Self defense and "you can't hit a girl" page 2

62 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:
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.

SO?
We’ve discussed this point & its ramifications already….have ya read the entire thread?

Did you see any of his coworkers jump to help him,…

NO…actually, what I saw was that they were trying to intervene in an attempt to get the coworker to STOP beating the two customers.

…. and even as he beat them off with the stick?

I’m not sure what yer point here is.
BUT, what I saw was that the employee—whether intentional or not—was giving his coworkers the impression that they could just as likely “be next” were they to become more involved.

AND, it’s not that he “beat them off” that is the issue….
it is that he CONTINUED TO BEAT THEM DOWNRATHER THAN OFF,,,
and continued…..and continued. Do ya understand the difference?

The area around them has a high crime rate,

SO?
Does this validate HIS participation in meting out punishments for a silly, petty legal “infraction”? He took a level of the law into his own hands….something that can prove to be very….shall we say: ill advised.

…. and he did this because there was a lack of security.

Pray tell the “logic” behind this.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:
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.

yeah and he slapped her back. that is nowhere near the level of risking serious bodily harm. i don’t know how rigid the object is, but seeing as he floors them without tripping them, i’d say it’s probably quite rigid, and with those, as vika puts it, “full body swings”, seems like enough force to break bones, which was entirely uncalled for.

why would he choose to pin them down rather then chase them away? is going behind the counter where they aren’t supposed to go to possibly fight him really that big of a deal he needs to pin them down for the police to arrest them? no that doesn’t seem to be his game, he didn’t tell anyone to call the police, others did. so what was his plan? keep beating them the entire day while they’re down there?

of course, this is Jamaica we’re talking about, so err, yeah that can make everything different, but non-the-less.

 
Flag Post

I’m fine with the “You can’t hit a girl” thing, but I don’t believe they should be able to hit men either. It’s just sexist otherwise.

 
Flag Post

I’ve punched a girl in the stomach once…but only to get her to stop hitting me in the face. Although when she went down and started crying, I did feel really bad and awful.

 
Flag Post

If someone deserves to be hit, I believe in equality.
I will punch the deserving girl just as hard if it was a deserving boy.

 
Flag Post

If there’s a good chance they will actually harm you, then yet push them or hit them if it’s a serious threat such as someone with a knife or weapon them self.
Now what happened in the video I say shouldn’t of happened.

He seems to of reacted too badly and too fast.
If he didn’t continue to beat them, then he could of done the right thing.

Why?
He got away, and he didn’t attack them until they came after him showing that he didn’t want to fight, but to avoid the situation.
But because he kept beating them for a little bit, that’s too much.

Not to mention I couldn’t see the entire thing play out, he could of been running over to get it to come back.
Although doubtful, it’s still possible.

So what he did in the video, I say wasn’t right.
The best thing to do in my opinion is to threaten it or fake it.

Instead of beating them with that metal pipe, clearly make it look like a weapon and do one of two things.
Hold it in plain site so it discourages them to attack you, or flinch hit them.

By flinch hit I mean half swinging it.
So if you swing something, stop it quickly before it even gets close to them.
It seems like most people will back off if you make a obvious threat like that.

 
Flag Post

My stance on this is that of proportionate response, which should work for male or female attacker vs male or female defender. That video does not show proportionate response.

The two women are outnumbered for a start, there are atleast three visible employees, likely more, and the visible employees are all physically larger than the attackers. The attackers could of been restrained and removed from the premises without the need to beat them unconscious with a weapon, then a few more times for fun.

Apart from throwing a (punch, slap? hard to tell) across the counter and hitting a machine I don’t see any clear intent to do serious harm to any employee. There are no visible weapons wielded by the attackers, nor any visible intent to find/pick up a makeshift weapon.

Even if the employee could justify the use of the weapon while the attackers are standing there is no justification for the use of a weapon on the fallen attackers. The situation has been more than dealt with the second the attackers go down, they are no longer a threat, hence no longer need any force using against them, specially that of a weapon attack. To continue beating them while down shows an intent to harm rather than just defend yourself, self defence no longer applies as they are no longer a threat to you.

