• 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?

Goshin said:
You could argue that it is mutual combat, yes. I don't know that you would be doing so if it was a man that had tried to kick him in the sack.
Click to expand...

Of course that would still be mutual combat. No different than 90% of bar fights that happen every night.
 
the_recruit said:
Of course that would still be mutual combat. No different than 90% of bar fights that happen every night.
Click to expand...



When stupid meets stupid and adds alcohol, yes that is typically the case... where someone smarter and/or more sober would see the situation developing and say "This isn't worth it, I'm going somewhere else before all @#$# breaks loose."

But legally speaking, the first person to commit assault (placing someone else in reasonable fear of imminent harm where a reasonable person would say there was intent, ability and opportunity to carry out same) is usually in the wrong... and trying to kick someone in the nuts is definitely assault, unless it was done in response to an imminent and credible threat. The vid itself does not demonstrate that Big Green was acting in such a manner, though admittedly the available info is limited. He may have made verbal threats, I don't know... but the test for assault is a three-legged one (like the fire triangle)... intent/jeopardy behavior, ability and opportunity. A kick aimed at the nuts obviously fulfills that test, while available info does not show Mr Biggie Green doing anything that quals as assault.


Now, in the SECOND video, there is a fight in progress as it starts, and the woman attempts to intervene by interposing her body... AND punching the guy fighting her BF in the face. He hits her back. This may be self-defense, or it may not. It depends on who started the first fight (between the two young men), and what the local laws are on coming to the aid of a third party in such circumstances (Good Samaritan or Alter Ego are the two most common forms in the US, where you are either acting on good faith under available info, or else stepping into the other's shoes and taking on his legal status of right or wrong regardless of what you knew).
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
When stupid meets stupid and adds alcohol, yes that is typically the case... where someone smarter and/or more sober would see the situation developing and say "This isn't worth it, I'm going somewhere else before all @#$# breaks loose."
Click to expand...

Same could be said for both individuals in this case. They both could have left an escalating, violent situation. But they chose not to back down because anger got the best of them and they wanted to get some licks in.

Goshin said:
But legally speaking, the first person to commit assault (placing someone else in reasonable fear of imminent harm where a reasonable person would say there was intent, ability and opportunity to carry out same) is usually in the wrong...and trying to kick someone in the nuts is definitely assault, unless it was done in response to an imminent and credible threat.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't much care what the law is. I'm discussing what the law should be. And yes, her kicking him would qualify as assault as far as i'm concerned...if the man had acted in a manner of self-defense. But, for the reasons I've already explained, instead of acting under a manner of self defense (protecting himself from further violence and backing out of range) he responded with a violent act of retaliation. That changes the situation from one in which an individual is defending himself from unwanted violence to a situation of mutual combat. Green wanted to fight. So did the lady.

Why either of them wanted to fight is beyond me. I have zero interest in fighting someone who I completey outmatch like a woman half my size, and I have zero interest in fighting a guy that's twice my size. So I don't have respect or sympathy for either of them.

Goshin said:
The vid itself does not demonstrate that Big Green was acting in such a manner, though admittedly the available info is limited. He may have made verbal threats, I don't know... but the test for assault is a three-legged one (like the fire triangle)... intent/jeopardy behavior, ability and opportunity. A kick aimed at the nuts obviously fulfills that test, while available info does not show Mr Biggie Green doing anything that quals as assault.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't see either of them guilty of assault. Violence in mutual combat is fair game until one of the combatants yields (voluntarily or involuntarily). The lady was basically TKO after her head went through the window. Mutual combat is over at that point and if green had proceeded to hit her again then that would be assault.

Because they broke a window I could see charging them both with something like disorderly conduct or destruction of property...but that doesn't have anything to do with their violence toward one another per say.

Goshin said:
Now, in the SECOND video, there is a fight in progress as it starts, and the woman attempts to intervene by interposing her body... AND punching the guy fighting her BF in the face. He hits her back. This may be self-defense, or it may not. It depends on who started the first fight (between the two young men), and what the local laws are on coming to the aid of a third party in such circumstances (Good Samaritan or Alter Ego are the two most common forms in the US, where you are either acting on good faith under available info, or else stepping into the other's shoes and taking on his legal status of right or wrong regardless of what you knew).
Click to expand...

Yeah, that one's harder to tell. I'd still call that mutual combat.
 
the_recruit said:
Same could be said for both individuals in this case. They both could have left an escalating, violent situation. But they chose not to back down because anger got the best of them and they wanted to get some licks in.



