Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Self Defense Has No Gender

  1. #1

    Default Self Defense Has No Gender



    They say women have half the strength of men, so shouldn't they think twice as long?

    If I felt like hitting an MMA fighter, I'd definitely think twice. And in that case, it's perfectly okay for me to get knocked out. Modern day sexism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  2. #2
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Sap...

    1) Whoopi says "if you hit a man don't be surprised if he hits you back." This != "if you hit a man it's ethical for him to hit you back" or "if you hit a man he ought to hit you back.
    2) if you hit an MMA fighter it is absolutely not ok for him/her to put your lights out in response. The concept is called "proportionality."
    3) self defense != offense, in any case, for anyone. If someone hits you and you feel threatened, your moral responsibility is to retreat, and you only commit violence in response at the lowest necessary level and as a last resort.

    (1) See also: the video you posted and the difference between what Whoopi was saying (that X is to be expected) and what you want to say (that X is morally ok), and the is-ought error you made.
    (2) See also: this article, which is the absolute most aggressive moral theory that stands up to even cursory examination, and I'd argue is too harsh.
    (3) See also: this article, or one more specifically dealing with the moral duty to retreat.

  3. #3
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    That's it, I quit the forums. Bringing Whoopi in here is an all time low, and I do not find it surprising that Sap is responsible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  4. #4

    Default

    It irks me when you try to present your moral belief as a legal one.

    I know what Whoopi was saying. She obviously doesn't espouse violence from either side.

    As for self defense, you only need the reasonable assumption that physical force is needed to stop immediate, unlawful physical violence against yourself.

    The law makes no mention of it being only a last resort or of that of death. Also, the force only must be reasonable to stop the threat, in which knocking someone out insures that the threat of unlawful physical violence against you if no longer an immediate threat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    That's it, I quit the forums. Bringing Whoopi in here is an all time low, and I do not find it surprising that Sap is responsible.
    She makes more sense than those other ones. And I've seen a few of those videos where she's the rational one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  6. #6
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Women (many of them not all) asked for absolute equality in every single possible thing, but if it comes to something that might hurt them back, they want exceptions, funny how some women mind works!




    (This picture for fun, don't take it seriously, especially rok )
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  7. #7
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    It irks me when you try to present your moral belief as a legal one.

    I know what Whoopi was saying. She obviously doesn't espouse violence from either side.

    As for self defense, you only need the reasonable assumption that physical force is needed to stop immediate, unlawful physical violence against yourself.

    The law makes no mention of it being only a last resort or of that of death. Also, the force only must be reasonable to stop the threat, in which knocking someone out insures that the threat of unlawful physical violence against you if no longer an immediate threat.
    NJSA 2C:3-4 (Use of force in self protection)

    "a. Use of force justifiable for defense of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such another person on the present occasion..."

    The law then goes to list all the individual cases where the use of force is NOT justifiable.

    But anyway, the courts have held that use of force is not "immediately necessary" unless it is a last resort, ie unless other options have already failed or attempting other options creates unreasonable risks. That is, the courts have held that you need to retreat before force is justifiable. The courts have also held that "such force" is only justifiable if that particular force is reasonable (ie proportional) given the harm.

    The law does say what morality would seem to dictate, at minimum, albeit with slightly different words. It doesn't say last resort or proportional, but it's implied and it's been interpreted that way.

    The North Carolina laws (under which you live) have similar language, saying that force is justified "when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force."

    I don't know what the NC courts have held, but given that the law specifically cites cases where you don't have a duty to retreat, my guess is that it's interpreted the same way the NJ statute is.

    TL;DR, you're incorrect about what the laws require in NJ and seem to be incorrect about the NC law, although I admit to ignorance of its application in NC courts. The law would not give the MMA fighter the right to knock you senseless unless (a) he had no other choice but to use force [ie it was the last resort], and (2) that level of force was the minimum force required to remove the threat. This is also what a minimally passable moral code would seem to require, unless I'm mistaken about the morality.

  8. #8

    Default

    That is literally what I said. Then you go on to say that the courts have set precedent about it only being a last resort, but haven't provided the precedent set. Good job bro.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  9. #9

    Default

    You're also presuming that the act of knocking someone out is an extended act of brutality and not a single strike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    It irks me when you try to present your moral belief as a legal one.

    I know what Whoopi was saying. She obviously doesn't espouse violence from either side.

    As for self defense, you only need the reasonable assumption that physical force is needed to stop immediate, unlawful physical violence against yourself.

