# What Self-Defense Is NOT



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 11, 2015)

These are just some random thoughts; I am not structuring them as well as I might if I were taking the time to do this properly, my apologies in advance.

It's funny all the things I read in the news and Facebook and various places, where people describe something they have done or they believe they would have done in a given situation and then apply the label "self-defense" to it.  In many case, it's the furthest thing from self-defense that I can imagine.

Let's start with the term itself.  "Self-Defense," as one might presume, is concerned primarily with defense of self.  Self meaning you.   The singular you.  Not your house, not your car, not your wallet, not even your loved ones.  You.

Having said that, I will say that I tend to include family and loved ones under the same umbrella, even though technically they are not 'me'.  So to me, self-defense can include the defense of a loved one.  However, I don't feel I am really stretching the definition too much; if I am with a loved one (necessary for me to be defending them in real time), then one could presume that I am in as much danger as they are.

However, I do not include my property as being my 'self'.  That is not to say I would not defend my property; I would.  However, my standards for defending property are far different than my standards for defending my own life (or a loved one, as mentioned above).

So one can say that self-defense is about defending life.

It is also about defending life when life is in jeopardy or under threat.

Case in point; if a person walks up to you, smacks you in the head, and then turns and sprints away, it is in no way 'self-defense' to run after them and give them what they so clearly deserve.  I won't say it's wrong to do just that; but it's not self-defense.  When the threat ends, self-defense ends.  Typically, so does the legal right to engage in self-defense (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice).

Things I have recently read in the news:

A man confronts a burglar in his home in the middle of the night.  He chases the man down the street with a firearm, and eventually shoots the man.  The burglar dies.  The man is charged with a crime.

Why?  Was that not self-defense?  No, it was not.  The threat to the man's life (and his property, if you want to take it that far) ended with the bad guy running away.  Does it suck to let a bad guy run away?  You bet it does.

However, it beats the alternative, which is another story I just read in the news the other day.  A man confronts a burglar in his home.  Chases him down the street, with the burglar and the homeowner both firing guns at each other.  The burglar shoots the homeowner and with his dying breath, the homeowner kills the burglar.  The homeowner's family arrives in time to watch helplessly as their family member bleeds out in front of them.   Self-defense?

I will defend my life.  I will defend the lives of anyone I am with, although frankly, if they are in danger, so am I, so it's basically the same thing.  I may defend my property, depending on the circumstances.  But I won't consider it 'self-defense' because it's not.  And the law won't consider it that, either.  Depending on how far a person takes things to defend their property (or honor, or seat at the bar, or parking spot, etc), the law might or might not agree that they were justified in whatever action they took.

Knowing how to defend yourself is fantastic and the right of every person, in my opinion.  No one should have to suffer an attack on their person if they have the means to stop it.  But if someone grabs my wife's purse and sprints off down the street, I'm not going to empty a magazine of 9mm into their retreating form.  That would *not* be self-defense.


----------



## Rmada (Nov 11, 2015)

Awesome post!

I don't know if your familiar with this guy or his site, but he has a lot of similar  articles and advice. 

No Nonsense Self Defense - Reliable information for dangerous situations


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 12, 2015)

We have pretty much similar laws in the UK.  We have had a couple of high profile cases. One in which a man fired a shot to scare off burglars.  They ran away, but because he chased after them and shot one of them in the back as he ran away he, rightly, went to prison.  Another, a man came downstairs with a cricket bat to confront burglars, they ran away.  He gave chase, caught them, and beat them with the cricket bat in the street and again rightly went to prison.  They did as you rightly point out, cross the line from self-defence into assault.

However, I would not say that self-defence is about physical techniques once an assault has commenced.  To me, physical techniques, once things have turned violent, only 1% of self-defence.  95% of self-defence is threat awareness & evaluation and target hardening, in order to prevent, or avoid situations as they develop.  A lot of things have to go wrong for you to end up with a situation escalating to the point where it gets physical.  But most self-defence courses and instructors bypass this and go straight to the “**** has hit the fan” let’s fight stage.

