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

[moodys]

I dont know if it is. The good side of it not being staged would be that the guy could actually have been reported as you can very clearly see his face in the video.

I can see why it might seem staged, the nonchalance with which he was stroking the woman and her reaction do not seem to conform with real-life interactions.

 

[DallasApple]

The original push or hit or whatever was completely justified way of getting him out of her body.

The hits that had nothing to do with her safety were useless and bette left avoided when one has the cool brain to avoid so.

The original was her swatting his hand away when she was seated and he came right back at her.So how do you know the next thing she did was enough and after that had nothing to do with her safety and was useless?

 

[Alceste]

Reminds me of Bernie Goetz (1984). "You don't look so bad, here have another."

People justified and still justify his actions, partly because of the NYC culture in the 80's. Not so sure I agree. Not really sure where I stand on this woman's actions, or on condoning behavior based on emotional outrage. I understand why she reacted as she did, and thankfully no one including her was critically injured. Given that, perhaps her choice reaction was best. But I wonder, where we draw the line.

We should draw the line at not rubbing our junk up against lone women on Indian buses. That way the rest of it is moot.

 

[Me Myself]

The original was her swatting his hand away when she was seated and he came right back at her.So how do you know the next thing she did was enough and after that and had nothing to do with her safety and was useless?

It is how it looked like in the video. The man gave her space, people where watching, he looked scared of the scandal and his hands where easy to be seen and he was in general on a very submissive body language and his face was kind of scared, not aggressive.

It was the time to move to another side of the bus, preferably while making more noise and pointing and without dropping the raised umbrella.

As I said, its understandable she was too afraid to do the most correct thing and it is much preferred than cowing.

 

[DallasApple]

I can see why it might seem staged, the nonchalance with which he was stroking the woman and her reaction do not seem to conform with real-life interactions.

Very similar has happened to me.And her reaction we have been discussing might have a lot to do with what is going on in that region today.Women are being molested raped /ganged raped in the street in broad day light too..and also busses are a hot spot for it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I can see why it might seem staged, the nonchalance with which he was stroking the woman and her reaction do not seem to conform with real-life interactions.

I don't assume one way or another. The timing and angle just seemed very convenient for me to consider it a possibility.

I think there is a big element of realism in the clip, however. Meaning, that the content is relevant and could happen IRL.

 

[Me Myself]

I can see why it might seem staged, the nonchalance with which he was stroking the woman and her reaction do not seem to conform with real-life interactions.

It did seem very real to me. I am just saying I dont know if it was staged.

What catched my eye was these two factors:

They were tapeying the situation

If the one tapying it was an allied of the assaulter he wouldnt have given the video for youtube or for an organization that wants this to stop. If he wasnt, he was in the right time and right place and filmed the assault which happened to go so different than the majority.

I dont say its stage, I say this things catch my notice, and I dont know.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't assume one way or another. The timing and angle just seemed very convenient for me to consider it a possibility.

I think there is a big element of realism in the clip, however. Meaning, that the content is relevant and could happen IRL.

I agree on all of the above^

 

[Badran]

Making a scandal and avoiding unnecessary further hurting towards the guys little ego minimized the chances of him venturing further after it.

I don't think it necessarily works that way, even though i can understand why that would make sense. Generally, i'd agree that less force is probably safer, at least as much as possible, but also other things can be considered here. The guy in question is a bully, i would think that the person most likely to be followed by him is actually the one in complete silence. It would present him with the easiest and most satisfying prey.

At least, i think what she did, which is essentially breaking the bully, is indeed a relatively safe thing to do, if you're capable of doing so and are facing one. She put him in his place, and i think cowards like him are more likely to pick on easy targets than ones who are willing and fierce to fight back.

Another thing to put in mind is that the guy's initial reaction after the first hit probably has something to do with what she decides to do afterwards, a factor i mean. His reactions stroke me as those of someone who was intending to appear oblivious (which is a very common reaction), as if he was a victim, and i think she probably saw that and was angered even further, and realized even more what kind of coward was in question there.

