. People shouldnt be hitting anyone.

I am against violence against people no matter their gender.
 
When is violence against women justified? Don't restrict yourself to thinking about this only in terms of relationships, keep the issue broad.

What do you think of the events in these two videos? You should probably watch each video more than once if your position is dependent on the concept of self-defense.





If anyone tries to assault another, they should expect a punch to the face.
 
1) If a woman was hurting my wife I'd intervene.
2) If a woman was hurting my father I'd intervene.
3) If a woman was hurting my German Shepherd I'd intervene.
4) If a woman was going postal I.e. killing people in my presence, I'd intervene.
5) If a woman was trying to kill me, I would stop her.

Self-defense of others and myself justify "putting hands" on a woman.
 
The justification for violence does not change depending on gender.

The OP has no credibility however, as he is very willing to hide behind tradition when it comes to oppressing women, but is quick to instantly discard it whenever its not in his favor.
 
When they threaten me and my family or friends and I believe they have a credible chance of causing violent harm that needs to be defended against.
 
When is violence against women justified? Don't restrict yourself to thinking about this only in terms of relationships, keep the issue broad.

What do you think of the events in these two videos? You should probably watch each video more than once if your position is dependent on the concept of self-defense.





I would think violence against women was justified, when it would be justified to brutalize a man.
 
IN the first vid, the woman kicked, or attempted to kick the man in the nuts. He punched her once. She came forward and punched him or attempted to do so, upon which time he punched her a second time, hard, and knocked her thru the glass.


Self defense.



Second case, a man was fighting another man. A woman got between them deliberately and then punched the man in the face; he punched her back.


Self-defense.


No charges in either case.


Judge Goshin has left the building.
 
Last edited:
When is violence against women justified? Don't restrict yourself to thinking about this only in terms of relationships, keep the issue broad.

What do you think of the events in these two videos? You should probably watch each video more than once if your position is dependent on the concept of self-defense.





Wow! You can even suggest or allude to the idea that either of those two incidents may be justified is creepy as hell. I can't imagine how blatant an incident of male aggression against a woman would have to be for you to find it reprehensible.
 
IN the first vid, the woman kicked, or attempted to kick the man in the nuts. He punched her once. She came forward and punched him or attempted to do so, upon which time he punched her a second time, hard, and knocked her thru the glass.


Self defense.



Second case, a man was fighting another man. A women got between them deliberately and then punched the man in the face; he punched her back.


Self-defense.


No charges in either case.

Punching someone who has just punched you is not self-defence, it's retaliation, and it's not acceptable behaviour, especially in the case of the first video in which the guy in green is about twice as big as any other person involved.

Judge Goshin has left the building.
Just as well because he was about to be disbarred anyway.
 
Punching someone who has just punched you is not self-defence, it's retaliation, and it's not acceptable behaviour, especially in the case of the first video in which the guy in green is about twice as big as any other person involved.

.....



Nope, sorry. it is self-defense unless they are retreating and they were not. I don't know what the law is in Spain, but I know self-defense law in the US nearly as well as a lawyer; I have studied it carefully.


If someone punches you and RUNS AWAY, and you chase them down... it is retaliation. If they hit you and remain in range, it is SD because you are still under threat, they can easily continue their assault.

The only exception to this is if some period of time passes without further threat. In other words, you can't wait five minutes and THEN punch them back, that is retaliation. But done immediately thereafter while they linger in range able to continue as a threat, it is self-defense.



I'm going by what was on the vid only.... but really, what happened before the clip could also be relevant, but that info is not available to me.
 
Last edited:
When the same criteria are met for violence against a man. Justification of violence does not differ between genders.
 
I don't see how violence becomes acceptable based on gender. If there's a threat, remove it. If it's some unarmed princess minding her own business, that's like attacking a kid. Same with a guy who can't defend himself/isn't a threat though.
 
IN the first vid, the woman kicked, or attempted to kick the man in the nuts. He punched her once. She came forward and punched him or attempted to do so, upon which time he punched her a second time, hard, and knocked her thru the glass.


Self defense.



Second case, a man was fighting another man. A women got between them deliberately and then punched the man in the face; he punched her back.


Self-defense.


No charges in either case.


Judge Goshin has left the building.

