Self defense and "you can't hit a girl"

62 posts

Flag Post

http://www.listenonrepeat.com/watch/?v=wsJRKDpqX6Y


This made me think about somehthing…

Don’t get me wrong, I fully support equality for women, but some women seem to think that just because they’re women, they can attack a man and be immune to retaliation because “you can’t hit a girl”. In my opinion, this is false.

I’d like to know what people think about that. What do you think about women who use “you can’t hit a girl” as a way to protect themselves from retaliation when they are clearly doing something that deserves retaliation? And in the case of that specific incident, do you think the man did the right thing?

 
Flag Post

Self defense is always a valid response if your life is in danger. I don’t agree with hitting someone just because they hit you; rather my preferred approach is to file charges for assault.

Equality means precisely that. If we are equal, then females have the same legal responsibilities as well as the same legal rights. If you hit someone without provactaion, you’re going to jail, regardless of your gender.


EDIT: That said, I have looked at the video, and the Jamaican is going to prison. His response was far in excess of what was required. Someone slaps you, and you respond by fullbody swings with a golf club over and over again until they are lying on the floor not moving, then swing hard a few more times to inflict extra damage whilst she’s unable to resist?

Yea, he’s the one who will be charged with aggrivated assault and battery there.

 
Flag Post

We’ve already discussed this subject at great length some time back.
BUT, I guess it never hurts to trot it out to let it “dance” for the newcomers to SD.
vika has already given the quintessential answer,,,
so, I really needn’t add very much to it.

I do want to make it very clear that vika’s point includes: many shades of gray.
Yes, a lot of women likely believe they can (MILDLY) open-handed “slap” or throw a drink into the face of a man for being an aggressive asshole. Depending upon the (gray area) circumstances….this form of assault & battery will likely be “laughed out of court”—if it even makes it that far, or is even arrested, or even given a “summons-to-appear”.

This “deserves retaliation” shit of yours is sooooo far off the rational scale that, YES, maybe we do need to shed some light on this issue…AGAIN.
“Retaliation” is against the law. It is “taking the law into your own hands”. I’m guessing ya’re trying to say: self-defense.
BUT, even self-defense has its LIMITS. Learn them, know them, observe them.
I’m NOT going to waste MY time & effort to put up links on this issue.
They are easy enuff to fine on YOUR own.

Addendum:
FUCK…I took the time to watch the video. Talk about excessive-force-to-defend. SHIT! ! ! There wasn’t even any defense….just pure RETALIATION.

AND, that retaliation was battery w/ a deadly weapon….for a prolonged period.
AND, against two ppl….(her friend?) came around to help her and was being CLUBED also.
That’s two counts of assault w/ a deadly weapon.
AND, guess what that restaurant is going to have to pay in civil damages?
PLUS, tell me….do YOU fucking understand PREMEDITATED?
What? Was the dude going “golfing” later in the day and just happened to have his clubs nearby?….oh, he golfs using only a 7 IRON.

Hell, lock this idiot thread.
It has NOWHERE TO GO.

A final word. Were I to be in a situation like that….w/ a customer being that out of control. I would exit and go into the back (likely be calling the police) in an effort TO DIFFUSE THE SITUATIN. I sure as hell wouldn’t have been standing there close enough for her to hit me….good grief, how ignorant .

 
Flag Post

karma, it wasn’t a golf club. It was a metal pipe that he picked up from the back of the restauraunt. Also, self defense is retaliation. If someone is trying to harm you, you retaliate in self defense.


The man was charged with first and second degree assault.
The two women were charged with menacing, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct.


The interesting thing is that most people are defending the employee. They say that the women jumping the counter showed that they clearly intended to harm him and that he acted in self defense. Based on how many people say that, a jury might actually take his side.

What do you think about that?

 
Flag Post

Hmmmm…where did I get that it was a golf club? Oh, vika….lol
BUT, it really matter little what the weapon SPECIFICALLY was,,,
it’s more important the DEGREE of weapon it is considered by law.

AND, NO..NO..NO
Self-defense IS NOT retaliation.
Or, more correctly….the other way around.
Learn the difference, know it, practice it.

AND, what I see is the other employees trying to stop the asshole,,,
BUT, they were backing off…likely in fear that the would start in on them.
Who the fuck is: “most ppl”?
A bunch of idiots who don’t understand the law?
Don’t know the difference between retaliation & self-defense?

 
Flag Post

Another interesting point: the fight or flight response.

When you are attacked, you don’t think, you just do. If you feel threatened, you will protect yourself however you can and your instincs won’t let you stop until the threat has been eliminated. Someone is trying to harm you, so you defend yourself. You won’t let them get back up and possibly keep attacking you. You don’t know what they’re capable of or if they are armed. Your fight or flight instinct will not stop until you can be sure that you are safe.


“Most people” as in the majority of people who see the video. “Most people” as in people that could very well end up being on the jury for the trial.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:

One more interesting point: the fight or flight response.

When you are attacked, you don’t think, you just do. If you feel threatened, you will protect yourself however you can and your instincs won’t let you stop until the threat has been eliminated. Someone is trying to harm you, so you defend yourself. You won’t let them get back up and possibly keep attacking you. You don’t know what they’re capable of or if they are armed. Your fight or flight instinct will not stop until you can be sure that you are safe.

This point I can accept….w/ strong qualifiers.
The main one is that one ABSOLUTELY MUST demonstrate that this situation exists.
Mostly meaning that ya have to “give it a chance”.
Ya have to demonstrate that such an action was about to happen.
Ya just cannot “willy-nilly” ASSUME it is going to do down like that.
This isn’t the movies.
Far too many ppl get their “education” from the fantasy world.

Okay, yeah….like I said: ppl who watch the video. Very likely the same ppl who get their “education” from TV & the movies and the bullshit gossip they share w/ others.

AND, NO…I can tell ya definitively that those ppl will VERY LIKELY NOT BE ON THE JURY.

 
Flag Post

Not those same people, but people who share the same opinion. It is a possibility that the jury could take the man’s side. A jury is not a collection of people who are especially educated about the law, it is a collection of average citizens. There is a chance that a collection of random people would share the viewpoint of the people who defended the employee.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:

Not those same people, but people who share the same opinion. It is a possibility that the jury could take the man’s side. A jury is not a collection of people who are especially educated about the law, it is a collection of average citizens. There is a chance that a collection of random people would share the viewpoint of the people who defended the employee.

It would appear that YOU are very naive about how a jury is formed
 
Flag Post

Well it looked like a golf club. I couldn’t think of anything that would be back there and have a long thin shaft of metal on it. If it was an industrial skewer that’s even worse. A solid piese of metal that is designed to pierce through raw or partially frozen flesh? What excess harm could that possibly do to the flesh of a living person if used with force? Blunt force trauma and stabbing wounds from the same weapon…

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:


I do want to make it very clear that vika’s point includes: many shades of gray.
Yes, a lot of women likely believe they can (MILDLY) open-handed “slap” or throw a drink into the face of a man for being an aggressive asshole. Depending upon the (gray area) circumstances….this form of assault & battery will likely be “laughed out of court”—if it even makes it that far, or is even arrested, or even given a “summons-to-appear”.

That’s because it counts as a form of self-defense if the man was being sexually aggressive and refused to quit it from a verbal warning. If he pursues it to court, the judge and jury will look at his sexually molesting behavior, and he’ll probably end up beng charged for it. So that would be why these cases rarely go to court.

AND, that retaliation was battery w/ a deadly weapon….for a prolonged period.
AND, against two ppl….(her friend?) came around to help her and was being CLUBED also.
That’s two counts of assault w/ a deadly weapon.

Good point. He was so enraged he took it out on anyone who came near. If you look closely even his fellow employees were reticent to come near for fear of being violently attacked. He had completely lost control and was an immediate danger to everybody around him.

Originally posted by fma1:

The man was charged with first and second degree assault.
The two women were charged with menacing, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct.

Good. It sounds like justice was right on the money this time. The law deals with both sides, and punishment is meted out as required.

The interesting thing is that most people are defending the employee. They say that the women jumping the counter showed that they clearly intended to harm him and that he acted in self defense. Based on how many people say that, a jury might actually take his side.

What do you think about that?

The judge won’t see it as self-defense. It was self-defense to begin with,but it became something else the moment she stopped attacking him, but he kept right on hitting her. Then when he hit a second person as hard as he could, for trying to break the fight up, and hit them over and over, that becomes as Karma says, a second count of assault with a deadly weapon that was not motivated by self defense.

You won’t let them get back up and possibly keep attacking you. You don’t know what they’re capable of or if they are armed. Your fight or flight instinct will not stop until you can be sure that you are safe.

No, your fight or flight kicks in at the moment of the initial danger. You are on an adrenalin high, but you still have the capability to pull back. Your cognitive capacity is diminished but not absent. He chose to keep right on hitting. You can see in the video he pauses – the adrenalin has peaked – and then he chooses to resume hitting her and the other person. He made the choice to keep on hitting, and that was criminal intent.



EDIT: Actually, change that. The peak wasn’t then. It was before then, when he chose to leave the fight situation, let his colleague deal with it whilst he went back and found a deadly weapon to return to the fight with. THAT was the point of criminal intent right there. He could have gone out back and let cooler heads deal with her whilst the police were called. But no, instead he made a deliberate and conscious choice to pick up the most powerful weapon to hand, and head back into the brawl.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by fma1:

Not those same people, but people who share the same opinion. It is a possibility that the jury could take the man’s side. A jury is not a collection of people who are especially educated about the law, it is a collection of average citizens. There is a chance that a collection of random people would share the viewpoint of the people who defended the employee.

It would appear that YOU are very naive about how a jury is formed

I know that the people summoned have to go through a selection process, but the jury is still a collection of average citizens. This collection of people would have differnt viewpoints. They would not all take the same side.


The judge won’t see it as self-defense

You are right, a judge might not see it that way. But what about a jury?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
The judge won’t see it as self-defense

You are right, a judge might not see it that way. But what about a jury?

It will depend entirely on how the evidence is presented in court. They won’t just be shown a video and asked to differentiate it themselves, there will be a slew of evidence including an analysis of the worker’s mental state, the woman’s mental state, a medical analysis of the damage done to both victims, a psychological report of the incident itself, an understanding of the damage potential of the weapon he sought out… and on and on and on.

The jusy will be given all the facts, and asked to deliberate carefully before making their decision. The trial will take several days, at least.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
EDIT: Actually, change that. The peak wasn’t then. It was before then, when he chose to leave the fight situation, let his colleague deal with it whilst he went back and found a deadly weapon to return to the fight with. THAT was the point of criminal intent right there. He could have gone out back and let cooler heads deal with her whilst the police were called. But no, instead he made a deliberate and conscious choice to pick up the most powerful weapon to hand, and head back into the brawl.

Ahhhhh….there ya go.
THAT is the diffinitive point here.
It initially appears he had gone for the “flight” option.
BUT, it was actually a part of “fight”….w/ a degree of PREMEDIATION,,,
in that his intent was to obtain a deadly weapon, RETURN, and use it.
This IS NOT an instance of AT THE MOMENT self-defense.

As I said earlier, the “flight” option from the volitile situation (& call police….OBVIOUSLY) was what HE SHOLD HAVE DONE.
NOW, he and McDonalds is in really big trouble.
I’m very sure McDonalds has training that covers this sort of incident. Whether or not he recieved said training is an entirely different matter.
BUT, that doesn’t absolve McDonalds from prosecution….it only worsens it.

Addendum:
LOL….vika, of course all of what ya said will take place.
BUT….that video is very “damning”.
Ya know the prosecutor is gonna ask the jury (if a jury trial is opted for…judge trials are more reliable. Most defense atty. shy away from jury trial cuz they are such a “crapshoot”)….ask the jury how they would like to be in that woman’s shoes.

That video is extreeeemly visceral.

 
Flag Post

Let’s look at the broader issue. Some women think that they are immune to retaliation because “you can’t hit a girl”. Whether you think that retaliation is right or not, you have to acknowledge that it happens. “You can’t hit a girl” is sexist in itself. It asserts that women are inferior and weak. But some women take advantage of this and think that they can attack men and the man won’t retalliate because they think that he “can’t hit a girl”. This is false. Some women have to learn that the hard way.

So what do you think about the whole “you can’t hit a girl” assertion of our society?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:


BUT, that doesn’t absolve McDonalds from prosecution….it only worsens it.

It leaves them with only one course of action really. They have to show they are prepared to act when such a situation occurs. They have offered training and he has not acted as he was trained to do. Thus they can mitigate their losses by acting to prevent such an event from happening again.

Their course is clear. Fire the employee, refuse references. Overhaul the management of that restaurant. Investigate any possible lapses in training or employee psychology and make a big deal about fixing those problems immediately. Make a quieter deal about investigating other restaurants similarly, and tighten up on training anywhere it needs to be tightened.

It won’t absolve them, but it will show willing, and limit the amount of damages any court would demand. Basically, it is self-defense from a corporate viewpoint.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:

Let’s look at the broader issue. Some women think that they are immune to retaliation because “you can’t hit a girl”. Whether you think that retaliation is right or not, you have to acknowledge that it happens. “You can’t hit a girl” is sexist in itself. It asserts that women are inferior and weak. But some women take advantage of this and think that they can attack men and the man won’t retalliate because they think that he “can’t hit a girl”. This is false. Some women have to learn that the hard way.

So what do you think about the whole “you can’t hit a girl” assertion of our society?

Can YOU not read?
Do YOU opt to NOT read posts answering your questions….esp. if they aren’t the answers ya’re wanting?

“I do want to make it very clear that vika’s point includes: many shades of gray.
Yes, a lot of women likely believe they can (MILDLY) open-handed “slap” or throw a drink into the face of a man for being an aggressive asshole. Depending upon the (gray area) circumstances….this form of assault & battery will likely be “laughed out of court”—if it even makes it that far, or is even arrested, or even given a “summons-to-appear”.”

“This “deserves retaliation” shit of yours is sooooo far off the rational scale that, YES, maybe we do need to shed some light on this issue…AGAIN.
“Retaliation” is against the law. It is “taking the law into your own hands”. I’m guessing ya’re trying to say: self-defense.”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:

“You can’t hit a girl” is sexist in itself. It asserts that women are inferior and weak. But some women take advantage of this and think that they can attack men and the man won’t retalliate because they think that he “can’t hit a girl”.

As I already said, it is wrong, and it is sexist. It is however if you stop and think about it, a legacy of the same ‘women are inferior’ mindset, that gave us limited access to the employment market in the first place.

Like how equal rights are creeping into the marketplace, this ‘girls are fragile’ mindset too will go the way of the dinosaur in good time. It has no place in a civilised society.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:


BUT, that doesn’t absolve McDonalds from prosecution….it only worsens it.

It leaves them with only one course of action really. They have to show they are prepared to act when such a situation occurs. They have offered training and he has not acted as he was trained to do. Thus they can mitigate their losses by acting to prevent such an event from happening again.

Their course is clear. Fire the employee, refuse references. Overhaul the management of that restaurant. Investigate any possible lapses in training or employee psychology and make a big deal about fixing those problems immediately. Make a quieter deal about investigating other restaurants similarly, and tighten up on training anywhere it needs to be tightened.

It won’t absolve them, but it will show willing, and limit the amount of damages any court would demand. Basically, it is self-defense from a corporate viewpoint.

ALL VERY GOOD POINTS.

I want to add that this incident (like most of them) WILL NEVER MAKE IT TO TRAIL.
A HUGE corp like MickeyD will pay out handsomely to the victim rather than throw gasoline on a publicity firestorm. Trials cost money for the defense….money that best is spent on “paying off” the victim. Likely…nolo contendere will be used.

I really like your concept of: “Make a quieter deal about investigating other restaurants (theirs) and fixing those problems immediately”. Sadly, from my own experience here in Wichits…..this doesn’t seem to be much of a priority.

