Quote:Negative. If that was the case, the Grand Jury would not have dismissed the charges. The Grand Jury decided that the male returning the severe blow had every right to do so.

 

I do not condone people resorting to any violence if it can be avoided. If a male swings at me and I can avoid the situation without swing back, I'll do so. If a female swings at me and I can avoid the situation, I'll do so. However, I am not as ignorant as others on this board and realize several things:

-There are hundreds of thousands of females capable of causing serious injury to a male.

-There are many cases of females severe injury and even death, by hand, to a male.

-Up until the middle/late stages of adolescence, boys are girls have similar size and strength, yet young boys are constantly taught "you never hit a girl".

 

 

Have I ever hit a female? No. Do I plan on it? No. But I still can't buy in to blanket statements like "A man should NEVER hit a woman." As others have stated on here, if a woman hits a man first, that man has every right to defend himself.

 

And I disagree with their ruling, which could set a bad precedence. If its on video that a woman swings on a man, he has every right to swing back and break her jaw while under the pretense of self defense. Really?

 

In the video, Bethel had a opportunity to walk away and he didnt. Lets call it for what it is, he got off because the woman initiated the fight which basically sent the message that enables him to disregard lack of control.

 

Im struggling to understand your response right here. It seems logical with you even stating you would never hit a female, and even avoid situations where you would avoid confrontation if able to do so. But yet with Bethel's situation you fail to apply that reasoning to his. Im confused maybe you are trying to present both sides, I dont know. Reading some of your responses to others in this thread seem to illustrate otherwise.

---