You really think it's self defense when the dude is twice her size? It looked like in the first video her kick completely missed him so how is it self defense to take a swing at her and knock her back? That would be about the same (size wise) as if I were to hit a little kid who tried to kick me so looking at it from that perspective I can see no justification for it, he could have easily backed off and called the cops. If you have the option to back off and call the cops it's not self defense, it's just unnecessary aggression.
 
You really think it's self defense when the dude is twice her size? It looked like in the first video her kick completely missed him so how is it self defense to take a swing at her and knock her back? That would be about the same (size wise) as if I were to hit a little kid who tried to kick me so looking at it from that perspective I can see no justification for it, he could have easily backed off and called the cops. If you have the option to back off and call the cops it's not self defense, it's just unnecessary aggression.


A child is assumed to be absent sound judgement; the women in question are adults and responsible for their actions.

They are smaller; so what. A smaller person can still injure you. They chose to initiate attacks. In one case, a kick to the scrotum, which can cause grave injury.


What do you call it when someone swings and misses? Assault. A crime. When the swing and hit, it is "assault AND battery".


Under most state's laws in the US, you are not obligated to retreat when attacked. If the attacker remains in range where they could easily renew their attack, you are considered still under threat and may defend yourself with equivalent or necessary force.
 
A child is assumed to be absent sound judgement; the women in question are adults.

They are smaller; so what. They chose to initiate attacks. In one case, a kick to the scrotum, which can cause grave injury.


What do you call it when someone swings and misses? Assault. A crime. When the swing and hit, it is "assault AND battery".


Under most state's laws in the US, you are not obligated to retreat when attacked. If the attacker remains in range where they could easily renew their attack, you are considered still under threat and may defend yourself with equivalent or necessary force.

The kid example was to put things into perspective based on size. She didn't kick him in the scrotum though, she missed. What he did was not self defense it was aggression that could have been avoided. The guy was twice her size, she was cornered he had to move in to hit her, if most laws in the US accept what that guy did as self defense then those laws need a serious overhaul. Do you really think that he was in danger and couldn't have easily just backed up and called the police? She obviously couldn't at least not until he hit her through the glass wall that she was backed up against.
 
Self-defense, and no other circumstance.

Frankly, even then, I think I'd be much more likely to fight defensively than offensively.

i.e.

The "grab a hold of something and twist" approach, rather than a clenched fist upside the jaw.
 
When the same criteria are met for violence against a man. Justification of violence does not differ between genders.

I am old fashioned. I was brought up to believe you do not hit women. Period. There are ways to handle almost any situation without actually punching some one. Walking away works in most cases.
 
The kid example was to put things into perspective based on size. She didn't kick him in the scrotum though, she missed. What he did was not self defense it was aggression that could have been avoided. The guy was twice her size, she was cornered he had to move in to hit her, if most laws in the US accept what that guy did as self defense then those laws need a serious overhaul. Do you really think that he was in danger and couldn't have easily just backed up and called the police? She obviously couldn't at least not until he hit her through the glass wall that she was backed up against.


Again I'd like to point out I don't know what happened prior to the vid clip, or what was said, and these things could be relevant.

However, again: he had no legal obligation to retreat. She lingered in range, and attempted a second attack, rather than attempting to withdraw; therefore legally it is self-defense, based on available information. The fact that she missed her kick is irrelevant; that she attempted it is assault (absent some legal justification, which is not evident from the video).

You are NOT legally obligated to wait until you are ACTUALLY injured to defend yourself; in most jurisdictions you are not legally obligated to retreat from an attack either.


Now in some jurisdictions, an argument could be made about disparity of force; whether it would have legal traction is debateable, but juries can be influenced by appeals to emotion.


If we changed the scenarios and it was a man who tried to kick another man in the nuts, then punched him in the face.... I'd say few would have any great sympathy for him getting knocked flat, even if he were the smaller man. Legally, men and women stand equal before the law, no?
 
Anyone dumb enough to try and assault big green needs their ass kicked.

Goshin is right.

And anyway, all big green did was chin check her. If he had tore her face off with a haymaker I would agree it was despicable but... it was just a boop. Her falling through the glass just made it look more dramatic.

P.S. It was also hilarious
 
Nope, sorry. it is self-defense unless they are retreating and they were not. I don't know what the law is in Spain, but I know self-defense law in the US nearly as well as a lawyer; I have studied it carefully.


If someone punches you and RUNS AWAY, and you chase them down... it is retaliation. If they hit you and remain in range, it is SD because you are still under threat, they can easily continue their assault.

