Look how non aggressive he is. He definitely didn’t stand up and b-line to kick her while she’s down

What a dip shit you are

Sorry, i wasn’t clear enough.

As far as we can tell this man is at fault. He has assaulted this woman.

I was only pointing out that your blanket statement that there is no context in which this is justified is incorrect. And frankly the attitude is dangerous. Is there any context where the woman can pick up a glass bottle to use as a weapon? Considering the level of harm a glass bottle would cause? Perhaps the justification is she is being attacked by a man that is apparently much stronger than she is? Does that justify it? Or does it only work one way?

Again. I agree. Given all available evidence, it seems this man has unjustly assaulted this woman. But your attitude towards this is just basic.

Once more, the context, the full story, may not make things better for him.

He may deserve a stricter punishment than you would be willing to give him without the context.

Understanding is not defending him. It is defending the research of a fair judgement.

I especially invite you to think about the fact he could be reacting judgementaly to that she says, without taking the time to understand fully. As you are reacting now. And that it would be very wrong of him.

Fucking thank you for speaking up in here.

I don’t need to say anything when you’re inventing my arguments against you and erroneously accusing others of being me.

I hope you think of me every time you see a criticism of a sexist comment on the internet just as you did here.

There’s an old aphorism among trial lawyers:

When the law is on your side, pound the law.

When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.

When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table.

It’s pretty clear who in this thread is pounding the law and the facts, and who is pounding the table.

First of all, as I said above. Anyone who enters this post and isn’t immediately seeing the woman has done nothing wrong is an idiot.

Secondly, the problem with misogynistic boneheads isn’t my tone being impolite. If my being rude is going to make someone “radicalize” their views further being nice wasn’t the thing holding them from changing their views.

This woman is a victim of assault. Period. Any argument otherwise is stupid and deserves to be treated as such. I do not understand people like you who think tone policing and trying to pull some “well if you were nicer I wouldn’t be a misogynist!” Is a valid argument. That is the dumbest shit to say like ever.

I haven’t misread shit. Mr. wannabe lawyer man and dummy who thinks kicking someone is “qUeStiOnAbLe” while touching a drink is assault is fucking goofy. Calling me a misogynist because they’re convinced I’m trying to white knight or something is stupid as fucking hell. Those people can go shower with an appliance.

Also if you think I’m “lashing out” because I’m angry this woman got fucking kicked and shoved, yeah you’re fucking right. That’s disgusting behavior. You want me to act like some preschool teacher and hold people’s hands? Fuck out of here.

Here, questionable does, indeed, mean that I’m pissed off about the kick. As I said, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to condemn him for the kick. “Questionable” arises from one hypothetical possibility that would make my anger inappropriate. Legal doctrine requires the assumption of that hypothetical possibility until conclusively proven otherwise.

Prosecutors always initially overcharge to scare defendants into a plea deal.

Lol mr lawyer at it again 🙄

Like grabbing the drink being violence meriting self-defense.

Sure. But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you’re entire critique would no longer stand. And thats at the core of the issue. Does getting a drink thrown in your face give you carte blanche to escalate to physical violence?

If a man went to grab a woman’s drink, and she threw that drink into the mans face as it began to spill, who would you side with?

I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else’s drink, really under any circumstances. I actually think a woman throwing a drink into a mans face if he’s trying to grab it out of her hand, I think its a pretty reasonable response.

He throws her back with enough force to topple over the bench and lose her glasses.

Again. Lets switch up the gender roles. A man stands up after getting a drink thrown in their face, and comes in to slap a woman who is in a seated position. The woman, remaining seated, both feat remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.

Who would you side with in this scenario?

I would side with the woman. You are always allowed to defend yourself. If someone stands up and comes in to slap you, and you have to push them back, it is what it is. Everyone has the right to self defense.

He literally has to take two steps to throat punch her with enough force to throw her several metres back when she is “brandishing a weapon”

If a man comes at a woman with a weapon, I think the woman has the right to do anything and everything within their power to defend themselves. And sometimes that might result in an excess of force being used. And a woman absolutely should not be constrained to limit that force in the moment. If a man is threatening a woman with a bottle, which is absolutely a lethal weapon, she has any and all rights to defend herself in any manner she sees fit.

I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence. I think if you swapped the roles, we would be praising the woman for the level of restraint they showed. And materially, I suppose, this probably came from local news or was elevated in some manner because this will be going to court, and a decision about who was right and who was wrong in this scenario will be made. We can back test these evaluations.

There is of course the potential for more evidence to be made available. Other angles, maybe more time on either side of the clip. It could dramatically change the context. But if this were the evidence being submitted to court, I think it pretty clearly supports one side over the other, and if I were the mans lawyers, I would put the exact gendered test I’ve done here as a test of the evidence. If a woman would be found to be justified in doing what the man here does, then what the man here has done is justified.

No one is or should be allowed or permitted to use violence against other people. They do not get a “soft pass” on the escalation ladder because of their gender.

If you’re this woman’s lawyer, she’s going to go to jail.

But lets assume that he really suspected that she meant physical harm and pushed her. At that point, until she gets up and tries to attack (assuming that was her intention to start with), the threat is assumed to be paused.

Correct, except for

and tries to attack

She doesn’t need to try to attack. He merely needs to reasonably believe she is continuing her attack.

the threat is assumed to be paused.

While she is on the ground and unable to attack, that is true. If she stayed on the ground, he would have no justification to continue. But, she didn’t stay on the ground. She was back on her feet and beginning to stand when she was kicked.

Otherwise what is the difference between one kick and ten kicks?

Kicking the attacker before they attempt to continue their attack would not be justified.

If an attacker keeps trying to get up and fight 9 times, the 10th kick would be justified.

This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?

It is clearly visible in the video. When you conceded that it could be an “angry push” rather than a “strike”, I didn’t need to belabor the point. An “angry push” is sufficient to justify a forceful response.

Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove.

You say “Nope” and then describe only circumstances where she used force: a “shove” (previously “angry push”) is a use of force.

Nevermind proportionality aspect

“Proportionality” is not a factor in the use of defensive force. The relevant consideration is “reasonably believed necessary to stop the threat”.

Where defensive force is justified, substantially greater force can be justified. If a relatively lesser threat cannot be reasonably stopped except with a substantially greater defensive force, the substantially greater defensive force is justified.

“Reasonably believed to be necessary to stop the threat”.

The threat in this case is the use of her arms to [strike|angry push|shove] him, which is the forceful behavior she was engaging in when she initially stood.

You have to show that it was unreasonable to believe she was attempting to continue this behavior if you want to demonstrate that his use of force was unjustified.