>


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.
/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.