Read other letters about this article

• Friday, October 26, 2007 11:36 AM

  Self-defense, brawls, and bullies

  Interesting thread, although much of it has gone far afield. For the record, I just want to say that any man who put his hand over my child's mouth and nose cutting that child's air supply, would never see that child again. I wouldn't kill him, but if Winkler really was a battered wife (hard to prove) that surely should have contributed more to pushing her over the edge than having to wear platform shoes. I don't know why this case is indicative of anything. She happened to be a fundie nut married to another fundie nut living in fundie nut country and likely faces a jury of fellow fundie nuts who were shocked near to death at those shoes.

  ______________________________________________________________

  @ jeebery_wonkers who seems eager to have a woman hit him so he can hit her back "twice as hard" and then justify it by self-defense:

  Should I wish you luck in your salivating quest to find a woman who will lay a finger on you so that you may justify an abusive action? I think not. You should do some research on self-defense before you go off twice cocked.

  Read here:

  “In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger.”

  ”Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home is his safest refuge”).　However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.”

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

  Self-defense is usually decided on a case-by-case basis. Only a few jurisdictions offer an assumed innocence by way of stand-your-ground laws. Those adhere to the principle that you need not retreat FROM your house if an invader enters in order to avoid confrontation. In New Mexico there was a case where a man shot a home invader and he was put on trial for manslaughter. The law said that, being able to leave his house, he should have done so.

  When two people live in the same home, it gets more complicated. First, the nature of the threat must be considered. Let us say your GF smacks you with an open hand. The law must find that you have suffered grevious harm in order to retailiate. This usually means that you feared serious injury or feared for your life. You would have to PROVE not only that YOU believed this but that any other reasonable person would believe this.

  Then you have a problem in that you want to be able to retaliate "twice as hard." The law does not give you this. First of all any sniff of "retaliation" injures your self-defense excuse. Self-defense is NOT about retaliation. You can only use a level of defense proportionate to the threat.

  @ Durian Joe:

  I have no doubt that your female fight teacher is formidable. When most women are as fit and trained as she is, then most men would be able to argue self-defense if they reacted to an unprovoked attack by her. This is because your fight teacher is literally a lethal weapon and not because she is a woman.

  Recently I have begun using free weights again to get into shape after a long period of not using them. It is taking me 10 times as long as such similar training did in my thirties. My capacity to build muscle is now vastly diminished. However, even in my thirties I would never have been able to build the sort of muscle that a man of that age would. The law simply does not care about what is unique. It cares about what is common and usual. That is why there is a reasonable person standard.

  A healthy man hitting a woman is simply more likely to inflict damage than a healthy woman hitting a man. Hitting people weaker that we are is nothing but bullying. Two posts by

  damnthatxanadu in the Cary thread where a man was concerned that his wife believed he was cheating on her and she hit them illustrate this well:

  http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/10/22/trust_and_ptsd/view/index6.html?show=all

  http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/10/22/trust_and_ptsd/view/index5.html?show=all

  *** FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE NEVER KICKED ANY MAN IN THE TESTICLES. I SUGGEST THAT ALL THE WOMEN WHO HAVE NEVER DONE THIS WEIGH IN HERE TO REASSURE THE GUY WHO IS PARANOID ABOUT WOMEN KICKING HIM. THESE CHILDHOOD INCIDENTS CAN LEAVE LASTING TRUAMA. ***

  —AKA Smith Read AKA Smith's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel