So, when sis was scratching and clawing at Chris during their brawl, he had every right to continue whooping her ass like that, right? Maybe he should've thrown her out of the Lambo? But, he was only defending himself because she was trying to hit him back, right? Right?
I'm not a freaking Rihanna stan, I didn't choose this name.
Besides, HE instigated that, she had every right to chop his damn balls off in the moment.
I don't think "beating" anyone, man or woman, is appropriate, but if I was being hit, I would certainly hit back. "Don't hit women" is not a realistic absolute when it comes to self-defense.
Self-defense is arguable in any situation in which you are in danger. I agree that the thread title is a little misleading, beating is not a good term to use and I am in no way advocating beating women,
But, if you are attacked by anyone, of any size or gender, you shouldn't think about their well-being, you should focus on defending your own. If someone puts your life at risk, however minor, you should defend yourself. You have NO obligation to think about the safety of someone who clearly hasn't done the same to your own.
No, the law says, self-defense is only (only!) arguable when there is an equal (or lesser) amount of force used in retaliation.
This is why George Zimmerman is a criminal, because shooting someone who you're fighting with fist-for-fist is not self defense. You can't stab someone who punches you in the face. Just like you can't powerslam a female who slaps you. No matter how "in danger" you feel.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chill Bill
So if the woman attacking me is some burly 300 pound truck driver or a black belt, should I still not be able to fight back? Or are you just trying to pretend that that could never conceivably happen?
Or are you just trying to pretend that, that **** always happens? Men are generally bigger than women, don't act brand new.