The only exception to this is if some period of time passes without further threat. In other words, you can't wait five minutes and THEN punch them back, that is retaliation. But done immediately thereafter while they linger in range able to continue as a threat, it is self-defense.



I'm going by what was on the vid only.... but really, what happened before the clip could also be relevant, but that info is not available to me.

Well, I don't know about US law at all, but the first video was from the UK, the second from South Africa, so US law is really no more relevant than any other jurisdiction. UK law states that the person who made the first aggressive action cannot rely on self-defence, even if they are not acting with violence in the immediate lead-up to the incident. In the first video it's difficult to see who started the incident as we join it while hostilities are already under way. The same with the second video, but in that case we are told that the man who hit the girl initiated the violence.

I'd say that in the case of the first video the man in green could make a defence, but I'd want to see the entire tape to see who started the whole situation.

In the case of the second, and if there are witnesses to testify to who threw the first punch, I'd say the guy is bang to rights. I'm a bit surprised that you seem willing to exonerate such violent behaviour so quickly.
 
Well, I don't know about US law at all, but the first video was from the UK, the second from South Africa, so US law is really no more relevant than any other jurisdiction. UK law states that the person who made the first aggressive action cannot rely on self-defence, even if they are not acting with violence in the immediate lead-up to the incident. In the first video it's difficult to see who started the incident as we join it while hostilities are already under way. The same with the second video, but in that case we are told that the man who hit the girl initiated the violence.

I'd say that in the case of the first video the man in green could make a defence, but I'd want to see the entire tape to see who started the whole situation.

In the case of the second, and if there are witnesses to testify to who threw the first punch, I'd say the guy is bang to rights. I'm a bit surprised that you seem willing to exonerate such violent behaviour so quickly.


In the first video, the first person to initiate actual violence is the woman. If the man in green were acting in a threatening manner prior, it is not readily evident, but information is limited. I'm going by the vid, as that is all I have on hand.

In the second vid, two men were fighting. Who started it, I cannot say as the video does not show it. The women interposes her body and punches the man in the face; that is the first act of violence between them as far as the video shows. He punches her back immediately, while she was still lingering in range aggressively.


I know very little about UK or SA law on such matters; I can only comment from the framework of my own legal system.


Again: I don't know what happened prior to the vids, I don't know what was said, and these things could be relevant.


However, going by just what I SEE, I see two cases where a woman initiated violence against a man, and where the men REACTED to the violence with force that could easily be construed as self-defense based on available information.

Stepping away from questions of strict legality, let's address the moral or ethical circumstances: In both cases, Person A struck Person B first. Absent some good reason I cannot determine from the vids, this is assault. In my own ethical/moral framework, one is allowed to use violence when assaulted with violence. Any other view simply makes good persons into easy and attractive victims.

Or to put it more succinctly: Don't wanna get hit back? Don't throw the first blow.
 
Last edited:
In the first video, the first person to initiate actual violence is the woman. If the man in green were acting in a threatening manner prior, it is not readily evident, but information is limited. I'm going by the vid, as that is all I have on hand.
Quite, we can't really convict or exonerate anyone without seeing more of both incidents.

Or to put it more succinctly: Don't wanna get hit back? Don't throw the first blow.
I agree with that, but it may well be the case that neither of those two women threw the first blow.

As an aside, it's interesting that the first video took place in Totnes, a sleepy market town in deepest rural Devon, pop: 7,000. I don't know about many other countries, but it's quite common to find small British towns experiencing far more Saturday night street violence than big cities. This certainly isn't the case in Spain, no idea about anywhere else.
 
Quite, we can't really convict or exonerate anyone without seeing more of both incidents.

I agree with that, but it may well be the case that neither of those two women threw the first blow.

No way to know for certain without more information, but in the vids the women were the initiators as far as can be seen. In the first one particularly, there is a period of apparent calm followed by the women's initial kick.


As an aside, it's interesting that the first video took place in Totnes, a sleepy market town in deepest rural Devon, pop: 7,000. I don't know about many other countries, but it's quite common to find small British towns experiencing far more Saturday night street violence than big cities. This certainly isn't the case in Spain, no idea about anywhere else.


Yes. I live in a semi-rural area that has long been anomalously violent, for reasons no one can really nail down.
 
Back
Top Bottom