Does a double-standard exist on the perception of retaliation by men or women right after an assault?

[GreenieMeanie]

It's also possible that people are fully aware of these biases, and don't care. A lot of guys want to be that hero that saves the damsel, and they don't care who's in the wrong.

If you're a short wimpy guy, you're going to know not to cross a guy twice your size that you know could snap you like a twig. Otherwise, when it happens, nobody's gonna feel sorry for you when they see it happening to you, and they're not gonna try to step in and save you.

The same can't be said of women.

That's why I find the argument that men need to be more passive with women on the account of having greater physical strength to be disingenuous. Otherwise, it would also apply to dealings with physically weaker men as well. But it doesn't. Physically weaker men are expected to know better. Women aren't.

I'd love to address to this, but that rabbit hole will detract from the subject of this thread.

I would say, the more technical you get with the concept of use of force, the more your treatment of either equalizes—but not many people think that way, for the simple reason it takes years of training in martial arts and RBSD to understand the line between too much and too little.

 

[Flying Crane]

… for the simple reason it takes years of training in martial arts and RBSD to understand the line between too much and too little.

I disagree, this is a fairly simple concept in US law and does not take years of martial training to understand. It is routinely taught to law students in the context of a classroom, most of whom probably have zero martial training.

In the US the law varies from place to place, but the main concept is that you have the right to defend yourself. However, you do not have the right to administer your own interpretation of justice on the offender, just because you are angry by what he did and you have decided he deserves it. The level of your response is measured against the level of the offense, but the bottom line is that you have an obligation to stop any physical harm that you are causing to the offender when he is no longer a threat to you. This can mean different things in different situations, but if you chase the offender for three blocks and give him a serious beat-down after you have halted his attempted assault on you, you could be prosecuted as the assailant. Once his attempt to assault you has stopped and you can safely move away from him, you no longer have the right to injure him.

Obviously a prosecutor has a lot of discretion to decide if they wish to pursue a case, but the fact is that an over-reaction by the person being initially assaulted can possibly end with his own prosecution.

There. You now have the fundamental tools to understand the line between too little and too much.

 

[HighKick]

I disagree, this is a fairly simple concept in US law and does not take years of martial training to understand. It is routinely taught to law students in the context of a classroom, most of whom probably have zero martial training.

In the US the law varies from place to place, but the main concept is that you have the right to defend yourself. However, you do not have the right to administer your own interpretation of justice on the offender, just because you are angry by what he did and you have decided he deserves it. The level of your response is measured against the level of the offense, but the bottom line is that you have an obligation to stop any physical harm that you are causing to the offender when he is no longer a threat to you. This can mean different things in different situations, but if you chase the offender for three blocks and give him a serious beat-down after you have halted his attempted assault on you, you could be prosecuted as the assailant. Once his attempt to assault you has stopped and you can safely move away from him, you no longer have the right to injure him.

Obviously a prosecutor has a lot of discretion to decide if they wish to pursue a case, but the fact is that an over-reaction by the person being initially assaulted can possibly end with his own prosecution.

There. You now have the fundamental tools to understand the line between too little and too much.

You have fully crossed a line and are completely at the mercy of interpretation. It will now be a verbal spar between attorneys.
In the moment of attack, it is very hard to measure or comprehend "too much" retaliation. There are dozens of cases that are routinely cited where the defendant caused serious or even mortal harm in the act of self-defense and were found justified.
I feel the best thing a person can do is mentally prepare Beforehand and have some degree of understanding on how far they are willing to go to protect themselves or their loved ones.

 

[Flying Crane]

You have fully crossed a line and are completely at the mercy of interpretation. It will now be a verbal spar between attorneys.
In the moment of attack, it is very hard to measure or comprehend "too much" retaliation. There are dozens of cases that are routinely cited where the defendant caused serious or even mortal harm in the act of self-defense and were found justified.
I feel the best thing a person can do is mentally prepare Beforehand and have some degree of understanding on how far they are willing to go to protect themselves or their loved ones.

These things happen, and sometimes they are deemed justified. As I said, it depends on the situation and the laws of the region, as well as the discretion of the prosecutors.

But understanding the concepts of what might be deemed too much is not difficult.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I disagree, this is a fairly simple concept in US law and does not take years of martial training to understand. It is routinely taught to law students in the context of a classroom, most of whom probably have zero martial training.

In the US the law varies from place to place, but the main concept is that you have the right to defend yourself. However, you do not have the right to administer your own interpretation of justice on the offender, just because you are angry by what he did and you have decided he deserves it. The level of your response is measured against the level of the offense, but the bottom line is that you have an obligation to stop any physical harm that you are causing to the offender when he is no longer a threat to you. This can mean different things in different situations, but if you chase the offender for three blocks and give him a serious beat-down after you have halted his attempted assault on you, you could be prosecuted as the assailant. Once his attempt to assault you has stopped and you can safely move away from him, you no longer have the right to injure him.

Obviously a prosecutor has a lot of discretion to decide if they wish to pursue a case, but the fact is that an over-reaction by the person being initially assaulted can possibly end with his own prosecution.

There. You now have the fundamental tools to understand the line between too little and too much.

If it was that straightforward in practice, then you wouldn’t need a great lawyer for self-defense cases tried in court.

 

[Darren]

It is never ok for a man to touch a woman without her permission!! Of course there are facts to look at!!

 

[Flying Crane]

If it was that straightforward in practice, then you wouldn’t need a great lawyer for self-defense cases tried in court.

Defending against prosecution is a different matter. The law can be complex and while it is possible in theory to represent oneself, it is widely regarded as foolish.

However, understanding the law is within reach of most people (you understand concepts like speed limits and no trespassing on private property, yes?). You can understand the fundamentals of what it means to defend yourself within the limits of the law.

Let me ask you a question: your comment to which I had initially responded (post #21 in this thread) where you said it takes years of training in martial arts and RBSD to understand the difference between too much and too little, would you please explain further what you were getting at? If you feel that only a trained attorney can understand the law, then how does years of martial training help?

Further, regarding my post (#22 in this thread), is there anything in what I said that you do not understand?

 

[punisher73]

It REALLY depends on what state you live in and also even more importantly, how does the LOCAL DA/PA view these types of situations and their policies on criminally charging it (both sides).

For example in Michigan, if you grab a female's breast/buttocks, it is considered a Criminal Sexual Conduct 4th, which is a misdemeanor in Michigan. To legally conduct a citizen's arrest in Michigan, it has to be a felony. Michigan is NOT a "stand your ground" state. So, the "self-defense" laws state you can use force to protect yourself from IMMINENT harm. Also, in Michigan, self-defense is considered an "affirmative defense", this means that you admit that you broke the law, but had a good (reasonable) reason to do so.

So, in the situation of a guy grabbing a girl's buttocks and then immediately walking away. In Michigan, the female would not be legally justified in going after the male to "hold onto him" (pin him) or to use any other force against him.

Notice I said, "legal", I am NOT talking about what would be socially acceptable or morally acceptable in this situation. BUT, it could be completely different in another state and jurisdiction. Another factor to consider is that the DA/PA's Office has immunity if they choose to not bring criminal charges forward, the police do NOT have that. So many times the default policy is to submit a warrant request on both parties to CYA.

 

[punisher73]

It is never ok for a man to touch a woman without her permission!! Of course there are facts to look at!!

Or vice versa, I know just as many guys who have been groped by women in bars.

Like we tell small children. "Just keep your hands to yourself and don't touch people". lol

 

[GreenieMeanie]

It is never ok for a man to touch a woman without her permission!! Of course there are facts to look at!!

If you read all the posts carefully, you will see that no one is disagreeing with this.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Defending against prosecution is a different matter. The law can be complex and while it is possible in theory to represent oneself, it is widely regarded as foolish.

However, understanding the law is within reach of most people (you understand concepts like speed limits and no trespassing on private property, yes?). You can understand the fundamentals of what it means to defend yourself within the limits of the law.

Let me ask you a question: your comment to which I had initially responded (post #21 in this thread) where you said it takes years of training in martial arts and RBSD to understand the difference between too much and too little, would you please explain further what you were getting at? If you feel that only a trained attorney can understand the law, then how does years of martial training help?

Further, regarding my post (#22 in this thread), is there anything in what I said that you do not understand?

My point, was more that people often do not have a realistic (and by extension fair) perception of how violence works.

There are attorneys who have successfully argued that the one extra bullet someone shot in succession was “excessive force,” but anyone who understands gun-fighting knows that it’s a disingenuous argument.

Or, more relevant to martial arts, a knife was pulled. We experienced martial artists, and those of us who mix in RBSD, know the difference between a self-defense situation that warrants a knife or does not.

Joe Schmoe Juror who’s never seen a fight outside of streaming video, is going to be swayed by whatever theatrics are thrown at him in court.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

It REALLY depends on what state you live in and also even more importantly, how does the LOCAL DA/PA view these types of situations and their policies on criminally charging it (both sides).

For example in Michigan, if you grab a female's breast/buttocks, it is considered a Criminal Sexual Conduct 4th, which is a misdemeanor in Michigan. To legally conduct a citizen's arrest in Michigan, it has to be a felony. Michigan is NOT a "stand your ground" state. So, the "self-defense" laws state you can use force to protect yourself from IMMINENT harm. Also, in Michigan, self-defense is considered an "affirmative defense", this means that you admit that you broke the law, but had a good (reasonable) reason to do so.

So, in the situation of a guy grabbing a girl's buttocks and then immediately walking away. In Michigan, the female would not be legally justified in going after the male to "hold onto him" (pin him) or to use any other force against him.

Notice I said, "legal", I am NOT talking about what would be socially acceptable or morally acceptable in this situation. BUT, it could be completely different in another state and jurisdiction. Another factor to consider is that the DA/PA's Office has immunity if they choose to not bring criminal charges forward, the police do NOT have that. So many times the default policy is to submit a warrant request on both parties to CYA.

I didn’t know about these thresholds for citizens arrest!

Forgive me—what is CYA?

 

[Hot Lunch]

I didn’t know about these thresholds for citizens arrest!

Forgive me—what is CYA?

Cover your...

 

[Flying Crane]

My point, was more that people often do not have a realistic (and by extension fair) perception of how violence works.

That’s probably a fair assessment.

There are attorneys who have successfully argued that the one extra bullet someone shot in succession was “excessive force,” but anyone who understands gun-fighting knows that it’s a disingenuous argument.

Or, more relevant to martial arts, a knife was pulled. We experienced martial artists, and those of us who mix in RBSD, know the difference between a self-defense situation that warrants a knife or does not.

Joe Schmoe Juror who’s never seen a fight outside of streaming video, is going to be swayed by whatever theatrics are thrown at him in court.

What do you have against jurors? They aren't some separate species without a brain in their heads. They are people like you and I who are doing their civic duty and have life experiences and are capable of reasoned thought. If they are simply swayed by whatever theatrics are thrown at them then they would need to decide in favor of both the prosecution and the defense at the same time. But that doesn’t happen when a verdict is reached.

Anyone can understand the fundamental legal concepts that rule one’s right to self-defense. It takes a small amount of education but is within reach of anyone who desires it. It does not take years of some kind of specialty training. When someone with those years of specialty training tries to claim that only those years of specialty training can give someone this understanding, I question the motives behind such a statement because that is clearly not based in reality.

 

[Ivan]

I watched a video presentation, where woman was touched inappropriately by a man, who walked away immediately after. She grabbed him and pinned him. I'm not going to defend the guy, but a number of us had to wonder if her actions were not only smart, but also legal. I don't know of any credible self-defense instructor that encourages violence when there isn't an active physical threat. The audience of the clip cheered this on, and the presenter encouraged it. When challenged, she said that the prosecutors she spoke to approved of the woman's actions. When asked if this would still be acceptable if the roles were reversed, she also said yes.

My first question--was she in the right?

My second question, if she wasn't-- does a double-standard exist on the perception of retaliation by men or women right after an assault?

It is necessary to remember the cultural context and the significant physical differences that apply. For one, I would have never recommended the woman start a physical confrontation if the man had walked off; if he is willing to harass you in public sexually, what else would he do? As for the double standard, it depends on culture.

Here in the UK, dating at my age is stressful and most young men including myself, have entirely opted out. The double standards are extremely prevalent in an almost predatory way that can be easily taken advantage of, especially in university. If I, as a university student, attend some sort of party or get drunk with a girl and take her home, I am still the one liable as the man and she can accuse me of rape, even if we were both just as intoxicated. Even if the complaint is false, my reputation is ruined, and so are my future job or career prospects.

If I am the one that's drunk, and she "takes advantage" of me, my complaint will fall on deaf ears. The issue is that these are outdated laws in a hyper-progressive culture that believes sexual deviancy, standards, attractions, and behaviors are exactly the same for both men and women. Although the laws take a traditional approach in assuming men can't be victims of rape or sexual assault by the same standards as women, society expects us to behave as if everything between both sexes is entirely equal. As such, these double standards are magnified as the consequence of an offense only applies in one way. This is why there is such an influx of young men amongst red-pill and MGTOW spaces, and in the worst cases, black-pill and incel spaces.

If I go back to Bulgaria, in a more relaxed country with more traditional standards, things change. If a woman gets intoxicated, regardless of whether I am or not, and I take her home, she can still consent and it is her responsibility to take care of herself. Her ability to consent doesn't magically disappear, although of course there is a line such as unconsciousness etc. In the example you cited, the double standard would still apply, but it would be seen more as flirting. If we're all speaking candidly, as men, the majority of us can agree that we would be quite happy to be catcalled or pinched on the *** when walking by the street. It's happened to me many times bartending, and I've always taken it as a compliment. Many of the people around me agree. This is not to say that women should take these as compliments - I am highlighting that actions and their perspective change based on which gender is on the receiving end. Women could, and in most cases should, take these things as a threat.

In a society that posits that men are women have almost no distinguishable biological differences, these double standards are annoying at best, and downright dangerous and exploitable at worst. If a man had his *** pinched, it would be seen as completely acceptable for the man to turn around and knock the woman out, because, after all, we're all equal right? The only reason people complain about these double standards is due to the perception that equality is equivalent to equity, if this is the correct word for it, so men and women expect the exact same treatment for everything. But double standards are necessary so that we are able to take sex and other factors into consideration.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

That’s probably a fair assessment.

What do you have against jurors? They aren't some separate species without a brain in their heads. They are people like you and I who are doing their civic duty and have life experiences and are capable of reasoned thought. If they are simply swayed by whatever theatrics are thrown at them then they would need to decide in favor of both the prosecution and the defense at the same time. But that doesn’t happen when a verdict is reached.

Anyone can understand the fundamental legal concepts that rule one’s right to self-defense. It takes a small amount of education but is within reach of anyone who desires it. It does not take years of some kind of specialty training. When someone with those years of specialty training tries to claim that only those years of specialty training can give someone this understanding, I question the motives behind such a statement because that is clearly not based in reality.

I was explaining some basic stuff about the reality of women’s self-defense to a friend. It seemed like a pretty simple and tame introduction to me—but she was horrified by my advice.

Self-defense on paper is a straightforward matter. In real life, it’s deeply politicized. Two people will watch the same footage and reach completely different conclusions, based on what the “expert” says. That is, unless they experience self-defense for themselves, or they’re put through some RBSD scenarios that challenge their preconceptions.

 

[Hot Lunch]

In a society that posits that men are women have almost no distinguishable biological differences, these double standards are annoying at best, and downright dangerous and exploitable at worst.

This, right here. And I've witnessed this before.

A newly married man with a six-figure salary job, living from paycheck to paycheck. Wife spends his money. Husband tries to resist and deny her the money to spend, she starts physically assaulting him. He defends himself, and goes to jail. Case is dismissed, only because he was able to get his wife to corroborate his side of the story. But he learns his lesson. For a few years after this, he either gives into his wife, or else she'll assault him and force him to defend himself and go to jail for it. Either way, she wins. Needless to say, they're no longer married.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I was explaining some basic stuff about the reality of women’s self-defense to a friend. It seemed like a pretty simple and tame introduction to me—but she was horrified by my advice.

Out of curiosity, what was the advice, and why was she horrified?

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Out of curiosity, what was the advice, and why was she horrified?

Basically—I said there is a clear physical disparity, and as a consequence of that, it would require compensation with extreme and explosive violence via a weapon in the event of a committed assault or rape…like a knife.

 

[drop bear]

That’s probably a fair assessment.

What do you have against jurors? They aren't some separate species without a brain in their heads. They are people like you and I who are doing their civic duty and have life experiences and are capable of reasoned thought. If they are simply swayed by whatever theatrics are thrown at them then they would need to decide in favor of both the prosecution and the defense at the same time. But that doesn’t happen when a verdict is reached.

Anyone can understand the fundamental legal concepts that rule one’s right to self-defense. It takes a small amount of education but is within reach of anyone who desires it. It does not take years of some kind of specialty training. When someone with those years of specialty training tries to claim that only those years of specialty training can give someone this understanding, I question the motives behind such a statement because that is clearly not based in reality.

Have you been through a court case?