Do you think hitting a women in self-defence is wrong?

[MysticMac27]

[MlleCake]

If it was actually necessary, then I have no more objection to it than hitting anyone else in self-defense.

Many men are much larger than many women though, so it takes a bit more for a woman to be a physical threat to a man than for a man to be a physical threat to a woman, in general.

I don't condone women getting violent either.

[devilman666]

I disagree, a woman armed with even a high heal shoe can kill a man if she really tries. Even with just her fists, if the woman knows how to throw a punch then she can hit hard, even if she isn't particularly strong.

[MlleCake]

@devilman666 Sure she can, if she "REALLY tries". "Really trying" for men is less of an effort than "really trying" is for women, in general. I am not denying that women can and do become threateningly violent. It's just a little harder.

[devilman666]

Yeah, but I feel like you're trying to make a case for men requiring a certain level of danger before they protect themselves, or telling them they have to hold back a certain amount of strength while taking down an attacker, both of which seem sexist and silly in my opinion. Any one should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm within reasonable limit regardless of the level of danger.

[MlleCake]

@devilman666 I think everyone requires a certain level of danger before they protect themselves. But in the scheme of things, men are far more likely to be injuriously violent to another human being than women are, by huuuuuuuge margins.

I think getting at the roots of all violence is good though. Violence is a terrible problem in society, not matter who the victim and perpetrator are. I am not trying to discount men's experiences with violence in saying what I say. I'm just giving more context, and it's what crossed my mind when I read your question.

[devilman666]

Oh, this isn't my question. I personally am against all violence, but I won't take away anyones right to self defence, even if I would probably react in a non violent way. I agree men are statistically a lot more likely to be violent but I hardly see how this makes a difference.

You say everyone requires a certain level of danger before they protect themselves? Would you mind defining the point when it becomes dangerous enough for people to protect themselves?

[MlleCake]

@devilman666 Oh, when the person asked the question then. Sorry.

[MlleCake]

Personally for me, I really do not know what it would take for me to raise my hands in violent self-defense.

I think the best I can say is that for legal reasons, I want the person to have had an honest and reasonable fear. That's going to by subject to judgement though.

It's not like I can say "you must set your violence sensitivity to 5 and not 7".

[devilman666]

I mean, is it when threats are made? When punches are thrown at you? When a knife is pulled? What about a gun? I think if we're going to say you need to be in a certain amount of danger then we can specify the amount of danger. Does that fear only mean your life or does it include fear of physical pain and/or injury?

[MlleCake]

@devilman666 All good questions. What do you think, say for a legal definition to help define what is an isn't illegal? Where would you set the bar?

That's where a jury of peers really matters. What IS reasonable? I am not sure I could say one way or the other unless I sat on a jury and heard the facts of a specific case.

I did sit on a DV case once. The guy WAS guilty because he did grab her head and press his tumbs and fingers pretty hard and that was technically the definition of an assault. But, the woman had basically been emotionally fucking with the guy the whole weekend, making him move out, but then locking all his stuff in the garage and not letting him get it, then paging him and saying come back and get it, then telling him he couldn't have it again when he walked all the way back from the place where he had gone to find a payphone. I think she had his wallet and his badge and keys for his job in there. Everyone of us really sympathized. But she was NO phys threat.

[devilman666]

Yeah, I agree he should have just gone to the police as she was breaking laws by withholding his property. But don't ask that question back to me, I asked you that because you said you think we need a level of danger before anyone can protect themselves, clearly for you to say that you must think there is a point where self defence becomes allowed, a point where things get too dangerous to just allow them to continue. Since you're claiming everyone requires a certain level of danger before self defence is allowed, what is a good level of danger when people know they can defend themselves?

[MlleCake]

@devilman666 You think I would think that but I don't. I do not know where to set the line. I am not sure I would know unless I heard an extremely detailed account of what precipitated the incident. Even then I might not be sure. At the very least, I think it's subjective.

[devilman666]

How do you think it's subjective? Either there is enough threat to warrant you defending yourself or there isn't. Personally, I think any time anyone is met with a threat posed by another human, they should be allowed to protect themselves to a reasonable and proportional amount as the threat they are in. So basically if someone attacks them with a knife then they can't shoot the guy as that would be disproportionate, but he can pull out his own knife and cut the attacker to scare him off.

[devilman666]

In my opinion, if you don't know where to set the line then you shouldn't try to set any line, if you wouldn't feel okay being unable to protect yourself in a situation then no one else should have to endure it either.

[Pink2000]

Absolutely

media.giphy.com/media/rhmWoynEacH9C/giphy.gif
If a woman is beating on a man and he’s trying to walk away, I would have no problem with him hitting her.

[devilman666]

The image doesn't seem helpful at all, but no, I think if the woman strikes first then it is self defence and she should know better than to start fights with people bigger than her.

[sam8797]

absolutely wrong... Bcoz hitting they show that how much they are dumb

[memyselfandiamhere]

A woman Attacks you with a knif, do you Defend yourself or is that dumb?

[MysticMac27]

What u talking about? can't understand ya

[alice55]

Depend what you call self defense in which case, etc... American self defense is so different than French that I can't you give a response. In America to what I heard you can shoot someone just because he's in your home in France you'll get judged for murder / unnecessary violence.

[devilman666]

I think this is a poor argument to make, especially since you don't actually know the laws you're just going off a rumor. Most countries have a piece in their self defence laws that say that it has to be with reasonable limits of self protection, for example when someone punches you, if you pull out a pistol and shoot the guy, clearly you're going beyond the reasonable limit, it a guy pulls a knife on you, maybe it's a little more reasonable to reach for your pistol?

I think for the most part everyones definition of self defence is the same, though the parameters of how much you can do to protect yourself does change from country to country. Self defence is just protecting yourself when attacked.

[alice55]

@devilman666 It's not the same, not at all. In France you must proves your life was in true danger, that the person truly wanted to kill you to defend yourself.
If you use a gun against a knife it's not counted as self defense but murder. Gun being much more powerful, plus you can you proves the guy with the knife wanted to kill you and not just stole your phone? That's wouldn't be considered self defense in my country.

Anyway if someone wanted to kill you with a knife you wouldn't have the time to get out your gun except if you get it out before the other guys get out his knife in this case you're the attacker not the victim.
Ours laws are much more different and not the same at all. That's not even comparable.

[devilman666]

First of all, you're making a lot of assumptions and seemingly not reading what I wrote.

I'll ignore the comment that you can't pull out a gun after someone attacks you with a knife, that should be clearly stupid. I argued that pulling a gun on someone who has a knife would clearly be an unreasonable level of self defence. So we're not in disagreement there at all, as you seem to think so.

No, your life doesn't have to be in danger to defend yourself in France, if someone punches you then you can push them off of yourself, which takes minimal physical violence and counts as self defence. Self defence can be used by anyone who is in any danger, it just has to be a reasonable amount of force to the amount of danger, as I tried to explain before.

[alice55]

@devilman666 It have to be in danger to defend yourself in France!!
Then it's not call self defense, self defense is a word used only when your life is in danger.

All what you're saying is not self defense. I don't view it like that at all.

[devilman666]

Self defence has nothing to do with the life at danger, just danger in general. Self defence doesn't just include killing the attacker, you could subdue them without harming them and it would be self defence. Yes you need to be in danger, but not necessarily life threatening danger. According to what I found online there are three important parts to self defence in france, has to be at the same time as the threat, proporionate to the threat, which I mentioned earlier as being important, and the threat being unjustified. Nothing to do with life threat, even in your country.

[alice55]

@devilman666 I know the laws of my country more than you, especially since they're changing multiple time a years and my currents president is actually changing every laws of the country so don't go around saying you know the laws better than me. That's just ridiculous.

[devilman666]

I'm just saying what I got online. I don't exactly have the time to read through all your countries laws, so obviously you know the law there better than I do. Connextionfrance. com seems to list those three things as being the way they determine such crimes in France, so I go with that. Whatever though, must suck to not be able to defend yourself if someone starts punching you on the street.

[devilman666]

As you say you can't act in self defence unless your life is at risk. That means if I beat you up in the street and you hit me back then you're just as guilty as I am, right?

[themarkthatsdead]

No, you should use any means necessary to defend yourself against any attacker.

[memyselfandiamhere]

Its Not okay to randomly Hit people, but at self defense, Sure

[Soteris]

Hitting anyone is a crime but as long as its legitimate self defense its permitted. That said a lot of people take this as meaning escalation of conflicts is okey which it is not.

[deanlarouche]

Absolutly it is 100 percent undeniably wrong wrong wrong.. a man who hits a woman is never to be called a man. Because real men do t hit women period.. I will block a womans hit and restrain to calm her down but never ever EVER hit a woman

[Genie23]

In self defense? NO, it's not wrong. Everyone has a right to defend themselves against any attacker

[Giggletr0n]

Nah, regardless of gender, if you hit someone then you should expect to get hit back. It's society that makes us think that women are somehow above getting a kicking if they throw a punch!

[depeche2015]

no. she deserves it if she hits first or is being a bitch.

[Partywithtom]

Hell no it's not wrong. Ifs she's coming at me with a knife you best know I'll be swinging!

[es20490446e]

https://youtu.be/OBlycwuw4Es

[dannyjett]

Only if absolutely neccessary and only in self defense

[Anonymous]

Depends on the situation. If you feel like you are in real danger then it's okay. But hitting anyone when it can be avoided is wrong.

[devilman666]

You're correct, which is why the woman is in the wrong for hitting the man first even if his life isn't in danger. No one should be forced to endure physical pain and abuse, not even men.

[devilman666]

As an additional question, when does it become a real danger? When is a man allowed to protect himself from a woman?

[Juxtapose]

If it got to the point where I had to defend myself then she would regret it unless she is a trained fighter.

[jacquesvol]

Hitting a woman seems an obsession for some anons here

[SirBarristanSelby]

How could defending yourself be wrong? Whether striking is a legitimate form of defence is something i will leave to your judgement.

[Ozzieguy]

If I was being attacked and I needed to defend myself I wouldn't hesitate to stop her.

[ksoma]

Absolutely not. It's self defense.

[Anonymous]

Nope. If a woman hits a man, she no longer gets the special treatment. You can’t go around hitting people and expect to be protected and shielded just because you have a vagina. Fuck that.

[Pamina]

No, it's self defense after all.

[thomasans2]

Never an excuse for raising anything to a woman. Even if she will kick your ass.
It's called having Morals and showing respect.

[Pastuccid]

No man should hit a women period the one time a man hit me I beat the shit out of him he was in the hospital

[MysticMac27]

Lol y u lying

[iamshan]

Why the fuck you lyin, why you always lyin... - _-"

[Cooper24]

No not at all if a woman punches me I punch back
If they fuck around they find out

[Anonymous]

No. If a woman beats on a man, expect him to fight back. He same goes if the roles were reversed.

[CT_CD]

Yes. A woman should never be hit. They are innocent, delicate creatures

[MysticMac27]

Lol get real

[IsoUser]

Apparently you haven't met My Wife LMAO

[Anonymous]

You don't have to hit anybody to defend yourself

[superking75]

Please explain?

[MysticMac27]

What you mean

[Anonymous]

Not anymore. Equality, bitch.

[johari]

Heck ya

[johari]

It's best to just walk away in the heat of the moment befare things get outta hand

[eatadic]

Not at all.

[Casus_Angelus]

I wouldn't do that

[Nachowedgie]

Nope