SD I would define a:-

95% Threat awareness & evaluation, and Target hardening (target hardening can of occurs include making property a harder target for burglars)

4% verbal de-escalation

1% Physical techniques

So, using the example you give of someone stealing your wife’s purse.  Self-defence to me would constitute being aware or your surroundings and the people in them, and demonstrating this awareness so that a mugger sees you are “switched on” and therefore a more difficult target, and leaves you alone to go find an easier target.

Dead or Alive: The Ultimate Self Protection Handbook by Goeff Thompson has interviews with both criminals and victims, the interview with two muggers contains the following:-

*What happens after you have chosen a victim?*

*We follow them, cross the road, walk past them maybe two or three times. Some of them must be thick not to notice what’s going on.*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 12, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> We have pretty much similar laws in the UK.  We have had a couple of high profile cases. One in which a man fired a shot to scare off burglars.  They ran away, but because he chased after them and shot one of them in the back as he ran away he, rightly, went to prison.  Another, a man came downstairs with a cricket bat to confront burglars, they ran away.  He gave chase, caught them, and beat them with the cricket bat in the street and again rightly went to prison.  They did as you rightly point out, cross the line from self-defence into assault.
> 
> However, I would not say that self-defence is about physical techniques once an assault has commenced.  To me, physical techniques, once things have turned violent, only 1% of self-defence.  95% of self-defence is threat awareness & evaluation and target hardening, in order to prevent, or avoid situations as they develop.  A lot of things have to go wrong for you to end up with a situation escalating to the point where it gets physical.  But most self-defence courses and instructors bypass this and go straight to the “**** has hit the fan” let’s fight stage.
> 
> ...



I agree with you, which is why I titled my post "What self-defense is NOT."  I absolutely agree that self-defense covers a lot more ground than simply knowing how to fight off an attack.

I have been a longtime proponent of self-defense concepts including all manner of actual, definable threats to life and limb, such as having smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in your home in working condition, owning fire extinguishers and knowing how to use them, practicing getting out of your own home in an emergency at night with no lights and creeping near the floor to simulate avoiding smoke, etc.

Self-defense includes things like not hanging out in bars where fights routinely occur, not breaking the law, not allowing yourself to be drawn into 'road rage' type situations, putting the damned phone down when you drive, keeping your head on a swivel when you're out and about, and so on.

Oh yes, self-defense is a wholistic approach to simply staying alive and defending oneself against anything that threatens one's life, not just punching out the bad guy when he tries to get your wallet.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 12, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's start with the term itself.  "Self-Defense," as one might presume, is concerned primarily with defense of self.  Self meaning you.   The singular you.  Not your house, not your car, not your wallet, not even your loved ones.  You.
> [...]
> Knowing how to defend yourself is fantastic and the right of every person, in my opinion.  No one should have to suffer an attack on their person if they have the means to stop it.  But if someone grabs my wife's purse and sprints off down the street, I'm not going to empty a magazine of 9mm into their retreating form.  That would *not* be self-defense.


Philosophically speaking, a person stealing your stuff IS stealing a part of your life.  It took time for you to earn the money to buy those possessions and you are NEVER getting that time back.  EVER.  They might as well have imprisoned you for the same time period or used a magic machine to transfer X number of minutes/years from your life to theirs.  The effect is the same.  They've stolen part of your LIFE.

Outside of that, and particularly because you bring up firearms, anyone really interested in this subject should jaunt on over to a firearms specific forum or board and take a look at what the laws, training, and best practices are, particularly for your location.  I know that some "martial artists" may be surprised to see just how restrained and measured firearms-for-self-defense advocates actually are.  It's not like what people see on TV.  They're not just waiting around for an excuse to shoot up someone. All that I have met are actually wanting NOT to.

