I can only answer from uk perspective on this law at this time. And late so I will post the following article for your consideration. My view first. It totally depends on whether you are capable of defending yourself or another. What's you training back ground and build. Are you going to make the matter worse? Or be able to restrain the attacker using preferably minimal force. In all cases with friends present try to have one record the incident on a phone as evidence USA look into the green dot campaign. Please use common sense if ever in a situation like this and judge of the person is upset vs drunk or high and how they may react. Also their partner though upset may retaliate badly. That said the article citation from the BBC though I don't entirely agree with every word is as follows. :- Call the police or intervene? Assault is against the law but what if it is committed to protect someone else? Protecting the vulnerable is considered a key tenet of a civilised society, but recent events have shown that intervention in an effort to uphold community values can come at a very high price. As well as the recent high-profile cases of men being killed after stepping in to stop troublemakers, there is also the memory of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was fatally stabbed in 1995 when trying to save a pupil from a gang. The dilemma of intervention is one many of us - including broadcaster Jeremy Vine - have grappled with in our minds, if not in reality. But what protection does the law afford the person who commits violence when protecting someone else? THE ANSWER Assault is lawful if preventing a crime or protecting family, property or another person But force must be reasonable and proportionate Can anyone make a citizen's arrest? In England and Wales, an assault is usually deemed unlawful unless in self-defence. "There's the concept of self-defence in case law that extends to defending not just one's self and one's property but also one's nearest and dearest and family," says solicitor Robert Brown. "If I was married and my wife was being attacked then it would be a form of self-defence by analogy to protect property or family. So to that extent there would be some permission." WHO, WHAT, WHY? A regular part of the BBC News Magazine, Who, What, Why? aims to answer some of the questions behind the headlines This self-defence protection extends to anyone else, including a stranger. The Criminal Law Act could also be used. This aims at preventing a crime and permits assault if, for example, a shoplifter is being stopped from leaving a store. "Therefore by analogy if you see someone beating up a stranger and intervene and you are accused of assault then you could use the Criminal Law Act to say 'I've a defence because I've prevented a crime,'" says Mr Brown. "Therefore there's a rather broad defence in law to protect someone who intervenes." The force used must be "reasonable and proportionate" and that is decided by a jury, which should take into account the difficulty of assessing what this means in the heat of the moment. Lawrence died helping others In Scotland, the self-defence law also applies and it covers actions on behalf of anyone else, says Alasdair Thomson of the Glasgow Law Practice. "You can act in self-defence of another in Scots law and you can come to the assistance of a person under threat of imminent physical violence," he says. "But the response has to be proportionate to the violence that's potentially being meted out. It's not classed as an assault because there's no intent to injure." And any means of escape has to be taken at the earliest opportunity, for the defence to hold. Much as I would want to help out another person who was being attacked or abused, these situations can quickly escalate into violence John, London Jeremy Vine: 'Next time, I'm stepping in' But the advice from police is unequivocally against intervention. A spokeswoman for the Association of Chief Police Officers says they have only one instruction - call the police. And a Home Office statement said: "The public should not intervene in any situations of any criminal activity. They may put themselves in danger, exacerbate the situation and ultimately be acting on the wrong side of the law." Those who have stepped in have sometimes found the authorities interpret events in an unsympathetic way. A rail guard who intervened to protect passengers from a man who had allegedly threatened them has reportedly been sacked and charged with threatening behaviour, after appearing to head-butt the man. Lottery And in a separate incident, Magazine reader John, from London, says he was charged with grievous bodily harm after a teenager who had been abusing a woman in a petrol station then squared up to him and threatened to knock him out. John punched the youth and fractured his jaw. He says he was charged with GBH, suspended from work, depicted as a thug by lawyers and faced the prospect of jail, but the charge was dropped when CCTV evidence clearly showed the youth, who was eventually convicted of affray, behaving threateningly. "Much as I would want to help out another person who was being attacked or abused, these situations can quickly escalate into violence," says John. "And even if you don't get hurt as a result, the police are going to get involved, as are lawyers who are smart enough to make the whole thing a lottery."
It's very hard to talk about situations like these, I've read many ppl's responses and I have my own response. Would write it down but then again here is why I won't: None of us know what we would really do in response to this situation unless we lived it. How do I know this? Because man-or-woman hitting you, just the concept of getting hit wakes a feeling in you that either you want to protect yourself or defend your pride. I'll be honest even I was bias at first when I read the post. In my head I was like hmm if it was a man no problem there but it's a female we are talking about. Unfortunately society has integrated us with this notion. A man can't hit a woman under no circumstance. While I agree with this statement because of how my parents raised me, I understand it's hard to actually have self-control in a situation like this where she's provoking it. I believe a man should not hit a woman not simply because it's a man vs woman but literally any man is stronger than a woman. While she is provoking the situation once the man chooses to hit her back he has crossed the line. To be a man means to maintain that self-control. To know to remain cool. With that said a woman should hit no man under any circumstance. A smart woman knows when it's time to get out and walk away no matter who the guy is so she should walk away. I realized this may cause many uncomfortable reactions that even I agree with but if I believe a man should not hit a woman under any circumstance then I also believe a woman should not hit a man under any circumstance. Self-defense does not promote violence but non-violence. There's a difference between pushing someone away and walking away and hitting someone back in the name of self-defense.
Feminists talk a lot about equality. If they want to be equal, they better be ready to take a punch to the jaw.
Just throwing this out here. For being a troll, Troll_machine is very proactive ️literally the only reason I continued reading. Also violence outside of kaw is bad and all that.
They both should have been arrested on charges of assault and brought before the judge. Hopefully a conviction and appropriate sentence will cure both of them of any future intention of displaying aggressive behaviour in public and towards each other