Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is the thing she did immediately went and told her teacher but the boy went straight to the principles office, like a huge coward, and told them she attacked him for no reason.
Also how was she not in the right hitting him for what he did? If some random guy grabbed some female MMA/boxing fighters rear on the street I am pretty sure he would get punched yet I would think most would consider that appropriate.
I think it's wonderful she didn't let him get away with a sexual assault but she went too far. Rather than punching him, she could have grabbed his wrist and taken him to his knees. Actually that method of self-defense can be taken to 3 different positions: pain and embarrassment; a broken wrist and/or elbow; and all the way to a dislocated shoulder.
For a simple butt-grab, first time, I would not have gone beyond the first step. Imagine the incredible effect of taking a football player in the hallway on his knees with his hand behind his back and her standing over him. Broken nose he will recover from, but the less violent, totally defensive maneuver of grabbing the offending hand would send a message to him and have the girls asking her to teach them that maneuver. And then to press charges against him for a sexual assault.
She still can press charges with the police for a sexual assault - and I encourage you to do so.
Wow, I started reading this the other day and it is a big issue. Let me start with these qualifiers:
Groping is sexual assault
Nobody (man or woman) deserves to be sexually assaulted
A person is allowed to defend themselves within reason
I agree that the boy is in the wrong but so is the girl. Think of it his way, had she pulled the hand off and hammerlocked the boy, the message would have been sent and maybe he got roughed up a bit but not to the point of a possible broken nose or orbital socket from a martial arts trained attacker (at that point she would escalate it rather than being a defender.) However, she punched him for grabbing her butt. I am no expert on fighting but I don't see a punch nor two being warranted. Then the girl went to a teacher who (I am guessing) didn't send her to the office to file a complaint, while the boy (a football player who typically has the school with them especially in football towns) was able to complain to the office directly that the girl hit him. As someone that deals with kids, unless I see evidence of the groping (as in cell phone videos, being a witness or claims corroborated) I can only warn about it and document the event for a future trend BUT a punch you can typically see the evidence whether a reddened face, black eye or bloody nose. You can't make up that too much. I feel for the girl but she was wrong for a different reason than a boy.
Now I can't for the life of me understand the issue with zero tolerance at schools. Honestly, it is a part of the issue of people getting sued and schools getting sued over schoolyard fights, even school shootings. I mean do people complain when cops arrest both people in a true fight at say a bar, concert or sports event? If so, why complain about it at a school? Also as I mentioned, regardless if the boy touched her or not (I believe the mother OP) she escalated the violence and could be collared for assault as much as the boy being collared for sexual assault.
As for the mother, I think you need to step back for a moment. YES, the touching was wrong but so was your daughter. She got punished by the school which is fine. I know you don't like it but it is a learning experience. Now she knows to get the attention of the office ASAP and to only defend herself and not get to be on the offensive. As I mentioned, two punches were thrown when she should have hammerlocked the boy.
As for the martial artist, I am pretty sure they as well as female pro-wrestlers who could be groped, they would be charged just as your daughter could be. Why, because it is similar to a trained boxer punching someone, their body is a finely tuned weapon. I am not surprised that people don't know Rhonda Rousey because some people aren't into UFC at all. I follow it but don't really watch it.
I'm amazed at those doing such deep analysis on the degree of force this high school girl should have started with and all the additional self-defense moves she then could have performed if not effective. She may have been athletic and had a self-defense class but you're assuming a LOT of knowledge and a LOT of skill to pull off these maneuvers. Let's see, what is the easiest thing to do - hit the guy! No wrestling-like defensive take-down moves or fancy back flips necessary - just a simple punch - quite effective!
Location: Stuck on the East Coast, hoping to head West
4,640 posts, read 11,931,469 times
Reputation: 9885
I'm totally on your daughter's side. I'd also report the sexual assault (which is what that was) to the police.
I'd threaten the school for NOT providing a safe place for my daughter. She was sexually assaulted on their property. That's what the school is concerned with. Not the girl. Not the boy. They're trying to distract the girl and her family from that fact.
The people judging the girl blow my mind.
Know why the boy did this to the girl? He was someone weaker. He wanted to take advantage of her. And now the girl is supposed to be apologize for being strong and able to defend herself. WTF.
