At what point is it OK for a man to lay a finger (and not in a good way) on a woman?

[atroop711]

if the man is being attacked and this is the last resort then he has to do what he has to do.

 

[Mara]

Oh and TG I kind of agree with Guy about what he was saying if a girl walks up to him and slugs him. I don't buy into the women are delicate flowers thing either...and yes sure sometimes men are 2x as big as women etc...but if women take self defense classes you CAN incapacitate a man 2x your size.

IMO we might hear more about domestic violence where it's the man being violent towards the woman, but there are a ton of cases where it's the other way around but most men are too afraid or ashamed to do anything about it and then BOOM there's a story like this. Women can fight just as dirty as men if they know how..... so if a woman is picking a fight, she should expect that the person she's abusing won't just take it (and vice versa for men as well). No one should stand for another person beating up on them.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I think he has every single right to defend himself...to not do so would be stupid.

 

[Gypsy]

Okay so.

I think that when anyone (male or female) is being attacked in a NON-life threatening way... they should leave, get out, get clear. Remove themselves from the violence. IF THEY CAN'T, either because a love one is threatened and they can't leave them behind, or because the attacker will not let them leave... then they should defend themselves enough to stop the other person from injuring them, but without injuring the other person IF POSSIBLE.

I don't know enough to know what happened in the sitation you described? Did the guy try to leave, to get out and get away? Was it not possible for him to lock himself in a bedroom or bathroom and call the police?

I don't think that if you can't get away, you should try to defend, if that doesn't work and you CAN subdue... you should. A restraining (not injuring) chokehold while certainly scary might have been warranted... it depends on how crazed the woman was and how much harm she was intent on.

This is basic and high level but: Deadly force is defined as any force that kills, it's not the degree it's the result. And assault with a deadly weapon means assault with a weapon that kills. So she could have been attacking him with a lamp, but if that lamp had killed him (freak accident) that's assault with a deadly weapon. So it's very much a determination of the ACTUAL facts of the actual incident. I can't judge whether a choke hold was too far. It depends how threatened he AS THE VICTIM felt, and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances. Your response as a victim is only supposed to be proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances. CHOKING her with his hands... that is deadly force (cause it really can kill, and easily) and unless he was in actual fear for his life... that's not justified. And wouldn't be if he were a woman either.

It sounds like he just went all "I'm going to overpower and subdue you" when he could have easily (compared to choking her) left the situation and removed himself from the threat... yes he acted out of line. But not because he's a man. A woman in that situation would be out of line too.

When you can leave and remove yourself from harm, as a victim of assault, you should. Leaving IS defending yourself. If you can't leave... then do what is reasonable under the circumstances... and hope the cops and the court agree with you. BUT, they aren't gonna agree with you if you didn't try to get out when it was clear you could have with ease and without causing harm to anywone else. He so easily overpowered her to the point he was choking her... well, it makes me think that he could have opened the door and shoved her out of the house. Locked the doors and called the cops. Or just walked out the door himself (if there weren't kids or anyone to worry about in the house). Choking is not okay. I get that he snapped. But that doesn't make it okay. If you can choke someone, if you can get them into a hold that will let you do that... you can likely just get yourself out of the situation. Even if it is hard.

 

[Circe]

Date: 6/8/2009 6:22:20 PM
Author: Gypsy
Okay so.


I think that when anyone (male or female) is being attacked in a NON-life threatening way... they should leave, get out, get clear. Remove themselves from the violence. IF THEY CAN''T, either because a love one is threatened and they can''t leave them behind, or because the attacker will not let them leave... then they should defend themselves enough to stop the other person from injuring them, but without injuring the other person IF POSSIBLE.


I don''t know enough to know what happened in the sitation you described? Did the guy try to leave, to get out and get away? Was it not possible for him to lock himself in a bedroom or bathroom and call the police?


I don''t think that if you can''t get away, you should try to defend, if that doesn''t work and you CAN subdue... you should. A restraining (not injuring) chokehold while certainly scary might have been warranted... it depends on how crazed the woman was and how much harm she was intent on.


This is basic and high level but: Deadly force is defined as any force that kills, it''s not the degree it''s the result. And assault with a deadly weapon means assault with a weapon that kills. So she could have been attacking him with a lamp, but if that lamp had killed him (freak accident) that''s assault with a deadly weapon. So it''s very much a determination of the ACTUAL facts of the actual incident. I can''t judge whether a choke hold was too far. It depends how threatened he AS THE VICTIM felt, and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances. Your response as a victim is only supposed to be proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances.


Now, if he just went all ''I''m going to overpower and subdue you'' when he could have easily left the situation and removed himself from the threat... yes he acted out of line. But not because he''s a man. A woman in that situation would be out of line too.


When you can leave and remove yourself from harm, as a victim of assault, you should. Leaving IS defending yourself. If you can''t leave... then do what is reasonable under the circumstances... and hope the cops and the court agree with you. BUT, they aren''t gonna agree with you if you didn''t try to get out when it was clear you could have with ease and without causing harm to anywone else. He he so easily overpowered her... well, it makes me think that he could have opened the door and shoved her out of the house. Locked the doors and called the cops. Or just walked out the door himself (if there weren''t kids or anyone to worry about in the house).

Self-defense isn''t really a gendered requirement - but I think Gypsy''s dead on the money when she points out that even that sort of violence should always be a last resort.

 

[kcoursolle]

I think only in self defense situations where you are defending yourself from physical harm, and then only then should enough force be used to get away and no more.

 

[Dancing Fire]

my friend''s wife calls the police saying that her husband was attacking her. when the police arrived at their place the police officer notice the husband had scratches all over his body,the police then arrested the wife.

the husband then went downtown bailed her out of jail for $2500.

i told him to let her stay in jail for 2 days and save the $2500 bucks.

 

[hlmr]

If someone is attacking me, I will no doubt experience the fight or flight response, just like anyone else. If flight is not an option, than I will do what I can to protect myself. If that involves putting a choke hold on someone, I can live with that. Once you start attacking another person, they have every right to defend themselves. You can't expect someone to stay logical, and use only the very minimum of force necessary, when they are dodging repeated blows. It is unrealistic, as a human being, to expect yourself to be perfect in such a situation.

IMO, this couple never grew past their 'teenage relationship'.

 

[perry]

A person absolutely has the right to fight back.

The amount of force used should be just enough to stop the attack.

If that is one solid slug... so be it.

If that is breaking their arm and kicking them hard when they try to get back up... So be it.

If that is choking the other person because blows don''t do it... So be it.

If that is shooting them to stop them... So be it.

What amount of force is needed to stop the attack that you can bring to bear when being attacked - that is the right amount of force.

In this case - choking may have been appropriate - and the least force needed to stop the attack (was the gal strugling when he was holding her down such that he could not release her?).

No appologies needed at that point.

It would be excessive if they then went on to inflict continuing blows or additional measures past the point needed to stop the attack.


Perry

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 6/8/2009 2:52:31 PM
Author: whitby_2773
hi TGal

i only have one point and you can make of it what you will.

bruises on hands and arms are painful, definitely.

but choking can kill you.

its a whole different level of violence.

5''9'' and tough sounds almost equal...except that it wasnt equal enough for her either to choke HIM, or for her to be able to get him off her. working in dispute resolution and with troubled kids and divorces etcetc i''ve worked in situations where domestic violence was an issue many times. for every time where you encounter a woman who is stronger than her male counterpart, there are thousands where the man is stronger than the woman. the power disparity is generally so great that i would virtually never take the ''oh sure - if she hits - it''s his right to hit back'' route.

there''s more to the issue than ''who hit first'' - there''s also ''who can hit hardest?''

if you find yourself in a relationship with an aggressive woman - leave her, divorce her, walk out the door at the moment of your choosing. but don''t hit, because it''s virtually never an equal fight and unequal fights are always ugly.

Totally agree with this post as well as others who said he should have just left.
There''s always two sides to a story and then the truth. I''m wondering if at least some of that bruising didn''t come from her trying to get his hands off her neck.

 

[AmberGretchen]

Date: 6/8/2009 1:47:14 PM
Author: elrohwen
If a man is being attacked, I think he has every right to try to restrain the woman, but he should try not to cause her any more harm than necessary to protect himself.


What a sad story, TGal!

Ditto, exactly. Self-defense is basically always valid, but should be a last resort and is not an excuse to lose any and all restraint - this applies to both men and women, only what is absolutely necessary should be done when it comes to physical violence.

 

[cara]

We can''t know if the chokehold was necessary or not unless we were there, or we get very detailed information from the people involved about how it went down. It seems possible to me that the woman was strong enough that the husband couldn''t get her to stop harming him without escalating his response. It seems remotely possible that he might have been prevented from leaving and thus escalating was his only choice, but it seems much more likely that he *could* have left if he really tried but either didn''t try or it didn''t occur to him in the heat of the moment or, most probably, as TGal says he got mad and may have snapped, he escalated in retaliation when it wasn''t strictly necessary. In which case, obviously bad from the perspective of doing as little harm as possible to your legal wife and mother of your children, but in other regards?

My question is, was he *required* to walk away? Might need some help on the law here, but my recollection is that one is supposed to walk away from a fight in a neutral location, say a bar, rather than escalating your resistance. But if an intruder attacks you in your home, you are *not* required to walk away, as it is your home, so why would you leave? In other words, you are allowed to resist with more force and cause more injury to an assailant in your own home than would otherwise be legal. Not sure what happens when it is domestic violence and both parties live in the home and thus it is not obvious as to which one has more ''right'' to be there versus the other one.

From a practical perspective, it is very good that he didn''t kill her or cause serious harm. It may actually be a twisted good event if it shocked him enough to leave the marriage, as no one should tolerate being abused and this relationship is clearly abusive and dysfunctional. Whether either of them will be able to pull themselves together and lead more functional and happy lives on their own is unclear, but the odds that they will magically become happy and non-abusive while staying together seem low, especially if the abuse has been going on for years.

As for the unequal power of typical male/female domestic violence causing the serious injury, I am not sure that that is true. I read an anecdotal article on domestic violence in gay male relationships, and apparently it can be pretty brutal as the two are often more evenly matched and men tend to fight back against other men. Not saying that women don''t also get badly beat up in violent domestic relationships, but the key is probably to get out of the bad relationship, not just be the physically stronger partner. As we can see here, that doesn''t really end up bringing out the best in people.

 

[rainwood]

I also agree with everything in Whitby''s post.

 

[Skippy123]

oh geez, that is awful. ditto what Musey said earlier. I heard that there are men out there that suffer just like women but it is harder for them to come forward because they are embarrassed but that should not be. I mean anyone doing the hitting should be arrested and sent to jail. I am sorry Tgal.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/8/2009 8:36:15 PM
Author: cara


My question is, was he *required* to walk away? Might need some help on the law here, but my recollection is that one is supposed to walk away from a fight in a neutral location, say a bar, rather than escalating your resistance. But if an intruder attacks you in your home, you are *not* required to walk away, as it is your home, so why would you leave? In other words, you are allowed to resist with more force and cause more injury to an assailant in your own home than would otherwise be legal.

Splitting hairs over how violent a person can be because he is in his own home can lead him into major trouble. Even when dealing with an intruder a homeowner does not have the rights of an absolute monarch in his kingdom. He cannot, for example, decide to imprison; torture; and execute an intruder just because the intruder is on his property. A court expects that reasonable force be used, not-for example-that a killing be cariried out if someone is no longer a threat. If not law, then certainly prudence should dictate that anyone who is able to should walk away from domestic violence and call the police! (Thank you, San Diego Lady!)

AGBF

 

[risingsun]

Choking someone goes well beyond self defense. The outcome can be death by strangulation. He more than likely had other options, including restraint. This is unacceptable and he knows it. He will need to rethink who he is and what he is capable of. I agree 100% with Whitby's and Gypsy's posts.

 

[TravelingGal]

Thanks for the interesting perspective. I thought about it more today after reading your posts and although I don''t know this as fact, my guess is that he didn''t want to leave because the 4 year old might have been sleeping upstairs and he didn''t want to leave the boy alone with mom, or wanted to be home in case she left.

Also, my understanding is that at some point in the night she had locked him out of the house. Not sure how he got back in but when he did and went upstairs, she had locked him out of the room. He did get in to get some pillows and blankets then came downstairs to situate himself on the couch for the night. I think at the point he got on the couch for the night, she came down with fists-a-flying.

Anyway, not sure why the details matter...and it''s all just hearsay anyway. I guess I''m just trying to clarify I referred to this specific situation as the conversation starter. Just knowing the couple, it just sounds to be like she was pushing all his buttons that night and hence I wondered at what point is a guy just expected to take it and take it and take it.

And for the record, it clearly WAS his fault why she was so pissed, and he admits it. There just has to be better ways to work through your anger with someone!

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/8/2009 9:51:50 PM
Author: risingsun
Choking someone goes well beyond self defense. The outcome can be death by strangulation. He more than likely had other options, including restraint. This is unacceptable and he knows it. I agree 100% with whitby''s post.

I agree. But like I said, I haven''t heard it directly from the horse''s mouth. He could have just restrained her into the couch and had his hands in her general shoulder area.

