"I maced a girl over the weekend"

[NerdGirl]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/63695/

Definitely agree with the writers on this one. Also, I love that the category is etiquette. I think there are very few situations where you could justifiably hit someone (like seriously hit them, not like you're joking around with your guy friends), and in those cases it's pretty much self defense so the sex of your attacker is pretty much irrelevant. I think the reasoning behind "you should never hit a girl" can be taken to the logical conclusion that you should also never hit a guy (unless said guy or girl is attacking you). Really, though, I hope this guy just did have a random thought about it and decided to ask and is not seriously considering carrying mace to ward off property damagers, because the question and answers made me laugh and I would feel bad about laughing if there's a guy out there who actually thinks what he proposed would be a good idea.

[Digit]

It reminded me of something I saw on the news one time. A police officer in Dayton, OH had pulled up to a Wendy's and when given change for a $10, swore that he had given the cashier, a young girl, a $20. All of this was caught on the video camera looking down on the cashier. The cop got so angry he came into the store, stormed into the employees' area, threatened to arrest her, maced the girl, and took her off (to the hospital). It turned out he did only give her a $10 bill. The police department settled with the girl and her family for $60,000, but the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing!

video of the whole thing

edit: Just read the text of the blog at the link, and they say the officer was later fired, though the judge found him innocent of assault charges because the judge ruled he had reason to arrest the cashier.

[Yarjka]

Wow. I had that happen to me twice while I worked at Taco Bell - minus the macing and police officer aspect of it. It was annoying because I would have to go count down the entire drawer in the back in order to prove that the funds were correct. But that's not nearly as annoying as being maced. I'll consider myself lucky.

[Marduk]

I read this question as being entirely facetious, so it surprised me that most of the writers answered it seriously.

In fact, it is quite telling that the only response I percieved as joking along with it went the direction of it causing him serious problems, instead of joking about there being some justifiable reason for doing it.

It is, in all honesty, quite representative of the sexist attitude of our society in general, and the culture in this area in specific, that even joking about a man being justified in committing any sort of harm to a woman is shocking and sinister. You can bet had the genders been reversed most of the writers would not have been as indignant, and most likely would have joked about it.

[mic0]

Marduk, I don't know. If a guy keyed a girl's car, you think everyone would be fine with the girl macing him? I agree that the question was (probably, hopefully) in jest, but the situation was stupid. Someone keying your car so you mace them? Why? What does that even accomplish.

[Marduk]

Hey, I never said it was funny. And "fine with macing him" is not the same as "would be willing to joke about macing him."

[NerdGirl]

Someone keying your car so you mace them? Why? What does that even accomplish.

Well, you could end up in jail for assault, in which case you probably won't have a car anymore. So if you look at it like that, it would prevent anyone from ever keying your car again.

[Imogen]

Someone keying your car so you mace them? Why? What does that even accomplish.

Well, you could end up in jail for assault, in which case you probably won't have a car anymore. So if you look at it like that, it would prevent anyone from ever keying your car again.

you'd actually probably NOT be put in jail for assault. keying someone's car is an act of aggression, and i imagine a halfway decent lawyer would be able to get charges dropped on the basis of self-defense.

[wired]

Utah Code 53A-11-802.

(2) This section does not prohibit the use of reasonable and necessary physical restraint or force in self defense or otherwise appropriate to the circumstances to:
(a) obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous object in the possession or under the control of a child;
(b) protect the child or another person from physical injury;
(c) remove from a situation a child who is violent or disruptive; or
(d) protect property from being damaged.

So the question would be whether use of mace was reasonable and necessary or otherwise appropriate to protect the car from being damaged. Which would likely be a question for a jury (is in most places). Which they would answer based on a lot of factors, one of which would be the size and gender of the two people involved... which brings us full circle to the questioners' original point about hitting girls and its appropriateness.

EDIT: Oh, and whether you would be put in jail for assault would depend on the officer who initially responded. Werf could very well arrest you for battery (since you unquestionably attacked the individual) and then leave it up to court proceedings to determine whether you should be convicted or not. Once werf arrests you,werf can put you in jail to detain you until an initial hearing is held to determine bail.

[Tao]

Yeah, I would think that the 'never hit a girl' bit is a throwback to the days when a quick round of fisticuffs was a socially acceptable means of settling disputes. It is still useful with young boys who are still full of spit and vinegar and haven't figured out that throwing a fist isn't usually a good idea, and doubly so against someone less likely to pop you back.

Taking the question seriously, I think I'd focus on something that many of the writers touched on but others seemed to have skipped. Violence in response to property damage is ludicrous, self defense is not ever going to protect you in the car keying situation. In order for self defense laws to apply the threat needs to be immediate harm, Wired's quote of Utah code showing defense of property surprises me somewhat, but I wonder under what circumstances that holds, I'm not sure keying a car would fall into that category, taking a bat to a car while you were in it, sure, but keying? I don't know. (Sad note: many self-defense martial arts classes that teach disarm-and-detain push their students outside of self defense laws, as strikes against someone you just disarmed can come across as counter aggression, as the immediate threat [ie. the weapon] is nullified, and successfully demonstrating that, an unarmed individual poses little threat.)

The part of the responses that surprised me was that the only writer that addressed the non property damage scenario still stuck with the 'violence is not an answer if you can save your own skin'. Someone is hitting your kid sister and your response is to run away? Really? I'd have a hard time explaining to my parents/spouse that I ran away and let my little sister/daughter get beat and/or worse instead of coming up on the offender, kicking them on the side of the knee as hard as I could, then getting the both of us to safety. Mace would be a viable option if kicking isn't your forte. Leaving a weaker party in danger and running away to call for help is acceptable only if you see no viable option of getting both of you out of there and you truly feel that help can come before enough damage is done that you can't live with yourself anymore.

What can I say? I'm not to the point of the Ammonites yet, I'd rather go down swinging.

[wired]

Taking the question seriously, I think I'd focus on something that many of the writers touched on but others seemed to have skipped. Violence in response to property damage is ludicrous, self defense is not ever going to protect you in the car keying situation.

Just realized the section I quoted was a specific carve out for teachers to use force against students in public schools.

I'm guessing that Utah has a common-law or Constitutional right to defense of property that is much broader than you're thinking it is. I'll be back with an answer later.

[wired]

Didn't take me long:

(1) A person is justified in using force, other than deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent or terminate another person's criminal interference with real property or personal property:(a) lawfully in the person's possession; (b) lawfully in the possession of a member of the person's immediate family; or(c) belonging to a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect.(2) In determining reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact shall, in addition to any other factors, consider the following factors:(a) the apparent or perceived extent of the damage to the property;(b) property damage previously caused by the other person;(c) threats of personal injury or damage to property that have been made previously by the other person; and(d) any patterns of abuse or violence between the person and the other person.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-406 (West)

So it assuredly a jury question and it determines the apparent or perceive extent of the damage. (That's actually kind of interesting... so you would likely be more justified in using greater force if individual is keying a Camaro then if werf is keying a '95 Ford Taurus.)

So Tao, I'm not sure if I agree with your statement about violence in response to property damage. If you mean physical action intended to maim or injure (heart you Dobby!), there's probably few instances that werf could act violently. But if you simply mean physical action that is extra-legal or would convict one of battery, then you're almost definitely wrong. Even incapacitating someone by wrestling werf to the ground or grabbing their arm in a forceful manner are actions that could get a person arrested for criminal assault. In that case, self-defense would likely relieve an individual of criminal wrong doing.

The pepper spray would just be a manner of reasonableness. It's further down the line, but depending on the context, I could see it working. If it were a small guy against a large girl who had previously threatened him, I'd say the pepper spray is going to be pretty reasonable to a lot of jurors.

The immediate harm principle you are thinking about only applies to deadly force. I am sure that the Utah judiciary has an accompanying immediacy principle for property, but it's not something that would require the individual be in danger.

[Tao]

So Tao, I'm not sure if I agree with your statement about violence in response to property damage. If you mean physical action intended to maim or injure (heart you Dobby!), there's probably few instances that werf could act violently. But if you simply mean physical action that is extra-legal or would convict one of battery, then you're almost definitely wrong. Even incapacitating someone by wrestling werf to the ground or grabbing their arm in a forceful manner are actions that could get a person arrested for criminal assault. In that case, self-defense would likely relieve an individual of criminal wrong doing.

Thank you for the further research. I agree, my thoughts were more directed at physical actions such as striking or kicking, and I don't rightfully know where along the lines Mace would fall. Technically just raising your fist in a threatening manner is assault, and without some sort of laws covering property damage it'd be awfully hard to do anything about it without getting countersued into the ground. (Ie, you catch someone threatening your property, raise a fist and warn them off, then get served for assault. Without some sort of affirmative defense laws, such an absurdity would not be uncommon.) I'd not thought about it from that angle.

[Marduk]

Well, if we are answering the question from a serious standpoint, I think most people here know where I stand. If it is something that is injurious to myself or my personal property, I'm a pacifist. Assault on someone else with me present is a different story, though.

[NerdGirl]

If I saw someone destroying my property, I would probably says something like, "Hey, what the hell are you doing to my car?!" But I wouldn't go and physically try and get them to stop, mainly because I think that would just make the situation escalate. I'd probably just call the police.

[Eirene]

The part of the responses that surprised me was that the only writer that addressed the non property damage scenario still stuck with the 'violence is not an answer if you can save your own skin'. Someone is hitting your kid sister and your response is to run away? Really? I'd have a hard time explaining to my parents/spouse that I ran away and let my little sister/daughter get beat and/or worse instead of coming up on the offender, kicking them on the side of the knee as hard as I could, then getting the both of us to safety. Mace would be a viable option if kicking isn't your forte. Leaving a weaker party in danger and running away to call for help is acceptable only if you see no viable option of getting both of you out of there and you truly feel that help can come before enough damage is done that you can't live with yourself anymore.

What can I say? I'm not to the point of the Ammonites yet, I'd rather go down swinging.

Ahh, you mean my answer, right? When I said something like "you should run away," I was actually thinking plural "you," as in you take your sister and both get out of there. Although I guess that intention wasn't very clear, was it? I do agree with you--letting your sister get beat up while you run away would be pretty yellow-bellied in most situations.

[Wisteria]

So Marduk, what's the difference between defending yourself and defending someone else? Why is it okay to let yourself get beat up but not someone else?

[Marduk]

It is okay for me because it is my choice. But those for whom I have some responsibility over (say, a family member, or eventually, a spouse or children) that decision is not mine to make. If someone wants to beat me up and take my stuff, well, they can't take it if I allow them to. But I have an obligation to be steward over those around me.

[Wisteria]

What about your obligation to be a steward over the physical body that was given to you by God?

[Marduk]

I talked to Him about that. He's cool with it.