The Straight Story (40,505 posts)
Woman fined for hitting man who grabbed her
Woman fined for hitting man who grabbed her
A 23-year-old woman who slapped a man in the face after he grabbed her rear end has been convicted of assault by a court in southern Sweden.
The 27-year-old who made the unwanted move escaped charges for the incident after a preliminary criminal investigation was dropped.
"This goes to show that it's okay for guys to grab girls any way they want," the 23-year-old woman told the Metro newspaper.
The woman reacted when the 27-year-old man put his hand on her buttocks at Glorias nightclub in Lund last summer.
She instinctively turned to confront the man who grabbed her and hit him in the face so hard she broke the 27-year-old's nose.
http://www.thelocal.se/46946/20130326/#.UVF8oDei2So
They're mostly supportive of the woman. Seems natural enough...but this is DU where the unnatural is the norm.
DetlefK (1,063 posts)
1. I think, the point might be that she broke his nose...
I'll tell you what ****stick...
...you put a hand to my sexual chattel and you better hope she breaks something of yours before I make the scene.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,498 posts)
64. So? He had no right to sexually assault her.
Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:02 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
His actions wholly and completely instigated anything that occurred.
DetlefK (1,063 posts)
74. You can't use "eye-for-an-eye" here: She was not physically hurt.
He grabs her ass.
Is it appropriate to break his nose?
Is it appropriate to bite his ear off?
Is it appropriate to break one of his fingers?
Is it appropriate to kick him in the nuts so hard that he needs surgery?
Is it appropriate to punch him in the kidney so hard that it gets damaged?
Is it appropriate to smack him on the head with a bottle?
Is it appropriate to assault him with a sharp object?
Is it appropriate to kill him?
You said "anything".
If you don't keep your cool in that situation, you're going down the moral slippery-slope pretty quick.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,498 posts)
80. .
He grabs her ass.
Is it appropriate to cup her boob?
Is it appropriate to tweak her nipple?
Is it appropriate to palm her muff?
Is it appropriate to press his erect penis through his clothes against her thigh?
Is it appropriate to digitally penetrate her?
You said, "Not physically hurt"
If you don't keep your cool in that situation, you're going down the moral slippery-slope pretty quick.
Keep your God-damned hands to your God-damned self. Women aren't here to serve as lab rats to discern the moral and legal limits of sexual assault.
theHandpuppet (11,585 posts)
163. Nominate for best response post of the year
Orrex (35,807 posts)
96. Would she have been justified in killing him?
Is there any response that might have been disproportionate? What are the boundaries here?
She broke his nose; if she'd continued to hit him, would he have had the right to defend himself, at some point? Or does he simply have to accept it because he deserves it?
Where is the line to be drawn?
Nuclear Unicorn (6,498 posts)
100. How much should she be required to just lie back and try to relax?
It's a simple formulation: keep your hands to yourself. Do that and the rest is moot.
Orrex (35,807 posts)
113. She should be permitted to take reasonable action to end the incident
That particulars may be up to a judge or jury to determine, but in general I would say that retalitory action beyond what is required to end the incident would be excessive, though a precise threshold may of course be difficult to identify in the heat of the moment.
Still, you haven't answered the question: is the man at some point permitted to defend himself against a disproportionate response? If the woman has ten male friends with her, are all of them permitted to punch the guy who grabbed her?
You're trying to paint it as a simple issue, but that's because you're only addressing one simple part of an issue that is far more complex.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,498 posts)
124. His rights are to keep his hands to himself.
If he forfeits his right to do so he bears the consequences for his actions. There's no need for a COA Matrix for determining action-response propriety. It's not her job to determine the level of his intent, it's his obligation to keep his damned hands to himself.
If the woman has ten male friends with her, are all of them permitted to punch the guy who grabbed her?
Yes. Sounds like a good reason not to sexually assault people, huh?
Orrex (35,807 posts)
135. So there are no limits to retaliation? Really?
If she had a gun, could she kill the man and his three friends who happened to be a the club with him that night? If not, then you agree that there are limits to retaliation; I'm simply asking you to establish some sense of what those liimits might be.
If he forfeits his right to do so he bears the consequences for his actions. There's no need for a COA Matrix for determining action-response propriety. It's not her job to determine the level of his intent, it's his obligation to keep his damned hands to himself.
So you absolve the woman of any need to think about the appropriateness of her response. Why are you arguing that women are incapable of rational thought? You've asserted a rather sexist and grotesque caricature.
I don't like this guy...
...he makes me want to agree with the DU feminine-cysts.
And then...
Nuclear Unicorn (6,498 posts)
139. Oh, go **** yourself
You're the one arguing that people who WILLFULLY DECIDE to sexually assault someone take precedence as if they're due some consideration. They chose to sexually assault someone. They chose to violate them.
The last word is obviously yours as I am about to be locked out of this thread.
Go **** yourself and try not to get your nose broken as you do it.
ellisonz (25,393 posts)
145. Juror #5 - Reporting!
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:00 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Oh, go **** yourself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2569635
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards[/url].)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
I realize things are getting heated here, but 'go **** youself' twice in this post isn't justified imo. Make your point, move on. No need for this.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:06 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Disruptive and intended to be so.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree. And castigate the bastards. Leave it alone. Lesson: Keep your hands to yourself, or give your balls away.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Over the top.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm not going to hide that.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Poster was goaded and I will not punish them for pushing back. Yes the response was inappropriate but in context certainly understandable
Oh my.
Rowdyboy (20,468 posts)
149. Number 6 here!
Comrade Grumpy (2,859 posts)
180. Congratulations, jurors #5 and #6 for proudly making the DU jury system even more of a bad joke.
The post was clearly uncivil and over the top, yet you proudly allow it to stand because you don't like the point the poster it was directed at was making. You should be embarrassed at yourselves, not proud.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,498 posts)
125. A few days ago I was afraid redqueen's posts about "rape culture" were hyperbolic
Now, after seeing this thread I'm afraid she's right.
redqueen, if you're seeing this -- I'm sorry.
Well...she had me for a while.
This thread is clicking white hot with alerts:
kestrel91316 This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide
106. He sexually assaulted her and she had every right to defend herself
as she saw fit.
Thank you for making it abundantly clear that you are not virtually a rape apologist, you support sexual assault enthusiastically.
A Jury voted 4-2 to hide this post on Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:36 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)
Comrade Grumpy (2,859 posts)
118. That's some ugly, scurrilous shit you're slinging. I alerted on it.
Although I have zero confidence in the DU jury system. These days, it seems like if jurors agree with the general thrust of the poster in question, the poster can get away with anything.
CG is no pillar of decorum.
Comrade Grumpy (2,859 posts)
140. Jury results:
At Tue Mar 26, 2013, 05:23 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
He sexually assaulted her and she had every right to defend herself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2569402
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards[/url].)
YOUR COMMENTS:
Calling someone a "rape apologist" and saying "you support sexial assault enthusiastically" in this context seems a bit over the top.
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Mar 26, 2013, 05:36 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Over the top and then some.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not so much over the top as out of the stadium and into orbit, IMO.
Thank you.
If I had a dollar for everytime the gun grabbers claimed the pro-2nd Amendment faction was enjoyed killing children I wouldn't be sweating my furlough.
Orrex (35,807 posts)
136. But would a man be justified in slapping a woman who grabbed his ass?
And, if he broke her nose in the process, would so many here be arguing that he was justified in doing so?
And I would point out that if she had intended to break his nose she would have hit him with a closed fist.
That may be the case and will, I suspect, be sorted out through the judicial process.
kestrel91316 (44,629 posts)
105. If every woman who was on the receiving end of SEXUAL ASSAULT gave her attacker a broken nose
it might not happen so often.
SHAMEFUL outcome. And the sexual offender got off scott free.
RW talking points.
Understanding, quiet time and a government check are what gropers really need to confront their condition.
And it goes on like that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022567780Still, it's amazing how this is even a point o debate.
I keep saying: they cannot even govern their own, closed society. These retards have no hope of governing us if we refuse to let them.
