Probably the same thing as the people there....nothing.
There's a thing called 'provocation' that's actually a defense for assault. This could be the video definition.

Changed the title, I was wondering what people would do if someone was touching/poking them/etc like this.

2 minutes too long.

Ahhhh. Then I would get up and walk away from the crazy, not sit there waiting for it to escalate, or go back for more.
Like the Lord Humungus said...just walk away, and you can keep your lives. Just walk away.

What if she followed?

Back up slowly while maintaining eye contact...just like with any other angry animal. ;-)
Once she aggressively touches me...Oh IT'S ON! Crazy is no excuse for angrily touching someone. I'm broken, but I took karate for years and have a high pain tolerance, so I'll do my utmost to defend myself.
In case this is what's you're looking for...sex is of no consequence to me. Women can injure men, they don't get any free pass to try. The first person to touch is the aggressor and deserves what they get in defense, almost always.

I fully agree, once you have reached a point where you can't retreat further, you have to defend yourself regardless of the aggressor.

In addition to the ideal "walk away" solution, I hope that I would have the presence of mind and calmness to make a wisecrack that would hopefully shame the crazy lady into being less likely to cause a similar scene in the future. (wishful thinking)

Maybe something like: look around with an exasperated look on my face and say "anyone want to trade seats?" before walking away.

I am confused about what happened. He "touched her shit"? What, her stuff? Yeah, he should walk away.

But did he touch her "shit" -- as in, sexually fondled her without her permission? That was the only thing I could think of that would make someone so angry. And would explain why he didn't skulk away guiltily -- he would be admitting guilt.

Still, getting mad doesn't work. The best thing to do in that situation is to calmly address the entire car and say, "Excuse me, I want everyone to know that this man right here touched me without my permission. This guy. Touched my body without my permission. Take a goooooood long look at this guy."

Or she is just crazy and went off on him for touching her bag. (But why did he stay? I don't understand....)

I can't tell. I just know that if he did something wrong, then she was in the wrong for escalating a bad situation. And if he didn't do anything wrong, then he was a fool for staying there. Hitting her was out of line.

@bareboards2
yeah.i do not understand why he was hanging around while she talked shit.

it appears he may have messed her stuff up,and was looking for something that may have dropped.

we really do not know though.could be anything.could be he gave her boobs a goose for all we know.

we DO know that she was verbally abusing him.

i know i would have walked away.i have encountered women like this all through my life.apologizing just gets you a litany of new insults,and as long as you remain in their vicinity...the insults will only continue and get even more derogatory.

walking away is the best policy.

the majority of times that sufficed to appease their inner rage demon.maybe they would throw a few zingers at my back,but i never really gave a shit.more power to her..they are just words flying out of an entitled little girl who cant behave like an adult.

but...

on a few occasions.
the girl would follow right behind me,and continue to berate and harass me.possibly seeing my retreat as a sign of weakness.i really dont know.what i DO know,is that is a blatant sign of stupidity to take your 5"3" 110lb ass and try to jam it into my face as if you were rhonda rousey.

i have never hit a woman.
but i will not allow a woman to put her hands on me,especially when she has been verbally abusive and aggressive with me.

so the girls who have thought it totally ok to escalate the situation with physical violence,i have always responded in the same fashion: they get one shot.ONE.and then i whip around (and guys who have gotten into fights understand this) and in the most threatening and physically imposing manner,plainly let her know "ok thats ONE.go ahead and hit me again.i fucking DARE you.go ahead and hit me again and see what happens.because if you hit me again you are taking the place of a man,and AS a man i will knock you the fuck out".

i actually learned that from my dad.
one of the kindest and most gentle people you will have ever met,but his advice worked like a charm.

can you guess how many of those girls went for hit # 2?

thats right...none.

ya know.people get angry.
people can misunderstand a situation and react angrily.
humans will encounter conflict throughout our lives,and it is a testament to wisdom,intelligence and patience how we deal with those conflicts.

and there is never a time where it is ok to put your hands on another person,except for in self-defense.

so when a woman puts her hands on a man.
i dont care what level the rage meter is at,she should never put her hands on him.

for a few reasons:
1.its wrong.
2.you dont get a free pass because you own a uterus.
3.violence is never the proper choice for conflict resolution.
4.and most important.would you ever in your life walk up to a grizzly bear with a stick and start poking him? would you cry and whine about the unfairness of it all when that bear rips your face off?

use a little common sense and everything will be fine.

and did ya'all catch this womans glee?
the mere idea of her male friends killing this dude made her flush with excitement.that is a tad disturbing,but expected with such low quality females such as these.

experienced a bunch of women in that category as well.

but thats a story for another day.

simply put:this woman escalated the situation by making it physical and got popped in the mouth.
and thats all it was..a pop.
got her attention though didnt it?

so advice to all my lady friends here on the sift.
you have a right to your anger,your outrage and your indignation.
you do NOT have the right to be hitting,smacking or punching guys willy nilly without consequences.

and while i agree with BB (and others) that the dude should have just walked away,i will not put that responsibility solely on him.how is it HIS responsibility to control this womans actions.she hit.she got popped.
end of story.

@enoch
Pretty big essay in defense of that pop in the mouth, when I haven't seen a single person say he was at fault for it. At least, that I remember.

The only reason I piped up was because I thought there was a chance he was sexually harassing her, which nobody had mentioned.

And a calm and clear voice say -- "This guy. This guy here touched me without permission" -- Gosh. If every woman did that, not with anger but with truth... well, these guys count on women staying silent.

We are talking about two different things, yeah?

I agree with almost everything you said except it being out of line to hit her. She touched/punched/scratched his neck/ear/head in an aggressive manner, then raised her fist at him. Once you touch the other person aggressively, they have a right to any defense they think is necessary so long as it's within reason. One 'don't touch me' pop in the mouth is within reason in my mind. That assumes he didn't touch her first...we don't know.

I listened closer, and I'm thinking maybe it's his laptop that's missing, and probably why he 'touched her shit' ...looking for it, and why he's looking under the seats up and down the train. At 2:10 it sounds like she says "thank you, thank you, I just won a fucking laptop, thank you thank you" and has what looks like one in her hand...but if that's the case, he gave up easy, so I'm not at all sure what's the deal here.

@bareboards2

ayup.
i was pretty much agreeing with you and then went on my rambling way,telling stories,meeting people and getting in adventures.

my comment wasnt really directed at you nor a rebuttal.i was just agreeing with your basic premise.

though i am with @newtboy on the "out of line" deal,for pretty much the exact same reason.he has a better economy of words than i.

LOL..jesus i can ramble.(just reread my comment)

Thanks for that explanation, @enoch. I do admit I didn't see it/remember it by the time I got to the end.

I don't agree with you or @newtboy about the pop in the mouth being okay though. It isn't a gender thing. If this was an altercation between two men or two women, to take disparity of size out of it, the pop in the mouth is out of line to me.

Walk. Away. MLK. Gandhi. My self defense instructor. All say the same thing. Walk. Away.

Or in the parlance of parents -- use your words. No hitting.

I know this is a big leap -- but we invaded the SOVEREIGN NATION of Iraq, because we were afraid. If we can't have the maturity to deal with one person on a subway, then it leads to not having the maturity to deal with larger issues.

Walk. Away.

Then you do mostly agree with me, because I did say the best way to deal with this kind of situation is just walk away.
....BUT...
not everyone has the ability to see the best course of action, especially when they're being screamed at and poked, and there's no legal or moral REQUIREMENT to walk away. (in this case it seemed he was looking for something he lost, in which case 'walking away' would be abandoning his property)
The pop wasn't the best response...but it was not out of line as I see it. When someone touches you in anger, you have every right to pop them in the mouth, especially if they have their fists raised against you. It's usually not the best idea, but it is a legal, and moral right.
It's best to argue with your mind/words, not your fists, and when possible use your mind against their fists, but when that's not possible for whatever reason, and when they used their fists first, there's no problem with using your fists in defense. No hitting FIRST....hitting back is just fine though. It's not the best reaction by far, but is an acceptable one.

@newtboy. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I disagree with you 100%. It is not okay to hit.

That guy had a lot of options and he didn't take any of them. I agree with you that not everyone has the skills to hold it together in situations like this.

Just because people fail at taking other options doesn't make hitting back the right thing to do.

It. Is. Not. Okay. To. Hit.

Of course if someone is coming at you, you might have to strike to KEEP THEM FROM HITTING YOU. Retaliation, though, is not a "moral" response. It is a failure of maturity and coping skills. It is the failure to take a step back to protect yourself.

Stand your ground sucks with guns or fists.

I took a self defense class years ago. I was taught skills that are potentially damaging. I was also taught to use my words to de-escalate.

I do not think it is good to say it is okay to hit and say it is "morally" okay.

We want to be the change, right? So say no hitting, mean it, and have understanding when someone hits anyway. It isn't about perfection. It is about a goal.

Well. We have traded our points of view a couple of times now. I'm certainly not going to change my mind. Would you like the last word?

Well then yes, we respectfully disagree.
As I saw it, she had already aggressively touched him with his back turned, and then raised her fists as if to hit him again, so he could easily think he had to strike to keep from being hit again.
I wouldn't say it's the 'right' thing to do, I would say it's an acceptable thing, but I certainly agree it's on the 'wrong' end of that spectrum of acceptability.
Mr Miaggi was right, the best way to win a fight is to not be in one....but that's not within everyone's capability. No training coupled with lack of self control makes that impossible for some. They are not bad people because they lack those skills, IMO, and they have a right to their imperfect reactions up to a clearly legally defined point without being told that, because they didn't do the best thing, they did the wrong thing.
You are free to think differently, I don't need to agree with you 100% to like you.

Leaving aside the reasons for the conflict in the first place (difficult to comment since we really don't have any information about what happened), isn't that what he did?

She became agitated to the point where she assaulted him. It might not have been a serious assault, but it was assault nonetheless.

We don't know what her intention was, but it looked like she intended to commit more violence (her fist was raised).

You could argue that he stopped that from happening.

Personally, I would have walked away at that point, but every situation is different, and we don't know what lead either of them to this point.

The guy could a complete sleazebag. Or he could be a past victim of assault who decided "never again". We just don't know.

I 100% agree with you that the best fight is the one you don't have to have. De-escalation is always preferable, but it's not always possible.

If you do get into a physical confrontation, then your goal should be to end it as quickly as possible.

Moving this video to Mordhaus's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

@ChaosEngine She raises her fist? Take a step back.

Put up your hand in a "stop" motion and say loudly and firmly "NO."

It's that simple. That difficult.

I don't expect perfection from humans in the moment. We have have limitations. But the commentary afterwards?

It. Is. Not. Okay. To. Hit.

He had options. He didn't take them.

Yeah, and she had the option not to assault him in the first place.

I wouldn't have done what he did, but without knowing more about the whole situation, I'm not willing to state that either of them is blameless.

It's incredibly easy to look at this in hindsight and say "he shouldn't have done that". And yeah, again, I'd like to think it's not the option I would have taken.

But please stop repeating "It. Is. Not. Okay. To. Hit."
It comes across as very condescending; we're grown-ups here, and we all know that context matters. Violence is absolutely an acceptable response if you feel the situation warrants it. It's not ok to assault someone, but it is ok to defend yourself. You said so yourself.

We can argue around in circles about whether he was defending himself here or not. Legally, he certainly was.

To be clear, I don't like what he did, and honestly, I can't say that I know my own thoughts about the rights or wrongs of this situation (especially when you factor in the unknown cause).

I'm just not willing to condemn the guy outright.

@ChaosEngine

I keep repeating that because folks are saying it is okay to hit.

It is not okay to hit.

Do people hit? Yes. Do they bolluxed up in their emotions and do the wrong thing? Yes. Did I ever "condemn" the guy? No. I said he did the wrong thing. He did the wrong thing.

Have I ever hit someone? Yes. Was I wrong? Yes. Was I doing the best I could at the time? Yes.

My posts haven't been about this specific situation. (Well, the first one was, because I thought she might have been sexually harassed -- I couldn't understand what was going on.) My posts have only been "best practices." And so I keep repeating "it is not okay to hit." [With the proviso is someone is actively attacking you, you can protect yourself. This doesn't meet that test -- all he had to do was take a big step back and say "no, stop." He didn't -- couldn't with his limitations of the moment -- take the best option.]

Anyway. I'm done here. If I am not smart enough to communicate something so simple, then I am going to stop trying.

It has been fun trying, though.