Support NeoGAF

[Neki]

Because generally speaking women are smaller than men. Those women who are larger/stronger than men are exceedingly rare and would be considered outliers and freaks of nature.

Once again, he tells me that his argument has nothing to do with gender, but this whole line of thinking has everything to do with gender then because woman on average are smaller. Why not just say don't hit people that are smaller than you then, because that is the difference between the two genders that one side shouldn't be hitting the other.

 

[Tapiozona]

You tell me not to hit a woman, but then you tell me it's because of her weight. So why does gender matter? Why not tell me not to hit a 100lb person? Why does it matter if this 100lb person is a man or a woman? Tell me not to hit a 100lb person then, not to hit a woman.

Actually you make a valid point then. Maybe it's the size different that matters most to me. Women are generally more dainty so I clump them all together. I still wouldn't hit a woman who's bigger than I am but I guess I could see someone doing it in a situation like that. (Still pretty sure most men wouldn't. There's a stigma attached to it and I'm fine with that stigma)

In the situation of this thread the man was larger than the woman. He was small himself but she was TINY. There was no reason to hit her.

You talk about fights as if they're a turn-based RPG. Are you serious?

Uhh, not sure what this means exactly so you'll have to clarify. Woman hits, you hit back. How is that an RPG? Woman acts, you react. That's how it usally works. One person does something, then you react. Thanks for the reply though!

 

[Suairyu]

In this particular case, I don't think what the lady was doing merited causing brain damage. I don't think it was an apt lesson for her, and I think the guy could've reacted better. Even if he'd still punched her except in the gut, she still would've gone down, but not head first onto the concrete. She wouldn't have brain damage and the guy probably wouldn't be facing the charges he's facing now.

Instinctively, I imagine most would throw a fist at someone's face before they go for the gut. "I'll throw a gut punch as that'll do less damage" takes more brain cycles than most have available in a fight-or-flight situation.

I'm not going to quickly judge you, as I think the back-and-forth arguing about different things hasn't exactly allowed concise opinion to be stated.

What would your opinion be if a woman aggressively lunges at at guy, obviously going to swing/strike/whatever and instinctively as pure reaction he pops her in the face. Not a haymaker or anything - there's no intent to cause damage but more a reaction of defense. Like a jab or a cross. Unless she keeps coming, that's all he does. Would you call that acceptable behavior?

Actually you make a valid point then. Maybe it's the size different that matters most to me. Women are generally more dainty so I clump them all together. I still wouldn't hit a woman who's bigger than I am but I guess I could see someone doing it in a situation like that.

If after the initial attack you surmised you were in real danger (very possible if she is bigger than you), you would break that self-rule very quickly. As a thought-exercise, all things being ideal, would you wish to break that rule in such a case?

edit - I'd also like to express at this point in time that it's very possible for someone lighter than someone else to knock them out. Though it works as an okay rule of thumb, body mass is not a linear indication of explosive strength. We've probably all known the super-skinny guy who can punch like a mule can kick at some point in our lives.

 

[Freshmaker]

Instinctively, I imagine most would throw a fist at someone's face before they go for the gut. "I'll throw a gut punch as that'll do less damage" takes more brain cycles than most have available in a fight-or-flight situation.

It can take more brain cycles. If you run scenarios like that in your hear though, it's possible to build that up as your reflex action. In which case you're not burning extra cycles.

Fight or flight's been largely discredited BTW.

 

[PoliceCop]

You tell me not to hit a woman, but then you tell me it's because of her weight.

This is why it's culturally frowned upon to ask a woman her weight. It's a trick devised by those with female vaginas to ensure you're never capable of assessing whether you are able to hit them.

 

[expy]

The fact that she's a woman shouldn't change anything, if it was self-defense (he/she hit first) then whatever.

I don't like men who hit women, but this is law.

 

[Suairyu]

It can take more brain cycles. If you run scenarios like that in your hear though, it's possible to build that up as your reflex action. In which case you're not burning extra cycles.

Fight or flight's been largely discredited BTW.

Yeah, I don't mean literal fight or flight, just "oh shit danger REACT", which definitely does exist: I've had the misfortunate of experiencing it a few times. My initial, clumsy reaction (like many, I'd imagine) is to throw some sort of jab or cross at the aggressor's face whilst trying to move backwards. This is with having done boxing and martial arts in my time - my natural instinct is to move backwards whilst thrusting my fist forwards to widen the distance. After that, I can react a bit more controlled, but that first punch happens.

