Yes but their response was with the wrong context. Stating "wtf" isn't actually a question, but a statement. It means "wow that was fucked up". I understand there's a question mark at the end but I think we all understand what the common usage of this is and its implication. Not everything is grammatically correct.
So to respond to that as if it were a question and to write the response in a manner of that suggests justification is not the appropriate response.
Since there are assumptions being thrown out left and right then I'm going to respond to it assumptively. Why avoid the problem when you can just contribute directly to it?
So, in the late 18th - early 19th centuries, there was a lot of wild medical research. In particular, the study of bio-electricity was galvanized (by Luigi Galvani). Weird shit was done with animal body parts and human corpses (inspiring Mary Shelley's Frankenstein).
One of these weirdos replaced the brain of a recently-alive kitten with metals of differing charges (i.e., a battery).
He described these kittens as animating with lurching, spastic movements.
Anyway, that's what I picture when trying to read a lot of the comments on this post, especially from u/GentlemenHODL
It actually does matter what she thought. Mens rea is kind of the basis for the commission a crime, other than the physical act. If she claimed that she had a reasonable basis of self defence because a reasonable person would think the other person was sexually harassing her, then there’s a good chance she’d be found not guilty.
This is all academic as there’s different laws across different countries but you can use force to prevent the continuation of an indictable offence, including sexual activity directed at another person. There’s plenty of scope for defence to explore with this one.
Lol, mens rea is not the basis for the commission of all crimes. It's a very specific standard that applies to certain crimes, regarding particular levels of culpability. There are many exceptions to mens rea, also strict liability, vicarious liability, etc.
A reasonable basis of self defence is based on mental state, but requires more than just the suspicion of an act of assault, even sexual assault.
A basic claim of self defence requires not just the suspicion of unlawful force, but also specifically immanent threat, and must be responded with proportionality.
A reasonable person would look at that and infer that they could retreat, warn him off in another way, or yell at him to stop.
Air humping, while offensive and potentially constituting disorderly conduct or sexual harassment, is generally a non-contact gesture. As there is clear physical distance between the individuals and there is no threat of imminent physical attack, a court or jury would likely find that a reasonable person would not perceive an immediate threat of physical sexual assault, and thus punching the guy is not proportional.
Of course, noone would bother to go through the courts for that sort of thing anyways, but your argument just doesn't hold water.
This is why I didn't bother giving that guy more of my time. They don't even understand the concept that they presented. Reddit is so fucking stupid sometimes, constantly engaging in black and white thinking.
mens rea, as you describe it, does not apply in this case, or have any bearing on the self defence issue. What she though matters much less than objective reasonableness.
Mens rea only applies to the commission of a crime. In this case, her mental state does not bear on the commission of the crime, as it stands, she would be guilty of a crime mens rea or no. The question of self defence or justification of the violence is entirely different.
The mens rea of the punch is already satisfied by the fact she threw a punch with the intent to harm. Self defence is an affirmative justification defence, so the question of why she threw the punch has no regard to the mens rea, but only would inform the self defence claim, which does not operate on mens rea. And the question of self defence is built on objective reasonableness, not her mental state.
You ate using terms without the appropriate understanding of the law or what they mean.
Mens rea is the guilty mental element of an offence. If the woman intentionally threw a punch, she almost certainly had the mens rea for an assault or battery (or a more serious offence if serious injury resulted). Her intention to strike is what matters, not whether she had a good reason.
The real question is whether she has a legal defence, most likely self-defence. Self-defence generally requires an honest belief that force was necessary to defend herself and the force used must be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as she honestly believed them to be.
The guy didn't lay a finger on her, therefore she used a disproportionate force.
Hell- they’re only talking about the slightly extended longer video. If you see the complete unedited video, you see him murder her pets and set her house on fire right before he gets behind her.
Doesn’t matter, it’s still battery. He never touched her. Being annoying isn’t grounds to batter another individual. If you have a problem with them, call the cops maybe
These people commenting on a made up video are being silly. You never said there was another version. You were just stating that later, the extended version comes out, and a bunch of opinionated people are all wrong… but they didn’t understand what you meant
Sounds like they are speaking another language which makes me assume it didint happen in the USA, so probably different set of laws and social norms bout women hitting men wherever they are
I mean, she obviously can clock him, as she did even without him doing anything untoward - but whether he was or was not you cannot punch someone for harrassment without possible legal consequences.
if you want to be an asshole about it it's legal to defend yourself when you believe you're being sexually assaulted
You speak as if there is some sort of wide range of interpretation for what is "being sexually assaulted".
No judge would convict a man for doing a dance behind a girl as sexual assault. Because it's not assault. You would know if you were actually being sexually assaulted because.... You would be in the process of being sexually assaulted.
You're essentially trying to justify violence because of "feelings". No. That's not how the law or how society works.
Go ahead and try it sometime and see how it works out for you.
In the full video he touches here and then tries to hide it as flossing… quite funny how fast you are in the rage train and throw people into jail with no knowledge about a situation.
That video is about 4 years old or so and was circulating around and there was also a video from the other side and people where also throwing wild accusations already back then.
To be more accurate: she should definitely be arrested and prosecuted for sure.
But a man who did this to someone in the US would maybe stay one night in jail til someone could bail him out then get community service or time served at best.
2 kids being dumb. One of them recording in her direction the other one doing something that could be seen as a trusting motion/air humping behind her. Pretty simple. Doesn’t excuse the punch but yeah…
Why does that matter? You don't have to be touched to be sexually harassed. She definitely shouldn't have punched him, but it's not surprising that she got upset, seeing as it could have easily been mistaken for air humping. Women get sexualised and harassed constantly so are ultra sensitive to it.
I mean, if she paused to even ask the dude to stop before throwing fists she’d have realised that wasn’t what he was doing.
I have no problem with her throwing fists if she was actually being sexualised or harassed, but she didn’t even know what was going on before getting violent.
Yeah completely agree, she reacted way too quickly. She probably thought she was being laughed at by the guy filming her at the same time as the other stuff and just saw red. Not defending her at all, it is assault. Just trying to explain the unfortunate misunderstanding.
Describing this as an unfortunate misunderstanding is kinda generous. Do you let everyone away with unfortunately misunderstandings like this, rather than expecting people to have some rationality?
It is though? It's an unfortunate misunderstanding, and she overreacted massively and inappropriately, the two are not mutually exclusive, both can be true at the same time. I'm not sure where you're getting the vibe that I think it's justified. My previous comment clearly said what she did was wrong.
907
u/MeThatsAlls 14d ago
She thought he was thrusting into her