This one is Ohio specific, but is a pretty good start: http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF).aspx

Pay attention to page 13 and pages 16-20.


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Nov 12, 2015)

[delete]


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 12, 2015)

lklawson said:


> They might as well have imprisoned you for the same time period or used a magic machine to transfer X number of minutes/years from your life to theirs. The effect is the same. They've stolen part of your LIFE.


and if you fight back and then you might die.  Then they've stolen the rest of your life too.  

Possession are not worth dying for.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 12, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> and if you fight back and then you might die.  Then they've stolen the rest of your life too.
> 
> Possession are not worth dying for.


And if you don't fight back you might die.  If a person is willing to steal part of your life then the odds are good they're willing to steal the whole thing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 12, 2015)

lklawson said:


> Philosophically speaking, a person stealing your stuff IS stealing a part of your life.  It took time for you to earn the money to buy those possessions and you are NEVER getting that time back.  EVER.  They might as well have imprisoned you for the same time period or used a magic machine to transfer X number of minutes/years from your life to theirs.  The effect is the same.  They've stolen part of your LIFE.



Philosophically, perhaps.  From a strictly legal point of view, I doubt that would fly in a court of law, although as previously stated, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.



> Outside of that, and particularly because you bring up firearms, anyone really interested in this subject should jaunt on over to a firearms specific forum or board and take a look at what the laws, training, and best practices are, particularly for your location.  I know that some "martial artists" may be surprised to see just how restrained and measured firearms-for-self-defense advocates actually are.  It's not like what people see on TV.  They're not just waiting around for an excuse to shoot up someone. All that I have met are actually wanting NOT to.



I have no doubt you are correct.  However, recent events in the news would seem to indicate that quite a few armed citizens apparently do not agree.

Two suspected burglars chased down by homeowner in Naches

In the above case, the homeowner apparently took it upon himself to chase down the burglars, whom he then held at gunpoint for police.  All's well that ends well, and I am certainly glad it turned out the way it did, but was that self-defense?  Strictly speaking, no.  The threat to the man's life ended when the burglars ran away.  Should he have chased them?  I'll leave that question alone; he did chase them and it ended well for him.  Good deal.  Not self-defense, though.

Man shot in face while chasing burglars

The above story didn't end too well, did it?  _"A man was shot in the face when he tried to pursue three suspects fleeing his home after a burglary Monday afternoon."_
Self-defense?  No.  End well?  I'd argue it did not.

Man Shot, Killed after 'Roadway Disagreement'

Road rage.  Self-defense?  Nope.  End well?  Nope.

Coroner identifies man killed by homeowner in car break-in case

This one is not quite so cut-and-dried.  It seems the homeowner heard someone breaking into his car, armed himself, confronted the bad guy, and a 'struggle ensued'.  If that is true, then it seems that it is indeed self-defense; and the homeowner shot and killed the bad guy in the struggle for his life.  If he's telling the truth about what happened, the shooting is probably legally justified.  One has to question whether or not going out to confront the bad guy over a theft of property was wise; the bad guy might just as well have been armed and killed the homeowner, where is the self-defense in the decision to go outside in the first place? In any case, I don't weep for dead bad guys, and I'm glad the homeowner survived.

Family friend says man killed in shootout with burglary suspect was 'wonderful' husband and father

This one disturbs and saddens me most of all.   This is the one I referenced earlier.  Man chases burglar, they shoot and kill each other.  Son tries to stop his father from bleeding out but fails.  Self-defense.  No sir, it is not.  My opinion.  There was no reason, none at all, to chase the burglar once he ran.   Shoot a burglar dead when he kicks in the door?  You betcha.  Chase him down the street shooting at him?  No, wrong.  Not self-defense.



> This one is Ohio specific, but is a pretty good start: http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF).aspx
> 
> Pay attention to page 13 and pages 16-20.
> 
> ...



