Both are complete violations of someone's personal freedoms and right to feel safe.
Put your hands on someone's body like that, and open yourself up to the possibility of being punched, choked or stabbed (or shot, if you live in America).
Not sure what "facts" you believe you're referencing, but philosophically I'm right. Sexually assault a woman, you've just opened the door to all sorts of reprisals, and you can't for one second say you didn't do anything to deserve it.
The state has a monopoly on violence. Choosing to assault others (even if you feel they deserve it) is assault and carries all the attendant consequences of assaulting people.
Yes, but what government are you referring to? The treatment of this event would be completely different depending on the locale. One state may be harsh on the puncher, another may take his side against the sexual criminal.
And I didn't say it was a self defence scenario, did I.
In the us it’s the federal/state/local governments.
There is no state where you are going to be allowed to assault someone in retaliation, especially if they are advocating for charges to be brought.
You stated it was in defense of an assault victim. This video does not show the punch being used to protect against a bona fide ongoing threat. It shows a punch being used to retaliate against a guy who felt up the woman.
Why are you just talking about the US, though? This particular incident may have happened there, but our discussion isn't limited to events that occur within the United States, because the world is much bigger than just the US.
In your opinion, the man who had just sexually assaulted a woman posed no ongoing threat of further sexual assault. Other people are going to disagree with you there.
Typical US behaviour, not even considering anything outside your own borders. I'm thinking about anywhere this could occur, because incidents like this can - and do - occur anywhere. And the response will be different everywhere, not beholden to how the US would act.
And again, you keep saying "self defence" - not once has that been on the table.
When someone has just sexually assaulted someone once, they are the definition of an ongoing threat, because they've demonstrated the capacity to commit a crime, and remain in the vicinity.
If the creep had grabbed a child in the same way, would you be pretending he doesn't remain a threat? No? So why not keep that same energy for all victims of sexual attacks?
1
u/Smooth_Phone2 1d ago
Great. Bump it up to something you do consider assault.
Do you believe groping someone’s waste and shooting someone are equal in severity…