is that wrong? The question is whether it was defense or retribution.

His actions wholly and completely instigated anything that occurred.

He grabs her ass.
Is it appropriate to break his nose?
Is it appropriate to bite his ear off?
Is it appropriate to break one of his fingers?
Is it appropriate to kick him in the nuts so hard that he needs surgery?
Is it appropriate to punch him in the kidney so hard that it gets damaged?
Is it appropriate to smack him on the head with a bottle?
Is it appropriate to assault him with a sharp object?
Is it appropriate to kill him?

You said "anything".
If you don't keep your cool in that situation, you're going down the moral slippery-slope pretty quick.

He grabs her ass.
Is it appropriate to cup her boob?
Is it appropriate to tweak her nipple?
Is it appropriate to palm her muff?
Is it appropriate to press his erect penis through his clothes against her thigh?
Is it appropriate to digitally penetrate her?

You said, "Not physically hurt"
If you don't keep your cool in that situation, you're going down the moral slippery-slope pretty quick.

Keep your God-damned hands to your God-damned self. Women aren't here to serve as lab rats to discern the moral and legal limits of sexual assault.

My point is: His assault on her human rights and her physical attack on his nose are not comparable.
Did he deserve it? Yes.
Was it legal? No.
Why? Because our society is not built upon retaliation.
You cannot weigh mental damages, physical damages and monetary damages against each other.
You cannot compile a list, which kind of battery were the appropriate response to which kind of sexual assault.
You cannot compile a list, how much in monetary damages wre the appropriate response to a beating.
And you cannot compile a list, how long of a prison-term were appropriate for a theft of a particular amount of money.

He behaved like scum and deserved on a moral level what happened to him in that particular situation. But just because he chose to act outside of the moral/social/legal limits of society, that doesn't mean that she's no longer bound to the legal limits of society when exacting revenge on him.

So, if he sexually assaults her he takes his chances. If she had been somebody's teenaged child and the father saw it I doubt many in the court of public opinion would demand a conviction of the father. She stood-up for herself. She is to be applauded. Hopefully the groper learned enough of a lesson that he has lost the desire to repeat his assault.

As portrayed in the OP, the story indicates that she acted very quickly. Her reaction is just as likely to have been a conditioned reflexive response to someone grabbing her in an aggressive and inappropriate manner as it is to have been a deliberate act of aggression. When a man takes it upon himself to sexually assault me, I don't know in that moment what he is or is not capable of. I do know that it is likely he is physically stronger than me and if I wait for him to escalate force, I will be outmatched. The safest option in my opinion is to incapacitate him as quickly as possible, and striking him hard enough to break his nose seems like a quick and effective way to do that. And this isn't even taking into account the possibility that she is one of the many people who suffers from a trauma-related disorder from previous incidents; for such an individual, survival instincts take complete control in the situation.

I don't want to leave out room for excessive use of force in response to a threat; I think if she had continued to be physically violent with him once he was incapacitated, that would show a level of malice beyond the need to protect one's self in an uncertain situation. However, I don't think that turning around quickly to dispatch someone who has physically assaulted you is a disproportionate response, or one that implies revenge over self-defense, given the uncertainty of the situation.

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

If she's guilty of assault so is he. Ass grabbing is an assault and battery. If she slapped him once with her hand, that's defensive. Unless the court had some evidence that the woman intended to break his nose (such as she used her fist and had aimed for the nose) it's an equal assault by both parties. If Swedish law dismisses ass grabbing as nothing there's no wonder the idiot thought he could get away with it.

No fucking way. You are apparently not a lawyer or a police officer, or you'd know better.

as was her slap. Neither is usually considered an intent to do bodily harm in this country.

I have worked in LE (not as a LEO) and do know the difference.

would he deserve what he got?

He assaulted her with his hands and she defended herself with her hands. She did not "change arenas" and the outcome of this case will not stand. Guaran-fuckin-teed.

Is there any response that might have been disproportionate? What are the boundaries here?

She broke his nose; if she'd continued to hit him, would he have had the right to defend himself, at some point? Or does he simply have to accept it because he deserves it?


Where is the line to be drawn?

It's a simple formulation: keep your hands to yourself. Do that and the rest is moot.

That particulars may be up to a judge or jury to determine, but in general I would say that retalitory action beyond what is required to end the incident would be excessive, though a precise threshold may of course be difficult to identify in the heat of the moment.

Still, you haven't answered the question: is the man at some point permitted to defend himself against a disproportionate response? If the woman has ten male friends with her, are all of them permitted to punch the guy who grabbed her?