I always urge everyone who chooses to go about armed to be aware of the laws governing self-defense and the use of deadly force where they live.  Too many, in my opinion, rely upon rumor and hearsay or just choose to believe whatever form of romantic morality tale they find attractive.  Like the lady just down the road from me who decided to shoot out the tires of the shoplifting suspects who were running from a Home Depot.  There's a fine upstanding citizen for you.  Self-defense?  Not on your life.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> and if you fight back and then you might die.  Then they've stolen the rest of your life too.
> 
> Possession are not worth dying for.



Congratulations on showing a fine example of the victim mentality. It's something we have (sadly) spent the last couple generations teaching out children.

If a person is willing to break into my house and steal my property, I assume they're also willing to injure or kill me and/or my loved ones in the attempt.
Why do I assume this?
Because history shows it to be true.
Court records are jam packed with people killed in robberies and burglaries.

On a personal level, I was mugged at the age of 17 by a man with a knife. Like so many others, I'd been taught "give them what they want and they'll go away", so I gave him my wallet. After which he did his level best to kill me, simply because he was convinced I had more that he could take. I did not.

What I _*should*_ have done, and what I have advocated in the 35+ years since, is to go along until they are distracted by anything - for example, dropping my wallet instead of handing it to him - and then doing everything in my power to render him incapable of harming me.
Instead I waited like a good sheep, just as I'd been taught, responding only after he attacked me, and lost an eye.

On a national level, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this mentality is what allowed 9/11 to occur. You simply _*cannot*_ hijack an airplane with a box cutter (a not terribly lethal weapon...) if 5 people jump on you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 12, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Congratulations on showing a fine example of the victim mentality. It's something we have (sadly) spent the last couple generations teaching out children.
> 
> If a person is willing to break into my house and steal my property, I assume they're also willing to injure or kill me and/or my loved ones in the attempt.
> Why do I assume this?
> ...



I agree with you.  If someone breaks into my home, I have to assume that my life is in grave danger.  I will use deadly force without hesitation to defend myself.

On the other hand, I won't chase them down the street if they run away.  I don't see how anyone could argue that they still posed a threat to me once they have run away.



> On a personal level, I was mugged at the age of 17 by a man with a knife. Like so many others, I'd been taught "give them what they want and they'll go away", so I gave him my wallet. After which he did his level best to kill me, simply because he was convinced I had more that he could take. I did not.
> 
> What I _*should*_ have done, and what I have advocated in the 35+ years since, is to go along until they are distracted by anything - for example, dropping my wallet instead of handing it to him - and then doing everything in my power to render him incapable of harming me.
> Instead I waited like a good sheep, just as I'd been taught, responding only after he attacked me, and lost an eye.
> ...



I think that defending oneself from such at attack is absolutely self-defense.  Whether or not every armed or strongarm robbery would be best dealt with by instantly attacking the bad guy is another question.  There is no doubt, however, that such actions fall under the category of 'self-defense'.  I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise, are they?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 12, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Philosophically, perhaps.  From a strictly legal point of view, I doubt that would fly in a court of law, although as previously stated, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


Depends on your locale. Some are, some not.




> I have no doubt you are correct.  However, recent events in the news would seem to indicate that quite a few armed citizens apparently do not agree.


Statistically speaking, this is very, very unusual. Yes, obviously, a few do.  Nevertheless, based on the sheer number of firearm-related SD events, this behavior is vanishingly rare.  I can give you, quite literally, 100 counter examples, along with specifics of the event, right this minute.  Actually, I believe the number would likely be closer to 1,000, but I don't fee like counting.  



> I always urge everyone who chooses to go about armed to be aware of the laws governing self-defense and the use of deadly force where they live.


Glad to hear.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 12, 2015)

lklawson said:


> Statistically speaking, this is very, very unusual. Yes, obviously, a few do.  Nevertheless, based on the sheer number of firearm-related SD events, this behavior is vanishingly rare.  I can give you, quite literally, 100 counter examples, along with specifics of the event, right this minute.  Actually, I believe the number would likely be closer to 1,000, but I don't fee like counting.



