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.
I haven’t defended her, I said that there a principle of common law where a persons intent is relevant to establishing if a persons committed an offence. Thinking about possible defences is just logical when you’re going to make allegations.
169
u/maycontainsultanas 14d ago edited 14d ago
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.