Of course, punching forwards whilst moving backwards is entirely unlikely to ever deliver a KO blow, even to a small woman, but I can't discount the possibility things could just get unlucky. If they did, I'd be mortified and probably call the emergency services, but I'd feel I hadn't done wrong for the way I had reacted.

But then you saying "running scenarios through in your head" - who outside people who do forms of martial training do such a thing? To ask my question again, if your average joe had such a reaction to a woman who seems like she means harm - to throw/flail a quick punch but do nothing more unless she kept coming - is that entirely unacceptable behaviour to you?

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

I've learned alot in this thread.

A. Heavier people are better at fighting.
That's why Americans are so fat and overweight. McDonald's and other fast food joints are actually funded by the government to make all Americans bigger and fatter so they can do more massive damage during combat situations.

B. Women can only be in a fight with another woman of the same height and weight.
This is why you don't see that many women in our armed services. It's not because they aren't good soldiers it's just that the enemy doesn't have many women soldiers for us to fight.

A+B = C

C. The next step for the US as a superpower is to build an army comprised of overweight women. Not only would they be un-hittable by male soldiers they would also be better fighters than the enemy's women. About the only way a military force of this magnitude could be stopped would be to counter attack with morbidly obese gay men.

 

[Neki]

I've learned alot in this thread.

A. Heavier people are better at fighting.
That's why Americans are so fat and overweight. McDonald's and other fast food joints are actually funded by the government to make all Americans bigger and fatter so they can do more massive damage during combat situations.

B. Women can only be in a fight with another woman of the same height and weight.
This is why you don't see that many women in our armed services. It's not because they aren't good soldiers it's just that the enemy doesn't have many women soldiers for us to fight.

A+B = C

C. The next step for the US as a superpower is to build an army comprised of overweight women. Not only would they be un-hittable by male soldiers they would also be better fighters than the enemy's women. About the only way a military force of this magnitude could be stopped would be to counter attack with morbidly obese gay men.

Bombs and bullets aren't chivalrous though.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Freshmaker, Devolution, confused, antonz, ignatz mouse, etc.

There is no shortage of people who don't let reason get in the way of some good ole emotional reactions.

Care to back that up, in my case? I don't even think you understand my position.

 

[Satyamdas]

Care to back that up, in my case? I don't even think you understand my position.

I just want conclusive proof that backs up someones story one way or other.

Not likely to get it.

OTOH, we don't really need to.

I think his story is BS right off the top.

Come on dude, you've basically convicted the guy multiple times already because your sensibilities have been offended. You seem more than willing to forgo due process because of the extremely unfortunate result. I seriously doubt that if you were on the jury in this case you would be impartial and come to a verdict as a result of the evidence presented. Your mind seems pretty well made up. Which is your prerogative, I just disagree with snap judgments.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Come on dude, you've basically convicted the guy multiple times already because your sensibilities have been offended. You seem more than willing to forgo due process because of the extremely unfortunate result. I seriously doubt that if you were on the jury in this case you would be impartial and come to a verdict as a result of the evidence presented. Your mind seems pretty well made up. Which is your prerogative, I just disagree with snap judgments.

Not because my sensibilities have been offended, but because his story is weak* and he has priors.

* Admittedly not as weak as I first thought, based on incomplete details in this thread. Still quite weak.

And I am not willing to forgo due process, I'm merely predicting what I think the result will be. You OTOH, and willing to suspend any healthy skepticism you have for the guy's story because you are upset at other people's (not mine) variously-absolute views on hitting women, which I don't particularly share. I have barely weighed in on that aspect, because it's all hypotheticals and not all that interesting to me. I just don't care as I don't hang with the kinds of people likely to get into a fight, male or female, and because I know how to defuse a situation rather than to ramp it up.

Reel it in a little, you're swinging at phantoms.

 

[antonz]

To start my position is quite clear.

ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WORDS
He did not hit her until the boyfriend across the street saw a commotion going on and started heading over. He then decked her and ran to his car.

2. Police Report there is NO camera footage of the incident so all this bullshit about the camera proves im innocent is just that bullshit.

So we have the word of a man convicted of assault prior versus the word of a woman who cannot speak.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Just to add more to my position-- I would feel the same if it were a 100 lb guy in a coma as well. Gender is not a factor in my opinion.

 

[Neki]

Just to add more to my position-- I would feel the same if it were a 100 lb guy in a coma as well. Gender is not a factor in my opinion.

If it were the case, we wouldn't have all this stupid crap about never hitting the girl, so that's fine.