I agree; I am not anti-gun or anti-self-defense and never have been (although I am often accused of it, for reasons I fail to grasp).  However, the examples I cited?  All since the beginning of November.  Rare, yes.  But not infrequent.

As it happens, I have a Google Alert set for homeowner shootings, because I am quite interested in self-defense topics, and I'm always glad when a bad guy meets his reward at the hands of a legally-armed citizen who is exercising their right to defend their own lives.  So I see a lot of them, every day.  I know how often homeowners defend themselves with deadly force, and it's staggering; the anti-gun people have NO idea.  However, one must take the bad with the good.  Foolish people with guns do stupid things with them, and then seem shocked that it's not considered 'self-defense'.  It is this I am speaking of.  Rare percentage-wise, but not uncommon.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 12, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I always urge everyone who chooses to go about armed to be aware of the laws governing self-defense and the use of deadly force where they live. Too many, in my opinion, rely upon rumor and hearsay or just choose to believe whatever form of romantic morality tale they find attractive. Like the lady just down the road from me who decided to shoot out the tires of the shoplifting suspects who were running from a Home Depot. There's a fine upstanding citizen for you. Self-defense? Not on your life.


 I agree with your recommendation to be aware of the laws.  But I disagree with the assertion of widespread irresponsibility amongst armed citizens.  There are occational unfortunate cases, but they are very rare.  Much like plane crashes... they are hyped by the media to point of appearing common.  I've carried for almost 25 years, and known hundreds of CCW holders, and am not personally familiar with any irresponsible behavior.  Most take their training responsibly.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 12, 2015)

Here was a recent case with a 13 year old protecting himself.  I disagree with him shooting through the door (that would be illegal in most cases, especially with an adult), but the outcome may well have saved the boy's life.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/11/burglary-suspects-thought-they-were-prepared-to-handle-13-year-old-home-alone-they-didnt-account-for-his-mothers-gun/


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 12, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> Here was a recent case with a 13 year old protecting himself.  I disagree with him shooting through the door (that would be illegal in most cases, especially with an adult), but the outcome may well have saved the boy's life.
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/11/burglary-suspects-thought-they-were-prepared-to-handle-13-year-old-home-alone-they-didnt-account-for-his-mothers-gun/



Yes, I saw that and I agree with you on all counts.  And he's not the only child left home alone who has successfully defended his or herself with a firearm, he's just the most recent one to do so.

Please keep in mind that I did not title this thread "Guns are bad, mmmkay?"  Guns are NOT bad and that's not what this thread is supposed to be about anyway.  I was merely pointing out instances of what are NOT self-defense, and sometimes those situations do involve guns.

I am not sure why this happens, but it seems that if one starts a thread and even *mentions* the word 'gun', it quickly devolves into "guns are good/guns are bad" fights.  I won't partake; I bailed on the last thread for that reason and I'll do so on this one if that's what this is going to turn into.  Not aimed at you personally, just making a general statement; I do not get into pro or anti-gun discussions anymore.  Not worth my time or effort, people are polarized and that's the end of that.


----------



## Buka (Nov 12, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, I saw that and I agree with you on all counts.  And he's not the only child left home alone who has successfully defended his or herself with a firearm, he's just the most recent one to do so.
> 
> Please keep in mind that I did not title this thread "Guns are bad, mmmkay?"  Guns are NOT bad and that's not what this thread is supposed to be about anyway.  I was merely pointing out instances of what are NOT self-defense, and sometimes those situations do involve guns.
> 
> I am not sure why this happens, but it seems that if one starts a thread and even *mentions* the word 'gun', it quickly devolves into "guns are good/guns are bad" fights.  I won't partake; I bailed on the last thread for that reason and I'll do so on this one if that's what this is going to turn into.  Not aimed at you personally, just making a general statement; I do not get into pro or anti-gun discussions anymore.  Not worth my time or effort, people are polarized and that's the end of that.