Well, I don't much care what the law is. I'm discussing what the law should be. And yes, her kicking him would qualify as assault as far as i'm concerned...if the man had acted in a manner of self-defense. But, for the reasons I've already explained, instead of acting under a manner of self defense (protecting himself from further violence and backing out of range) he responded with a violent act of retaliation. That changes the situation from one in which an individual is defending himself from unwanted violence to a situation of mutual combat. Green wanted to fight. So did the lady.

Why either of them wanted to fight is beyond me. I have zero interest in fighting someone who I completey outmatch like a woman half my size, and I have zero interest in fighting a guy that's twice my size. So I don't have respect or sympathy for either of them.
Click to expand...


My definition of self-defense is a bit broader... and even though you don't care, so is the law's. If someone hits you and then lingers in range, you are still endangered and therefore allowed to strike back to stop the person from continuing the assault... in about every jurisdiction I am familiar with, anyway.

But yes, there was plenty of stupid in evidence. She wasn't too bright trying to take on someone twice her size, nor is there any honor is beating on someone you vastly outclass.... but I don't know the reasons that lead to the confrontation.





As I said, I don't see either of them guilty of assault. Violence in mutual combat is fair game until one of the combatants yields (voluntarily or involuntarily). The lady was basically TKO after her head went through the window. Mutual combat is over at that point and if green had proceeded to hit her again then that would be assault.

Because they broke a window I could see charging them both with something like disorderly conduct or destruction of property...but that doesn't have anything to do with their violence toward one another per say.



Yeah, that one's harder to tell. I'd still call that mutual combat.
Click to expand...


Personally I don't see mutual combat as something that SHOULD be a crime... other than perhaps Breach of the Peace/Public Disorderly Conduct or other misdemeanor if done in a public place. However, the law typically prosecutes mutual combat as mutual assault and battery. Given that, I have to support an expanded view of self-defense... since I don't think it is reasonable to expect someone to suffer a blow and not return it.
 
I wouldn't have punched either of those women in the OP. I might have blocked them but I'm certain I wouldn't have punched them like that. I don't think the threat in either vid justified the excessive use of force in retaliation.

Just against my personal morals I guess.
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

The same as it was even after watching the video's. If you are violent to me or mine then I will be violent to you. :shrug: Man or woman, makes no difference to me.
 
Monserrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Size difference in adults is irrelevent. I've seen some awefully small women take down some awefully large men with one kick. :shrug:
 
Kal'Stang said:
Size difference in adults is irrelevent. I've seen some awefully small women take down some awefully large men with one kick. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Why do you think they have different weight groups in wrestling? Why don't the women compete against the men? If it didn't matter then wouldn't they all be fighting together?
I don't think it matters in a case involving self defense, you have a right to defend yourself but the first video in the op had nothing to do with self defense, it didn't look like the second video did either.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Yes, there is something wrong with that. Other people's actions do not justify your own. The best reaction to violence is to walk away. That is not being a doormat, that is being smart. It is not the wild west, we do not need to run up and meet every one who challenges us. Sometimes it is best to do your thing, regardless of what others do. That is not being a doormat. Responding as others want you to, that is being a doormat.
Click to expand...

For some reason what you said here reminded me of an old Kenny Rogers song. If you haven't heard it then don't take the title to mean something. There's a moral to this song which won't be understood till towards the end of the song.

 
the_recruit said:
He was only under attack for 2 fractions of a second during that whole clip. It would be different if she started swinging and kept swinging. That's not what happened. Then a punch would have been completely justified to make her stop. She went for a sucker punch and then withdrew to attempt to keep out of his range.
Click to expand...

Yeah she did withdraw after her first attempt, only to try and attack him again. Some people are like hyenas, they only attack when they think that they can get away with it.

I used to think that I should never hit a woman also, under any circumstances. Now I believe that it is that mentality which is wrong.

I find the responses to the first video interesting. Women cried out for decades to be treated as equals of men. Something which I applauded and agree with whole heartedly and stick up for it every time. What some women don't seem to understand though is that there is a price to that equality. That price is that they will be held to the same exact standards that any other man is held to. And I don't know about other men but for me, if a guy takes a swing at me, whether they hit me or not, I'm going to swing at them also. Whether they are smaller or bigger than me. I don't even care if its a 3.5 foot adult.
 
