• 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!

Women of DP - I ask you

Pick one

  • Yes, I expec the same in kind if I partake in aggressive behavior

    Votes: 15 78.9%
  • No, I believe my gender excuses me from paying consequences

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • I don't like either of the above options - here is my answer

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • It depends on what aggressive behavior I am taking part in

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Total voters
    19
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.

.... :/

Since when is a kick to the balls equal to breaking facial structure?
The damage must at least be equal. That is GBH right there
 
.... :/

Since when is a kick to the balls equal to breaking facial structure?
The damage must at least be equal. That is GBH right there

If a girl kicks me in the sack, she will get much the same thing. She had no right at all to lay her hands on him in any way.

She was arrested for battery by the way, so your argument goes against the law as well as common sense.

PS: What do you call getting kicked so hard you are bleeding from your mouth? I supposed you missed that part???
 
Last edited:
If a girl kicks me in the sack, she will get much the same thing. She had no right at all to lay her hands on him in any way.

She was arrested for battery by the way, so your argument goes against the law as well as common sense.

GBH. Sec 20
“………Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years…….”

:roll:

And no, breaking facial structure is not equal to a kick in the balls. Unless she broke his penis ofc, in which case I take it all back. It's not quite the same
 
And no, breaking facial structure is not equal to a kick in the balls. Unless she broke his penis ofc, in which case I take it all back. It's not quite the same

:prof Trauma to the testicles can render one infertile.
 
Wtf are you talking about?

SECTION 20
“………Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years…….”

:roll:

You can roll your eyes all you want. You are still wrong.

He defended himself in a lawful manner. And it was not malicious in any way. That is why she went to jail and he did not.
And no, breaking facial structure is not equal to a kick in the balls. Unless she broke his penis ofc, in which case I take it all back. It's not quite the same

And yes it is, battery is battery.

Now being I was a police officer in the state at the time. I can honestly say I know the law a little better than you.
 
Last edited:
:prof Trauma to the testicles can render one infertile.

There you have it.

Did your brother suffer from any infertility or any 'issues' in regards to his penis? (In which case I apologise and take it all back)
 
Last edited:
You can roll your eyes all you want. You are still wrong.

Not so much as many GBH hinges on whether the damage is within reason in response to the threat presented by the female. If he played the self defence card that is.
 
Last edited:
Now being I was a police officer in the state at the time. I can honestly say I know the law a little better than you.

Right. 'In the state' eh?
You know English law better than me. A person who studied this particular aspect. Gotcha
 
Right. 'In the state' eh?
You know English law better than me. A person who studied this particular aspect. Gotcha

Yes, it happend in the US, why would I be talking about England?

As you can see I live in Florida. Jeeesh.

And again according to US law since you need to be told, I was correct.
 
Last edited:
Trolling does not make your ignorant argument any better.

It also does not change the fact you are still wrong as I have shown.

Shown what? Lol.
Whatever dude, nice way to divert from the fact you know **** about the laws I am citing.
Being a police office in another country doesn't give you that knowledge of my country which was the original point I made and you tried to refute me being wrong - without citing anything to support it I may add.

By all means. Let's end the discussion. It was going nowhere anyway. I know I'm right
 
Last edited:
Not so much as many GBH hinges on whether the damage is within reason in response to the threat presented by the female. If he played the self defence card that is.

Not according to the law in the state of Illinois. he only thing that would have made it different is if he had used a weapon.
 
Not according to the law in the state of Illinois. he only thing that would have made it different is if he had used a weapon.

That was not the law I originally citied and you tried to refute. Nice spin tho mate.

The damage must at least be equal. That is GBH right there

She was arrested for battery by the way, so your argument goes against the law as well as common sense.

If you had just google'd GBH. You would have know straight away which law I am talking about, not to mention the simple fact you could have just looked at my location rather than attempting to bull**** about knowing the law
Nice playing with you tho. Shame I need sleep.
 
GBH. Sec 20
“………Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years…….”

:roll:

And no, breaking facial structure is not equal to a kick in the balls. Unless she broke his penis ofc, in which case I take it all back. It's not quite the same

Punching someone in the face in immediate response to an assault reaches the level of malice?

Learn something new every day.
 
Punching someone in the face in immediate response to an assault reaches the level of malice?

Learn something new every day.

Breaking facial structure to a simple kick in the balls however much it hurts is not equal damage or reasonable in response imo. Ofc a good lawyer can argue anything :shrug:
 
Breaking facial structure to a simple kick in the balls however much it hurts is not equal damage or reasonable in response imo.

And if he had found her 6 weeks later and hit her with the purpose of breaking her face, you might have a point. Merely punching someone in response to an immediate assault =/= malice.

Ofc a good lawyer can argue anything :shrug:

A public defender with 6 weeks on the job could argue this. Successfully.
 
Shown what? Lol.
Whatever dude, nice way to divert from the fact you know **** about the laws I am citing.

They are not relevant and I explained why. It is common knowledge here. I don't have to post anything, you are the one that assumed something based on law that does not apply.

I mean it is a well known fact I live in the US. So why should I care about English law?

Being a police office in another country doesn't give you that knowledge of my country which was the original point I made and you tried to refute me being wrong - without citing anything to support it I may add.

Ummmm... you were completely and utterly wrong. The laws you stated did not apply at all. So yes you were wrong then, and even more wrong now.

I don't have to. Maybe in England people don't know the law. We do here.

By all means. Let's end the discussion. It was going nowhere anyway. I know I'm right

You are completely wrong as this did not happen in England. :doh In England you no longer even have the right to defend yourself.
 
Breaking facial structure to a simple kick in the balls however much it hurts is not equal damage or reasonable in response imo. Ofc a good lawyer can argue anything :shrug:

But in this case the law you are trying to use does not apply.
 
That was not the law I originally citied and you tried to refute. Nice spin tho mate.

I did refute it according to US law. What part of this are you not getting?

If you had just google'd GBH. You would have know straight away which law I am talking about, not to mention the simple fact you could have just looked at my location rather than attempting to bull**** about knowing the law
Nice playing with you tho. Shame I need sleep.

I did not know it was a term used in English common law. I did know it meant "grievous bodily harm" as it is a term that is sometimes used by lawyers here in civil cases in the US as well. So why would I goggle it.

You should have looked at mine before you started yelling it was somehow wrong. In the end you are not only still wrong, but trying to somehow make it my fault you screwed up.
 
Anyone woman who hits a dude in the nads (when its not self defense) deserves whatever beatdown she gets. That's one thing you just DON'T DO. In fact, I have zero sympathy for any woman who initiates violence against a man and then gets beat to hell as a result. Just I like I wouldn't have sympathy for anyone who would hit someone who is obviously physically superior and then got a beating of a life time for their stupidity. You don't pick a physical fight unless you think you can finish it.

I remember when my wife and I were engaged. She told me the one thing she would never tolerate is a man hitting her. I said I agreed completely, with one exception. I told her if she ever decided to hit me, she better plan on knocking me out, because I would respond to her physical attacks just like I would to anyone else's. Eleven years later, we're still married and never have had a physical confrontation.

I agree it's a problem we don't address. Heck, we see it even in TV entertainment. Anyone who has regularly watched Everyone Loves Raymond has seen Debra smack Ray across the head, punch him in the arm, and elbow him in the ribs. Plus she's regularly verbally abusive. One of her tag lines is "You're an idiot." And its all played for laughs. Imagine if the roles were reversed. Oh how funny it would be to see a husband smack around his inconsiderate wife and verbally degrade her intelligence. I can just hear the laughter now. :roll:
 
Any woman that kicks or hits a male in their privates? That is wrong and and she deserves ( yes I did say deserves) to get her ass handed to her. Unless it is in self defense? There is no reason to be doing that to a man.

I will say if a woman walks up to a man and smacks him? Men need to try to use restraint as they are usually stronger.

I feel everybody should be ok to defend themselves when it comes to personal assult and this is coming from someone who has dealt with it several time and why I now own a gun and keep a bat in close reach at all times as you never know when an attack may happen.
 
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 agree that nobody should ever hit anybody. Definitely that's the best situation. But while you worry about women getting the message that they can hit men is legitimate, isn't men hitting women a radically bigger problem for society? So if we have to choose between sending a message that might encourage women to hit men and a message that might encourage men to hit women, shouldn't we send the message that will focus on the bigger problem?
 
I agree that nobody should ever hit anybody. Definitely that's the best situation. But while you worry about women getting the message that they can hit men is legitimate, isn't men hitting women a radically bigger problem for society? So if we have to choose between sending a message that might encourage women to hit men and a message that might encourage men to hit women, shouldn't we send the message that will focus on the bigger problem?


I would dispute that men hitting women without provocation is actually the bigger problem.
I think saying "nobody should initiate violence in a family dispute" IS addressing the bigger problem.

If somewhere between 30% and 70% of domestic battery of women by men, is a result of the woman initiating the violence by striking the man first, then eliminating that would likely eliminate 30 to 70% of the male-on-female violence.... how can that not be a win, unless you're just determined to frame this from a males-are-the-abusers context?
 
Back
Top Bottom