In this particular case, according to journalists who viewed the exchange, it is certainly possible that Molitor was defending herself.
I do not get that impression at all but I am not surprised you do.
During what is apparently a contentious exchange of words, Molitor pushes Mixon away.
I.e. she is the one who initiated the physical confrontation, not him. And the "contentious exchange of words" was apparently Molitor using a racial slur, at least according to Mixon. I wonder if she disputes that. In any case witnesses must have heard what it was all about. Still, it was Molitor who engaged in physical violence first.
We don't know why: there is no audio on the videotape. It is possible that she is the aggressor in pushing Mixon. It is also possible that he says something threatening to her and she pushes him away, defending herself.
How is she "defending herself" if she is the one using physical violence, no matter what he might have said. Just like that Materazzi might have insulted Zidane's sister but
Zidane headbutting Materazzi is still Zidane's fault, not Materazzi's.
Mixon turns and lunges at her. Was it reasonable for her to feel his lunging was a physical threat?
Even if it was, it would have been a response to her escalating it into a physical confrontation. I would still like to know what they mean by "lunges".
In other words, was she justified in slapping him to defend herself?
She initiated the violence, not once but twice. In other words, he never touched her until she both pushed and slapped him. But somehow she was defending herself.
The slap did not hit his face but rather his neck.
Neck is a vulnerable area so I do not see how that makes it better.
He punches her hard enough that she drops to the floor and is unconscious and bleeding. He is 6'2, 216 lbs and extremely muscular and fit. She (if I have the right person) weighs more than 85 lbs less than he does and is 7 inches shorter. To the best of my knowledge, she is not an athlete.
Which makes her attacking him all the more stupid.
The comments/tweets made by the journalists who were allowed to view the video tape is that the punch was really stunning, hard, shocking, etc.
Perhaps because the journalists have grown up with the "never hit a girl no matter what she does to you" nonsense.
Reading this, even if I remove gender, it is hard for me to say that the person who pushed/slapped at the other person was not justifiably trying to defend themselves. A lot would hinge on audio. There were lots of witnesses but I haven't found any testimony about what was said. The push/slapper could have been the aggressor or could have been defending themselves, as far as what we actually know.
What would the slapper/pusher be defending herself from?
The person punching the other person seems, according to viewers of the video, to be acting far out of scale of what would be a reasonable response. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps she said she had a gun and would shoot him. That might be ample justification. But other wise, I cannot see how there was justification in the punch.
The problem is that you do not have much time to think or gauge your response when defending yourself. You defend yourself instinctively and automatically. It should not be held against him that he is stronger than the average person.
- - - Updated - - -
Assault can be verbal. Whether or not a shove could be considered self defense following a verbal assault, I don't know.
Doubt it. In any case, it seems it was her who was responsible for the verbal confrontation as well.
But whatever started it, his response was all out of proportion. No need to put someone in the hospital over a slap. The cops made the right call.
Even if charge against him was justified how do you justify the lack of charges against her?