I believe in self defence and proportionate response regardless of the gender of attacker or defender, but self defence is just that, defending yourself, as soon as the threat to you is gone so has your right to continue using force. The threat is what you were defending yourself against, once that threat is over so is your claim to self defence.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

My stance on this is that of proportionate response, which should work for male or female attacker vs male or female defender. That video does not show proportionate response.

The two women are outnumbered for a start, there are at least three visible employees, likely more, and the visible employees are all physically larger than the attackers. The attackers could of been restrained and removed from the premises without the need to beat them unconscious with a weapon, then a few more times for fun.

Apart from throwing a (punch, slap? hard to tell) across the counter and hitting a machine I don’t see any clear intent to do serious harm to any employee. There are no visible weapons wielded by the attackers, nor any visible intent to find/pick up a makeshift weapon.

Even if the employee could justify the use of the weapon while the attackers are standing there is no justification for the use of a weapon on the fallen attackers. The situation has been more than dealt with the second the attackers go down, they are no longer a threat, hence no longer need any force using against them, specially that of a weapon attack. To continue beating them while down shows an intent to harm rather than just defend yourself, self defence no longer applies as they are no longer a threat to you.

I believe in self defence and proportionate response regardless of the gender of attacker or defender, but self defence is just that, defending yourself, as soon as the threat to you is gone—so has your right to continue using force. The threat is what you were defending yourself against, once that threat is over so is your claim to self defence.

All of YOUR post is pretty much the quintessential essence of this whole issue…esp. that in bold.

Of course, that “grey area” of what constitutes the cessation of the threat is a real stickler. The OP brought this up….and rightly so. Once the upper-hand is achieved….who is to say that it will be continued?

Now, I don’t need a “lecture” on TV//movies being fantasy….however,many of them aren’t all that “unrealistic”.
BUT, how many times do we see the hero subdue a bad guy and leave to go on to handle other bad guys….only to have that initial bad guy return to give the good guy even more grief? I admire the good guys who “take care of business” on the baddie the first time.

This is a very shitty gray area and one that can be a bitch to prove your correct position on it in a court of law. In the case of this OP, I’d say the employee is gonna have a bitch of a time convincing a jury//judge he needed such EXCESSIVE FORCE to maintain his “upper-hand”.

Great post dd,
BUT….while I truly like your term: proportionate response,,,
did ya know ya borrowed it from a much greater arena

However, YOUR point is equally valid in many areas….including that of this situation, esp. the legal angle.

AND, my personal belief is that this concept can very well extended into a lot of other areas in our lives. There, it is usually called: “S/he OVERREACTED”.

Yup…I think the dude in the video might have “overreacted” just a weeeebit….lol.

 
Flag Post

Just my $.02

I think it was a valid self defense claim when he initially reacted, seeing as how the two women, as mentioned, pursued him around the counter with a pretty clear intention of doing him more harm.

It stopped being self defense when they stopped being the aggressors.
As soon as they’re down, you walk away. Everything after that is excessive.

EDIT:
This, of course, says nothing to the whole moral/ethical argument of whether or not self defense should involve physical violence.
Just my thoughts on the simplified definition.

 
Flag Post

I found out something. While this video has been circulating around recently, the incident itself isn’t all that recent. It happened about a year ago.

I found an article on how the legal side of it turned out.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20111203/greenwich-village-soho/mcdonalds-beating-cook-rayon-mcintosh-elated-be-free


Seems like the “self defense” side of the argument won out.

 
Flag Post
In retaliation, McIntosh fractured the skull of one woman,

and he was cleared of all charges. right. stupid judge. but anyway, he did spend 7 weeks in jail.

then, on the other hand, don’t pick a fight if you don’t wanna get hurt.

 
Flag Post

EQUAL RIGHTS! EQUAL RIGHTS! YOU CAN’T HIT ME THOUGH I’M A GIRL!

Slap dat bitch.

If some girl attacks ya, she should be able to get hit back god dangit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
In retaliation, McIntosh fractured the skull of one woman,

and he was cleared of all charges. right. stupid judge. but anyway, he did spend 7 weeks in jail.

then, on the other hand, don’t pick a fight if you don’t wanna get hurt.

