Threats of violence are against the law. If the police refuse to do anything, assuming that someone has actually recorded it happening, you could pursue civil judgement against them (sue them), you can talk to the county/district attorney about it, or you can go to the media.
Just like everyone else.
Yeah, basically. The best response when someone breaks the law at you is not to break the law in return.
Look, this is the way I have handled threats of violence in the past;
“(threat of imminent violence)”
Me: 
“Go ahead, give it a try. See how it works for you.”
Never had anyone take me up on that, even through 4 years of security work.
Of course, the other side of that is that I am a trained observer, have belts in multiple martial arts and have very keen instincts. When I know there’s going to be actual violence, I leave.
But the point of this being not any kind of bragging, but an idea.
If someone is threatening you in front of the police, what do you think is going to happen if they actually attack you? So at that point, what are you afraid of? That they WILL punch you? That the cops won’t do anything?
You throw a punch, you’re the villain. That is what those people are hoping for - to bait you into being their villain. Laugh in their face, make them blink first.
Yeah: "MRA punches protesting feminist’’ is just the headline she’d be looking for.
The problem may be that the OP did not get the answer that he wanted, rather than that the question was not answered immediately after it was asked.
Like the US Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms restrains the government from violating these rights, not regular citizens.
Here’s the self-defense portion of the Canadian Criminal Code. I’m not a lawyer, but it looks to me that it comes down to the nature of the threats: mere verbal abuse, or imminent danger? Without video of the incident, it’s hard to say.
Also seems they’re a bunch of whiny little pussies without any actual intelligence to complain about this so much without even one of them being able to figure out how this here Law thing works.
Obviously, none of them are cops or lawyers and not one of them knows Google-Fu.
For someone who just got done complaining about how feminism isn’t just the dictionary definition, you sure are trying to paint a rosy fucking picture of MRAs. From my experience, almost everything that MRAs are about is complaining about women. Even in the cases where they point out real issues, they can’t help but turn it into a “take this, women”, and utterly miss the actual causes, which in many cases is in fact patriarchal systems of control and toxic masculinity. And of course, there simply aren’t that many movements that try to coopt the feminist label that are as explicitly and obscenely toxic as, say, MGTOW. RadFems might count in a pinch, I guess?
Not even that, if the only data point you look at is the acceptance rate per application, it could easily be that well-qualified male applicants tend to send out a larger number of applications than similarly qualified women do. A given male applicant can only actually attend one school, but can send out many applications.
You’d need to look at an average acceptance rate per applicant rather than per application to control for this, and there’s no indication this was done.
In that the quoted incident occurred in Canada, I read the relevant sections of the Canadian Criminal Code (link above).
As I read it, in the incident quoted, the guy being abused would have been within his legal rights to deck the harpie.
The code says “…no offence is committed…”
However, it does not say where or when that determination is made: is it made on the spot, or are charges laid, then the determination is made in court? If charges are laid, who does that?
I would assume that in the quoted incident, if the harpie was decked, the police would suddenly discover that they had a pair and come to her “rescue”. It is not clear to me what would happen then.
Given this ambiguity, it seems to me that our civil rights and freedom of speech have been taken hostage by PC activists. The reality is that most people are too polite and reluctant to actively engage these terrorists, and will just back off and go home. This leaves the field to the terrorists, and our freedoms have been diminished.
However, it is also possible that people will finally call “enough”, and start to push back.
That could turn even more ugly than it already is.
And as sane people read it, he would not have been within his legal rights to deck her.
…if they reasonably believe that force or the threat of force is being used against them or another person. And that the force they use is used to defend themselves or the other person. And that the amount of force they use is reasonable.
Saying mean things is not force and is not a threat of force. Force is the use of touching without consent. Talking is not touching. Yelling is not touching.
Hitting someone is touching. If you deck her for yelling at you, you have assaulted her. You get to go to jail. Do not pass Go; do not collect $200.
Obstructing someone is using force…
If someone is in your way, it is not assault. You go around them. If they then move to obstruct you, that is a threat of unwanted touching. A reasonable amount of force to push past them without injuring them is not assault. Decking them is not a reasonable amount of force.
I think it is. Shooting them is not, hitting them with a baseball bat is not.
A puch is reasonable force in reaction to their violence.
You’ve got another think coming.
You misspelled ‘putsch’.
So, no further arguments?
Well, I encourage you to try it.
Then report back on how the police treated you after your arrest.
I’m sure I wouldn’t be arrested, the situation would likely not even occur. My country isn’t as dysfunctional as the US.
If your country allows you to punch someone who isn’t attacking you, then I don’t think you have any place calling the US “dysfunctional.”
Pretty much. I certainly don’t think he should be legally allowed to hit her, as I do not generally condone violence, but explaining the way the law works is not the same as saying, ‘‘Oh, this behavior is totally okay.’’ I do not think the woman’s behavior is okay (assuming it has been accurately represented by the OP.) But the ethics of either behavior is not a question for GQ. Hence it being moved to the Pit.
The OP should know this if he has in fact been around since 2011.