And how does that change the meaning from how I interpreted it?
Your interpretation, or more accurately, your false interpretation makes all the difference in the world. You failed to read the conversation in context.
My fellow freeper and I were discussing the fact that there is NO justifiable reason for a man to strike a woman unless his life is in clear and present danger. If - by performing some defensive maneuver involving physical contact - he is able to remove the immediate threat, his actions are justifiable. Otherwise, there is no legitimate reason for his actions. We have a Constitutional right to protect our person when our very life is in danger.