 

[Satyamdas]

Not because my sensibilities have been offended, but because his story is weak* and he has priors.

* Admittedly not as weak as I first thought, based on incomplete details in this thread. Still quite weak.

And I am not willing to forgo due process, I'm merely predicting what I think the result will be. You OTOH, and willing to suspend any healthy skepticism you have for the guy's story because you are upset at other people's (not mine) variously-absolute views on hitting women, which I don't particularly share. I have barely weighed in on that aspect, because it's all hypotheticals and not all that interesting to me. I just don't care as I don't hang with the kinds of people likely to get into a fight, male or female, and because I know how to defuse a situation rather than to ramp it up.

Reel it in a little, you're swinging at phantoms.

I've said repeatedly that I am taking his story at face value. If it happened as he says it did and he only threw one punch back after being attacked, then while it sucks that the outcome was so tragic, I don't view him as some thug or monster. If it turns out that he swung first, then I would be happy to see him sent to prison for a looong time if not forever. His rap sheet does not preclude him from being attacked and needing to use self defense, and there is a reason courts will not allow that as evidence against him in this case. The story as presented so far is sketchy at best. So while I am not ready to lock him up, I am also not convinced that he is innocent. That is something to be determined in court, not in sensationalist news articles or a bunch of forum posts.

I also don't hang out with the kind of people who get into fights, and I also would do everything in my power to diffuse a situation rather than ramp it up. But if a case presented itself where I couldn't diffuse it and I was being attacked, I think that I am within my right to throw a punch back in an attempt to neutralize my attacker be it male or female. I don't think that action automatically puts me into the realm of assault or excessive force, and it is not an indictment against my moral character.

2. Police Report there is NO camera footage of the incident so all this bullshit about the camera proves im innocent is just that bullshit.

Source for this? From what I read there IS video footage.

When asked if there’s any video that supports his version of the events, Kenniff told Guzman, “From conversations with the district attorney”s office, there is video. I believe that that video will substantiate the fact that the young lady, who is in the coma, was the initial aggressor.”

Source

 

[NovemberMike]

I'd love to see pictures of people who think it's ok to punch the woman. I'm having a hard time picturing what kind of dude you are. You could either be a scrawny internet tough guy who's all talk or maybe one who's willing to hit a woman because you'd stand no chance against a man, or you're a big roid monkey who hits anyone..man or woman. That's how I'm picturing you guys.

Is your argument that women are helpless?

 

[JayDubya]

Interesting topic...

I think this fellow has the right of it, personally (though I'm not sure I'd take him at face value, it's worth looking into closely):

I am taking his story at face value. If it happened as he says it did and he only threw one punch back after being attacked, then while it sucks that the outcome was so tragic, I don't view him as some thug or monster. If it turns out that he swung first, then I would be happy to see him sent to prison for a looong time

The disconnect many seem to be having is due to some "it's wrong to hit a woman" rule.

In general, this kind of a bad rule because there are either many exceptions, or you have to accept pacifism and victimization as your only recourse to any number of scenarios. Once any rule has to have that many exceptions, it's not much of a rule. The spirit of the rule might be good (don't beat your wife, asshole), but the letter of it is piss poor (be obliged to let her hurt or kill you).

I'd say it's wrong to hit anyone in aggression, not just women. If events played out in such a manner, in this instance, gender equity means hitting the woman.

HOWEVER, it is worth noting that without strong evidence - the parking lot video surfacing, an impartial witness, etc - his "I hit her in self-defense" claim is unsubstantiated and his own character and record will be what a court / jury would look to.

 

[JABEE]

Interesting topic...

I think this fellow has the right of it, personally (though I'm not sure I'd take him at face value, it's worth looking into closely):




The disconnect many seem to be having is due to some "it's wrong to hit a woman" rule.

In general, this kind of a bad rule because there are either many exceptions, or you have to accept pacifism and victimization as your only recourse to any number of scenarios. Once any rule has to have that many exceptions, it's not much of a rule. The spirit of the rule might be good (don't beat your wife, asshole), but the letter of it is piss poor (be obliged to let her hurt or kill you).

I'd say it's wrong to hit anyone in aggression, not just women. If events played out in such a manner, in this instance, gender equity means hitting the woman.

HOWEVER, it is worth noting that without strong evidence - the parking lot video surfacing, an impartial witness, etc - his "I hit her in self-defense" claim is unsubstantiated and his own character and record will be what a court / jury would look to.

JayDubya is correct with his assessment of this matter. Most who say a man shouldn't defend himself against an aggressor who is a woman have sexism ingrained into their mind. With the thought process of never hitting a woman you are in a way excluding women from those which you would hit in a fight. This goes entirely against the accepted idea of treating people equally. It is discrimination in it's most basic form.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I agree with Dubya here.I would like to say that if he is telling the truth then he obviously was acting in self defense, and the outcome of such actions are no longer tied to him alone, but the aggressor as well.
If he is lying then yeah, send him away.

But this "don't hit girls" rule is the dumbest ideology to ever grace humanity. It would be O.K. if women weren't just as capable (if not more so thanks to this concept) to significantly injure men.

My sister stabbed me with a broken broom handle when we were kids over a simple argument. I did not touch her at all and simply had an argument with her and then told her to "shutup and get out of my room". Upset and clearly insane, she took the broom and jammed it into my side. It didn't cut too deep but I still have the scar today and that was 10 years ago. Of course, I didn't punch her (since I'm more level headed and she is my sibling) but I certainly threw her out my room...

Self Defense is self defense I don't care what the gender is. Once you lay a hand on me you have physically agreed to be treated as a male aggressor.

 

[Satyamdas]

The disconnect many seem to be having is due to some "it's wrong to hit a woman" rule.

In general, this kind of a bad rule because there are either many exceptions, or you have to accept pacifism and victimization as your only recourse to any number of scenarios. Once any rule has to have that many exceptions, it's not much of a rule. The spirit of the rule might be good (don't beat your wife, asshole), but the letter of it is piss poor (be obliged to let her hurt or kill you).

I'd say it's wrong to hit anyone in aggression, not just women. If events played out in such a manner, in this instance, gender equity means hitting the woman.

HOWEVER, it is worth noting that without strong evidence - the parking lot video surfacing, an impartial witness, etc - his "I hit her in self-defense" claim is unsubstantiated and his own character and record will be what a court / jury would look to.

Could not agree more, and could not have said it any more precisely. The implication that a man who would punch a woman in defense is in every case a thug/savage/brute is one made on the strength of outdated notions of inequality and of the female gender as inherently feeble. That doesn't mean a punch in defense is always warranted, but it should not be disallowed completely or viewed automatically as excessive. To do so is to pander to a fantasy scenario which does not accord with reality.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I agree, but I do think that the force use was probably excessive even if he's telling the truth-- and my biggest problem is not believing him in the first place.

 

[TheBahaBlast]

Thought I'd bump for an update for those who are curious. Couple things to note as of Thursday:

http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes...ilty-plea-in-parking-assault-case/#more-12991

Prosecutors today presented one security tape as pre-trial discovery, calling it a “very grainy video” taken from a great distance.

But the article doesn't say what exactly is on the tape, only speculation of what it contains. Boo.

Mr. Kenniff said today that Ms. Rosas has come out of her coma and has made “remarkable improvements,” according to his discussions with the prosecution.

I'm sure that'll make some of you happy. Some not so happy.

Mr. Fuller, a union electrician, is back at work. Mr. Kenniff declined to specify where.

Same as above.

 

[jay]

I'm sure that'll make some of you happy. Some not so happy.

Even punch-women-in-the-face defense force will be happy to hear she is recovering.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Same as above.

why would anyone care that he's an electrician?

 

[Neki]

Even punch-women-in-the-face defense force will be happy to hear she is recovering.

I'm sure the only hit people who are bigger than me defense force is happy too.

 

[TheBahaBlast]

why would anyone care that he's an electrician?

Some called him a monster, off the streets etc etc.

edit:

Even punch-women-in-the-face defense force will be happy to hear she is recovering.

Some seemed very indifferent to her condition.

 

[lexi]

I'm happy she is recovering, I wonder whether she will give testimony, maybe what actually happened is vastly different than what the guy who nearly killed someone and ran away says it is.

 

[Brashnir]

I'm happy she is recovering, I wonder whether she will give testimony, maybe what actually happened is vastly different than what the guy who nearly killed someone and ran away says it is.

If she got knocked into a coma, there's a pretty solid chance that she has no memory of the encounter at all. I had a pretty severe concussion, and don't remember the 10 minutes or so leading up to it. Short-term memory loss is pretty common in those situations.

 

[eastmen]

Double standards. The guy shouldn't have kept hitting the woman , but if a woman is going to resort to physical volience then its all over I will protect my self .


As for standing in a parking spot , i would have just started pulling in and then put my car in park and then wait it out. The bf wants to mess with me let him. I don't care