>


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.
/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.