Having a debate with a friend, im not no wifebeater or anything lol im 16, and neither is he.

Is it illegal to manhandle(grab arms/push/shove) a woman in the state of michigan when a heated argument is going on?

no, only when you're having sex

If by "manhandle" you mean rape, then yes. Yes it is.

At 3/9/11 08:50 PM, Lemmiwinks91 wrote: no, only when you're having sex

maybe they are arguing whilst having sex?

At 3/9/11 08:49 PM, LiL-ReEpEr-SnIpEr wrote: in the state of michigan

Oh come on do you really expect people to know this without looking up online which you could easily do yourself?

Its technically illegal to do that anyway. People can easily fake it being more serious than it was- Male or female- and get you for Assault.

At 3/9/11 08:52 PM, Vociferousmime wrote:

At 3/9/11 08:50 PM, Lemmiwinks91 wrote: no, only when you're having sex

maybe they are arguing whilst having sex?

ooo you smart arse...

I'm not an expert on the legal code of Michigan, but I don't have a lot of doubt that it's not illegal if you don't physically harm her. I would be surprised if that wasn't the case. It shouldn't be the case, anyways. Pushing someone shouldn't be considered assault unless you push them so hard that they're slammed into something.

At 3/9/11 08:51 PM, Travis wrote: Who the hell exherts any violent force on a woman other than a piece of shit.

That's assuming women can't handle being pushed. OP isn't talking about actually hitting or injuring her.

No hit woman it's a thing every man needs to do on occasion...

At 3/9/11 08:51 PM, Travis wrote: What the hell is wrong with you?

Who the hell exherts any violent force on a woman other than a piece of shit.

Of course, flirting and such is a different story, a playful push is different than a straight up angry shove.

should you not be saying anyone who exerts violent force on anyone is a piece of shit? or are you one of the pricks that still believes in that bullshit that is chivilry?

Touching someone in a threatening way is assault. Harming them in the act of touching them is battery.

It is illegal to manhandle ANYBODY.

Can't speak for Michigan.

But seeing the definition, I don't know it's always wrong. You can't go out and punch her or push her off somewhere. But grabbing her arm as she's about to run off or pushing her away if she gets too close for your comfort, I don't see any problem with that.

Ethically it's wrong.

In the legal status though, there is no difference between assaulting on a man or a woman. You shouldn't do either of them in the eyes of the law, no matter what the situation.

It is only proper to manhandle a woman.

i hate woman beaters

I don't know if it is illegal per se, but it is not honorable by any means.

It isn't necessarily illegal, but it shouldn't be done unless at risk of injury or death.

At 3/10/11 10:16 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 3/10/11 12:14 AM, Evark wrote: Touching someone in a threatening way is assault. Harming them in the act of touching them is battery.

Assault, minnesota-style
The player was arrested, not the mascot. Thoughts?

I think you neglected to read or comprehend 'in a threatening way' from my statement, which would explain fully why you would somehow expect that the mascot would be arrested for tapping someone on the shoulder and the fan not arrested for punching him in the face in response.

At 3/10/11 02:07 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 3/10/11 12:59 PM, Evark wrote:
I think you neglected to read or comprehend 'in a threatening way' from my statement, which would explain fully why you would somehow expect that the mascot would be arrested for tapping someone on the shoulder and the fan not arrested for punching him in the face in response.

I think the guy felt threatened enough to turn around and wallop him.

He didn't actually punch the mascot in the face, just the mask.

The problem is that "threatening" is up to interpretation.
If for example I'm waiting for a long time for my wife to get ready. Then I get angry and yell "Come on, woman! I need to leave now!"
Would be weird if she feels threaten and I go to jail because I raised my voice a little.

At 3/9/11 10:16 PM, Cootie wrote: You can't use force AGAINST anybody legally. No matter if they are a man or a woman, and no matter how mad you may be at them.

not necessarily. in some cases where youre provoked enough you are allowed to use violence and get free.

if some dude holds a knife next to your kid and threatens to stab him youre allowed to take the knife away and if the knife happens to stab the guy on the stomach and kill him you would not be charged.

same applies to someone who is provoking you like pushing you, poking you, flicking you with their fingers. in that case youre allowed to use physical force that would stop the annoyance like pushing him to the ground or pushing him against the wall. but not excessive force like once hes on the ground and stopped pushing you or is now running away youre not allowed to continue the force

At 3/10/11 02:07 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: I think the guy felt threatened enough to turn around and wallop him.

The reason he was arrested for assault and not the other way around is because he didn't feel threatened at all. He just was angry that he was being disturbed while he was perving out on the gymnastics team or whatever.

Whereas, if he requests that the mascot stops and the mascot continues, then it becomes a different situation.

He didn't actually punch the mascot in the face, just the mask.

...

At 3/10/11 02:12 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: The problem is that "threatening" is up to interpretation.

Are you serious? That isn't a PROBLEM at all. The interpretation is applied in light of the facts of the situation. It's a good thing that it is open to interpretation. The entire point of the courts is to provide 'interpretation' in our system so that enforcement can't just fuck over whoever they want whenever they want.

If for example I'm waiting for a long time for my wife to get ready. Then I get angry and yell "Come on, woman! I need to leave now!"
Would be weird if she feels threaten and I go to jail because I raised my voice a little.

In that situation, there would be no grounds to send the man to jail. Why? Because you did not threaten her, nor did you lay a finger on her. It doesn't matter if somebody 'feels threatened' by your statements, what matters is if the statements in and of themselves 'were threatening'.

There's another force at work. There's a difference between being arrested and being incarcerated for crimes committed. Arrest is enforcement, you can be arrested if you ALLEGEDLY broke a law. Incarceration is indictment, you can be incarcerated only if a jury of your peers finds that after the facts of the case have been presented it is certain that you broke the law.

For example, I would not feel threatened if a man in a wheelchair said that if I did not comply with his wishes he would beat the shit out of me. Regardless, that man could be thrown in jail because his actions were threatening. The case might not even see court, however. The judge could decide before trial that my charges were ridiculous in light of the fact that the man can't move his arms or legs to hurt me. That's what interpretation does. Protects you from the frivolity of enforcement.

Yes in Michigan, no in Washtenaw County.