A McDonals unit had two incidents where a child was struck by vehicles going through the drive-thru lane in front of the ingress//egress door….killing the second one. I informed the regional office of another restaurant of theirs that a similar sight-obstruction existed in my neighborhood. NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT.

I’ve sent registered mail to several such businesses informing them of their situation w/ such blind spots, how easily the situation could be rectified, and that should someone be injured or killed….I will contact the family and share my information w/ them and that they should retain legal counsel. Having prior knowledge of a dangerous situation and doing nothing about it will double or triple the damages awarded.

I know a lawyer that is very good at cases like this. He has on file my data.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by fma1:

Let’s look at the broader issue. Some women think that they are immune to retaliation because “you can’t hit a girl”. Whether you think that retaliation is right or not, you have to acknowledge that it happens. “You can’t hit a girl” is sexist in itself. It asserts that women are inferior and weak. But some women take advantage of this and think that they can attack men and the man won’t retalliate because they think that he “can’t hit a girl”. This is false. Some women have to learn that the hard way.

So what do you think about the whole “you can’t hit a girl” assertion of our society?

Can YOU not read?
Do YOU opt to NOT read posts answering your questions….esp. if they aren’t the answers ya’re wanting?

I did read your posts. I agree with what you said. I was just hoping for a bit more discussion on the topic from different viewpoints, not just a few people with similar viewpoints.

 
Flag Post

i’d say gender has very little to do with this situation. they were going for him, two against one. he defended with some object that looks like a golf club, struck them both to the ground. then he keeps striking them when they’re just trying to get up, while everyone else is telling him to stop, but no-one intervenes.

you’d have to play the defence card really well to get away with that.

but “you can’t hit a girl” is ridiculously old-fashioned and it really depends on a lot of factors none of which are gender-related.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Having prior knowledge of a dangerous situation and doing nothing about it will double or triple the damages awarded.

I know a lawyer that is very good at cases like this. He has on file my data.

Yes, this works the same locally with disability access. If a shop is not accessible to wheelchairs or scooters, and they don’t provide an alternate means of purchasing their products, the disability discrimination act gives teeth to a civil claim against them.

The fun part is because it is a civil law not a criminal law, they don’t have to make changes. So you can wait six months (to give them reasonable time to make changes) and then sue their asses off successfully, all over again. Eventually they’re likely to decide that it is cheaper to make the premises disability friendly and increase their paying customer base, than it is to pay out £20,000 plus court costs every six months to disabled individuals who would like to buy from them.

 
Flag Post

for 43 s it was self defence, then, it was rage

 
Flag Post

The replies to this are interesting. I was raised to not hit a woman, but as I grew older I found women were very aggressive at times and I was handicapped. As such, my responses changed. I will only strike a woman if they strike me first. at that point they have put themselves on a mans level and the repercussions are the same as I would give to a punch from a man. Quick and final.

I believe the McDonald employee should have stopped once the threat was over. He continued when the woman was going to get up. As a qualifier for his actions, if she was getting up with the intent to retaliate, then his actions were proper.

 
Flag Post

actually, striking them down in the first place was excessive. yes, it was two against one, but he was surrounded by collegues, how much could they have done?

the situation isn’t that easy to estimate, but it doesn’t look like it was all that threatening. they were merely walking up towards him where they had no business walking, they weren’t grabbing any weapons. striking them down with an object like that seems already excessive. especially anything after 0:38.

chasing them off would seem like a much better option than pinning them down.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

actually, striking them down in the first place was excessive. yes, it was two against one, but he was surrounded by collegues, how much could they have done?

the situation isn’t that easy to estimate, but it doesn’t look like it was all that threatening. they were merely walking up towards him where they had no business walking, they weren’t grabbing any weapons. striking them down with an object like that seems already excessive. especially anything after 0:38.

chasing them off would seem like a much better option than pinning them down.

Omega, one of the woman slapped him. Did you see any of his coworkers jump to help him, and even as he beat them off with the stick? The area around them has a high crime rate, and he did this because there was a lack of security.