A 19-year-old woman got punched and ended up in the hospital with a fractured skull. The video of the incident is very, very brief, and there’s no context given about what may have occurred before, but in the video, you can clearly see this young woman strike the man before he punches her. He retaliates and she gets knocked out. Was this man wrong to defend himself? Would your answer be different if it had been a 19-year-old man instead of a woman who “threw the first punch” (at least, as far as we have documentation of the incident)?
The article calls him an “assailant” and says the police are looking for him, but it looks like self-defense to me. What are your thoughts?
The gender issue is irrelevant. If Woody Allen punches Brock Lesnar and Brock Lesnar retaliates by punching him with full force, sending Woody Allen to the hospital, than Brock is absolutely in the wrong. It’s hard to tell from the video, but the guy didn’t seem fazed at all by the woman’s blow, but retaliated by sending her to the hospital. That’s at least immoral, and probably (Not a Lawyer) criminal as well. He had other options, like blocking or restraining her, or even moving away. The crowd seemed to think he was in the wrong.
Your article provided absolutely zero context. So, it’s a little hard to give an informed opinion.
My guess is that copious consumption of alcohol made both these two act like idiots. And as a result, Darwin ensued.
I’m having difficulty feeling sorry for either one of them at this point. However, that could easily change given more details.
Looking at the video, I think this is a close call. Had the woman presented a rather incompetent attack on the man, I do not believe he would be justified in throwing an expert punch like that. But her punch, while not expert, certainly had the potential to cause significant harm to him. In general, I think that he has the right to defend himself.
However - two big caveats. If he started the altercation, and the video only caught one snippet of it that isn’t representative of the whole dispute, he should he punished. Also, if he has some boxing or martial arts training that allows him the skill to moderate his response, I would be strongly inclined to think that he failed to do so and defend himself in a proportionate manner. If someone throws a punch at Mike Tyson, Iron Mike does not have free rein to obliterate the guy with an uppercut if it seems reasonable that he could defend himself with a quick jab (or whatever).
It’s impossible to tell for sure from the two second video the answer to those two questions, but my suspicion is that the guy had enough skill to respond with a less potentially lethal blow, and he chose not to do so. That’s not right.
Regarding what the guy should or shouldn’t have done: like the man said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
I’ve seen my fair of men vs. women fighting videos and I can only remember one where the woman won, at least without a weapon of some sort. It was a really fat woman who tackled a skinny guy and sat on him. Otherwise, best case scenarios are: 1. the guy restrains himself 2. pushes her away and disengages 3. is held back by the crowd. Worst case, this video. It seems some women think they can do whatever because it’s unacceptable to hit women, but sometimes the guy didn’t get the memo. Another factor is sometimes it seems like these aggressive woman underestimate the strength of smaller or skinny men, thinking maybe they can maybe take them. Wrong.
If someone wants to argue that retaliation should be proportional to the attack, then that’s one thing. But there seems to be a significant segment of society that is of the view that a man *should not even do that *if attacked by a woman; that he should just passively let her continue to assault him; albeit with some attempt to get away from her. This is as gender-*inequal *as it gets.
If a weaker party attacks a stronger party, then it has little basis (to a certain extent) to complain about coming out on the losing side of that altercation. The amount of force used by the United States against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, for instance, has probably exceeded the amount of force used by al-Qaeda against America on 9/11. Is that unfair?
If I challenge LeBron James to a 1-on-1 game of basketball, should I complain if I end up losing that game on account of James’ superior height, experience, skill and agility?
OK, on a second viewing of the video her punch seemed more effective than it did at first, but the guy still seemed to have options beyond his punch. It’s really hard to tell in this case.
Question for lawyers: If there’s a bar fight between two evenly matched people and one gets the worst of it and is sent to a hospital, can the “winner” be prosecuted or sued for assault?
If you lose to LeBron, I’m pretty sure you’re just going to be humiliated, as opposed to fighting for your life in intensive care. Let’s not use analogies when the facts at hand - although not totally clear - are easily understood.
If you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself. One punch vs. one punch is fair unless there’s a gross disparity in the party’s abilities. Man vs. woman is not gross disparity in itself. They seem to have been pretty close in size. She was stupid. Assuming she threw the first punch she deserves no pity, and should be prosecuted for assault after she gets out of the hospital. If drunk women want to act like drunk men they should accept the consequences. That’s what gender equality is about.
Let’s just state the obvious here: punching people is wrong. She was wrong for hitting him, and, seeing as he could perfectly well have have responded nonviolently or even just left, he was wrong for hitting back. He is culpable of assault, possibly with extenuating circumstances: he hit her hard enough to cause serious injury, he was not in imminent risk of serious injury himself, so self-defense doesn’t apply, and “she started it” is not an excuse.
If they had both been male the same logic applies. You do not get to injure people without a legitimate claim to self-defense.
The general principle is that the use of force toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. (From the Model Penal Code).
Note the word “unlawful,” above.
There are some nuances between states. In some cases, deadly force adds the requirement that the actor has no opportunity to retreat; in other states, a person does not have to retreat and may choose to meet deadly force with deadly force.
So to tentatively answer your question, the offender would be the the person who used unlawful force – essentially, the first person to use force, since the law allows a forceful response.
It’s not a question of how evenly they were matched as combatants, except to the extent that a dramatic mismatch between combatants’ sizes, strengths, or skill might impinge on the question of just how much force was “immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself.”
There’s also a common law approach. It has nuances of its own, but does not really produce dramatically different analytical results.
Men should have just as much right to self defense as women, regardless of the gender of their attacker(s).
However, legal self-defense usually incorporates some notion of whether or not a response is reasonable. While a punch for a punch seems equitable, and usually is, the jury should consider significant disparities and the circumstances of the conflict. A seven foot tall professional wrestler or boxer is going to have a punch much more forceful than average, for example and that might be a significant factor to consider.
In regards to the incident mentioned in the OP we have few details. It sounds like it wasn’t the punch that fractured her skull but rather falling and then hitting her head on the ground. There is also reports she started the physical violence, which makes me considerably less sympathetic towards her. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see her make a full recovery, but she shares some culpability here. If she hadn’t thrown the first punch the guy would likely have never punched her back. Basically, she did something stupid and got hurt.
If she died in the hospital from the falling and hitting her head, the guy could be up on manslaughter charges.
The genders are irrelevant. If one person has a significant size and strength advantage over another person, one punch could easily be enough to kill them. You’re only allowed to use force to defend yourself if you reasonably believe yourself to be in danger. A drunk bitch slapping at you doesn’t rise to the level that you’re allowed to punch them so hard they drop to the floor. “They started it!” isn’t good enough.
What makes you think this would have been enough for her to break off her attack? I don’t think either of us can know for sure either way, but I think it’s just as likely that she kept hitting him as stopped if he would “have responded nonviolently”