You're trying to paint it as a simple issue, but that's because you're only addressing one simple part of an issue that is far more complex.

If he forfeits his right to do so he bears the consequences for his actions. There's no need for a COA Matrix for determining action-response propriety. It's not her job to determine the level of his intent, it's his obligation to keep his damned hands to himself.

If she had a gun, could she kill the man and his three friends who happened to be a the club with him that night? If not, then you agree that there are limits to retaliation; I'm simply asking you to establish some sense of what those liimits might be.

You're the one arguing that people who WILLFULLY DECIDE to sexually assault someone take precedence as if they're due some consideration. They chose to sexually assault someone. They chose to violate them.

The last word is obviously yours as I am about to be locked out of this thread.

Go fuck yourself and try not to get your nose broken as you do it.

I am arguing that there are limits to justifiable retaliation, which may or may not have been exceeded in this case. I have asserted that this is best decided through the judicial process.

I have asked people to state clearly what degree of physical force is justified in response to sexual assault, and if such force is also justified when a man is assaulted. I note that no one has given a clear response to this question.

Thank you for your contribution.

The post was clearly uncivil and over the top, yet you proudly allow it to stand because you don't like the point the poster it was directed at was making. You should be embarrassed at yourselves, not proud.

always. for you

I will also excuse myself from the thread for the time being.

Thank-you again.

a for one, deserves a for another.

If she had intended to break his nose she would have hit him with a closed fist. So I think intent should be considered here. Slapping someone would seem to be a reasonable instinctive response to someone grabbing your ass. So would kneeing them in the nuts - which in hindsight is probably what she should have done.

In any case, I am betting that this woman appeals and wins her case.

Her instinct was to slap him hard. If he had picked a different victim she might have just thrown a drink in his face. His tough luck and the court should not give him any leeway just because he chose the "wrong" victim. This is a travesty of justice and it will be overturned I believe.

she is regarded as having assaulted him and he's regarded as the victim.

and the majority of us women experiencing it in life

One wonders at the competence of her lawyer, who should have hammered on the point that this woman doesn't go around randomly slapping men in bars (at least I assume she doesn't).

cross examine both of the individuals in such a way as to reveal who appears to be truthful. Apparently this wasn't done. The fact remains that women normally do not go around slapping people in bars and when they do, the judicial system should try to find out why. Now maybe she is just a trouble maker and she was drunk. That is possible.

By asserting that the cross examination failed to reveal the man's supposed guilt, we are presuming his guilt. What is our evidence for this presumption, other than the woman's claim?

He is making a claim that this woman slapped him without any provocation. She is saying there was provocation. It is not about presumption of guilt. People are supposed to tell the truth on the witness stand. Someone isn't in this case and the court's job is to try to figure out what the truth is. They don't have to find the man guilty of assault to say that he is not as credible a witness as the woman. In fact, they can't find him guilty. He is not on trial.

We are still presuming that he is guilty, even though there was insufficient evidence even to charge him.

Victims of peeping toms, for starters. Or those of us that have gotten "felt-up" in a crowd. Not having your personal space (your body) respected, especially near you genitals, is assault.

When I was raped, my boss asked me what the big deal was, since the rapist "didn't actually hurt you." Yes, it's possible to get raped without getting "hurt," according to some people. Having one's ass grabbed is an assault. It may not be battery, but it's certainly an assault. I think she had the moral ground to defend herself.

After all, it was only a broken nose, right? It's not as if she shot him in the chest.

fist or kick him.

If he happens to get his nose broken or falls down and breaks his shoulder, tough shit.

Until he backs off or is no longer a threat.

That's the definition of self defense. Lethal force though, such as use of a weapon is inappropriate.

Once that line is crossed the woman has the right to defend herself. The perp doesn't get to decide what amount of force is reasonable.

If someone swings at you and misses does that mean you can't swing back?

Yeah, she broke his nose, probably accidentally, but if she hadn't slapped him he might have continued to assault her.

Now, after seeing this thread I'm afraid she's right.

redqueen, if you're seeing this -- I'm sorry.

This is why I say very little about it here.

He would have gotten the same treatment.

shouldn't grab women's asses.


I'm glad she broke his nose.

Excellent. Now that you've established the foundation, we need only quibble about what constitutes "asking for it."

You would assert, I trust, that it would ok for him to break her nose if she'd grabbed him?

she took a swing. His nose got broke.

I ain't cryin' about it.


How about everybody keeps their hands to themselves and maybe nobody gets a broken nose?

Just looking for a little consistency.