Notice how they used “retaliation” as an interchangable term for self defense.

nice catch. that is absolutely…not the same thing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
In retaliation, McIntosh fractured the skull of one woman,

and he was cleared of all charges. right. stupid judge. but anyway, he did spend 7 weeks in jail.

then, on the other hand, don’t pick a fight if you don’t wanna get hurt.

There was no stupid judge. It was a grand jury that decided to clear him of the charges.

 
Flag Post

Actually it’s ridiculously easy to defend yourself against a girl. Because of the “can’t hit girls” thing, girls have rarely been hit really hard. I have a female classmate who tried to abuse her gender to bitchslap everyone she didn’t like. One guy got pissed off and punched her arm. From the way she was crying, he might have been beating her with spiked gauntlets for ten minutes non-stop.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, “girls have rarely been hit really hard”. Such as?

Then, there is women-on-men abuse

 
Flag Post

Actually you can hit a girl. Lol I mean I would try and wrestle a girl to the floor first if she attacked me but if I have to punch her than o well. I don’t care what or who you are everyone has the right to defend themselves

 
Flag Post

yeah, ‘you can’t hit a girl’ is why poison in street fighter had to become a man who became a woman

 
Flag Post

I agree with self defense if it is actually legitimate, and a girl is allowed to attack a guy if he had hurt her (PHYSICALLY) first. I personally hate the “you can’t hit a girl” response, which is ironic being that I am a girl. From my experience it’s more the men who initiate the “Oh, I don’t hit girls”, than females, which angers me greatly. I believe if a girl is attacking a man, he shouldn’t let that rule get in the way of his own self defense. I believe it’s more of an insult than a justice to a girl when a man says that he doesn’t hit girls as a policy, because it shows they think you’re something less than them, something delicate that will break if they touch you.

If a girl were to initiate a fight and then use that excuse, that shows that she’s not an honest person and is likely not to be reliable. I think that’s unfair to the man she had abused, and that if he were to hit her back it would put her in her place, and justify what she did to you. Women fight for equality, but what they don’t take into factor is this: A man can hit a man and it will be completely fine. If a man were to hit a woman, he would be seen as a horrible person. If women were really “equal”, they would see being hit by a man as justifiable if they were to initiate the fight.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Satirae:

I believe if a girl is attacking a man, he shouldn’t let that rule get in the way of his own self defense. I believe it’s more of an insult than a justice to a girl when a man says that he doesn’t hit girls as a policy, because it shows they think you’re something less than them, something delicate that will break if they touch you.

It’s called chivalry and i don’t think there is anything wrong with it. If a man is attacked by a girl, he should take hold of her and pin her so that she stops attacking. Not hit her to “win the fight”.

 
Flag Post

It’s called chauvinism and there’s a great deal wrong with it. Female sexual equality is hampered by the commonly male perception that women are fragile beings in need of a man’s protection. If someone is weaker than you, you should be gentle, of course. But treating all women with kid gloves generalizes them as weak and undermines their dignity.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

It’s called chauvinism and there’s a great deal wrong with it. Female sexual equality is hampered by the commonly male perception that women are fragile beings in need of a man’s protection. If someone is weaker than you, you should be gentle, of course. But treating all women with kid gloves generalizes them as weak and undermines their dignity.

I am not in any hurry to start throwing uppercuts to women so that i am not called a chauvinist by some people for reasons only known to them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

I am not in any hurry to start throwing uppercuts to women so that i am not called a chauvinist by some people for reasons only known to them.

You’re being called a chauvinist because you are one. I don’t think Jantonaitis or anyone else need any further reasons.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

I am not in any hurry to start throwing uppercuts to women so that i am not called a chauvinist by some people for reasons only known to them.

You’re being called a chauvinist because you are one. I don’t think Jantonaitis or anyone else need any further reasons.

So, the day has come when a man who says that he wouldn’t hit a woman under any circumstance is called a chauvinist for it. Talk about your moral decay right there.