Would you ever hit a woman?

One eyed Jack

Sardonicat wrote: »

Or they don't realise that coercive control (which you sneered at earlier in the thread) is a form of abuse and a crime. Or they are afraid of losing access to their children.

I’ll correct you there in case you thought I was sneering at coercive control. I wasn’t sneering at anything. I just don’t think it’s a good law because it can be used as a defence when a person is accused of assault or in one case in the UK at least, coercive control was used to justify her actions -


Sally Challen walks free: Abused wife who bludgeoned husband to death with hammer will not face jail

Better link here -


Sally Challen walks free as court rules out retrial for killing abusive husband


Essentially, it’s a law that’s ripe for abusers to abuse.

Obviously there can be any number of reasons anyone who is a victim of domestic abuse is afraid to make a report, including losing access to their children, but there is one domestic violence shelter in Galway at least where this policy is changing -

New domestic abuse refuge in Galway will allow mothers to bring their teenage sons with them


EDIT: Sorry, reading back on your post I think you were referring to men who are victims of domestic abuse being afraid of losing access to their children. It’s a fair point and I have known cases where women have claimed that they were the victims of domestic abuse in order to convince the Judge in any case to grant them primary custody of any children involved, but those decisions are based upon what is determined to be in the children’s best interests, not in the best interests of their parents. It’s incredibly unlikely that a male victim of domestic abuse would lose access to their children, simply because that wouldn’t be determined to be in the children’s best interests to cut off access to their father.

knucklehead6

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not true at all though. In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate.

It’s been a long day, I was up till 3am with a primadonna dog who refused to do his business in the back garden cosbit was raining and he didn’t want to get wet, but insisted on barking to be let out every 30 minutes or so. I was also being simultaneously condescending, patronising, narcissistic, abnormal and either drinking eau de concern or bathing in it, I’m not too sure which, so please forgive me if I don’t get the inflection of this just right but, here goes


WHAT??? Most people before the courts on assault charges are actually the defender and not the aggressor???

There’s a character in the Mr Men books called Mr Tickle. He has impossibly long arms and they get all tangled up in knots from time to time. I’m sorry to say this Jack, but for every one of your posts I’m going to imagine Mr Tickle and his impossibly long, tangled up in knots, arms.

One eyed Jack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

WHAT??? Most people before the courts on assault charges are actually the defender and not the aggressor???

What’s difficult to understand about a person who defends themselves from an attack by using disproportionate force being charged with assault? Effectively they moved from being the defender to the aggressor and that’s why they find themselves being charged with assault.


Yeah, I did actually explain that already in the post you quoted -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not true at all though. In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate. They may well have been of the belief that their life was in danger, but whereas most women will only use what force is necessary to stop an immediate assault, men will generally tend to use disproportionate force to subdue their attacker.

That’s why in cases of domestic violence while there has been an increase in recent years of the number of women convicted of assault, it’s still only around 7% of women convicted of assault compared to the 93% of men who are convicted of assault in domestic violence cases.

EDIT: Bolded the important part in case it was unclear the context in which I was specifically referring to.

One eyed Jack

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No no no, I'm trying to ignore you but you cannot keep this crap up. That's simple not true

The majority of people convicted of assault are find guilty because they attacked people without provocation or justification.

You are outright lying now and I can't let that go. People reading this, especially those in abusive relationships don't need you scaring them into inaction when their lives are in danger.

Folks, this guy is lying. He has no training, experience or knowledge of the law, Criminal investigations or self defence. Do not listen.

If you are under threat of physical harm, you can defend yourself. Don't be confused and don't let this guy turn you from the defender to the aggressor.

The case he refers to in an attempt to justify his argument, the male was convicted of assault because he followed the woman off a bus and launched a 2 punch attack on her. He was not convicted for anything that happened in the bus.

You’re accusing me of lying about something I never said in the first place, but you can’t let it go?

I never suggested anyone can’t defend themselves if they are under threat of physical harm. I never said anything about the majority of people convicted of assault.

I did say on numerous occasions now that you should address what I have said, rather than making stuff up that I haven’t said at all and then accusing me of lying.

Nobody is turning anyone from the defender into the aggressor. In the case I referred to, the point I was making was that the male was attempting to portray himself as the victim and claiming he acted in self defence. That’s all I’ve said about that case. I even cited the part in the case where the Judge made the point -


'But undoubtedly, there was a complete over-reaction by Mr. Purdy. Each blow was a crippling blow. Either blow in itself is classed as an assault causing harm.'


I’ve underlined the really important part for you.

EDIT: In case it’s not explicitly clear - Purdy was determined to be the aggressor in that case, in spite of his attempts to portray himself as the defender.

knucklehead6

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s difficult to understand about a person who defends themselves from an attack by using disproportionate force being charged with assault? Effectively they moved from being the defender to the aggressor and that’s why they find themselves being charged with assault.


Yeah, I did actually explain that already in the post you quoted -





EDIT: Bolded the important part in case it was unclear the context in which I was specifically referring to.

Jack. Please. Re read what you posted.

Here it is here again

That’s not true at all though. In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate

Now I sincerely hope there’s a word or few missing there. Or maybe you think you are explaining something correctly.

But here is how I am reading it.

That’s not true at all though. = KH6, no issue. It’s English, and a sentence.

In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate = KH6, in most cases where someone is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves IN AN ALTERCATION THAT THEY STARTED.

Now maybe it’s just me, and the tiredness I mentioned earlier is getting to me, 3 hours sleep and a full day at work etc.

But I really hope you missed out some pretty important details on your post.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re accusing me of lying about something I never said in the first place, but you can’t let it go?

I never suggested anyone can’t defend themselves if they are under threat of physical harm. I never said anything about the majority of people convicted of assault.

I did say on numerous occasions now that you should address what I have said, rather than making stuff up that I haven’t said at all and then accusing me of lying.

Nobody is turning anyone from the defender into the aggressor. In the case I referred to, the point I was making was that the male was attempting to portray himself as the victim and claiming he acted in self defence. That’s all I’ve said about that case. I even cited the part in the case where the Judge made the point -


'But undoubtedly, there was a complete over-reaction by Mr. Purdy. Each blow was a crippling blow. Either blow in itself is classed as an assault causing harm.'


I’ve underlined the really important part for you.

EDIT: In case it’s not explicitly clear - Purdy was determined to be the aggressor in that case, in spite of his attempts to portray himself as the defender.

Oh my God I can't keep doing this. Someone else please.

Your have said numerous times there's no excuse for force against a woman

You have said men that user force are cowards

You have directly, as quoted by me before, claimed a very black and white definition of reasonable force that does not exist

You have just above and quoted by someone else started that the majority of assault convictions are against people that claimed self defence. Here is is again;

"In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate"


That's all lies. That's simple not true.

Your case about purdy means sweet fa. One guy cried "self defence" in a case where he attacked a woman. So ****ing what???? Lots of defendants claim lots of things. The true self defense claims rarely if ever make it to a court.

Genuine self defence including physical force against women, is and always will be acceptable in the eyes of the law. We're not idiots, we can tell the difference.

One eyed Jack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Jack. Please. Re read what you posted.

Here it is here again

That’s not true at all though. In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate

Now I sincerely hope there’s a word or few missing there. Or maybe you think you are explaining something correctly.

But here is how I am reading it.

That’s not true at all though. = KH6, no issue. It’s English, and a sentence.

In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate = KH6, in most cases where someone is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves IN AN ALTERCATION THAT THEY STARTED.

Now maybe it’s just me, and the tiredness I mentioned earlier is getting to me, 3 hours sleep and a full day at work etc.

But I really hope you missed out some pretty important details on your post.

Sorry KH, you’re right, I thought it was clear I was speaking in the context of circumstances where a person is defending themselves from an attack, or in circumstances where they are defending someone from an attacker, that they COULD find themselves being charged with assault if it’s determined that they went too far, that the level of force used was unreasonable and therefore unjustified.

They are perfectly free to claim self defence, they are perfectly free to claim that they believed their life or the life of the person they were defending was under immediate threat, they may claim the other person started it, but none of the above will indemnify them from criminal charges being brought against them.

That’s why I say if someone wants to defend themselves, have at it, I’m not in any position to determine what the outcomes or consequences for them might be, nobody is, because the circumstances haven’t happened. It’s impossible to say how a hypothetical scenario would go for certain or what the outcomes of any hypothetical scenario might be.

Of course in the example I gave earlier it was clear the guy overreacted, even if he had claimed he was defending himself and he had the injuries to show for it. I know you’re looking for us all to be on the same page and all, but everyone is going to have their own ideas of what they consider reasonable self defence in the circumstances in which they find themselves if they’re ever attacked by a woman.

Clare Kat

Sardonicat wrote: »

So you are saying in one breath you didn't fight (not saying you were wrong there, by the way) because you knew the outcome for you would have been worse and at the same time saying that you acted on principle. You didn't. You did what you had to do to survive. You weren't telling yourself "I cant kick/bite/punch because its wrong". you were saying "If I kick/bite/punch, he will kill me".

I was simply referring to one particularly violent incident. It’s never a once off by the way. It’s a constant barrage of both mental and physical abuse. The abuser is so manipulative that you start to question your own name. There were many times that I was being pushed choked, spit at when I didn’t retaliate, not because it was a fight/flight incident but because I’m not that kind of person. I would never hurt someone that I love.

One eyed Jack

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Oh my God I can't keep doing this. Someone else please.

Your have said numerous times there's no excuse for force against a woman

You have said men that user force are cowards

Those are my own personal opinions. I’m well aware of the difference between my personal opinions and Irish law.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You have directly, as quoted by me before, claimed a very black and white definition of reasonable force that does not exist

No, what I said is that in Irish law there is an understanding of what is considered reasonable force. I didn’t claim there was any definition in black and white. You as good as expanded on what I had said by pointing out that the reasonable person standard is used. That’s not a contradiction of what I said. I figured it was understood, my bad.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You have just above and quoted by someone else started that the majority of assault convictions are against people that claimed self defence. Here is is again;

"In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate"

That's all lies. That's simple not true.

I’ve since clarified what I meant there.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Your case about purdy means sweet fa. One guy cried "self defence" in a case where he attacked a woman. So ****ing what???? Lots of defendants claim lots of things. The true self defense claims rarely if ever make it to a court.

Genuine self defence including physical force against women, is and always will be acceptable in the eyes of the law. We're not idiots, we can tell the difference.

I’m aware of all that.

None of that takes from the fact that there are idiots who imagine that they can claim hitting someone who hit them first is ok because they can claim it was self defence. Unfortunately for a lot of women, there are idiots who can’t tell the difference, they imagine they have a genuine justification for their behaviour that they were attacked first.

Even members of AGS can sometimes have difficulty with the concept -


Garda convicted of assaulting RTÉ cameraman during street protests


This was the outcome of that particular case above -


Suspended sentence for garda who struck RTÉ cameraman

knucklehead6

Clare Kat wrote: »

I was simply referring to one particularly violent incident. It’s never a once off by the way. It’s a constant barrage of both mental and physical abuse. The abuser is so manipulative that you start to question your own name. There were many times that I was being pushed choked, spit at when I didn’t retaliate, not because it was a fight/flight incident but because I’m not that kind of person. I would never hurt someone that I love.

maybe i'm lucky, maybe i'm stunningly naive, but i just don't understand how anyone could love someone who treats them that way.

greenspurs

Echo chamber thread now.... jeez.

Wibbs

knucklehead6 wrote: »

maybe i'm lucky, maybe i'm stunningly naive, but i just don't understand how anyone could love someone who treats them that way.

Abuse is a very complex thing with very complex dynamics and part of it can be the abused being made to feel somehow guilty for the abuse and them wanting to stay to somehow fix it. Seems crazy from the outside but it's part of the repertoire of abusers to reinforce that. It's one big reason why so many in such relationships don't simply leave, which seems like the obvious thing to do. There can be other things in play holding them there too; basic financial reasons, or if there are children involved, even what other may think if they leave.

One eyed Jack

greenspurs wrote: »

Echo chamber thread now.... jeez.

In all fairness it’s hardly been an echo chamber when posters who claim to know Irish law better than others are giving people the impression that they have carte blanche to commit assault by claiming they were acting in self defence. Nowhere in Irish law does it suggest that anyone can do any such thing and they won’t be held liable for the consequences of their actions.

Even the OP questioned whether one posters behaviour was unlawful where the poster justifies their behaviour by claiming they were being nagged to get a job. Anyone in similar circumstances can now claim that they were the victim of coercive control by way of justifying their behaviour in domestic violence cases.

The fact that there are people who aren’t familiar with Irish law and imagine all bets are off and they can do what they like or dish out their own brand of “eye for an eye justice” or “she started it, I just finished it” if they are attacked by a woman is good enough reason for the thread to exist, because that idea simply couldn’t be further from reality.

greenspurs

"an echo chamber is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulates them from rebuttal"


It is an echo chamber.

Wibbs

Then offer a rebuttal. Nobody is stopping you. Just bleating "echo chamber" hardly helps it not be one.

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In all fairness it’s hardly been an echo chamber when posters who claim to know Irish law better than others are giving people the impression that they have carte blanche to commit assault by claiming they were acting in self defence. Nowhere in Irish law does it suggest that anyone can do any such thing and they won’t be held liable for the consequences of their actions.

Even the OP questioned whether one posters behaviour was unlawful where the poster justifies their behaviour by claiming they were being nagged to get a job. Anyone in similar circumstances can now claim that they were the victim of coercive control by way of justifying their behaviour in domestic violence cases.

The fact that there are people who aren’t familiar with Irish law and imagine all bets are off and they can do what they like or dish out their own brand of “eye for an eye justice” or “she started it, I just finished it” if they are attacked by a woman is good enough reason for the thread to exist, because that idea simply couldn’t be further from reality.

I haven't seen anyone say anything remotely like that.

Everyone knows you can't simply say "self defense" and everything will be ok. Just because defendants use that defense doesn't mean it works.

Also no right minded man is saying she hit me first so I have carte blanche to retaliate.

As for your dismissive attitude to coercive control, I don't know where that is coming from. Domestic violence is a particularly nasty and harmful form of domestic abuse but it can be identified. Coercive control however can also be extremely damaging form of domestic abuse but much easier to hide. Sometimes the victim justs accepts it as normal.

I really don't understand your argument, are you say there is no circumstances where someone should use violence.

I'm lucky enough to have never been in a fight in my life as an adult and would avoid one at all costs. But I can still imagine a situation where I would be forced to defend myself. Surely that is a reasonable position.

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone say anything remotely like that.

Everyone knows you can't simply say "self defense" and everything will be ok. Just because defendants use that defense doesn't mean it works.

Also no right minded man is saying she hit me first so I have carte blanche to retaliate.

No everyone doesn’t know that you can’t simply say self defence and everything will be ok. It doesn’t matter that it does or doesn’t work because the damage is done by then. Your argument is predicated on “right minded men”, but that hypothetical right minded man is based upon yourself. It’s not based upon the men who think “she hit me first so now I have carte blanche to claim self defence and hit back”.

One is still liable for the consequences of their actions, but it’s a bit late having to make that point when the damage is already done. That’s what the authorities are there for, for people to make a complaint if they have been or are the victim of assault. There’s a difference between justification, and retaliation - Irish law recognises one, not the other.

joe40 wrote: »

As for your dismissive attitude to coercive control, I don't know where that is coming from. Domestic violence is a particularly nasty and harmful form of domestic abuse but it can be identified. Coercive control however can also be extremely damaging form of domestic abuse but much easier to hide. Sometimes the victim justs accepts it as normal.

Like I said I’m well aware of the intent of the law, I just think it’s bad law which is ripe for abuse by abusers, and not likely to be of any use whatsoever to protect people who are victims of domestic violence. It was introduced as a new model of domestic violence that sets the barrier so low that anyone can be accused of committing an offence, and anyone can use it to justify their actions -


Offence of coercive control

39. (1) A person commits an offence where he or she knowingly and persistently engages in behaviour that—

(a) is controlling or coercive,

(b) has a serious effect on a relevant person, and

(c) a reasonable person would consider likely to have a serious effect on a relevant person.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person’s behaviour has a serious effect on a relevant person if the behaviour causes the relevant person—

(a) to fear that violence will be used against him or her, or

(b) serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse impact on his or her usual day-to-day activities.


From here - Offence of coercive control

joe40 wrote: »

I really don't understand your argument, are you say there is no circumstances where someone should use violence.

I'm lucky enough to have never been in a fight in my life as an adult and would avoid one at all costs. But I can still imagine a situation where I would be forced to defend myself. Surely that is a reasonable position.

No I’m not, you do you or whatever and all that, I’m unlikely to care one way or the other really. I’ve often used violence, and will likely do so again in the future, but the one thing I wouldn’t do is ever use violence against a woman under any circumstances. That’s just me. Whatever anyone else chooses to do is entirely up to them. In just the same way as I know I am liable for the consequences of my actions, they too should be aware of that, before they get any ideas about gender equality.

Defending yourself is an entirely reasonable position. How you defend yourself and whether or not your actions were reasonable could only be determined afterwards though, and not by your individual standards (or rather not you personally, but any individual, right minded thinking or not).

joe40

I think everyone knows the difference between justification and retaliation. Or more importantly the difference between retaliation and self defense.
The vast majority of posters have certainly made the distinction very clearly.

It is interesting that you say you have used violence many times and will likely do so again.
I don't know what kind of lifestyle results in multiple instances of violence.

Have you ever been charged with assault?

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

I think everyone knows the difference between justification and retaliation. Or more importantly the difference between retaliation and self defense.
The vast majority of posters have certainly made the distinction very clearly.

They clearly don’t, and while it might be more important to you to distinguish between retaliation and self defence, that’s not particularly important in the context of Irish law. That the majority of posters here have made the distinction is neither here nor there, it’s the ones who don’t care for the distinction and care less about Irish law, that I’d be more concerned about.

joe40 wrote: »

It is interesting that you say you have used violence many times and will likely do so again.
I don't know what kind of lifestyle results in multiple instances of violence.

Have you ever been charged with assault?

Not yet, I’d never rule it out though, it’s certainly something I’m always aware of as a possible consequence of my actions.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They clearly don’t, and while it might be more important to you to distinguish between retaliation and self defense, that’s not particularly important in the context of Irish law. That the majority of posters here have made the distinction is neither here nor there, it’s the ones who don’t care for the distinction and care less about Irish law, that I’d be more concerned about.





Not yet, I’d never rule it out though, it’s certainly something I’m always aware of as a possible consequence of my actions.

Picture the scene:
Male1 attacks Male2
Male2 repeatedly asks male1 to stop. While also avoiding, ducking, tries walking backwards/retreating while possibly gets hit once or several times in the course of the attack.
Male2 has exhausted all other options, including holding and restraining male1. Male 1 keeps trying to attack. As male1 swings again, male2 hits back to defend himself. Male1 rethinks twice about proceeding now after male 1 defends himself.

Qs -
1) Is male2 guilty of assault? If yes, why?
2) Did male2 defend himself appropriately?
3) What would you do in that circumstance?


The vast majority of people here (excluding the clowns) are talking about the above situation when they say that they would hit another person.

One eyed Jack

bunderoon wrote: »

Picture the scene:
Male1 attacks Male2

...

The vast majority of people here (excluding the clowns) are talking about the above situation when they say that they would hit another person.

And how exactly does men offering an opinion on that hypothetical scenario address the situation where the other person is a woman?

Presenting a scenario which suits oneself is really just rather convenient, but it’s avoiding the question being asked.

Some men have answered the question that they would see no difference in gender in terms of hitting anyone in self defence. Some men have answered the question in a way that they have to clarify the scenario where the woman has a weapon and all the rest of it, or women can be violent too, or any number of other circumstances that they are of the opinion where they would see it as justifiable to hit a woman.

I absolutely get that and I’d take it on good faith, and I don’t expect there will be too many posters here will actually go beyond the hypothetical that suits themselves. They’d have to walk it back a fair bit to get to the point where they would feel justified in hitting their partner because she was nagging them to get a job, and then call it schoolyard stuff.

But that’s where the focus should be IMO, not on the idea of pushing a narrative that suggests ‘domestic violence is 50/50’ or a ‘gender‘ or ‘relationship issue‘ as though the above scenario is actually any way equal in terms of the consequences of their behaviour, so people can pat themselves on the back for their egalitarian stance.

It’s easy to say that the vast majority of people here agree with y’know, whatever, gender equality or some such, or that if someone doesn’t share their opinions they’re lying and all the rest of it, or don’t know what they’re talking about, and it’s easy to dismiss people as clowns, but none of that means anything when the people themselves know that the idea of hitting a woman is generally frowned upon by most men and they would likely keep such an opinion to themselves for fear that they would be ostracised. They certainly wouldn’t be getting thanks or any credit for it.

listermint

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And how exactly does men offering an opinion on that hypothetical scenario address the situation where the other person is a woman?

Presenting a scenario which suits oneself is really just rather convenient, but it’s avoiding the question being asked.

Some men have answered the question that they would see no difference in gender in terms of hitting anyone in self defence. Some men have answered the question in a way that they have to clarify the scenario where the woman has a weapon and all the rest of it, or women can be violent too, or any number of other circumstances that they are of the opinion where they would see it as justifiable to hit a woman.

I absolutely get that and I’d take it on good faith, and I don’t expect there will be too many posters here will actually go beyond the hypothetical that suits themselves. They’d have to walk it back a fair bit to get to the point where they would feel justified in hitting their partner because she was nagging them to get a job, and then call it schoolyard stuff.

But that’s where the focus should be IMO, not on the idea of pushing a narrative that suggests ‘domestic violence is 50/50’ or a ‘gender‘ or ‘relationship issue‘ as though the above scenario is actually any way equal in terms of the consequences of their behaviour, so people can pat themselves on the back for their egalitarian stance.

It’s easy to say that the vast majority of people here agree with y’know, whatever, gender equality or some such, or that if someone doesn’t share their opinions they’re lying and all the rest of it, or don’t know what they’re talking about, and it’s easy to dismiss people as clowns, but none of that means anything when the people themselves know that the idea of hitting a woman is generally frowned upon by most men and they would likely keep such an opinion to themselves for fear that they would be ostracised. They certainly wouldn’t be getting thanks or any credit for it.

wow its been like a week of this, and you are still not coming up looking any better. Weak arguments and outdated comprehension does not make one correct. but we are all entitled to our views i suppose.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And how exactly does men offering an opinion on that hypothetical scenario address the situation where the other person is a woman?

Presenting a scenario which suits oneself is really just rather convenient, but it’s avoiding the question being asked.

Some men have answered the question that they would see no difference in gender in terms of hitting anyone in self defence. Some men have answered the question in a way that they have to clarify the scenario where the woman has a weapon and all the rest of it, or women can be violent too, or any number of other circumstances that they are of the opinion where they would see it as justifiable to hit a woman.

I absolutely get that and I’d take it on good faith, and I don’t expect there will be too many posters here will actually go beyond the hypothetical that suits themselves. They’d have to walk it back a fair bit to get to the point where they would feel justified in hitting their partner because she was nagging them to get a job, and then call it schoolyard stuff.

But that’s where the focus should be IMO, not on the idea of pushing a narrative that suggests ‘domestic violence is 50/50’ or a ‘gender‘ or ‘relationship issue‘ as though the above scenario is actually any way equal in terms of the consequences of their behaviour, so people can pat themselves on the back for their egalitarian stance.

It’s easy to say that the vast majority of people here agree with y’know, whatever, gender equality or some such, or that if someone doesn’t share their opinions they’re lying and all the rest of it, or don’t know what they’re talking about, and it’s easy to dismiss people as clowns, but none of that means anything when the people themselves know that the idea of hitting a woman is generally frowned upon by most men and they would likely keep such an opinion to themselves for fear that they would be ostracised. They certainly wouldn’t be getting thanks or any credit for it.

So would you consider a male striking another male in defense (after all other avenues exhausted) to be assault? If no, why not, If yes, is it justified regardless of the law.

pasted from above:
Qs -
1) Is male2 guilty of assault? If yes, why?
2) Did male2 defend himself appropriately?
3) What would you do in that circumstance?

One eyed Jack

listermint wrote: »

wow its been like a week of this, and you are still not coming up looking any better. Weak arguments and outdated comprehension does not make one correct. but we are all entitled to our views i suppose.

Looking any better?

I can say hand on heart that “looking good”, or virtue signalling among anonymous randomers on social media, has never been of any concern to me whatsoever :pac:

If I say I have no problem with hitting women, do I then become acceptable to you listermint? Until such a time as we have a difference of opinion again and yet again in order to look good to you I have to capitulate to your point of view again?

You can keep your thanks.

One eyed Jack

bunderoon wrote: »

So would you consider a male striking another male in defense (after all other avenues exhausted) to be assault? If no, why not, If yes, is it justified regardless of the law.

pasted from above:
Qs -
1) Is male2 guilty of assault? If yes, why?
2) Did male2 defend himself appropriately?
3) What would you do in that circumstance?

He could be found guilty of assault, it would depend on the circumstances as to whether his actions were reasonable or not. See for example the earlier case I linked to when the Garda was convicted of assault. He had no right to strike the man in the groin area with his baton and the victim called it rightly IMO -


He agreed that he said the words “you ****ing animal” “when Garda Lucey hit me full force in the groin”.


RTÉ cameraman claims bruising to groin in altercation with garda at anti-racism protest


In that circumstance I wouldn’t be thinking I could act regardless of the law. I would defend myself of course. It would be a matter for the Judge or Jury to decide whether I might be guilty of an offence under Irish law after that if it went that far.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He could be found guilty of assault, it would depend on the circumstances as to whether his actions were reasonable or not. See for example the earlier case I linked to when the Garda was convicted of assault. He had no right to strike the man in the groin area with his baton and the victim called it rightly IMO -


He agreed that he said the words “you ****ing animal” “when Garda Lucey hit me full force in the groin”.


RTÉ cameraman claims bruising to groin in altercation with garda at anti-racism protest


In that circumstance I wouldn’t be thinking I could act regardless of the law. I would defend myself of course. It would be a matter for the Judge or Jury to decide whether I might be guilty of an offence under Irish law after that if it went that far.

The OP wasnt talking about the legality of it. We all know there could be legal repercussions regardless of gender.

So that's it then, you would defend yourself if it eventually resorted to requiring that. Good, so would 95% of the people here. Everything else is a piss poor attempt at word salad.

I guess the thread can be closed. But then again....

One eyed Jack

bunderoon wrote: »

The OP wasnt talking about the legality of it. We all know there could be legal repercussions regardless of gender.

So that's it then, you would defend yourself if it eventually resorted to requiring that. Good, so would 95% of the people here. Everything else is a piss poor attempt at word salad.

I guess the thread can be closed. But then again....

Hold on a minute. You’re taking what I said in the context of one hypothetical scenario you presented in which the attacker was male, and from that you’re concluding I would hit a woman in self defence?

That’s nothing more than an incredibly dishonest discussion tactic. The OP is asking in the Gentleman’s Club whether posters (the vast majority of whom are likely to be men), would hit a woman. Then in their post they clarify that they’re asking in the context of self defence.

There’s nothing about asking men would they hit another man, or would they hit another man in self defence. The question was relating to whether men here would ever hit a woman. No word salad necessary, could have been a simple yes/no poll and the OP would have had their answers.

Completely changing the context of the question is just dishonest and lacking in integrity IMO. You just did the same as the OP, whereas you could have been straight up about it, instead of using the answer I gave you to one question as though I was giving you the answer to a completely different question.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hold on a minute. You’re taking what I said in the context of one hypothetical scenario you presented in which the attacker was male, and from that you’re concluding I would hit a woman in self defence?

That’s nothing more than an incredibly dishonest discussion tactic. The OP is asking in the Gentleman’s Club whether posters (the vast majority of whom are likely to be men), would hit a woman. Then in their post they clarify that they’re asking in the context of self defence.

There’s nothing about asking men would they hit another man, or would they hit another man in self defence. The question was relating to whether men here would ever hit a woman. No word salad necessary, could have been a simple yes/no poll and the OP would have had their answers.

Completely changing the context of the question is just dishonest and lacking in integrity IMO. You just did the same as the OP, whereas you could have been straight up about it, instead of using the answer I gave you to one question as though I was giving you the answer to a completely different question.

Then basically you would defend yourself against a man if you were inserious danger. But you will not defend yourself if against a woman if you are in serious danger.

Ok.

One eyed Jack

bunderoon wrote: »

Then basically you would defend yourself against a man if you were inserious danger. But you will not defend yourself if against a woman if you are in serious danger.

Ok.

I would have properly clarified for you if I’d known the actual intent of your question. Really basic -

Would I ever hit a man? Yes.

Would ever I hit a woman? No.


Circumstances are irrelevant as far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t have to be in any danger before I’d hit a man, and I wouldn’t hit a woman even if I were in danger.

Attack is one means of defending oneself or others, retreat is another, that’s what is meant by self defence. The idea of hitting someone is justifiable as a last resort only, as opposed to the idea some people have here that hitting a woman is the first thing they’d do. In reality they’d likely hesitate not knowing what to do in that situation, and that could cost them if a woman doesn’t have the same moral compass they do :pac:

Had the question in the OP not been phrased as a sort of a “gotcha!”, and just as a simple poll with yes/no as the only two options to the question of whether men here would hit a woman, I suspect the outcome of the poll would be very different. The question on its own is useless in any case as the men who might answer yes aren’t likely to be honest about it :rolleyes:

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would have properly clarified for you if I’d known the actual intent of your question. Really basic -

Would I hit a man? Yes.

Would I hit a woman? No.

Had the question in the OP not been phrased as a sort of a “gotcha!”, and just as a simple poll with yes/no as the only two options to the question of whether men here would hit a woman, I suspect the outcome of the poll would be very different. The question on its own is useless in any case as the men who might answer yes aren’t likely to be honest about it :rolleyes:

"Arent likely to be honest about it" well of course YOU'd think that... backed by zero evidence. But that is the person you are. More power to you.

But lookit, the OP (troll or not) asked a question, a one liner. It's up to us to answer if we would and under what circumstances. That has been done. Done to death at this stage. You knew, we all knew what the OP was asking. You chose to go down a seemingly endless zig zag path. We didn't.
You wouldn't under any circumstance.
95% of people here would if all other avenues were exhausted and their personal health and safety was greatly threatened.

That's it.

The thread reached it end ages ago. I've no interest to carry it on. I'll leave it here.