----------



## Buka (Nov 12, 2015)

I'm all aboard with this.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 13, 2015)

I didn't intend to take this to a pro/anti-gun thread.  I was simply suggesting what I think should be obvious, but so often isn't in the general "martial arts" community.  That is that the firearms-for-self-defense community has a very well developed, documented, and described system for training what is and is not "self defense."  It's such a hot-button topic in society that the "rules" have to be very carefully spelled out in clear, easy to understand, concepts.  If I wanted to train in Zen Meditation, I wouldn't go to a a CPA.  The CPA is very skilled at his trade ("certified" even), but he's not in the community which was forced to develop Zen Meditation.

If a martial artist (quite understandably) wants to really get an understanding of what is and is not justifiable force/deadly-force, then the best place to go find that information is the community which centers around the use of private citizen deadly force; the firearms-for-self-defense community.  Thus, if someone wants to talk about what is and is not justifiable deadly force, I'm going to reference CCW training documents as a first-line almost every time.

Similarly, this same community is also one of the places to go for a better understanding of the effects of "fight or flight" Adrenal Dump on the body, psyche, and mental processes, and the associated training methods for dealing with it (though there are two other related, often over-lapping communities which are also go-to sources).



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 13, 2015)

Back to the original topic... the term "Self Defense" is slightly nebulous, but many would agree it involves protecting life (your's or family) from threats, and that SD technially ends once the threat no longer is imminent.  Armed vs unarmed both can fall into the category of SD depending on your preference, what is available to you at the time, and what level of force was appropriate. 
After the fact, if legal action occurs, you may then have to justify your SD actions to a jury who are safely sitting in a jury box with an armed bailiff to protect them.  This is sometimes your most perilous time.  The jury gets to decide the apropriateness of your actions from a safe, sterile setting with no danger, fear, or adrenaline.  The may decide the lifetime career criminal whose arm you crippled with a well executed jujigatame was destined for a future as a neurosurgeon, and you just ruined his life... justifying him recieving huge compensation from you. 
So even if you do everything "right", there's always a chance someone else will disagree.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 13, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> Back to the original topic... the term "Self Defense" is slightly nebulous, but many would agree it involves protecting life (your's or family) from threats, and that SD technially ends once the threat no longer is imminent.  Armed vs unarmed both can fall into the category of SD depending on your preference, what is available to you at the time, and what level of force was appropriate.
> After the fact, if legal action occurs, you may then have to justify your SD actions to a jury who are safely sitting in a jury box with an armed bailiff to protect them.  This is sometimes your most perilous time.  The jury gets to decide the apropriateness of your actions from a safe, sterile setting with no danger, fear, or adrenaline.  The may decide the lifetime career criminal whose arm you crippled with a well executed jujigatame was destined for a future as a neurosurgeon, and you just ruined his life... justifying him recieving huge compensation from you.
> So even if you do everything "right", there's always a chance someone else will disagree.



I absolutely agree with the above.  Self-defense is both a personal decision as well as a legal term in that sense, and it may not mean the same thing in both arenas.  

I believe it is wise to be familiar with the laws of self-defense where you work and live, and to keep in mind that just because a person believes that they engaged in legitimate self-defense, that doesn't mean they cannot be arrested, charged with a crime, sued, etc.  That doesn't mean one should take a beating, acquiesce to a robbery, or otherwise become an intentional victim; it just means one must be aware that actions have consequences, even when things are done as they should be.

I do not propose that one should live their life on their knees, on the contrary.  However, I do believe that it is wise to avoid situations that might require a person to defend themselves with violence, like getting into road-rage arguments, fights in bars, etc.  If you don't let yourself get into those situations, you won't have to deal with the consequences even when you might be in the right both legally and morally.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 13, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, I do believe that it is wise to avoid situations that might require a person to defend themselves with violence, like getting into road-rage arguments, fights in bars, etc. If you don't let yourself get into those situations, you won't have to deal with the consequences even when you might be in the right both legally and morally.


 Concur.  I make it a habit to avoid neighborhoods/establishments where I'm likely to need to defend myself.  I'm pretty even tempered, so it is highly unlikely that I would be the one to start a fight. 
However, if someone else comes along and makes the decision for me that it's time for us to fight, I'll do my best to defeat them.  I'd base my actions on whether their attack appears based on social vs. asocial violence, use of weapons, does he have buddies, and if there were witnesses or security cameras around. 
In one of Massad Ayoob's books, he discusses that if you are forced into a shooting situation, it's advisable to scream "Please don't hurt me!" prior to the shoot so you appear to be defensive and scared in the eyes of witnesses, who likely didn't actually see what was happening until they heard the bang and/or your scream (and who may be anti-gun and see your use of a gun as something evil).  Similar advice would even be useful in unarmed situations to yell something to the effect of "Please... i don't want to fight you"... even though inside you're really giddy at the chance to try out your latest joint attack to see how well it works.  In either case, tell the police "He wouldn't stop coming... I was in fear for my life" to reinforce the idea that you were forced into the situation.  After the incident, you're still defending yourself... but now the risk becomes the legal system.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 13, 2015)

These are truisms that some 'macho types' seem to have a problem grasping.  When the police officer asks _"Were you in fear of your life,"_ Mister Super-Karate Macho Man says _"Hell, naw, man.  I ain't afraid of nuttin'."_  Nice work earning yourself an assault charge, there Champ.  

There are a number of self-defense drills that work really nicely from a 'hands up' position.  _"Hey, man, I'm not looking for any trouble, please leave me alone,"_ etc.

Some of that gets back to the old 'first strike' thing.  No, you don't have to wait to be swung on to be able to legally defend yourself.  The guy dukes up on you, raises his hands as if to strike you, or even says _"I am gonna kick your a$$,"_ they have already assaulted you and you (in fear of your life) may now legally defend yourself in most jurisdictions (IANAL).


----------



## lklawson (Nov 13, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> Back to the original topic... the term "Self Defense" is slightly nebulous, but many would agree it involves protecting life (your's or family) from threats, and that SD technially ends once the threat no longer is imminent.  Armed vs unarmed both can fall into the category of SD depending on your preference, what is available to you at the time, and what level of force was appropriate.


The reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or an innocent 3rd Party.



> After the fact, if legal action occurs, you may then have to justify your SD actions to a jury who are safely sitting in a jury box with an armed bailiff to protect them.  This is sometimes your most perilous time.  The jury gets to decide the apropriateness of your actions from a safe, sterile setting with no danger, fear, or adrenaline.  The may decide the lifetime career criminal whose arm you crippled with a well executed jujigatame was destined for a future as a neurosurgeon, and you just ruined his life... justifying him recieving huge compensation from you.
> So even if you do everything "right", there's always a chance someone else will disagree.


The "Reasonable Man" test.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 19, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Some of that gets back to the old 'first strike' thing. No, you don't have to wait to be swung on to be able to legally defend yourself. The guy dukes up on you, raises his hands as if to strike you, or even says _"I am gonna kick your a$$,"_ they have already assaulted you and you (in fear of your life) may now legally defend yourself in most jurisdictions (IANAL).


 OH... that means "I Am Not A Lawyer".  For a second, I thought you were vastly changing the topic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> OH... that means "I Am Not A Lawyer".  For a second, I thought you were vastly changing the topic.



Yeah, I usually insert that (see what I did there?) whenever I say something that someone, somewhere, might construe as legal advice.  I am no lawyer, I don't give legal advice.  Just my opinion of what I happen to think the law is...


----------

