Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I didn't know the US had a law like this.
So I can go around punching people who are stronger than me as much as I like and they can't do shit about it? That's hilarious. If someone's wearing body armor can I shoot them then say "I'm not wearing body armor so no backsies!"?
In Australia punching someone is punching someone, regardless as to who is stronger. Though we do have considerations for self-defense, so because she was charging at him and he was backing up, he would probably get some concession.
Self-defense is legal, but the grounds for it are very clear. Was the force used appropriate for the threat? Unarmed 100-150 lb woman, who is your fiancee, has hit you, a 200 pound man capable of lifting 400 lb. The threat is minimal, so the amount of force necessary is minimal. She won't hit you anywhere near as hard as you can hit her, she will almost certainly stop before any physical harm is possible considering the relationship and severity of the argument. In addition, you have the option to retreat before any real harm can be done, or physically restrain the attacker without resorting to harm. The force used is not appropriate to the force presented.
Using your strawman analogies, this would be like bumping into somebody on the street, so you punched them in the gut, or if a 10 year old grabbed your leg, and you broke their arm for it.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle
Self-defense is legal, but the grounds for it are very clear. Was the force used appropriate for the threat? Unarmed 100-150 lb woman, who is your fiancee, has hit you, a 200 pound man capable of lifting 400 lb. The threat is minimal, so the amount of force necessary is minimal. She won't hit you anywhere near as hard as you can hit her, she will almost certainly stop before any physical harm is possible considering the relationship and severity of the argument. In addition, you have the option to retreat before any real harm can be done, or physically restrain the attacker without resorting to harm. The force used is not appropriate to the force presented.
Using your strawman analogies, this would be like bumping into somebody on the street, so you punched them in the gut, or if a 10 year old grabbed your leg, and you broke their arm for it.
Yeah, it would look stupid when seeing a 400lbs man running on the streets from a 100lbs woman.
Bringer of Hell
Originally Posted by Oracle
He should have sucked it up and taken it.
People need to realize that this isn't a microcosm for double standards against men with assault. It is irrelevant in the situation that women are capable of committing assault, or than women are treated differently from men when it comes to charges of assault.
Assault is assault, it doesn't matter if women get lighter penalties for committing it,
First, Would you just suck it up and take it? Regardless of physical. stature
Your argument seems extremely biased, because the definition of Justice is EQUAL execution of law for both sexes of all races, and what you are saying is not justice.
Third, You continue to look bias, because it isn't irrelevant when it comes to women being treated differently. It most certainly is a double standard if a woman does not get equal charges for the same crime ?
-----
Originally Posted by Oracle
Self-defense is legal, but the grounds for it are very clear. Was the force used appropriate for the threat? Unarmed 100-150 lb woman, who is your fiancee, has hit you, a 200 pound man capable of lifting 400 lb. The threat is minimal, so the amount of force necessary is minimal. She won't hit you anywhere near as hard as you can hit her, she will almost certainly stop before any physical harm is possible considering the relationship and severity of the argument. In addition, you have the option to retreat before any real harm can be done, or physically restrain the attacker without resorting to harm. The force used is not appropriate to the force presented.
How do you know what the argument was about? How do you know she couldn't break his nose, or knock out a tooth of his. I honestly think you aren't looking from both perspectives....
Last edited by TheLostCarrot; Sep 10, 2014 at 07:36 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
#FindTheCarrot
FAU is the ULTIMATE college experience.
FAU is the ULTIMATE college experience.
Originally Posted by Oracle
The threat is minimal, so the amount of force necessary is minimal.
I don't think that can be deduced merely from the video and their relative weights. But I think it's quite absurd to assume people should 'hold back to an appropriate amount'. Within reason of course, but punching someone who punched you seems reasonable to me.
Originally Posted by Oracle
She won't hit you anywhere near as hard as you can hit her
I think this is a non-argument because as you may have guessed from my examples above, I think it's silly to require people to endure it if they are stronger.
Not to mention that going 'punch for punch' with someone who is aggressively trying to hurt you is just an insane idea. They are putting as much force in as they are trying to hurt you, but you are restricted to punching once for every punch, and only as hard as them? I can appreciate that you could try and escape, but it may or may not be viable in all situations.
Originally Posted by Oracle
she will almost certainly stop before any physical harm is possible considering the relationship and severity of the argument.
I don't think this is a valid argument considering the situation!
Originally Posted by Oracle
In addition, you have the option to retreat before any real harm can be done, or physically restrain the attacker without resorting to harm. The force used is not appropriate to the force presented.
I agree with that, but she started the fight and continued it, she obviously felt that she would win. I think some concession should be given to the fact that she provoked the fight completely.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Using your strawman analogies, this would be like bumping into somebody on the street, so you punched them in the gut, or if a 10 year old grabbed your leg, and you broke their arm for it.
No, it wouldn't be. My analogies were completely in the opposite mate.
And considering that she started the fight, and was willing to continue it, and was the more aggressive party, I don't think you can compare it to bumping in the street or a kid grabbing your leg, so let's not even continue that line of thought.
Originally Posted by Seihareach
Yeah, it would look stupid when seeing a 400lbs man running on the streets from a 100lbs woman.
I suspect this has more to do with gender roles than with relative strength.
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Sep 10, 2014 at 08:02 PM.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I didn't know the US had a law like this.
So I can go around punching people who are stronger than me as much as I like and they can't do shit about it? That's hilarious. If someone's wearing body armor can I shoot them then say "I'm not wearing body armor so no backsies!"?
In Australia punching someone is punching someone, regardless as to who is stronger. Though we do have considerations for self-defense, so because she was charging at him and he was backing up, he would probably get some concession.
In Canada and you're a dude and hit a big dude and he hit back, you'd get in trouble and he was doing nothing but defending himself.
Hahaha, don't shoot people, no matter where in the world it's illegal.
Now 200 pound football player would have no trouble subdueing me even though I too could lay out his wife. He didn't have to punch her. This man is a football player. To think this scrawny woman could injure a man who has gone through extensive training and weightlifting as well as getting tackled all the time is absurd. He's tough physically, like very tough. She has nails, 2 pound arms, and a body of 100 pounds. She would need a weapon. NEED it to do any harm.
Last edited by T0ribush; Sep 10, 2014 at 08:59 PM.