    The law makes no mention of it being only a last resort or of that of death. Also, the force only must be reasonable to stop the threat, in which knocking someone out insures that the threat of unlawful physical violence against you if no longer an immediate threat.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    NJSA 2C:3-4 (Use of force in self protection)

    "a. Use of force justifiable for defense of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such another person on the present occasion..."

    The law then goes to list all the individual cases where the use of force is NOT justifiable.

    But anyway, the courts have held that use of force is not "immediately necessary" unless it is a last resort, ie unless other options have already failed or attempting other options creates unreasonable risks. That is, the courts have held that you need to retreat before force is justifiable. The courts have also held that "such force" is only justifiable if that particular force is reasonable (ie proportional) given the harm.

    The law does say what morality would seem to dictate, at minimum, albeit with slightly different words. It doesn't say last resort or proportional, but it's implied and it's been interpreted that way.

    The North Carolina laws (under which you live) have similar language, saying that force is justified "when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force."

    I don't know what the NC courts have held, but given that the law specifically cites cases where you don't have a duty to retreat, my guess is that it's interpreted the same way the NJ statute is.

    TL;DR, you're incorrect about what the laws require in NJ and seem to be incorrect about the NC law, although I admit to ignorance of its application in NC courts. The law would not give the MMA fighter the right to knock you senseless unless (a) he had no other choice but to use force [ie it was the last resort], and (2) that level of force was the minimum force required to remove the threat. This is also what a minimally passable moral code would seem to require, unless I'm mistaken about the morality.
    I'm really not sure if you're arguing about what you want me to be saying and what I'm actually saying.

    The only difference in our posts is that you said the courts set precedent without referring to majority opinions referencing the precedent or the actual case that set the precedent.

    Watch. The courts set the precedent that if abortion is used as birth control, it amounts to murder.

    Boom. Prove me wrong.

    Also, I'm in Texas.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  11. #11

    Default

    As for you to keep suggesting that knocking someone out is not the minimum, I would posit that a more minimal action, where the aggressor is still able to attack then puts the defense back in the same position again and risks them to more harm. By putting a stop to the aggression by removing their immediate ability to fight, you stop them from harming the defense.

    For instance, you push them away from you, they then come back at you, thus you're risking harm again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  12. #12
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    quadruple post, record yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  13. #13
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    That is literally what I said. Then you go on to say that the courts have set precedent about it only being a last resort, but haven't provided the precedent set. Good job bro.
    What you said is that the laws justify self defense just in case someone is committing unlawful force against you. You also seemed to argue that knocking someone out is justifiable just in case that will prevent them enacting violence against you. That's literally what you said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    As for self defense, you only need the reasonable assumption that physical force is needed to stop immediate, unlawful physical violence against yourself.

    The law makes no mention of it being only a last resort or of that of death. Also, the force only must be reasonable to stop the threat, in which knocking someone out insures that the threat of unlawful physical violence against you if no longer an immediate threat.
    In fact the laws DO require more than that explicitly given their use of phrases like "immediately necessary" which introduce conditions above and beyond what you allege and approach last resort and proportionality.

    And as for citations, I have already provided more significant authorities than you have, but if you wish to read relevant case law in NJ, be my guest.

    On obligation to retreat, the central case that determined its limits in NJ:
    State v. Abbott (1961)

    On least necessary force, nj courts have even refused to reduce the charges when they're cases of excessive force, plus it has a statute that specifically targets excessive force in self defense.

    Also, a quick Google would have turned up reasonably plausible corroborating stories.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    You're also presuming that the act of knocking someone out is an extended act of brutality and not a single strike.
    Counterpoint: no I'm not.

    Whether the force was unnecessary or not a last resort has no bearing on whether it was an extended act or applied all at once.

    EDIT: as for your later posts...
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    I'm really not sure if you're arguing about what you want me to be saying and what I'm actually saying.

    The only difference in our posts is that you said the courts set precedent without referring to majority opinions referencing the precedent or the actual case that set the precedent.

    Watch. The courts set the precedent that if abortion is used as birth control, it amounts to murder.

    Boom. Prove me wrong.

    Also, I'm in Texas.
    The difference between your claim about Texas and mine about NJ is that I know what I'm talking about and have been providing evidence, whereas you're providing your opinion without any knowledge of case law, and expecting it to be correct (for no other reason that you presume that you are correct). In this case, you are saying "self defense is ok in cases where there is imminent threat of unlawful force against me," but I'm pointing out that the laws require further restrictions, such as that other options must be used if available and that the force used in self defense must not be excessive. These strictures are in the laws.

