More sexist double standards

[Toni]

Leaning in can be intentional intimidation which could warrant pushing away.

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

I don't agree, actually. If someone is invading your personal space in a threatening manner--or even an unthreatening manner and refuses to retreat, then at least sometimes, a push away is legitimate.

You are sitting quietly at a bus stop bench. The bus is due in about 2 minutes. Someone comes over and starts proselytizing at you. You politely say you are not interested. They become more adamant and get in your face, literally, telling you you must come to Jesus (or Allah or Jehovah or whoever). You cannot leave: you need to catch that bus! You also cannot see if the bus that is approaching is the one you need to take because someone's face is inches from yours. I think you are perfectly justified in pushing (gently, non-violently) that person out of your face.

I don't have the right to get up in your face and ask you to believe in whatever I am selling or even to sing you a love song. If you ask me to back off and I ignore or refuse your request, you are entitled to push me out of your face. Trust me: If I were in your face singing you any kind of song, you'd be more than entitled to make me back off. Not shove me to the ground, but to push me out of your face. Even if it hurts my feelings. My husband and kids would think you were justified. Because they've heard me sing.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

I don't agree, actually. If someone is invading your personal space in a threatening manner--or even an unthreatening manner and refuses to retreat, then at least sometimes, a push away is legitimate.

You are sitting quietly at a bus stop bench. The bus is due in about 2 minutes. Someone comes over and starts proselytizing at you. You politely say you are not interested. They become more adamant and get in your face, literally, telling you you must come to Jesus (or Allah or Jehovah or whoever). You cannot leave: you need to catch that bus! You also cannot see if the bus that is approaching is the one you need to take because someone's face is inches from yours. I think you are perfectly justified in pushing (gently, non-violently) that person out of your face.

I don't have the right to get up in your face and ask you to believe in whatever I am selling or even to sing you a love song. If you ask me to back off and I ignore or refuse your request, you are entitled to push me out of your face. Trust me: If I were in your face singing you any kind of song, you'd be more than entitled to make me back off. Not shove me to the ground, but to push me out of your face. Even if it hurts my feelings. My husband and kids would think you were justified. Because they've heard me sing.

uh, yeah

Most people, the ones who actually interact with other people, know this.

 

[Godless Raven]

I can barely walk down the street for fear of being slapped by women and black people playing rap music.

When will the suffering of white men end?

Bat have you ever been bitch slapped by a woman...while black people are playing rap music in the vicinity? It's so rampant, I basically stay indoors.

 

[RavenSky]

Assault can be verbal. Whether or not a shove could be considered self defense following a verbal assault, I don't know.

Without knowing exactly what transpired it's impossible to say.

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.

Unless the verbal part of it constituted a threat of violence that the shove was an attempt to escape it's not justified.

Hmmm...

Self defense, whether cop or civilian, has no such requirement. You aren't required to accept injury before acting to prevent it--you can respond to an attempt to inflict injury.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Leaning in can be intentional intimidation which could warrant pushing away.

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

does this rule apply also to the police?

 

[Nexus]

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

Invading someone's personal space in a confrontational manner is a threat of force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

Invading someone's personal space in a confrontational manner is a threat of force.

It depends on what they are doing. The preacher example above is unpleasant but there's no threat of force. You have no reason to think the preacher is going to hurt you. (Now, if they are blocking you from getting on the bus that's another matter, you're entitled to shove them out of the way at that point.)

 

[Toni]

Invading someone's personal space in a confrontational manner is a threat of force.

It depends on what they are doing. The preacher example above is unpleasant but there's no threat of force. You have no reason to think the preacher is going to hurt you. (Now, if they are blocking you from getting on the bus that's another matter, you're entitled to shove them out of the way at that point.)

When I wrote the example above, I wasn't thinking about a preacher but a random person at a bus stop. Actually if a random stranger got all up in my face proselytizing, I'd worry about their emotional stability and my personal safety. Which is why I set up that example.

 

[credoconsolans]

It depends on what they are doing. The preacher example above is unpleasant but there's no threat of force. You have no reason to think the preacher is going to hurt you. (Now, if they are blocking you from getting on the bus that's another matter, you're entitled to shove them out of the way at that point.)

When I wrote the example above, I wasn't thinking about a preacher but a random person at a bus stop. Actually if a random stranger got all up in my face proselytizing, I'd worry about their emotional stability and my personal safety. Which is why I set up that example.

Laws were set up as to what a "reasonable person" would consider intimidating and hostile.

Then the lawmakers came to find out that what a reasonable man and reasonable woman found intimidating and hostile were two different things, so they had to start considering things from two different POVs.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren,

Still waiting for an answer

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

does this rule apply also to the police?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren,

Still waiting for an answer

does this rule apply also to the police?

What you are missing is that it's based on the perception of the person being threatened--thus, for example, a fake weapon is treated as real.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren,

Still waiting for an answer

What you are missing is that it's based on the perception of the person being threatened--thus, for example, a fake weapon is treated as real.

and what you are missing is an answer to the question actually asked.

You said

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

I then asked

does this rule apply also to the police?

This isn't about hypothetical weapons or perceptions or the price of tea in China.

this is about yet another declarative sentence YOU typed, and now YOU don't want to take responsibility for. But I am going to give you chance to rehabilitate your image and ask you again

Does this rule, as quoted above, also apply to the police?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that it's based on the perception of the person being threatened--thus, for example, a fake weapon is treated as real.

and what you are missing is an answer to the question actually asked.

You said

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

I then asked

does this rule apply also to the police?

This isn't about hypothetical weapons or perceptions or the price of tea in China.

this is about yet another declarative sentence YOU typed, and now YOU don't want to take responsibility for. But I am going to give you chance to rehabilitate your image and ask you again

Does this rule, as quoted above, also apply to the police?

You're trying to distort the situation.

 

[ksen]

Loren,

Still waiting for an answer

What you are missing is that it's based on the perception of the person being threatened--thus, for example, a fake weapon is treated as real.

How many years have you been doing yoga?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

and what you are missing is an answer to the question actually asked.

You said

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

I then asked

does this rule apply also to the police?

This isn't about hypothetical weapons or perceptions or the price of tea in China.

this is about yet another declarative sentence YOU typed, and now YOU don't want to take responsibility for. But I am going to give you chance to rehabilitate your image and ask you again

Does this rule, as quoted above, also apply to the police?

You're trying to distort the situation.

and you are evading answering the question AGAIN.

 

[RavenSky]

and what you are missing is an answer to the question actually asked.

You said

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.

I then asked

does this rule apply also to the police?

This isn't about hypothetical weapons or perceptions or the price of tea in China.

this is about yet another declarative sentence YOU typed, and now YOU don't want to take responsibility for. But I am going to give you chance to rehabilitate your image and ask you again

Does this rule, as quoted above, also apply to the police?

You're trying to distort the situation.

She hasn't distorted anything. She asked you a very simple question. I'd like to see your answer.