>

Other people have already made the point that him being slapped doesn’t mean his slap is somehow permissible. They are both wrong. 
Your response in each case is that it is “in self defence”. What your response fails to note is that there are many different ways of defending yourself. Most of those ways don’t require Dana to attack his wife. Proper self defence would concentrate on preventing her from attacking, not from attacking her back. For example, by restraining her. He’s a big guy, and perfectly able to restrain a much smaller woman, which would have been a much more reasonable act of “self defence”.
/u/Forever_Changes (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

So in order to properly raise the legal defense of self-defense, you must be in present threat of serious bodily harm or death and your self-defense must be sufficient to protect yourself from the harm, but not go beyond that.  This can sometimes be difficult to identify, but the capabilities of the belligerents matter, not because of their gender, but because, well, they matter.
Here is an example:
Suppose someone starts attacking you with their bare hands (they don't have a weapon), you push them away, they then stop attacking you.  You then punch them in the face.
Your first push was completely defensible, however, once they stopped attacking you, you were no longer justified in punching them in the face.  This means that you can be prosecuted for assault and battery for punching them in the face even though they attacked you first.
This obviously can get a bit complicated.  For example, how do you know that they were no longer attacking you and you were no longer threatened?  It can sometimes be difficult and that is what trials and juries are for.  But as I said, the capabilities of the participants matter.  If the attacker is Mike Tyson, you're probably going to feel a bit more threatened than if the attacker is a five year old and the force required to push back Mike Tyson is way different than the force required for a five year old.
Here, it is not sexist to suggest that Dana White's wife is not particularly imposing or threatening.  Rather, it is fairly clear that Dana White hit her out of malice or some other non-self-defense motivation.  Dana White's wife, Anne, went to hit him.  He clearly stopped her from doing that.  He was not particularly threatened by her and yet he hit her anyway and it looks like he hit her more than once.  It isn't that Anne is a woman, it is that she is clearly not a threat to Dana White. >


So in order to properly raise the legal defense of self-defense, you must be in present threat of serious bodily harm or death and your self-defense must be sufficient to protect yourself from the harm, but not go beyond that. This can sometimes be difficult to identify, but the capabilities of the belligerents matter, not because of their gender, but because, well, they matter.

Can you give a legal source for you claim?
Also, two additional questions:


What is it called if I'm attacked by someone, don't fear for my life, but use minimal force to defend myself from the attack?


Would I be wrong for defending myself as described in 1.?



Your first push was completely defensible, however, once they stopped attacking you, you were no longer justified in punching them in the face. This means that you can be prosecuted for assault and battery for punching them in the face even though they attacked you first.

Right, I understand this.
Is the first push an instance of self-defense? Because someone attacking you with their bare hands does not give you a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death?
That's something I would describe as an instance of self-defense.

This obviously can get a bit complicated. For example, how do you know that they were no longer attacking you and you were no longer threatened? It can sometimes be difficult and that is what trials and juries are for. But as I said, the capabilities of the participants matter. If the attacker is Mike Tyson, you're probably going to feel a bit more threatened than if the attacker is a five year old and the force required to push back Mike Tyson is way different than the force required for a five year old.

Sure, but my argument is that Dana clearly regulated his use of force such that it was proportionate to his wife's. If he gave her a full-force slap, she would've fallen down. It's clear that he understood that he's stronger than his wife and regulated his force accordingly.

Here, it is not sexist to suggest that Dana White's wife is not particularly imposing or threatening.

Agreed.

Rather, it is fairly clear that Dana White hit her out of malice or some other non-self-defense motivation.

This doesn't seem clear to me. It seems to me that Dana would be reasonable in believing he may be slapped again by his wife given that he was slapped once. While it's true that she likely wouldn't cause him much injury, that doesn't seem to nullify his right to defend himself from that injury.

Dana White's wife, Anne, went to hit him. He clearly stopped her from doing that. He was not particularly threatened by her and yet he hit her anyway and it looks like he hit her more than once. It isn't that Anne is a woman, it is that she is clearly not a threat to Dana White.

From what I saw, he hit her once and then they had a small struggle. I didn't see a second hit. If he did hit her more than once, then I'd agree that that would be slightly disproportionate and thus unethical.
But this doesn't explain why we should focus on Dana's wrongful actions to the exclusion of his wife's wrongful actions. >

I respond to the legal questions below, but I think this is the heart of the issue and maybe your misunderstanding:

Sure, but my argument is that Dana clearly regulated his use of force such that it was proportionate to his wife's. If he gave her a full-force slap, she would've fallen down. It's clear that he understood that he's stronger than his wife and regulated his force accordingly.

Dana hitting his wife was not self-defense in any way because his wife had already hit him and wasn't going to hit him again, so any retaliatory action was just that, retaliation.  Self-defense is only justified if it prevents further harm.  If you've already been hit and you won't be hit again hitting someone back is not self-defense.
​

Can you give a legal source for you claim?

Here's an excerpt from the Washington Practice Manual:

A person acting in self-defense may use the degree of force that a reasonably prudent person would use under the circumstances appearing to him or her at the time.1 To justify the use of force in self-defense, four elements must exist: (1) there was appearance of danger,2 (2) the danger appeared to be imminent,3 (3) the degree of force used was reasonable,4 and (4) the defendant was not the aggressor.

§ 41:3. Judicial interpretation—Self-defense—Generally, 13B Wash. Prac., Criminal Law § 41:3 (3d).  You should note that this is only one paragraph and the full chapter on self-defense is 15 sections long.
The big thing we're looking at here is that second and third part where the danger needs to be imminent and the force must be reasonable.

What is it called if I'm attacked by someone, don't fear for my life, but use minimal force to defend myself from the attack?  
Would I be wrong for defending myself as described in 1.?

That's also self-defense and you'd be fine as long as you follow what I quoted above.  I accidentally used "death or serious bodily harm" because that's the standard for homicide so I say it the most, but the rest remains the same.
​
As far as focusing on Dana over Anne, that also doesn't have to be sexist.  If Mike Tyson punched a five year old boy who punched him first the news is still that Mike Tyson punched a five year old.  Nobody cares that the boy hit him first because nobody thinks Mike Tyson was remotely hurt by that child.  Same thing here. >


Dana hitting his wife was not self-defense in any way because his wife had already hit him and wasn't going to hit him again, so any retaliatory action was just that, retaliation. Self-defense is only justified if it prevents further harm. If you've already been hit and you won't be hit again hitting someone back is not self-defense.

I know that. But how was Dana to know, in the moment, that his wife was not going to slap him again?

The big thing we're looking at here is that second and third part where the danger needs to be imminent and the force must be reasonable.

Alright, so this refutes your claim that self-defense can only be appealed to in ceases where one fears serious bodily harm or death.
Given that his wife had just slapped him and that he responded by a similar slap, I don't see how it doesn't meet those criteria.
If Dana had punched her in the face or was sure he wouldn't be slapped again, then I'd agree it was disproportionate.

That's also self-defense and you'd be fine as long as you follow what I quoted above. I accidentally used "death or serious bodily harm" because that's the standard for homicide so I say it the most, but the rest remains the same.

Alright, this is the part that threw me off, because it'd seem odd that one would have to fear serious bodily harm or death to make a self-defense claim against less severe attacks.

As far as focusing on Dana over Anne, that also doesn't have to be sexist. If Mike Tyson punched a five year old boy who punched him first the news is still that Mike Tyson punched a five year old. Nobody cares that the boy hit him first because nobody thinks Mike Tyson was remotely hurt by that child. Same thing here.

Sure, my argument isn't that the criticisms have to be sexist, just that in the case a lot of the framing is influenced by sexism (and not by everybody just a large number of people).
I also think there's a big disanalogy with your analogy. Mainly, that a 5 year old boy isn't a responsible agent like an adult is. So if a 5 year old hits you, it is very unlikely that it will cause you much harm and the 5 year old can't be really blamed as he hasn't developed to the point where we could consider him a rational agent.
When it comes to Dana's wife slapping him, although she is a woman and weaker than he is, she is still capable of hurting him. Just because someone is smaller and weaker than you doesn't mean they can't injure you when they hit you in the face.
So even if we grant that Dana didn't act as good as he could have, it still seems odd to me that we don't mention and place weight on his wife's wrongdoing that prompted the slap in the first place. >


Given that his wife had just slapped him and that he responded by a similar slap, I don't see how it doesn't meet those criteria.

It doesn't meet those criteria because nothing is imminent because it has already happened.  "Imminent" means that we are only concerned with what will happen in the future.  She wasn't going to slap him again, so there is no imminence.
It also might fail the "reasonable" standard because "reasonable" is not the same thing as proportionate.  One can probably argue that there are more reasonable responses such as restraining her because he's obviously capable of doing that.  If there were an imminent attack then restraining her is also much more likely to prevent a further harm to both of them than hitting her across the face.  That's arguable, so you'd want to stick mostly with the imminent point.
For example, if I deliver the biggest haymaker possible straight to your face and then run away before you can do anything, you may not legally attack me in retaliation.  Your recourse is to call the cops or sue me.  Same thing here, just because his wife hit him does not make him hitting her self-defense.
​

Sure, my argument isn't that the criticisms have to be sexist, just that in the case a lot of the framing is influenced by sexism (and not by everybody just a large number of people).

Your OP seems to suggest that we ought to criticize both Dana and Anne equally.  I think this is incorrect.  Stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly.  For example, when Juliana Pena got in trouble for getting in a fight with a man a few years back, I think it was correct to criticize her more than the man.  That is not sexist, it is reasonable. >


It doesn't meet those criteria because nothing is imminent because it has already happened. "Imminent" means that we are only concerned with what will happen in the future. She wasn't going to slap him again, so there is no imminence.

I know that. But the issue is that in the moment he couldn't've known whether another slap was imminent and given that he was just slapped, that would not be an unreasonable belief.
But I think it might be better to move off the self-defense argument, because I don't think I think it's wrong (I think he could've used less force), and I don't agree with it (even if the slap wasn't self-defense, I still think a slap was justified).

Your OP seems to suggest that we ought to criticize both Dana and Anne equally. I think this is incorrect. Stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly. For example, when Juliana Pena got in trouble for getting in a fight with a man a few years back, I think it was correct to criticize her more than the man. That is not sexist, it is reasonable.

I think stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly by not using excessive retaliation. I think that a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force (assuming the weaker person is healthy and mentally competent). >


I think stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly by not using excessive retaliation. I think that a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force

Did you honestly look at that video and think that Dana slapped her with equal or lesser force?
This is just the first hit on Google, so just watch the first 20 or so seconds you can ignore the rest of the video.  I don't see how anyone can think that Dana responded with equal force.
She's knocked completely to the side, out of view of the camera, and he appears to follow up with at least a second slap and then a shove.  Even on your own standards Dana White clearly fails.  This was monstrous behavior. >

It looked to me as though she was walking away, not that she was pushed by the slap. As for the second slap, I agree that one was wrong.
I still think pointing out his wife's initial slap serves as a mitigating factor and should be included as relevant context in any media coverage of this event. >


It looked to me as though she was walking away, not that she was pushed by the slap. As for the second slap, I agree that one was wrong.

But doesn't that second slap show why the coverage here focusing on Dana over his wife is warranted?  Your post is about people focusing on Dana over his wife.  Dana clearly acted worse than her if for no other reason than that second slap (he also appears to actually initiate the whole thing as well), you can't just choose to ignore it and pretend like it proves some sort of sexism.  That second slap happened and it is all a part of the criticism you talk about in the OP.
Moreover, your own stated standard is that "a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force" Dana's first slap is clearly way harder than Anne's. >


But doesn't that second slap show why the coverage here focusing on Dana over his wife is warranted? Your post is about people focusing on Dana over his wife. Dana clearly acted worse than her if for no other reason than that second slap (he also appears to actually initiate the whole thing as well), you can't just choose to ignore it and pretend like it proves some sort of sexism. That second slap happened and it is all a part of the criticism you talk about in the OP.

I agree that Dana deserves some level of criticism. My main issue is the fact that Dana's wife slapped him first is not being considered as a mitigating factor, and that is what I take issue with.
And I think it's not taken as a mitigating factor, because woman on man violence is seen as less serious than man on woman violence. That is what I am considering to be the sexism.
And this is why I think it's left out by the media in many cases. Because it's seen as a trivial detail.

Moreover, your own stated standard is that "a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force" Dana's first slap is clearly way harder than Anne's.

It's not clear to me that his first slap was harder than Anne's. If it was, then I don't think the force of his slap was justified. And I don't think the second slap was justified. So those are reasons to criticize him. I just think the criticism should include who slapped who first. >

It seems like you're assuming that people criticizing Dana White aren't also criticizing his wife. I don't think it's sexist or logically inconsistent to say that they were both in the wrong and deserve criticism. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, so him being slapped doesn't mean he has free reign to then hit her. >

That's fair. The part I disagree with is that, especially in the media, it does not seem as though they are both being criticized. It seems like only Dana is being criticized without acknowledging the mitigating factors, such as the fact that his wife slapped him first. >


The video clearly shows Dana's wife slapping him first.

The video clearly shows Dana grabbing her wrist as she's trying to walk away.  Her reaction to being physically assaulted by Dan is to slap him for assaulting her and to let her go.  At which point he repeatedly slaps her.
The only thing "sexist" about this are the men with fragile masculinity attempting to defend Dana and claiming he did nothing wrong by assaulting and besting his wife. >

Slapping someone in the face seems disproportionate to being grabbed by the arm, especially because other means of deescalating the situation were not used. Even asking would've been better.

The only thing "sexist" about this are the men with fragile masculinity

I don't care at all about the "masculinity' you think I care about. Also, no need for the insults. If you can't engage respectfully and maturely, then don't.

attempting to defend Dana and claiming he did nothing wrong by assaulting and besting his wife.

Did you mean to say, "besting"?
And my main point isn't that Dana didn't do anything wrong, but it's more than the coverage of the interaction is solely focused on Dana's wrongdoing but completely leaves out the context which is that his wife slapped him first. This is clearly a mitigating circumstance that should be considered.
And I think this is the case because we don't take a woman slapping a man as bad as a man slapping a woman (using equal force). >


Slapping someone in the face seems disproportionate to being grabbed by the arm,

She was physically assaulted and restrained from leaving.  A slap in the face is well within a reasonable, proportional and legal self defense.  

especially because other means of deescalating the situation were not used. Even asking would've been better.

She is being physically assaulted and restrained.  She's under no obligation to de-escalate or politely ask.  

I don't care at all about the "masculinity' you think I care about.

Riiigggghhhtttt

Also, no need for the insults. If you can't engage respectfully and maturely, then don't.

It wasn't an insult.  It was a fact.  That you took it personally tells me my assessment was spot on.

Did you mean to say, "besting"?

Clearly a typo that should have read beating.  Don't be obtuse.

but it's more than the coverage of the interaction is solely focused on Dana's wrongdoing

Because he was the only one in the wrong

but completely leaves out the context which is that his wife slapped him first. 

AFTER HE PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED AND RESTRAINED HER

This is clearly a mitigating circumstance that should be considered.

....that she was acting in self defense

And I think this is the case because we don't take a woman slapping a man as bad as a man slapping a woman (using equal force).

Because she was acting in self defense
For all of your "mitigating factors" talk, you seem to ignore the actual mitigating factor.  He physically assaulted and restrained her first. >


She was physically assaulted and restrained from leaving. A slap in the face is well within a reasonable, proportional and legal self defense.

Is your claim that she didn't have non-violent options, such as telling him to let go, asking someone for help in dealing with the situation, or yanking her arm? Your claim is that hitting someone in the head is the same level of force as grabbing someone's arm?

She is being physically assaulted and restrained. She's under no obligation to de-escalate or politely ask.

But she is under an obligation to not escalate which is exactly what she did.
Also, she was held by the arm for a few seconds and did not make any non-violent attempts to deescalate. I take that to be an issue.

Riiigggghhhtttt

Continue with the insults and nonsense and you will be blocked.

It wasn't an insult. It was a fact. That you took it personally tells me my assessment was spot on.

It wasn't a fact. I have no issues with masculinity. I do have an issue with childish insults.
Again, once more and you're blocked. I don't have the desire to put up with Aholes.

Clearly a typo that should have read beating. Don't be obtuse.

More insults. I was genuinely asking, as he did physically best his wife and I thought that'd be odd wording. But no, he didn't beat his wife. By that standard, she also beat him. Unless you're claiming that he caused her significantly more damage than she caused him which is not clear to me.

Because he was the only one in the wrong

I take slapping someone in the face in response to your arm being grabbed by your husband to be wrong as that's a clear escalation in the level of violence occurring.

AFTER HE PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED AND RESTRAINED HER

And you're aware that proportionality is an issue?

....that she was acting in self defense

So your claim is that slapping your husband in the face in response to being grabbed by the arm is a proportionate exercise of self-defense?

For all of your "mitigating factors" talk, you seem to ignore the actual mitigating factor. He physically assaulted and restrained her first.

He grabbed her by the arm for less than 2 seconds, and she immediately proceeded to slap him in the face. So sure, him grabbing her for 1 second is a mitigating factor on her part, but it does not justify her slapping him in the face.
Imagine if a woman grabbed a man's arm and he immediately proceeded to slap her in the face. You would not be making the arguments you're making now. This does indicate some sexism imo. >

u/ExistentialReckning – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: 

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.