    And as for your argument that knocking someone out is always the least reasonable force, (a) it won't work in the case where the unlawful force against you is one time, such as if someone is about to smack you, and (b) although I'm not sure of specific cases where someone attempted this, it's ridiculous so I doubt it would stand up in court. (I doubt an attorney would even try it.) But on precedent there I am ignorant so I may be mistaken.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 05-24-2017 at 09:25 PM.

  14. #14
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Some states allow self-defense and some states do not. Usually the more leftist a state is the bigger the punishment for self-defense. This comes from the fact that leftists​ are hardcore social darwinists. They argue that if you cannot defend yourself with your hands, you are a criminal for introducing an equalizer.

    Yes Burn is a social darwinist. No his claims are not legally true.

  15. #15
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    She makes more sense than those other ones. And I've seen a few of those videos where she's the rational one.
    The rational one? You realize out of all the nutcases in a mental hospital, just because one is less nutty, it does not make him sane.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    The rational one? You realize out of all the nutcases in a mental hospital, just because one is less nutty, it does not make him sane.
    That's what I feel when it comes to our government. Especially the executive branch.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  17. #17
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    That's it, I quit the forums. Bringing Whoopi in here is an all time low, and I do not find it surprising that Sap is responsible.

  18. #18
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    So, what is your point Sap? That women, children and ill, weak or smaller men should expect to be beaten up if they use any force? What sort of society would that be? Other than barbaric, of course.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So, what is your point Sap? That women, children and ill, weak or smaller men should expect to be beaten up if they use any force? What sort of society would that be? Other than barbaric, of course.
    I'm saying they shouldn't physically attack others? Who woulda thunk it. And yours sounds more barbaric.

    Where those same groups can physically attack others and hope they themselves are protected from retaliation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  20. #20
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So, what is your point Sap? That women, children and ill, weak or smaller men should expect to be beaten up if they use any force? What sort of society would that be? Other than barbaric, of course.
    Why should they be allowed to use force first with impunity? Your moral compass isn't broken, it's nonexistent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  21. #21
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So, what is your point Sap? That women, children and ill, weak or smaller men should expect to be beaten up if they use any force? What sort of society would that be? Other than barbaric, of course.
    You believe that. You literally want to ban guns

  22. #22
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    I'm saying they shouldn't physically attack others? Who woulda thunk it. And yours sounds more barbaric.

    Where those same groups can physically attack others and hope they themselves are protected from retaliation.
    I agree no one should use violence. As you well know. But I also think it's really really bad if extremists blow up buildings. I can think that without agreeing with drone strikes on schools that help the nasties to justify it.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I agree no one should use violence. As you well know. But I also think it's really really bad if extremists blow up buildings. I can think that without agreeing with drone strikes on schools that help the nasties to justify it.
    You just segued off on to a completely unrelated tangent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  24. #24
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Sap, how why would you expect different? She is incapable of any type of logic or reason, not even the smallest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  25. #25
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    You just segued off on to a completely unrelated tangent.
    Jeeze Sap, I expect dumb from cofc. Eyes up. It was a mild attempt at a parallel example. I don't need to agree with one set of actions to object strongly to the response. Obviously.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  26. #26
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Eyes up? Geez.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  27. #27
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I don't need to agree with one set of actions to object strongly to the response. Obviously.
    Proportionality and last resort are pretty clear moral imperatives if you think about it -- not sure why they're being denied by some. Like, if someone smacks you, that's unlawful aggression, but it obviously doesn't entitle you to infinite levels of force in self defense, there's going to be some restriction on how much force you can use in response. (And if there are other methods of dealing with the problem that are available, those clearly ought to be tried first unless there is a cost to doing so.)

    Catholic moral tradition typically imposes other requirements, too, some of which make a lot of sense, but none of which that have gotten into the laws as far as I know.

    Seems like pretty common sense to me -- and as I have been pointing out, States do have some requirements regarding proportionality and last resort in their laws about self-defense, although they disagree about the exact levels (ie. how stringent the requirements are). (For example, some States have what's called "Castle Doctrine," where if the unlawful force against you happens in your own house, the requirements to retreat or to use minimum force are relaxed, with the idea that 'a man's home is his castle,' and that an assault there is worse than if it happened on the street.)

  28. #28
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    The problem with common sense is that it's not very common.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  29. #29
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    The problem with common sense is that it's not very common.
    For leftists, sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    if someone smacks you, that's unlawful aggression, but it obviously doesn't entitle you to infinite levels of force in self defense
    Incorrect.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •