View Poll Results: Pick one

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I expec the same in kind if I partake in aggressive behavior

    17 48.57%
  • No, I believe my gender excuses me from paying consequences

    15 42.86%
  • I don't like either of the above options - here is my answer

    1 2.86%
  • It depends on what aggressive behavior I am taking part in

    2 5.71%
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 129

Thread: Women of DP - I ask you

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    But just because something is not ok doesn't mean all of a sudden it's no-holds-barred time. Violence should only be responded to, at most, with a proportionate response. Take that example of the 90 year old man. He slapped you. It probably didn't even hurt, it certainly didn't pose any risk to your safety. So, a proportional response would be something that wouldn't even hurt him or pose any risk to his safety. Punching a 90 year old man full force in the head is a massive escalation. It could very possibly even kill him.
    ...Now, if instead of a 90 year old man it were Mike Tyson, if he slaps you that may very well kill you. In that case, a proportional response may well be hitting him as hard as you can with a baseball bat. ....

    Yes, a reasonably proportionate response on the use-of-force scale is part of a good self-protection strategy. I addressed that in my post, stating that it was not OK for a man to break a woman's face because she slapped him.

    In my state, however, as in many others, you are not limited to proportionate violence in self-defense, but rather to equal OR necessary force... which means the same level of force, or the level of force above that necessary to STOP the attack (usually by stopping the attacker).

    I've dealt with old folks who weren't really in their right mind, including one old lady who tried to hit me in the nads because she didn't want to go to the hospital. She was old and fragile, and naturally I used only that level of restraining force needed to keep her from being successful in her resistance.

    Being proportional in your use of force is, however, something of a luxury. That is, if you have plenty of force available to you (as I do) then you can afford to be proportional in your response.

    If, on the other hand, YOU are a 90 yr old man or other relatively fragile person, you have to react decisively to the threat of violence. For instance, if a 20yo bruiser balls up his fist and advances threateningly on a 90yr old man, in my state the 90yo would be justified to shoot him dead and probably wouldn't even been charged.

    But let's get back to a more realistic scenario. Let's say a 90 lb woman and a 200 lb man are having an argument. The 90 lb woman starts pounding her fist in the 200 lb man's face, repeatedly. You don't expect him to stand there and take it do you? No... The man tries to grab her arms to stop her, and she struggles. He has a strong grip... you know what happens? She gets finger-shaped bruises on her arms. The cops come, see the bruises, and arrest the man.

    This happens frequently. It isn't right, and it needs to stop.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #92
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    This happens frequently. It isn't right, and it needs to stop.
    I'm not sure I'm clear on your arguments. You said that in your state proportionality doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, but then you gave examples of situations where they were enforcing a proportionality doctrine in your state. And you said at the start that you thought proportionality was the right approach, but at the end that you think we need to stop using proportionality as the criteria. Maybe spell out how you think it should work?

    As far as I know, proportional response is the doctrine in every state, but yeah, as you point out, your response can either be proportionate to the battery they inflicted on you (what you're calling equal is really 'proportional'), or proportionate to the threat to your safety (what you're calling 'necessary'. AKA self defense).

    Self defense is kind of a different thing than we've been talking about, but related. If you have good reason to believe that somebody is about to do something really dangerous towards you, you have the right to stop with whatever force is required to stop them. Then there are limits on that that do vary by states. In most states if not all, you are required by law to opt to run away before you use deadly force if that option is available to you for example- an affirmative defense of "self defense" in a homicide trial requires in most states that you show that it was your only option left to save your own life or limb. In most states you don't have to run away if you're in your own home. In most states there is some kind of limit on how severe your response can be given the threat- you can't kill somebody just to stop them from slapping you or something. Generally most states won't allow people to use deadly force to protect property except, in some states, if you're in your own home.
    Last edited by teamosil; 10-29-10 at 07:34 PM.

  3. #93
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I'm not sure I'm clear on your arguments. You said that in your state proportionality doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, but then you gave examples of situations where they were enforcing a proportionality doctrine in your state. And you said at the start that you thought proportionality was the right approach, but at the end that you think we need to stop using proportionality as the criteria. Maybe spell out how you think it should work?

    As far as I know, proportional response is the doctrine in every state, but yeah, as you point out, your response can either be proportionate to the battery they inflicted on you (what you're calling equal is really 'proportional'), or proportionate to the threat to your safety (what you're calling 'necessary'. AKA self defense).