Note, i don't think it would always work that way either, and i might be off in my interpretation in some regards, but i'm just saying that i don't think what she did necessarily means she put herself in more risk, all things considered. I agree with your general approach proposed, and think she might have handled the situation differently, equally effectively and perhaps even more effectively, but i think what she did was fine too.

About justifiable, the space had already been achieved and after it was achieved she kept hitting. That part doesnt seem reasonable to me. No, not bad, I am pretty much careless about it but it was not "reasonable" . It didnt seem to come out of a place of reason but fear.

So given that I saw no reason for attack after her territory seemed secure and he was already showing his hands displaying submission and out of her space, I dont think it is "reasonable" nor particularly "right" .

Its gray enough to not be morally wrong IMHO, but definetely not "right" and for the circumstances, no "reason" to do it either. She did it because she was scared, and that was okay.

(The oxford says justify would mean to deem reasonable or right to do x)

I'd agree that it was most likely based in emotion, but with adding things like anger and general deep frustration with culture and it's consequences on the woman and others as has been pointed out.

In that sense there most definitely is a reason. Not in the sense of well calculated thoughts and decisions based on analysis or things along those lines. But in the sense of being understandable and appropriate.

What she did may have contained elements which were not particularly necessary, but that does not mean it had no reason nor that it was not right.

 

[Curious George]

We should draw the line at not rubbing our junk up against lone women on Indian buses. That way the rest of it is moot.

And with the Goetz case people would say we should draw the line at not robbing people with screwdrivers on subways , but does that mean any reaction to crossing that line is justifiable. I was wondering where we draw the line with regards to a victims reaction.

 

[Alceste]

I can see why it might seem staged, the nonchalance with which he was stroking the woman and her reaction do not seem to conform with real-life interactions.

Eh, what? That kind of thing happens all the time. Some folks are huge, creepy pervs. In Japan, there's even a specific word for a "subway pervert", it's so common. When I was in Paris, there were creepy pervs literally coming out of every shadowy corner at Champs Elysee at dusk. They were pretty nonchalant. And awfully insistent that I should come with them so they could drive me to my hostel because the trains weren't running. I mean AWFULLY insistent. One followed me from station to station insisting that I come with him the entire time, with me telling him no, f***off, not interested.

That scene rings completely genuine, according to my own personal experience of being female and dealing with creepy pervs. They have a kind of oozing demeanour, not so much an explosive or aggressive one.

 

[moodys]

It did seem very real to me. I am just saying I dont know if it was staged.

What catched my eye was these two factors:

They were tapeying the situation

If the one tapying it was an allied of the assaulter he wouldnt have given the video for youtube or for an organization that wants this to stop. If he wasnt, he was in the right time and right place and filmed the assault which happened to go so different than the majority.

I dont say its stage, I say this things catch my notice, and I dont know.

Good point with regards to the filming, very dubious film making unless it was a woman who perhaps intended to document cases of harassment on public transport? Either way I can't imagine the man not knowing he was on film which is puzzling.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't think it necessarily works that way, even though i can understand why that would make sense. Generally, i'd agree that less force is probably safer, at least as much as possible, but also other things can be considered here. The guy in question is a bully, i would think that the person most likely to be followed by him is actually the one in complete silence. It would present him with the easiest and most satisfying prey.

At least, i think what she did, which is essentially breaking the bully, is indeed a relatively safe thing to do, if you're capable of doing so and are facing one. She put him in his place, and i think cowards like him are more likely to pick on easy targets than ones who are willing and fierce to fight back.

Another thing to put in mind is that the guy's initial reaction after the first hit probably has something to do with what she decides to do afterwards, a factor i mean. His reactions stroke me as those of someone who was intending to appear oblivious (which is a very common reaction), as if he was a victim, and i think she probably saw that and was angered even further, and realized even more what kind of coward was in question there.

Note, i don't think it would always work that way either, and i might be off in my interpretation in some regards, but i'm just saying that i don't think what she did necessarily means she put herself in more risk, all things considered. I agree with your general approach proposed, and think she might have handled the situation differently, equally effectively and perhaps even more effectively, but i think what she did was fine too.



I'd agree that it was most likely based in emotion, but with adding things like anger and general deep frustration with culture and it's consequences on the woman and others as has been pointed out.

In that sense there most definitely is a reason. Not in the sense of well calculated thoughts and decisions based on analysis or things along those lines. But in the sense of both an understandable and appropriate.

What she did may have contained elements which were not particularly necessary, but that does not mean it had no reason nor that it was not right.

Everything humans do always have a reason. She kept the assault on the assaulter beyond the point of self defense.

Scandal is the best you can do and that enouhg is breaking the bully. Any strong physical aggresive reaction to keep him out of her is justified, but when he is off her and as you very well put it is playing the victim, there is no further need for attack.

I think she acted mostly on fear, I do think it enraged her he acted the victim, but I think it was still mostly fear. In any case, whether fear anger or both (I am sure both with mostly fear) since the man was playing the victim and eveyrone was eeing them, he was reasonably completely inlikely to attack her. Everyone is seeing him. Too many witnesses. His assault was witnessless(I assume he didnt know of the camera) in his head, he didnt need the attention.

So while I find it understandable and I can sympathize, her actions weren't reasonable.

 

[Me Myself]

Good point with regards to the filming, very dubious film making unless it was a woman who perhaps intended to document cases of harassment on public transport? Either way I can't imagine the man not knowing he was on film which is puzzling.

Why cant you imagine it? Cell phone cameras make this things very easily hidden.

 

[DallasApple]

There are MANY crimes today among other things caught on tape by onlookers these days.So many people carrying around video recorders or have one on their cell phone it doesn't seem like an "odd /unusual coincidence" to me.

Look ..we have video footage of the planes flying into the twin towers .Those were captured by regular folks walking around coincidentally with video cameras.

 

[moodys]

Why cant you imagine it? Cell phone cameras make this things very easily hidden.

Not in this case. If you view the video again, there was more or less a direct line of vision between the eye of the camera and the assailant. A few seconds before that shot, the camera was pointed towards the window, I don't think a person with an intentionally discreet camera would be moving it in such a manner, especially considering the environment where few can afford such well-hidden cameras in the first instance.

 

[Badran]

Everything humans do always have a reason. She kept the assault on the assaulter beyond the point of self defense.

Scandal is the best you can do and that enouhg is breaking the bully. Any strong physical aggresive reaction to keep him out of her is justified, but when he is off her and as you very well put it is playing the victim, there is no further need for attack.

I think she acted mostly on fear, I do think it enraged her he acted the victim, but I think it was still mostly fear. In any case, whether fear anger or both (I am sure both with mostly fear) since the man was playing the victim and eveyrone was eeing them, he was reasonably completely inlikely to attack her. Everyone is seeing him. Too many witnesses. His assault was witnessless(I assume he didnt know of the camera) in his head, he didnt need the attention.

So while I find it understandable and I can sympathize, her actions weren't reasonable.

You missed in your analysis the one aspect which was brought up repeatedly here, which is the culture involved and what it entails. Which is a considerable factor in her reaction being viewed as appropriate. I understand and generally agree with most of what you're saying, but i don't think you're giving proper due to the situation from the perspective of the woman in question and others like her.

 

[DallasApple]

Right I have had men in a crowed place trying to "squeeze " between men and someone else and "conveniently accidently" do the ole gyrate the ole groin into my *** briefly as they past.Thats happened to me several times and that only one example.Casually and non cholontly.

 

[Me Myself]

Watching it again, she was lucky he didnt hit her back. He seemed to be making an extremely conscious effort to not attack back and try to reason out his assault.

But no, he was too focused on her to see the camera. The only moment where his eyes more or less pass near it he has just been hit with the thing. I doubt he is extremely aware of anything beyond the woman's attacks.

 

[Alceste]

And with the Goetz case people would say we should draw the line at not robbing people with screwdrivers on subways , but does that mean any reaction to crossing that line is justifiable. I was wondering where we draw the line with regards to a victims reaction.

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.