This is just my humble opinion. First I don't think it is "great" that she did this. I just think that she had the right to defend herself in this particular situation. If she had never hit him at that moment but rather a day later gathered some of her male friends to beat him up, I would not condone that at all.
I think it's important to take into consideration the entire context before we start changing parts. The fact is women are not equal to men physically. Men have the privilege because of their size to not care about certain things related to their safety because of this. For example, males don't look for other male friends to escort them to their car in a parking lot at night because they worked late, etc.
So, in this particular instance, IMO, there was a threat of further potential imminent harm. There is also an element of instinctual self preservation that has to be considered. I have been grabbed at by men before and I instinctively reacted a certain way similarly to the girl. I was not composed. It is really hard to tell someone to stay composed when something like this happens for obvious reasons.
Now, in your conditional, where is the imminent harm for the male? Now, if your conditional adds that the woman was 6'2" and the guy was 5'2", then yes, I would have no problems with the male defending himself.
Physically not equal? What a gross over generalization. Many, many women are more than a match for many, many men. Having a Y chromosome does not remotely make men superior to every woman. The vast majority of adults, regardless of gender, can certainly inflict damage on other adults, especially those who have had training to do so like this young woman. And part of that training is to retain you composure. So as another tall, strong, athletic woman with some martial arts classes I can say unequivocally, she could have taken a different tactic.
As for the strawman of women walking each other to a parking lot (which btw would certainly be "changing parts") , that is almost entirely to avoid the specter of being raped. This interaction happened in a school hallway. Neither party was going to be raped in a school hallway between classes full of students. Her imminent harm, was a continued potential for being assaulted, but the same would be said for amount man being groped in the same scenario.
And you should consider carefull whether or not you really want to follow your logic to its conclusions because you have basically stated women are not as responsible for their actions as men, because they are afraid of being raped. Those who are labeled as less responsible for their actions have less rights than those who are.
If women wanted to be treated as the equals we are then we need to expected to be held to the same level of expectation of responsibility as well.
When you are being assaulted, it's not your responsibility to take care of your attacker. You can take any action to make it stop, including breaking his nose. It's called self defense. Attackers are animals, and need to be put down.
Nonsense.
This argument would lead to people shooting each other in street for any minor disagreement. Even small children understand two wrong actions do not equal justice.
Know why the boy did this to the girl? He was someone weaker. He wanted to take advantage of her. And now the girl is supposed to be apologize for being strong and able to defend herself. WTF.
Not judging her but rather about the liability one has to keep in mind if they have been trained in hand to hand.
A few points. One, if one is going to use deadly force to defend, they better be in fear of their life when they do it. Two, one ought to be aware of what deadly force can cover, such as damage to the organs and even a good punch can go that far. Three, the more the opposer stands to gain from the defender, the more their lawyer will push the most serious point........and the more they will probably decrease the seriousness of the provocation which brought on the punch.
Discomfort is one thing, making the move and putting my life in potential ruin because of my defense of the moment is quite another.
Btw, if we can have zero tolerance in school for hitting, we can also and should also have it for sexual/unwanted touching.
I work in a school, actually have worked in many schools. There is no tolerance for assault of any kind. I would be shocked if the boy wasn't suspended, and for potentially longer than the girl. By the way, in most schools, a physical altercation like this one would not warrant any sort of zero tolerance policies being enacted which typically only involve weapons and drug offenses.
I would accept the suspension, support my daughter, and make damn sure the boy who grabbed her was also suspended.
I totally agree. Sexual assault is assault. She may have changed his whole attitude about the subject! No telling how many women have her to thank for that.
First unwanted touch = say NO and tell an adult
Second time = tell an adult again
Third time = beat the sh*t out of them
I see no issue with this.
The castrated crap heads running schools these days are not going to teach my kid that people can physically violate you with no consequences.
I'm one of the "castrated crap heads". I run discipline in a high school of 1200 kids and have done it for 15 years as an assistant principal. In this case, if the OP's story is accurate, the boy would be suspended for sexual harassment and his unwanted touch would have been handed over to law enforcement for them to do what they wanted with it. The girl would go out on suspension for at least 3 days for physical violence. Period. There is no allowance for retaliation in any school in America. Most schools allow for self defense, but this scenario wouldn't fall under self defense as she could have easily just walked to an adult in the building and reported the unwanted touch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