I will say though, knowing her, she would not have been easily restrained and if he felt he didn''t have the option to leave, probably knocking her out might have been the only option! They are close in height and she is more solid than he is. But my guess is that he''s stronger.

 

[risingsun]

It sounds as if he pushed her buttons and she responded in kind. I wonder if he was looking for a fight. He is well aware of her temperament. When she locked him out, he should have stayed out or gotten his cell and car keys and left. He went back in and entered the bedroom. Not that this excuses her behavior, but it escalated an already volatile situation. In my years of working with domestic violence, I always tell my clients to avoid escalation, if at all possible. If his behavior triggered the initial outburst, his continued presence appeared calculated to continue it. When things have reached such a violent point, you get out and stay out. If he was worried about the children, he could have called the police.

 

[cara]

Date: 6/8/2009 9:42:52 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 6/8/2009 8:36:15 PM
Author: cara
My question is, was he *required* to walk away? Might need some help on the law here, but my recollection is that one is supposed to walk away from a fight in a neutral location, say a bar, rather than escalating your resistance. But if an intruder attacks you in your home, you are *not* required to walk away, as it is your home, so why would you leave? In other words, you are allowed to resist with more force and cause more injury to an assailant in your own home than would otherwise be legal.

Splitting hairs over how violent a person can be because he is in his own home can lead him into major trouble. Even when dealing with an intruder a homeowner does not have the rights of an absolute monarch in his kingdom. He cannot, for example, decide to imprison; torture; and execute an intruder just because the intruder is on his property. A court expects that reasonable force be used, not-for example-that a killing be cariried out if someone is no longer a threat. If not law, then certainly prudence should dictate that anyone who is able to should walk away from domestic violence and call the police! (Thank you, San Diego Lady!)
AGBF

I am not advocating splitting hairs on the leave/don''t leave by any means. Certainly leaving is best if possible, and then calling the police. But you can see how some of the details that TGal posted do subtly change the situation. He didn''t want to be locked out again. He didn''t want his child left alone, he didn''t want his child left alone *with her*. He possibly feared for the safety of his child, he is also a victim of abuse. There is deep shame in domestic abuse, particularly abused men. There are also psychological effects. Obviously everyone advocates battered women leaving relationships, calling police when they are abused, documenting and publicly airing the abuse. But it doesn''t mean it is easy.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/8/2009 10:04:57 PM
Author: risingsun
It sounds as if he pushed her buttons and she responded in kind. I wonder if he was looking for a fight. He is well aware of her temperament. When she locked him out, he should have stayed out or gotten his cell and car keys and left. He went back in and entered the bedroom. Not that this excuses her behavior, but it escalated an already volatile situation. In my years of working with domestic violence, I always tell my clients to avoid escalation, if at all possible. If his behavior triggered the initial outburst, his continued presence appeared calculated to continue it. When things have reached such a violent point, you get out and stay out. If he was worried about the children, he could have called the police or DSS or a family member for help.

I agree with your point about escalation. Learning to walk away from TGuy when he is angry and forgetting about reasoning with him was the best thing I learned.

As for the police, this may sound funny, but it''s not something that a lot of Asians do. My mother was domestically abused for years and never once was the police called, even by us (although we did threaten my dad with it once). There is a level of saving face for Asians which unfortunately causes them not to seek help in situations like this from anyone.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/8/2009 10:09:04 PM
Author: cara

Date: 6/8/2009 9:42:52 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 6/8/2009 8:36:15 PM
Author: cara

My question is, was he *required* to walk away? Might need some help on the law here, but my recollection is that one is supposed to walk away from a fight in a neutral location, say a bar, rather than escalating your resistance. But if an intruder attacks you in your home, you are *not* required to walk away, as it is your home, so why would you leave? In other words, you are allowed to resist with more force and cause more injury to an assailant in your own home than would otherwise be legal.

I am not advocating splitting hairs on the leave/don''t leave by any means.

No, you weren''t "advocating splitting hairs over leave/don''t leave". You appeared to be advocating the use of more force and violence!

I highlighted your words to point out exactly what you wrote, "...if an intruder attacks you in your home, you are *not* required to walk away, as it is your home, so why should you leave? In other words, you are allowed to resist with more force and cause more injury to an assailant in your own home than would otherwise be legal." You then went on to ask if this might apply to domestic violence.

When you answered me above you listed a long list of problems that the husband faced as if these circumstances (fear of being locked out, fear for his son) had any bearing on his using a choke hold on his wife. I say that his grievances do not affect his best course of action.* I agree with Whitby, Gypsy, and Marian. He should not have choked his wife. He should have left the house and called the emergency number for the police for immediate help.

AGBF

*The relevance of the husband''s grievances, which are substantial, would come in if he ever needed to defend himself in court for having caused harm in the heat of anger or some similar situation.

 

[risingsun]

T-Gal, in my first marriage, I was abused by my husband. I was afraid to call the police, too. One night, my husband tried to strangle me. I cannot describe the feeling of knowing how close to death I was. He stopped, but continued to terrorize me for the rest of the night. Then he broke down asking for my forgiveness. It still took me another year before I left him. I finally told my doctor when my nose and eardrum were broken. I tried to tell him I was hit with a tennis racket

Then I told him everything. I left shortly after that. My three year old daughter was in the house asleep when all of this happened. I wanted to protect her. I finally realized that I had to be a role model and show her that no one had the right to treat me this way for her sake, as well as my own. It is very difficult to tell others about being abused...but it does help empower you for your future.

 

[Dannielle]

Date: 6/8/2009 1:47:14 PM
Author: elrohwen
If a man is being attacked, I think he has every right to try to restrain the woman, but he should try not to cause her any more harm than necessary to protect himself.

What a sad story, TGal!

I agree.

 

[bee*]

I think that he definitely has the right to defend himself, but a choke hold is going too far.

 

[Sabine]

Date: 6/8/2009 1:47:14 PM
Author: elrohwen
If a man is being attacked, I think he has every right to try to restrain the woman, but he should try not to cause her any more harm than necessary to protect himself.


What a sad story, TGal!

Ditto. If the woman gets hurt while the man is trying to protect himself and get away from her while she is attacking him, I think that''s her fault. No one, including men, should have to deal with assault.

 

[cara]

Date: 6/8/2009 10:32:53 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 6/8/2009 10:09:04 PM
Author: cara

Date: 6/8/2009 9:42:52 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 6/8/2009 8:36:15 PM
Author: cara
My question is, was he *required* to walk away? Might need some help on the law here, but my recollection is that one is supposed to walk away from a fight in a neutral location, say a bar, rather than escalating your resistance. But if an intruder attacks you in your home, you are *not* required to walk away, as it is your home, so why would you leave? In other words, you are allowed to resist with more force and cause more injury to an assailant in your own home than would otherwise be legal.

I am not advocating splitting hairs on the leave/don't leave by any means.

No, you weren't 'advocating splitting hairs over leave/don't leave'. You appeared to be advocating the use of more force and violence!

I highlighted your words to point out exactly what you wrote, '...if an intruder attacks you in your home, you are *not* required to walk away, as it is your home, so why should you leave? In other words, you are allowed to resist with more force and cause more injury to an assailant in your own home than would otherwise be legal.' You then went on to ask if this might apply to domestic violence.

When you answered me above you listed a long list of problems that the husband faced as if these circumstances (fear of being locked out, fear for his son) had any bearing on his using a choke hold on his wife. I say that his grievances do not affect his best course of action.* I agree with Whitby, Gypsy, and Marian. He should not have choked his wife. He should have left the house and called the emergency number for the police for immediate help.
AGBF

*The relevance of the husband's grievances, which are substantial, would come in if he ever needed to defend himself in court for having caused harm in the heat of anger or some similar situation.

Saying that he *may* not have been required to leave his is not the same thing as advocating it. Just because something is possible does not mean it is advisable. You also deleted my first paragraph in which I discussed him leaving and also in which I implied that it is bad to harm your wife and mother of your child (even if she is beating you.) I thought other people had covered his best option - leaving and calling the police - and I didn't realize that we weren't allowed to discuss lesser options.

My second paragraph which you quote here is asking a question - is he *required* to leave? - not advocating that position. Even if there were a valid legal defense in this case (which I am not sure that it is in case of domestic violence), it would not be *advisable* to put yourself in a position where one could be charged with a crime and then try and defend yourself. It would be especially inadvisable if one is a man trying to claim justifiable defense against a woman, your wife. The optics is just horrible, and as you can see from this thread, many people assume that any man can fend off any woman's attacks without harming her or threatening her life. I'm not sure that is a valid assumption.

The details I posted regarding why he might not have left, which you quote, begin to add reasons why fleeing would be a less good option from his perspective. If he doesn't leave (which I agree he should do), should he just tolerate the abuse? Try to fend her off without harming her - even though she is a strong woman and it may not be possible to walk that fine line of fending without hurting, given that he has chosen the non-ideal course of staying rather than fleeing? In the first paragraph of my first post, I also stated explicitly that I thought it was unlikely that his escalation was strictly necessary, and that it was more likely he just got mad. But from the fourth hand details TGal has provided here, we can't be sure. You can't be sure. Maybe he had some variant of battered woman syndrome and couldn't really see leaving as an option or the abuse ever ending, even if we rational people spectating can clearly see he had options. Maybe he really had immanent fear for his safety or his son's safety if he turned his back on her to leave. Maybe, given his choice to stay, he had to escalate to get her to stop, he could not just fend her off without seriously hurting her or threatening her life. Not the likeliest scenerios, very difficult to prove in court, but not impossible.

 

[Delster]

Date: 6/8/2009 2:52:31 PM
Author: whitby_2773
hi TGal

i only have one point and you can make of it what you will.

bruises on hands and arms are painful, definitely.

but choking can kill you.

its a whole different level of violence.

5'9' and tough sounds almost equal...except that it wasnt equal enough for her either to choke HIM, or for her to be able to get him off her. working in dispute resolution and with troubled kids and divorces etcetc i've worked in situations where domestic violence was an issue many times. for every time where you encounter a woman who is stronger than her male counterpart, there are thousands where the man is stronger than the woman. the power disparity is generally so great that i would virtually never take the 'oh sure - if she hits - it's his right to hit back' route.

there's more to the issue than 'who hit first' - there's also 'who can hit hardest?'

if you find yourself in a relationship with an aggressive woman - leave her, divorce her, walk out the door at the moment of your choosing. but don't hit, because it's virtually never an equal fight and unequal fights are always ugly.

The law over here is very clear on this and I think it's a good formulation that reflects some of what Whitby is saying here.

Our rule is that where you are attacked, or your child/spouse is attacked, you may use as much force as is necessary to neutralise that attack, up to and including lethal force, but no more than that.

The degree of force necessary to neutralise the attack is assessed objectively, taking into account all of the circumstances (the parties' relative physical size; the use of weapons; the effect of any history of spousal abuse, etc).

I remember three precedents we studied. In the first, the victim sat on their assailant to neutralise the attack - this was an acceptable use of force (and of false imprisonment). In the second, the victim whacked the assailant with a brick to render them unconscious and then put them in the recovery position - again this was an acceptable use of force. In the third, the victim throttled the assailant into unconsciousness - and this was considered an acceptable use of force - but then he continued throttling until the assailant was dead - and this was unacceptable.

TGal - I'm so sorry for what happened with your friends

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 6/8/2009 1:40:40 PM
Author:TravelingGal
We heard sad news this week that some friends have called in the divorce lawyers. I won''t go into what triggered it, but the wife became so angry (and she has anger issues) she came out with guns ablazing and started swinging at her husband. His hands and arms got badly battered trying to fend off her blows and finally, trying to restrain her, he got her into choke hold and pushed her into the sofa, holding her there. I''m sure plenty of yelling accompanied. It''s such a sad, awful situation.


As you can imagine, this has been quite the topic of conversation amongst our circle. One question that came up was:


Is it ever OK for man to fight back during a continuous assault by a woman?

Although I think I can appreciate the man''s desire to subdue the woman, I think if the gender tables were turned, and the woman was being beaten up, the woman would just attempt to escape, not attempt to dominate . So, perhaps the guy was actually more interested in ''telling her'' something, first by remaining passive (and physically unmoved) in the face of her sustained attack, and then by retaliating - even intimidating her? - rather than just removing himself from the scene. Perhaps what the guy did was wrong.

 

[risingsun]

Let's remember that, if he was fearful of her, he was already out of the house and safe. He had the option of calling the police for the safety of his child. He returned to the situation, which quickly escalated. You do not go back into a burning building. You do not return to the scene of domestic violence--especially if you are the victim. That does not speak to Battered Women's Syndrome in his case. T-Gal said that he started the argument that night. That does not excuse her behavior, but it does not cast him in the role of the victim, either. He did not put her in a choke hold, he choked her. In my view, a choke hold is still unacceptable. There are other options that have less potential for lethality. This couple needs an order of protection from each other and DSS should be called in for the safety of the child. If you have not had first hand experience with this type of situation, it may seem that his actions were acceptable. As a counselor, with many years of experience with both abused men and women, I can tell you that it is not. He had other options.