Monserrat said:
Why do you think they have different weight groups in wrestling? Why don't the women compete against the men? If it didn't matter then wouldn't they all be fighting together?
Click to expand...

That's sports were people try to keep things on an even kiel. It is also against the rules to kick someone below the belt in most wrestling matches. We're talking about real life situations however. Not something staged for entertainment. Different rules apply.

Monserrat said:
I don't think it matters in a case involving self defense, you have a right to defend yourself but the first video in the op had nothing to do with self defense, it didn't look like the second video did either.
Click to expand...

The first video was about self defense as far as we can tell with the info we have. The woman swung a kick at the guy. The guy immediately swung back. That is self defense in any court of law. Including my own moral stance.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That's sports were people try to keep things on an even kiel. It is also against the rules to kick someone below the belt in most wrestling matches. We're talking about real life situations however. Not something staged for entertainment. Different rules apply.



The first video was about self defense as far as we can tell with the info we have. The woman swung a kick at the guy. The guy immediately swung back. That is self defense in any court of law. Including my own moral stance.
Click to expand...

We're talking about whether weight matters, you just said it does by saying those sports have weight classes in order to keep things even, did you not?

The woman missed the guy. He hit her first, he had to reach in around glass and past other people to hit her. There's nothing defensive about that.
 
In both cases the women either initiated the violence or inserted herself in it.

In the first video, the woman took the first "swing"; her intended victim's reaction was self-defense, although judging by the size of him she might be able to plead mental defect on her part.

The second video is not so cut and dried. The violence was incited by others. When she attempted to pull one of the fighters away, he turned on her and punched her. Now one could legitimately say that as courageous as her attempt to break up the fight was, it was also foolish. Even if that is true, there was no legitimate self-defense claim by the man who repeatedly punched her in the head afterward.

I'd say the same thing no matter what the gender of those involved.
 
Monserrat said:
We're talking about whether weight matters, you just said it does by saying those sports have weight classes in order to keep things even, did you not?

The woman missed the guy. He hit her first, he had to reach in around glass and past other people to hit her. There's nothing defensive about that.
Click to expand...


That she missed is irrelevant. She tried to kick him in the groin, a serious attack. Absent some justification that is not present in the video, she committed assault. She lingered in range, able to renew her attack instantly... as she actually did after his first return punch, she hit him again, he hit back again. Based on the vid alone, I see no justification for her actions. Based on the vid alone, Green could have a self-defense claim that stood a good chance in court (in most US jurisdictions).

If someone swings, you don't have to wait for them to connect for it to be self-defense. In fact, you don't have to wait for them to swing, if they're acting like they will.


Sports are entirely different. There are rules in sports. On the street, there are limitations on how violent someone can get. To all appearances she INITIATED the assault on someone twice her size, so that is her fault for starting it.
 
Goshin said:
That she missed is irrelevant. She tried to kick him in the groin, a serious attack. Absent some justification that is not present in the video, she committed assault. She lingered in range, able to renew her attack instantly... as she actually did after his first return punch, she hit him again, he hit back again. Based on the vid alone, I see no justification for her actions. Based on the vid alone, Green could have a self-defense claim that stood a good chance in court (in most US jurisdictions).

If someone swings, you don't have to wait for them to connect for it to be self-defense. In fact, you don't have to wait for them to swing, if they're acting like they will.


Sports are entirely different. There are rules in sports. On the street, there are limitations on how violent someone can get. To all appearances she INITIATED the assault on someone twice her size, so that is her fault for starting it.
Click to expand...

You assume she tried to kick him in the groin, she might not have been aiming at all and she missed, she was not the first to make physical contact. He committed the assault, you have to make contact for there to be physical assault. He hit her, she hit him back and then he put her through a pane of glass. The man would be thrown out of any rational court if he tried to play the self-defense card, nothing about what he did was self defense, reaching around people and a pane of glass to hit someone is not self defense. How does that in any way defend himself from her? It doesn't

I don't think she's innocent I just don't think he has a self-defense case especially from a woman half his size who was caught up behind another person and a pane of glass and therefore wasn't a serious threat to him.
 
Monserrat said:
We're talking about whether weight matters, you just said it does by saying those sports have weight classes in order to keep things even, did you not?
Click to expand...

Weight matters in a game. Not real life. Its an apples and oranges situation.

Monserrat said:
The woman missed the guy. He hit her first, he had to reach in around glass and past other people to hit her. There's nothing defensive about that.
Click to expand...

