Leody wrote:You're generalizing greatly. This situation is like hitting a child. (in relation to difference of physical ability) Not all situations.
So, with your logic any amount of force would be acceptable because she was going into him with the intention of causing harm? What if he caused serious brain damage or death? Would it have been acceptable for him to strike her with a club? Shoot her?
He responded to her attack with a far superior amount of aggression and force than she used. That makes him at fault in our legal system. You may respond with an equal or lesser amount of force only.
You asked what exactly did he do wrong, that's your answer.
there was no difference in aggression between the two the only difference was that with the same amount of aggression he was able to inflict more damage.
I didnt say any amount of force is acceptable what i said was that he had every right to react in the same way that he was attacked. If someone is hits someone it isnt excessive for that person to retaliate and hit back. There is no escalation here, judging the capability of the person you are about to hit is part of it all. If you cannot handle the retaliation dont do it if you do accept what was dealt to you.
Bringing up guns and clubs has absolutely nothing to do with the situation and it's fallacious at best. He didnt use a gun or a club he used his own hands the same way she used hers. She is the only one who provided an escalation in this situation, there was no physical violence and then she escalated it to the point that there was.
There is no law that states that you have to respond with equal or less force, most laws cite reasonable force that ends the dispute. He hit her once she fell and that was it.
You still have not explained why it is ok that this reaction is frowned upon yet the same reaction when done on a weaker man isnt.