bunderoon wrote: » Why do you intentionally ignore what has been said here time and time again. No one advocates violence. The ONLY time people are saying here that they would defend themselves against another person is if they have no other option. That's it. Nothing else. You were not the only person here that was brought up well and raised to respect people. Do you hate men or something? Were you bullied? Its the only thing that would make sense if you are calling men brutes for defending themselves. Guna have to leave this nonsensical over and back. Simply, no one should attack another person. If they do, they must be prepared for the consequences. No one thinks its OK to beat the ****e out of a woman - even if in defence. Period.
joe40 wrote: » If a woman just slapped me and no further attack was forthcoming and I was in no further danger then no I would not hit back. I would report the incident as assault and follow it up. If I was under a sustained attack and could get injured I believe hitting back in self defense to stop the attack would be justified.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » You have said plenty. None of it logical. I'm not moving the goalposts at all. The link shows a man being murdered. You replied that it still didn't count. In my case I am incompetent because I was injured and had to use force on a woman. There's a lot of internet warriors ok, your clearly one of them with your online expertise in restrain and police work. Carry on internet ninja
Niner leprauchan wrote: » No, the ones that don't defend themselves or use force get hurt badly and lose the prisoner. You have said numerous times now, you don't consider anything that's being faced as reason to hit a woman. I linked to a case where a man was stabbed to death by a woman and your reply was, that it was still not a valid reason. The man was murdered ffs! Is that your opinion and what makes you an expert? What's the background?
One eyed Jack wrote: » What? No. How many times now - I’m speaking of the behaviour of men. Don’t do Cathy Newman on it and say that I believe there are circumstances where a woman can hit a man. No there aren’t, just the same as there are no circumstances where it’s acceptable for a man to hit a woman. A man who chooses to do that, they’re a scumbag IMO.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don’t need to be an expert either in policing or the Irish law or self defence or any of that stuff to know that men could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they think all bets are off because she threw the first punch or made the first stab. Am I wrong?.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Not a single person, not one has said that. Not a single person has mentioned striking a woman for no reason and not a single person has mentioned hitting a woman multiple times without need. YOU have tried to bring that in, in an attempt to defend your argument. Your argument being that's it's never acceptable under any circumstances for a man to hit a woman. You have stated that multiple times. You have also repeatedly claimed that a man hitting BACK would have him open to assault charges. That's not true. You have spoken absolute nonsense here. Not a single other person be they male or female has agreed with you. No one agreed with you when you tried to slag me off either. Now, as you are not an expert in any area that's remotely connected to the issue, perhaps be more open minded about it because when it's you against the world, it's probable you that's wrong.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I said it could leave men open to being charged with assault, and it could. I didn’t have to bring it in to defend anything as I’m not declaring my own opinion that a man who chooses to hit a woman is a scumbag has any legal standing in the first place. As you imagine yourself to be an expert in the area, that’s why you imagine your opinions are the only ones that matter, no need to be telling me to be more open minded when I can provide evidence to back up my opinions, which is why I don’t need to take you at your word.
jaxxx wrote: » Actually you're speaking a load of old tosh cos you refuse to acknowledge the simple idea of self defence where a man is attacked unprovoked by a woman, and simply trying to defend his own life. You fail to separate this from an case where a man is needlessly attacking a woman. It's all the same coin to you, when it isn't! One is violence for the sake of violence, the other is sufficient violence to defend yourself!
jaxxx wrote: » It's attitudes like this that make it difficult for victims of domestic abuse (both women AND MEN) to come forward and seek help. Or are you that backward that you believe there's no such thing as abusive relationships where the abuser is the woman and the victim the man?
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, you’re trying to draw a distinction as if the only means of self defence is to hit back. It’s not. You can do all the “but what about this scenario, or that scenario, or the other scenario” you want but in reality those are all hypothetical cases, and still the same thing as I’m saying would stand. It won’t matter “who started it” or any of the rest of that nonsense. Do you think I’m that backward that I think you’re the least bit sincere about the above? :rolleyes:
jaxxx wrote: » No sh*t Sherlock. But if a woman comes lunging at you with a knife, are you gonna stand there and take it or try and defend yourself?? SORRY FOR BEING HYPOTHETICAL, GEEZ!
jimgoose wrote: » Yes, I know. And in this hypothetical case of this specific woman coming at me with intent to do violence, she's going down.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » More gibberish. I actually am an expert but I haven't claimed anyone's opinions to be wrong, just yours. That's because it is. It's complete and utter ****e as just about every single other person in this thread thinks.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Or, you know, just ban the troll OP for starting this hateful ****. I guess he just gets hits and no one has the balls to ban him.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You’re obviously having trouble with the difference between defending oneself and attacking another person. But Irish law is pretty clear on what is considered reasonable force in defending oneself from attack -(4) The fact that a person had an opportunity to retreat before using force shall be taken into account, in conjunction with other relevant evidence, in determining whether the use of force was reasonable.Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, S.20 I’m gonna get the fcuk out of there would be my first thought tbh.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”. It’s not saying anything about women because as far as I’m concerned the discussion is about men’s behaviour and male standards of behaviour. I’m not saying anything in any roundabout way either. I don’t have to be an expert either to know that a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they hit a woman. Sure, a woman could leave herself open to assault for hitting a woman too, but that’s an opinion that relates to women who hit women, it has nothing to do with men who hit women leaving themselves open to being charged with assault. I’d say the same thing to women though if the thread were in the Ladies Lounge if it makes you feel better?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Why would an expert be linking to an article where the male victim was murdered then? We don’t charge dead people with criminal offences? The woman who attacked him was being charged with murder in any case, not assault. Why would you agreeing with every other person on this thread make your opinions any more important? I’ll take their opinions with the same weight I’ll give yours.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » That needs to be read with section 18 and with the updated wording as per the defence of dwelling act 2011. And there's actually no legal definition of 'reasonable force' despite your opinion. Go ask the lads in the legal section because I know you won't believe me. Reasonable force, at best can be considered on a case by case basis with regards to what a 'reasonable person' of 'reasonable constitution' would do in the situation. Neither does your quote show that a claim of self defense can't stand merely because the ability to retreat existed. It merely stated that it's a factor. One of many.
Mysterypunter wrote: » If I were fighting her for the world boxing championship and was behind on points needing a good couple of rounds to get back into contention I would, on the serious side of it, there is no advantage to be gained by violence, and in 44 years on earth I have managed to avoid it so far, would not do your brain any good if you did it, and had to think about what you had done, unless I was attacked, and I don't mean physically, I mean with weapons, knives sticks, etc no. If I was attacked by a woman with a knife, I would probably stab her with it, on the basis that if you start it, you are fair game, that's not an action man or rambo reply, just an observation.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I didn’t suggest there was any legal definition of reasonable force. .
One eyed Jack wrote: » But Irish law is pretty clear on what is considered reasonable force
bb1234567 wrote: » You are siding with a woman, you say it's not right for a man to hit a woman who is attacking him and may cause grevious bodily harm, even if she has a weapon. If it comes to that, she will cause far more harm to him than his punch will to her. It may save his life, and may be the only way to protect himself. Yet you still don't accept that behaviour as response to a violent attack. What?
knucklehead6 wrote: » Someday, when he’s a little bit older and more worldly wise One Eyed Jack is going to look at these posts and say to himself “what the absolute **** was I thinking” For what it’s worth I was in a friends house with my wife and his wife one time. They got into an argument and she hit him over something totally innocuous, but she did. He said to her “that’s the fourth time you hit me, KH6 and Mrs KH6 are now witnesses. They are going to take photos of the marks you left (which I have and are on my phone, backed up to pc and the cloud) and next time I’m going to the cops. Her response? “Well what type of man are you to stay with someone who hits you? Your a fkn coward” Now, Mr Jack. In your mind he shouldn’t hit her?? My itchy ballsack he shouldn’t. As an aside the next day she rang us to apologise for her behaviour and blamed PMT. And begged me to delete the photos. I told her I was under no circumstances deleting them
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m fine with my thoughts on this one knucklehead tbh.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e28477cb8381b089d86bb2f8d128369.svg)