That she missed him is irrelevent. She initiated the violence. She gets what she deserves.
 
Monserrat said:
You assume she tried to kick him in the groin, she might not have been aiming at all and she missed, she was not the first to make physical contact. He committed the assault, you have to make contact for there to be physical assault. He hit her, she hit him back and then he put her through a pane of glass. The man would be thrown out of any rational court if he tried to play the self-defense card, nothing about what he did was self defense, reaching around people and a pane of glass to hit someone is not self defense. How does that in any way defend himself from her? It doesn't

I don't think she's innocent I just don't think he has a self-defense case especially from a woman half his size who was caught up behind another person and a pane of glass and therefore wasn't a serious threat to him.
Click to expand...

It is quite clear that she meant to do him harm. Whether its the groin or not doesn't matter. She intended to harm him. (and seriously...what woman doesn't aim for the groin when they can get the first kick in? Common sense says she was aiming for it) It is due to that intended harm that he has every right to claim self defense AND swing at her.

And I noticed that once again the "woman half his size" was brought up....I have to wonder if the people that say this would be saying the same things if it had been a man half the size of the guy in green.
 
There is no shame in walking away.
 
Monserrat said:
You assume she tried to kick him in the groin, she might not have been aiming at all and she missed, she was not the first to make physical contact. He committed the assault, you have to make contact for there to be physical assault. .....
Click to expand...


No no no. There does NOT have to be physical contact to be legal assault. I know the law on such things; I've been studying it for years.


If you swing and MISS, it is ASSAULT. If you swing and HIT, it is Assault AND BATTERY. Assault is justification for using force in self-defense.

In fact you don't even have to swing and miss... if you say 'I shall smite you' and advance with raised fist, I can hit you first before you swing and it is still self-defense because you put me in credible fear of imminent attack (that is assault).

Per the vid, SHE broke the law first and attacked him first. The fact that she appears to have missed (perhaps just partially missed) is IRRELEVANT.

At least, per US law. I cannot speak for the law in any other nation.



Regardless, as a matter of principle, no one should ever be expected to simply suffer assault without response, like a doormat. Such an expectation simply encourages assaultive behaviors.
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
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.



Click to expand...


In both cases, these women struck first. Striking back is a reflex. In the first case, the man certainly didn't mean for the women to go through the plate glass window. That could have been very serious. In the second, he gave back what he got.

A woman cannot go around punching at guys and not expect to be retaliated against. Everybody gasps and says, "OMG!!! He hit a woman!" In both cases, she had it coming. Don't know how the law would view it, but there was obviously video evidence, so I'd suspect it would be called mutual combat.
 
MaggieD said:
A woman cannot go around punching at guys and not expect to be retaliated against. Everybody gasps and says, "OMG!!! He hit a woman!" In both cases, she had it coming. Don't know how the law would view it, but there was obviously video evidence, so I'd suspect it would be called mutual combat.
Click to expand...

I do wonder what women like this are thinking. Are they counting on having a forcefield which men can't penetrate? In that second video the report shows the woman's facebook explanation. Stop the video and read that. She sounds very surprised that the man struck her.
 
RiverDad said:
I do wonder what women like this are thinking. Are they counting on having a forcefield which men can't penetrate? In that second video the report shows the woman's facebook explanation. Stop the video and read that. She sounds very surprised that the man struck her.
Click to expand...

What I want to know is what's changed in society that women are throwing punches at men! WTF are they thinking? Even guys know when to hold 'em. If a guy is unevenly matched, he's not going out of his way to get physical. Look at the size of those guys. I think the girls are nuckin' futz.
 
MaggieD said:
What I want to know is what's changed in society that women are throwing punches at men! WTF are they thinking? Even guys know when to hold 'em. If a guy is unevenly matched, he's not going out of his way to get physical. Look at the size of those guys. I think the girls are nuckin' futz.
Click to expand...



I'm guessing they either believe they won't get hit back, or else decades of being told that 'GirlPower rules' and men are stupid flabby oxen left them with an failure to appreciate the effects of testosterone on the musculature and the aggression centers of the brain.

I once heard a young woman speak of slapping some man in the face and getting slapped back, and expressing her shock and surprise at how hard a man can hit. She concluded her tale by saying 'these girls that go around hitting men are playing with fire and don't know it.'

It ought to be common sense... *I'm* not going out of my way to trade punches with some 400 pound gorilla, not without a darn good reason and preferably a 2x4 for leverage...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom