Right again. Damn I’m good.
You’re like the Uri Gellar of creepy guy threads.
Except she’s not allowed to keep it easily accessible, right?
She doesn’t need my permission, she needs the permission of the law to take an action that would otherwise be illegal. That generally means that the person she defended herself against acted in such a way that a reasonable person would have felt threatened, and that she actually felt threatened.
At no point did I argue that someone chasing, yelling, and grabbing didn’t constitute a threat. I argued, correctly, that neither following, talking, nor touching in a non-sexual manner necessarily constitute a threat. You have repeatedly misunderstood (to be generous) my position on this, despite me clarifying it on several occasions.
A man, or anyone, can walk where they choose in public. They may say what they choose, with only a very few restrictions, as long as what they say isn’t a direct threat to you. Touching is a bit different, but if it is non-sexual, non-harmful, and non-restraining, it is unlikely to constitute a threat that would allow self defence, even if sad touching is actually illegal.
You may not use violence to preempt a possible threat, or to get revenge for a threat or crime that is no longer happening. Would it be ok for me to punch you in the face for something? In those situations, and no other, can you pepper spray me.
Yes, of course she is. She can have it just as easily accessible as I can have any weapon I’m legally allowed to carry. After all, as has been repeatedly shown in this thread, I’m at greater risk of attack. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to carry a knife or gun conveniently in my hand in case I feel threatened at any point?
Because it’s fucking ridiculous, and dangerous to both me and others, is the answer, by the way.
Take a look at your example. I’m going to highlight some words for you:
What do you notice?
As soon as every dog in my region is secure and none are running free, I’ll keep my pepper spray in a holster or in my pocket. All things being even, as soon as all men start running, walking, and moving about the city with fists securely planted in pockets*, I’ll keep my pepper spray in a holster or in my pocket.
*ETA: that’s more for your protection than mine, based on stats
That you highlighted all the weapons mentioned in the posts. Well done, you have correctly understood the comparison I was making.
I imagine you think you’re making some sort of point by highlighting that they’re different weapons. You’re not. They are, and should continue to be, treated the same. Don’t threaten innocent people with weapons. Keep them out of your hands unless you’re going to use them.
Action that would otherwise be illegal. Otherwise like if you change the words entirely to downplay the severity of the threat, and change her from having a can of pepper spray to having a knife? Well, I guess if you change all the things about the situation, yes it would “otherwise” be illegal. You even said yourself that she acted appropriately, once she came back to provide additional details that seemingly satisfied you.
You didn’t say that “chasing, yelling and grabbing” weren’t a threat because you went back and changed her words to “following, speaking, and touching”. You’re completely misconstruing the events to change them entirely. You can argue that entirely different situations are different, and we are free to argue that you’re insane for talking about entirely different things while the rest of us are talking about chasing, yelling, and grabbing.
So are you of the opinion that her response was proportionate to the threat that was posed? Or are you arguing that if it had been a completely different situation than the one she experienced, her response would have disproportionate?
A person doesn’t have to have already inflicted violence on me for me to defend myself. I’m not going to wait for you to punch me in the face to utilize non-lethal force to prevent you from harming me. That’s absurd. If you were to chase me down and grab me, I’m going to pepper spray you. I’m not going to wait until you say “Stop running so I can rape you!” to determine that you wish to harm me.
Guns and knives are not the same as pepper spray. I see the problem here. You’re utterly incapable of determining the variance in the level of force between a variety of objects. Once you figure out that they vary in degree of lethality, maybe we can have a grown up conversation with you.
No. You’re not carrying it to ward off stray dogs, so stop lying. I’m allowed to walk round with my hands in the open - as are you - as long as I’m not threatening you with them. You are not allowed to use a weapon - and neither am I - unless being threatened. Holding it in your hand ready to fire (or whatever said weapon does) is a use. Stop doing it. It’s not complicated.
Everyone I see running, jogging, hiking, and biking carries pepper spray. Male and female, I presume it’s primarily to discourage stray dogs. As I said, I’ve never had the occasion to use it on a dog. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen, lots of strays in my city and lots of pet owners let their dogs run off leash.
I’ve noticed that most runners and hikers do hold it in their hands, as in the event of an emergency that requires defensive measures: we’ll need it in a hurry. That’s why it’s often sold on a keychain or made with a molded grip. Unlike you, I’ve never once felt threatened by anyone carrying pepper spray; I’ve never considered that they intend to use it on me. I’ve never given it a second thought. In a country full of guns, your fixation on pepper spray is bizarre, frankly.
Er, I know this. I’ve said so repeatedly. If someone threatens you, you can defend yourself. If, however, someone violently attacks you, then runs away, or otherwise stops being a threat, you may not then use violence on them.
It’s not their violence that’s the determining factor, it’s their threat.
An example, here. About 18 months ago, I was hit in the face by a guy running past. Completely random, and completely intentional on his part. He then ran away, and collapsed on the other side of the road. As it happened, he was being followed by the police, as he’d already done this a couple of times to other people.
If I’d have crossed the street and attacked him, I’d have been guilty of assault. If I’d have seen him attack one of the other people, and run near me, but not actually towards me, I could not have used force in “self defence”, as he was not a direct threat to me.
As it actually happened, there was no moment when I could have acted in self defence, as I only became aware of him when he hit me, and by then he was running away.
Unless the self defence laws where you are are fundamentally different to the ones here, it would be the same for you. You can’t assume someone might become a threat, and defend yourself against that imagined threat.
No, I’m capable of determining that. I’d be less worried if threatened by pepper spray than a gun, and would hope that the punishment for doing so would be less. It’s still a weapon, and the only legitimate use for it is in self defence. If you’re not defending yourself, keep it in your pocket.
Carrying around those goalposts must get pretty tiring. Where in Troppus’s description of events did you infer that the individual grabbed her and then ran away?
Right. And you, after changing the words of the description of the event, determined that the man was not a threat to her. Why won’t you acknowledge that you attempted to severely diminish the threatening nature of the event she describes by changing the verbiage used to describe it?
Cool story. It doesn’t really relate at all to the one being discussed, though. She didn’t assume someone “might become” a threat. He was a threat, she used pepper spray to defend herself, she was justified in doing so.
Except you keep saying over and over again that they should be treated the same. They aren’t the same, they aren’t used in the same manners or under the same circumstances and pepper spray (although it is possible to use it in an offensive manner) is primarily a weapon of self defense. She was using it in self defense, and presumably the lady in the elevator was planning to use it in self defense. So telling people to “keep it in your pocket” is stupid. They’re holding it in their hand in the event of a need to use it. Holding it in your hand in preparation of a possible need does not automatically make it an aggressive and threatening action. It means you are preparing to utilize it in the defense of your person. Which, as others have pointed out, is what police officers recommend women do when they are in situations where their safety might be questionable, hold it in your hand so you don’t have to fumble in your purse or the attacker doesn’t incapacitate you before you have a chance to get to it. If police are recommending that they have it accessible even before a credible threat is seen, how can you continue to argue that they are behaving in a manner contrary to the law?
No, holding pepper spray clutched to your chest while cowering away from a strange man in an elevator is not a use. Not legally, not morally, not at all.
Regards,
Shodan
What in the actual fuck does this have to do with what we’re discussing? Seriously, what does this even remotely have to do with either the lady in the elevator or Troppus’ attacker?
This is just getting absurd. But go ahead, keep telling the rape victim she wasn’t right to defend herself because you’re imaging absolutely ridiculous, unrelated scenarios in your head.
I carried pepper spray before I was attacked, as does nearly everyone I see who pursues outdoor activities. I assume that most people haven’t had the occasion to use it except to discourage the occasional dog or black bear. I take full responsibility for putting myself in that unfortunate situation at the beach just as I take full responsibility for pursuing outdoor trail and park venues for exercise. I hate the gym. I refuse to stay indoors because a dog might bite me or because some weirdos consider public parks to be prime locations for attempting to pick up women. I have zero desire to carry a gun, and pepper spray is my safety net. I am not afraid when I’m carrying it and it does not deter normal people from interacting with me. I don’t feel the slightest need to defend or justify carrying it, and recommend that anyone fearful of going outside should do the same. It’s a cheap and effective way to feel stronger and safer. It’s presence could enlarge the world of a timid person.
Having said that, it’s entirely possible to meet a romantic partner at the park, but some people seem to take it personally if you don’t stop and entertain them when they interrupt you. Some people wrongly assume that I am also there to hook up. Those people who clearly aren’t dressed for exercise, who are clueless about stopping you in midstride, intercepting or following you are the creepers we fear in the park. Yes, they have every right to be there. Yes, it’s expected that some folks will people-watch. Yes, small talk with strangers in the park is usually a perk, not a hazard. But the kind of people who blow up and get angry at being ignored or rejected are an occasional problem, and scary as hell. I expect that the kind of person who regards a public park, parking lot, playground, or trail as a place to trap, stalk, or confront women will attract the attention of vigilant women and police. Public place or not, there are standards of behavior and an expectation of safety and personal space that is quite different from a bar. Obvious deviance from the usual recreational dress and behavior is likely to bring attention, fairly or not.
What a strange thread.
So if I demonstrate that state laws treat them differently–specifically, treat brandishing a firearm and brandishing pepper spray differently–will you admit you’re wrong and shut up? Or will you move the goal posts again?
We are discussing the treating of men in general as a threat. I am trying to describe what actually constitutes a threat, and what doesn’t.
This thread isn’t about Troppus being attacked, or about any actual attacks - it’s about all the times people who aren’t threatened or attacked still feel the need to “defend” themselves against ordinary, unthreatening people who just happen to have a penis.