"Just looking for a little consistency..."

I have little doubt that you have convinced yourself that to be the case.

Otherwise, admit that you have nothing to say.

Please explain to me how it is inconsistent to ask for clarification on when it is and is not ok to break someone's nose in reseponse to alleged sexual assault?

No one should touch ANYONE unless they are willing to pay a price. And this cry baby got what he deserved. Although he should have gotten sexual assault charges added.

It is indeed curious that he wasn't charged, and I thank you for your straightforward response.

If her nose was broken in the process, that would be unfortunate but both have committed assaults and both should be charged. If anything, the person with the broken nose should be punished more severely because without the initial assault the second assault would not have happened.

Of course the correct way to handle getting grabbed in the ass is to file an assault charge and hope that you don't get laughed at by law enforcement and the courts.

factor is TOTALLY different.

Grab ass is a game to some men because the law doesn't take it seriously. When out of the country I have to remind myself that the laws in some other countries don't see this as an offense whereas slugging the ass grabber would get me in trouble

Here, the law allegedly protects us but in reality it's still treated like a joke.

Although I have zero confidence in the DU jury system. These days, it seems like if jurors agree with the general thrust of the poster in question, the poster can get away with anything.

At Tue Mar 26, 2013, 05:23 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

He sexually assaulted her and she had every right to defend herself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2569402

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Calling someone a "rape apologist" and saying "you support sexial assault enthusiastically" in this context seems a bit over the top.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Mar 26, 2013, 05:36 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Over the top and then some.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not so much over the top as out of the stadium and into orbit, IMO.

Thank you.

And yes, a woman who grabs a man's butt should not be surprised if she gets smacked in the face - maybe by the man's girl friend. And I would point out that if she had intended to break his nose she would have hit him with a closed fist.

And, if he broke her nose in the process, would so many here be arguing that he was justified in doing so?

It is sexual assault either way.

That's all I've been asking from the start, and you are the first to answer in such unambiguous terms.

Thank you.

it might not happen so often.

SHAMEFUL outcome. And the sexual offender got off scott free.

In hindsight she should have kneed him in the nuts - just as effective and no physical evidence.

he ended up with a couple of broken ribs.

I have the right to defend myself, no matter what this idiot court says.

I hope she appeals.

The result will not stand

If someone grabs you like that, you might just naturally turn and smack them.

It seems to me like it says that you have to just sit there and accept being groped.

it is ok to turn and break her nose?

People should just keep their hands to themselves... including women

He was at fault here. Not her.

If you react instinctively, you can't always necessarily control just where you hit and too hard.

My instinct was NOT to deck the guy, but to turn around and tell him to keep his hands off of me. And similar inappropriate crap has happened to me more than once in bar situations. I don't think it's necessarily instinctual. You have to hit someone quite hard to break their nose. Having said that, as he was the aggressor, I don't think she should have been charged.

But, ultimately, I agree with you. The guy should have been charged and fine and the woman should have been excused for self-defense.

She didn't know if he was going to grab her in other ways and harm her.

I recall getting my ass groped and my instinct was to turn and slap him, but it was an open handed slap and not on his nose.

of beer in the other and had my ass grabbed. 'Touch me again and you'll be out on yours' wasn't really very effective when the owners cared more about money than anything else. I'm glad she slugged him. Boo hoo ..... a broken nose isn't the end of the world. I don't think she should be fined for it, either.

to just about anything.

I consider grabbing a stranger's ass assault. He should have expected something back.

but for some of us it may well be an unavoidable one. If a stranger grabs me unexpectedly when I am in a place where I don't feel safe, my response may be seen as 'over-the-top', because I will shriek and hit out with arms and legs. If my arm should happen to flail hard enough that I break his or her nose, well, that's the price they deserve to pay for assaulting a survivor.

acceptable when one has been SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.

In the 80's, I worked a second job as a waitress in a local club. My ass was grab often, but one time a drunk went too far and put his hand up my skirt, he got my full tray of drinks in his lap. He was asked to leave by the bouncers after he paid for the drinks he was than wearing. I was lucky to have bartenders and bouncers who didn't put up with that type of crap.

I don't think laying my hands on another person rights the wrong.

I would turn around, holler 'fuck off, asshole' and have a word with the bouncer or bartender.

Because, you know, he might "react instinctively" like that. After all, "you can't always necessarily control just where you hit and too hard."

It seems to me that if people can't control themselves better than an animal-level instinctive reaction, then they probably shouldn't be mingling among human beings without some sort of keeper or handler to rein in their dangerous instinctive reactions.