Woman hits man on bus - watch video and decide....

[Alceste]

No i am not. If her actions were sufficient to distract the driver s/he could have had an accident.

I agreed she acted appropriately but the amount of noise produced (as I mentioned earlier if an uncommon occurrence that the driver might not be used to given standard levels of traffic etc) might have endangered people.

She should have made sure everyone was aware of it though (very important to ensure everyone is aware of it) but the amount of noise produced was potentially dangerous.

Well you haven't been watching the news then. Indian bus drivers have no trouble keeping an even keel through a major gang rape. What's a little bit of yelling?

 

[Alceste]

Was he trying to rape her? No.

How is she supposed to know that? Women are raped on buses all the time in India. What makes you such an expert on bus pervert behavior that you can tell from 60 seconds of video whether or not a woman was at risk of being gang raped and murdered?

Given the situation in places like India and Egypt where sexual assault is endemic, no amount of force is "too much force" in defending yourself from a sexual assault. There's no way to know from a single grope or fondle what your attacker's ultimate intentions are, so just smash him to pieces and be done with it.

 

[Alceste]

Sometimes the bully looses..

Go judge judy!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well you haven't been watching the news then. Indian bus drivers have no trouble keeping an even keel through a major gang rape. What's a little bit of yelling?

That is why I added the caveat.

 

[Alceste]

I agree... but then maybe his wife and kids don't see him as a complete *** like most of us would; or his parents, friends etc.

Just because he is scum doesnt mean it's fine to just kill him. First you have to address the legalities of it. Then if okay in your jurisdiction sure, go for it. But then again I don't know of many jurisdictions where molestation is a death sentence.

Actually, most jurisdictions view self-defense as a valid rationale for manslaughter.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Oh really? Most jurisdicitons would consider killing an appropriate use of force in this event? I take it you didnt watch the video.

 

[Alceste]

Oh really? Most jurisdicitons would consider killing an appropriate use of force in this event? I take it you didnt watch the video.

Sure I did, but I'm also aware of the context.

India Gang Rape Suspects Plead Not Guilty (VIDEO)

Better safe than sorry, IMO. That goes for a woman trying to decide how to deal with a sexual assault on a bus AND for a guy considering rubbing his junk on a woman's arm on a bus. Either one could be killed, so they'd best both use extreme caution.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

You might consider it better safe than sorry, the court is unlikely to agree. Which was my original point which everyone seems quick to dismiss because we see how she was the victim and he is a scumbag and automatically think - "okay he's fair game kill him" when that is just not how things work legally.

 

[Alceste]

You might consider it better safe than sorry, the court is unlikely to agree. Which was my original point which everyone seems quick to dismiss because we see how she was the victim and he is a scumbag and automatically think - "okay he's fair game kill him" when that is just not how things work legally.

Sure it is. When you are attacked, the law allows you to defend yourself. It doesn't matter what happens to the attacker. You're not supposed to TRY to kill him, you're only supposed to defend yourself, but if someone dies while you are defending yourself against their attack, it's not your fault. See Florida V. Zimmerman.

 

[Curious George]

The general principle of ethics in martial arts is that you use enough force to incapacitate your attacker and prevent the possibility of further attack, then leave. I think doing permanent damage inadvertently in self-defense is acceptable, but it shouldn't be an objective.

In this case, she used very little force - not enough to inflict pain or damage - and her attacker was not incapacitated. Not only that, but she had no way of knowing if the other men there were his allies or might be willing to help her. Also, she was trapped on a moving bus so leaving was not an option. So, what to do? She can't leave, she can't sit back down without turning her back on her attacker and confining herself in a limited space. She has to maintain her dominant position and keep the whole group of men on the bus in her sight lines and under her control until she feels it is safe to leave. How would you do that if you were in her shoes?

I think I would have done the same as she did, but (based on the few altercations I've had before) I would have been quieter about it and inflicted more pain and damage initially - preferably enough to put the attacker on the ground. With the creepy perv incapacitated, it would be a good time to get a sense of the other men on the bus and determine whether or not they are also a threat, and if so, incapacitate them as well.

I think it matters less what I would do and more what a reasonable person would do. While I acknowledge that since no one was severely injured she could very well have made the best decision.

However, the constant comments on here regarding her actions which include talking about the current culture on buses as a rationalization for behavior and the fact that some would suggest she react as if the situation was the worst possible scenario, very much remind me of the Goetz case. I even see similarities between the Zimmerman trial. The idea that we should assume the worst is what I question. Moreover, I think we should be able to draw a clear line whereby we can say this is self defense and this is not. You seem to advocate that line is the point at which the aggressor is incapacitated, while me myself seems to advocate that escape from a clear and direct harm is the line. Both, speak toward the victims safety, but they are not necessarily the same point. I am not sure where I stand. The woman in the video is arguably still not safe as the video ends, but she is also arguably safe when she stands and the aggressor retreats. I am only asking how far could she go before we get a clear case of surpassing self defense?