    Self defense is kind of a different thing than we've been talking about, but related. If you have good reason to believe that somebody is about to do something really dangerous towards you, you have the right to stop with whatever force is required to stop them. Then there are limits on that that do vary by states. In most states if not all, you are required by law to opt to run away before you use deadly force if that option is available to you for example- an affirmative defense of "self defense" in a homicide trial requires in most states that you show that it was your only option left to save your own life or limb. In most states you don't have to run away if you're in your own home. In most states there is some kind of limit on how severe your response can be given the threat- you can't kill somebody just to stop them from slapping you or something. Generally most states won't allow people to use deadly force to protect property except, in some states, if you're in your own home.

    Ok, perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. Some of this depends on terminology and how you use it. As an ex-cop, I don't normally use the term "proportional force". In my state, the legal term is "reasonable and necessary force", and it is situation-dependent.

    Proportional force implies that if you punch me once, I can punch you back once. It might also imply that if you're a 90 pound woman and you're punching me, that my "proportionate" responses are very limited. You might punch me in the face ten times and not leave a mark. Contrariwise, anything I do to you might leave a mark... and who has the noticeable bruises is often the deciding factor in who goes to jail. This isn't theoretical, I'm going by previous experience in LE.

    In my state, "reasonable and necessary" implies that you may use such force as is necessary to STOP the attack. A certain proportionality is implied, but it isn't a strict standard but rather a situational standard.

    Also, in my state there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force, in most circumstances.

    Now, you say that self-defense is different than what we're talking about. I would assert that in many cases it isn't different, or at least should not be. If you as a woman assault your man, he is defending himself if he reacts to your attack with force of his own. Granted that it should not be an inordinately greater level of force, but in many cases what we end up with is the man being arrested and charged for defending himself, because he grabbed the woman's arms in an attempt to prevent her from punching him and left bruises with his grip. In some cases she punches him and he punches her back, or slaps her... his blow leaves a readily visible mark, her's not so much, HE gets arrested.

    I'm not sure what the solution is, since frankly in most cases the police arrive after the fact, there is no reliable 3rd-party witness, everybody is telling a different story, there is screaming and crying, etc. Unraveling who did what to whom is difficult. This is one reason a lot of departments are going with a policy of just arresting everybody involved and letting a judge sort it out later.

    But at any rate, my point is that being a woman doesn't entitle you to hit a man and get away with it. Furthermore, while a "proportionate response" might be more "fair", that is a mighty fine distinction to expect someone to make in the middle of a very heated situation, when you've resorted to initiating violence against a man. It just isn't a good idea; he may very well hurt you badly without really meaning to, because you "activated his fight-reactions" by riling him up and then hitting him first.


    I'm not speaking theoretically, as I've said. I should also note that I have personal experience, as my first wife (only wife actually) was violently abusive. I never hit her back because of my upbringing: the idea of striking a woman was most repugnant to me. It is probably wise that I did so, since I was able to prosecute her for CDV, get custody of our child, and keep the house. Had I struck her back, she would most likely have been seriously injured, I would have gone to jail and been charged and probably convicted, and she would have walked away with a child she couldn't take care of and property she didn't deserve.

    Such a level of restraint in the face of severe verbal, emotional and physical abuse, including an attempt to kill me, is most difficult. Many men do not have that level of self-control. The single biggest point I am attempting to make is this: if you initiate violence against your man, you are being the abuser and putting yourself in a situation where you may be seriously injured, and if you do this it is MOSTLY your OWN fault. Most halfway-decent men won't hit a woman under most circumstances, but if you infuriate him and then resort to initiating violence, he may lose control.

    In short, don't.


    G.
    Last edited by Goshin; 10-29-10 at 10:50 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #94
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Sure, everybody agrees that women shouldn't be hitting men. And yeah, definitely, guys may lose control and hit them back. But, IMO the key point is what you said here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Furthermore, while a "proportionate response" might be more "fair", that is a mighty fine distinction to expect someone to make in the middle of a very heated situation, when you've resorted to initiating violence against a man. It just isn't a good idea; he may very well hurt you badly without really meaning to, because you "activated his fight-reactions" by riling him up and then hitting him first.
    I think that is absolutely true. Thinking isn't really on the list of things that happens in a situation once physical violence starts. We both agree that a proportional response is the best solution, or at least the upper limit for a response. But, like you say, we can't count on people to make that sort of calculation properly when their adrenaline is flowing and they're reacting in a split second. And, trusting somebody in that mode to like correctly measure the amount of force they use is not realistic at all. Somebody could very well think "I'll just push her down" and they end up smashing her into a wall and busting her head open. So, we only really have two options. As a society we can say "hitting women is ok sometimes" or we can say "hitting women is never ok". Anything more complicated than that is too complicated for situations like that. See what I mean? So, like in your case, you had the "hitting women is never ok" instinct, right? And in the end, that probably served you better, don't you think? Like you say, you might have wound up in jail, you might have lost access to your kid. You might have seriously injured your kid's mother and had to live the rest of your life with him thinking of you as the guy who put mommy in a wheelchair. That doesn't mean it was ok for her to hit you. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But, if you had had the idea in your head that hitting women was sometimes ok, you would have hit back at some point and you would be sitting here regretting it, maybe even from prison if you accidentally did some really severe damage. So, I figure that out of those two options, we're better off teaching the next generation the same thing we were taught- hitting women is never ok. Not because that's technically always true, but because without having that instinct pretty ingrained people will end up hitting them when it is not ok.

  5. #95
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Sure, everybody agrees that women shouldn't be hitting men. And yeah, definitely, guys may lose control and hit them back. But, IMO the key point is what you said here:



    I think that is absolutely true. Thinking isn't really on the list of things that happens in a situation once physical violence starts. We both agree that a proportional response is the best solution, or at least the upper limit for a response. But, like you say, we can't count on people to make that sort of calculation properly when their adrenaline is flowing and they're reacting in a split second. And, trusting somebody in that mode to like correctly measure the amount of force they use is not realistic at all. Somebody could very well think "I'll just push her down" and they end up smashing her into a wall and busting her head open. So, we only really have two options. As a society we can say "hitting women is ok sometimes" or we can say "hitting women is never ok". Anything more complicated than that is too complicated for situations like that. See what I mean? So, like in your case, you had the "hitting women is never ok" instinct, right? And in the end, that probably served you better, don't you think? Like you say, you might have wound up in jail, you might have lost access to your kid. You might have seriously injured your kid's mother and had to live the rest of your life with him thinking of you as the guy who put mommy in a wheelchair. That doesn't mean it was ok for her to hit you. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But, if you had had the idea in your head that hitting women was sometimes ok, you would have hit back at some point and you would be sitting here regretting it, maybe even from prison if you accidentally did some really severe damage. So, I figure that out of those two options, we're better off teaching the next generation the same thing we were taught- hitting women is never ok. Not because that's technically always true, but because without having that instinct pretty ingrained people will end up hitting them when it is not ok.

    I would prefer that we, as a society, rather than distinguishing by gender and saying "hitting women is never okay" should instead say "initiating violence in a family dispute is never okay" and leave gender out of it. This avoids giving a certain type of female the idea that she can hit and not be hit back.

    I should not have had to suffer the abuse that I suffered, while feeling that I was forbidden to act in my own defense. In our society it is extremely difficult for a man to come forward and admit "I am being physically abused by my tiny little wife". It is harder still to prove it in a court of law and get justice. Contrariwise, a woman need merely show some bruises on her wrists and often the man will be taken to jail and charged and likely convicted. We need a little more balance on this topic in our society... for too long men have been viewed as the only "brutes" in domestic violence, when all too often they are in fact silent victims of it.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #96
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Close Poll.. If you wanna be some little dainty flower? Fine

    You wanna bring the smackdown? That is fine too but you best be careful when you get the slap down
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  7. #97
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,208

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Who the **** hits women anyway?
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  8. #98
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Who the **** hits women anyway?
    Other women and male pigs
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  9. #99
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    Close Poll.. If you wanna be some little dainty flower? Fine

    You wanna bring the smackdown? That is fine too but you best be careful when you get the slap down
    Internet bravado, how cute.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #100
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

    Re: Women of DP - I ask you

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Who the **** hits women anyway?
    My brother. Knocked her out with one punch. Broke allot of her facial structure, it was bad.

    Of course he went down soon after. Before his punch, she had kicked him in the balls so hard he was bleeding from his mouth.

    That's who.

    If a woman is stupid enough to lay her hands on a man in a violent way. She should be ready to take a beat down like a man. No excuse for anyone putting their hands on anyone.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 10-31-10 at 12:42 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •