I'm constantly slammed with the contradictory, "You can't hit a woman" critique when I mention that I would indeed hit a woman. If my safety is in immediate danger by ANYONE, you can expect me to hit you.

Depends. If shes flying as knife or a gun around, I doubt anyone would critique you for trying to land a punch. But men are genetically stronger than women so if shes assaulting you (whether it be hitting, kicking, slapping, etc), its not exactly cool to knock her out cold. Its not the punch itself that's the egregious part, its the violent overreaction. 

Oh, hello, CK, I've just started to miss your topics :D

 

To hit a defenseless lady or to restrain a person from dangerous conduct? A big difference here. I call a guy who hits a girl to show his strength a coward. A police officer or another authority figure can do whatever he legally entitled to to prevent danger to others, disregarding the gender, age, etc. (However, if he shows some discretion here, I'd call him a good man. Why shoot a girl if you can just calm her down, then restrain. Why shoot a kid if you can reason with him. And so on)

 

Speaking about legal boundaries, by Russian laws cops can't use firearms against pregnant women. 

Edited February 21, 201511 yr by Hastings

Here's my view on it:

If someone throws the first blow, they have revoked their right to simply walk away and use of force to the degree deemed necessary to defend myself is justified - whether it's a male, female or otherwise committing the assault.

Texas penal code, §9.31.

Ignore the copyright signs... Forum word censor seems to hate this. U+FEFF ftw

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Edited February 21, 201511 yr by EvilJackCarver

Oh, hello, CK, I've just started to miss your topics :D

 

To hit a defenseless lady or to restrain a person from dangerous conduct? A big difference here. I call a guy who hits a girl to show his strength a coward. A police officer or another authority figure can do whatever he legally entitled to to prevent danger to others, disregarding the gender, age, etc. (However, if he shows some discretion here, I'd call him a good man. Why shoot a girl if you can just calm her down, then restrain. Why shoot a kid if you can reason with him. And so on)

 

Speaking about legal boundaries, by Russian laws cops can't use firearms against pregnant women.

Yeah, I enjoy posting topics on social issues such as these :D. I post them on about 4 other forums as well. Interesting though as each forum has a different average opinion from the next.

The one time I got into a physical altercation with a woman, I ended up losing my virginity lol. You don't always need to fight, try to peacefully resolve the situation. It may end better than originally thought.

It depends. If you sneak up behind a woman and hit her in the back of the head then no. If the woman trys to hurt you yes.

In a legitimate act of self-defense, it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman. And if it's simply violence toward another person, that's obviously wrong, but usually is treated as a crime far worse if the victim is a woman.

 

But in general, man can't hit man, man can't hit woman, woman can't hit woman, and woman can't hit man, simply because, well, why would you be hitting people?

Women are magical special creatures that cannot be touched. Everything depends on the circumstances but yes Women can be hit, by men or women. In my opinion people should not be hitting people. Men should not hit men, women should not hit women. This whole im special so you cant touch me because your suppose to be stronger than me is gender roles.

 

I despise gender roles. I am a anything I can do you can do type person. Obviously I cannot hold a baby, but other than that everything is the same. We all have two hands, feet, eyes, arms and a heart. We all have a brain and we all breathe the same air and need the same core things.

 

So yes, Men can hit women, but in the end people should not be hitting anyone.

In general everyday circumstances, absolutely not. But if some crazy woman starts walking up to with a gun or a knife, I'm gonna defend myself and "she gon get hi!t"

Never ever ever ever ever ever never ever ever never never never. End of story

really? are we really asking questions like this you know the answer is no unless she is an attacker and im talking about streets and crime then yes if you wanna abuse your wife you have issues 1950s man

Depends on the circumstances. If the situation legitimately calls for it, then yes. If I could handle it without hitting the person (man or woman), then I'd prefer to do it that way.  

 

 

I think the "never hit a woman" white knight bullshit is rather demeaning towards women. It implies that they're lesser in some capacity. 

Edited February 22, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

if you wanna abuse your wife you have issues 1950s man

What?

You assault or attempt to assault me, you will be on the ground in cuffs in a heartbeat.

In my own personal opinion, the male should never be the instigator, but he should in the case of self defense.

What?

 

some stupid youtube video i dont remember its been so long lol

So in my opinion, it depends. It the man is being assaulted by the women, the man must defend himself accordingly wether it be a firearm, knife, or fist. If the man is just upset with the women, then no, thays just assault...

It all depends on the situation. If woman does something the man doesn't like and he beats her up... then i'm against that, and if i saw a guy doing that, then i'll put him on the floor in a heart beat. If the woman is being crazy and starts throwing punches at the man, or attacks him with the weapon.. then i say the man has every right to defend himself, if that means punching her in the face.. then go for it.

 

if the man is in no danger by the woman then he shouldn't lay a finger on her, if he is in danger and scared for hsi life.. then he has to do whatever it takes to stop it.

My (KRI's) Opinion: Honestly, if there's no reason to hit the woman, then no

But, if the man's life is in danger (Ex: Woman is pointing a gun or waving a knife around) then I would have to say yes.

As for how hard the man would hit, depends on why he's considering/ going to hit in the first place

 

This is my friend's opinion on this as well (almost the same as mine above):

 

My Friend's Opinion: Honestly, if there's no reason to hit the woman, then no

But, if the man's life is in danger (Ex: Woman is pointing a gun or waving a knife around) then I would have to say yes, as a "last option".

By The last option thing, I mean if the man is in a situation where the woman has a weapon (knife, gun, etc.) but isn't paying attention (has her back turned) and he can safely disarm her and get the weapon away from both individuals, then okay. But if it comes to having to hit, then I have to say the man has no choice

 

Edit: A video showing a man abusing a woman in public, and then the woman doing the same thing to the man, can be found here. Now, unfortunately the results/ reactions in that video are true. Everyone reacts to a man abusing a woman (in public), in some way, but when it's the woman abusing the man, in some way (in public) as seen in the video, no one reacts/ does anything

Edited February 23, 201511 yr by Knight Rider Info

If my safety is in immediate danger by ANYONE, you can expect me to hit you.

 

Exactly what I was thinking.  The only time I'm won't hit someone is if they break into my house, then you'll get shot, in the ass.