 

[Alceste]

I think it matters less what I would do and more what a reasonable person would do. While I acknowledge that since no one was severely injured she could very well have made the best decision.

However, the constant comments on here regarding her actions which include talking about the current culture on buses as a rationalization for behavior and the fact that some would suggest she react as if the situation was the worst possible scenario, very much remind me of the Goetz case. I even see similarities between the Zimmerman trial. The idea that we should assume the worst is what I question. Moreover, I think we should be able to draw a clear line whereby we can say this is self defense and this is not. You seem to advocate that line is the point at which the aggressor is incapacitated, while me myself seems to advocate that escape from a clear and direct harm is the line. Both, speak toward the victims safety, but they are not necessarily the same point. I am not sure where I stand. The woman in the video is arguably still not safe as the video ends, but she is also arguably safe when she stands and the aggressor retreats. I am only asking how far could she go before we get a clear case of surpassing self defense?

If you have incapacitated your attacker and you keep pounding on them with intent to maim or kill, that would be excessive. IMO, no amount of force used in the initial incapacitating move is too much, but l am fortunate to live in a country where people don't carry guns, so the possibility of lethal force is limited.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

If you have incapacitated your attacker and you keep pounding on them with intent to maim or kill, that would be excessive.

I'd say that entirely depends on the situation. I wouldn't have held it against that lady on the bus if she really hurt that guy.

 

[Alceste]

I'd say that entirely depends on the situation. I wouldn't have held it against that lady on the bus if she really hurt that guy.

You can do that in your incapacitating move. Martial arts training usually spends a lot of time on ways to incapacitate an attacker that focus on the joints. Knees, elbows, ankles, shoulders, wrists, anywhere there are fragile bones like hands and feet. If you strike there with maximum force, you are likely to break or dislocate something.

Ideally, the whole thing is ended with one or two moves and only takes a second.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You can do that in your incapacitating move. Martial arts training usually spends a lot of time on ways to incapacitate an attacker that focus on the joints. Knees, elbows, ankles, shoulders, wrists, anywhere there are fragile bones like hands and feet. If you strike there with maximum force, you are likely to break or dislocate something.

Ideally, the whole thing is ended with one or two moves and only takes a second.

Which family's tai chi do you study? I'm kind of a martial arts nerd lol; I've studied ranged combat with knives, spikes, and kunai, and am currently studying Combat Sambo.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Which family's tai chi do you study? I'm kind of a martial arts nerd lol; I've studied ranged combat with knives, spikes, and kunai, and am currently studying Combat Sambo.

Oh sweet.

I like carrying my knife. And it's legal, as long as it's not a switchblade. But it's gorgeous, has an extra knob on the handle for short targeted strikes on bony landmarks, and is a small blade for easier carry. Plus, I prefer knives because they're quiet and you only need a couple inches to cut to inflict critical injury if necessary.

And you never have to re-load.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ideally, the whole thing is ended with one or two moves and only takes a second.

Easier said than done. I once met a fellow who was expert in Aikido. (He came to town to train other advanced practicioners.) He said that fights are unpredictable, & you never know what you're up against in weaponry. So he always carried a set of wrenches tied together with a cord, ie, legal nunchucks. "Ideally" seldom happens in the real world.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh sweet.
I like carrying my knife. And it's legal, as long as it's not a switchblade. But it's gorgeous, has an extra knob on the handle for short targeted strikes on bony landmarks, and is a small blade for easier carry. Plus, I prefer knives because they're quiet and you only need a couple inches to cut to inflict critical injury if necessary.
And you never have to re-load.

I'd expect that no matter what you carried, your preparedness is the best & real weapon.
I carry a wrapped bundle of 10 $100 bills. If I'm ever attacked, I throw them at the
attacker. While he's scrambling to pick them up, I run away screaming like a little girl.
I haven't had to use this technique yet, but I'm convinced it will work. (Reloading would
be a bi*ch though.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'd expect that no matter what you carried, your preparedness is the best & real weapon.
I carry a wrapped bundle of 10 $100 bills. If I'm ever attacked, I throw them at the
attacker. While he's scrambling to pick them up, I run away screaming like a little girl.
I haven't had to use this technique yet, but I'm convinced it will work. (Reloading would
be a bi*ch though.)

You could use Monopoly money, instead. Reloading might be easier, then.

 

[Alceste]

Which family's tai chi do you study? I'm kind of a martial arts nerd lol; I've studied ranged combat with knives, spikes, and kunai, and am currently studying Combat Sambo.

Chen. Also I've taken some kung fu and jiu jitsu.

 

[Alceste]

Easier said than done. I once met a fellow who was expert in Aikido. (He came to town to train other advanced practicioners.) He said that fights are unpredictable, & you never know what you're up against in weaponry. So he always carried a set of wrenches tied together with a cord, ie, legal nunchucks. "Ideally" seldom happens in the real world.

So far so good. On the other hand, my altercations have not been "fights". One bully, one hysterical slapping woman and one drunken groper. One strike was enough for each, although no damage was done. Pain, sure. Damage, no.