# How Far Are You Willing To Go?



## MJS (May 16, 2008)

In another thread that was talking about self defense while inside of your car, the subject of using the car as a weapon came up.  Another member commented on using a heavy car as a tool in your defense against a simple grab.  So, that led me to this thread...

How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself?  Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind?  Do you worry about things like that after the fact?

Keep in mind, the nature of the attack for this discussion, can range from mild to wild.  In other words, it could be a street person asking, persistantly for some spare cash to someone who follows you to your destination to confront you for cutting them off in traffic, to someone breaking into your home in the early hours of the AM, while you and your family are sleeping.

Looking forward to your replies! 

Mike


----------



## Ahriman (May 16, 2008)

I always keep in mind the possible legal effects. I was lucky enough so far to avoid confronting a determined and prepared attacker, so I only have theories about the wildest extreme of this. Against lower threat levels, I always give them time to give up or reconsider and if they don't, I only use that amount of force which is enough for the situation and later can be justified would it ever get to court. It has never gotten there, the attackers in all cases realized that it would be very hard to convince the judges that they were attacked in fact.
The biggest injuries I dealt so far was deep cuts on their hands and a few broken bones, all of these are considered "serious bodily harm" here, but it's a very wide category containing everything from severe blunt trauma done without weapons to temporal maiming and non-lifethreatening damage done with knives under 120mm of cutting-stabbing length. Hell, everything is in it which was caused by another human and healing take longer time than 8 days.
I hope I'll never have to kill someone, but mainly out of legal consequences. We have a saying that a stupid bastard doesn't worth it - jury gives just as much time in jail for them as for a human.


----------



## Brother John (May 16, 2008)

It's exceedingly important to make certain the level of response meets the level of *NEED*.

ONLY do as much as is needed to achieve safety, ensure security and regain peace.

Anything else is unethical, immoral and illegal.

Your Brother
John


----------



## KenpoTex (May 16, 2008)

MJS said:


> How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself? Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind? Do you worry about things like that after the fact?


 
Whatever level of force is appropriate to neutralize the threat.  That may mean using a low level of force like verbal tactics, pushing them away, or using pressure point control.  It may also mean drawing my pistol and putting rounds into them until they literally go down, or drawing my knife and doing my sewing-machine impersonation until they go down.

You must have the mindset and willingness to do whatever is necessary and appropriate, or you're wasting your time.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 16, 2008)

*You absolutely need to do what will be considered reasonable under the circumstances*. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





What was deemed reasonable will first be addressed by the responding officers, then the district attorney and probably finally a judge if it makes it that far.  However, if you act reasonably based on the amount of force/threat coming at you then in general you will probably be viewed as using self defense in a legally permissable way.  However, every situation is unique!


----------



## tellner (May 16, 2008)

MJS said:


> How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself?  Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind?  Do you worry about things like that after the fact?
> 
> Keep in mind, the nature of the attack for this discussion, can range from mild to wild.  In other words, it could be a street person asking, persistantly for some spare cash to someone who follows you to your destination to confront you for cutting them off in traffic, to someone breaking into your home in the early hours of the AM, while you and your family are sleeping.



It depends entirely on the nature and degree of the threat. They have to be tempered by your assessment of the situation. What sort of risk are you in right now? Where is the situation headed? Can you escape *safely*? Are innocent third parties in danger? What resources can you bring to bear? 

Put me in a situation and I'll do something. Describe a situation, and I'll give an educated guess as to what I might do. Just saying "What would you do in self defense" is so broad that it is impossible to give any sort of useful answer. 

The aggressive panhandler? I'd just keep walking. 

Someone trying to follow me for cutting them off? Odds are I'd go somewhere else and not let them know anything about my private life. If there's a police station or car nearby I'd probably park in front of it. Gentle words and a clam attitude are the correct weapons at that point. If it looks like it will escalate it helps if there are witnesses. And I want it to be abundantly clear that whoever it is followed me for frickin' _miles_ to attack me.

Someone breaks into my house and puts my family at risk? There are no limits. They will leave. They will be held for the police in a way that does not put me and mine at any additional risk. Or they will be physically incapable of any sort of aggressive action. If that means they are dead that's too bad for them. I only hope that I will not hesitate a moment longer than necessary to correctly asses the situation if deadly force is required. 

<shill type="unpaid">I'd really recommend that anyone who is interested in self defense study the subject in some detail. The no doubts about it, you absolutely have to, best few hundred bucks you can ever spend is on Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 : Judicious Use of Deadly Force. There are others, but this is as good as it gets. Lawyers and a judge in the group I took the class with said it was better than anything they learned in law school. The twenty hours of intense discussion and presentation on exactly these issues should be a prerequisite for martial arts, self defense and practical shooting instructors.</shill>


----------



## still learning (May 16, 2008)

Hello, To use a car for a weapon? ....NOT sure about this?  ...unless you can prove "self-defense".

To protect your family and yourself?  ...Most of us would do and use what we have to save our family,friends, and self.

NO one wants to go to jail for protecting themselfs.  BEST to escape!

Aloha,


----------



## ackks10 (May 16, 2008)

MJS said:


> In another thread that was talking about self defense while inside of your car, the subject of using the car as a weapon came up.  Another member commented on using a heavy car as a tool in your defense against a simple grab.  So, that led me to this thread...
> 
> How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself?  Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind?  Do you worry about things like that after the fact?
> 
> ...




Hey Mike,whats up, this is how i will put it, when ever you get into something thats going array(thats means out of control ) and you have to defend yourself or your family, you must use ENOUGH FORCE TO CONTROL  IT, with out going overboard, at lease in NJ. but if you are sleeping in your home and someone breaks in, in the early am than you must do what you must do to protect your family.
now as far as the car, (thats funny) because it happen to me a while back
i let my son use my car one day with his girlfriend, and the next day as i was coming home from work i had to stop at the store (wawa) as i was coming out these guys (19/20years old)3 of them was standing by my car 
(i had a blue probe at the time) well i went to get into my car and the one next to my door called me  a name *%#@ (u know what i mean) anyway i just looked at him and said  do we know each other?? he said that  "oh you were real funny lastnight"  (my son)  i said you have the wrong person, anyway now the 3 of them was standing by the car, the 1st tried to grab me in a bear hug from behind, ayway i used the car door (it was half open)
to hit him in the groin, the other 2 guys grabbed both of my hands,anyway i did what i had to do, the police came  and they know me (u know why Mike), i showed them my id badge, and that was that, sorry this was so long:caffeine: oh btw it was my son that they wanted


----------



## Hawke (May 16, 2008)

To help defend my life and a loved one I will do what I have to do to neutralize the threat.

The old saying of "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 16, 2008)

MJS said:


> How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself? Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind? Do you worry about things like that after the fact?
> Mike



Like I tell my students, I'm homicidal... but in a good way!

If I have the choice between living (with the possiblity of jail time and/or law suits) or death, well guess which one I'll pick.

As for jail and law suits, that is why I took LFI-1, taught by Massad Ayoob. It's also why I have taken many courses form very well known instuctors in self defense and shooting. It's why I'm a expert or above shooter in IDPA, it's why (partialy) I'm a 5th dan. It's why (again partialy) I train so much. It's also, partialy again(!), why I teach CHL classes.

I know what to look for on the street, the laws very well, and what to expect after the police come. I also know what to expect if a lawsuit rears it's head. And I keep track of what the laws are in the states I visit as well as the political views of the authorites in those states.

This all above does not mean I'm a killer, but that I'm willing, and skilled enough, to kill to defend myself and those around me if need be.

Deaf


----------



## thetruth (May 17, 2008)

I don't know, thus far I have never had to go far enough for there to be any legal issues.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## MA-Caver (May 17, 2008)

thetruth said:


> I don't know, thus far I have never had to go far enough for there to be any legal issues.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


Same here but then again I've never hung around long enough for there to BE legal issues. 

I've answered this question before which was phrased differently in a thread. I will go as far as needed to neutralize the threat to me and mine. I've stated that I've never killed and do not like the idea of killing but honestly asking myself and honestly answering... I would not hesitate if the need arises. I can only pray to my God and ask that need will never arise. 
I will stop an attacker if I can, I will hurt an attacker if I can, I will try to incapacitate an attacker if I can ... if any one of those will stop the attacker then I will do what is necessary. When all else fails... the ultimatum.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 17, 2008)

It's a good, general, question, Mike and I really only have a very simple answer to it.  I'm not being flippant when I say "It depends on how scared I am".

The one time I had to defend myself against those attacking 'with intent', I broke one arm, one leg and ran like heck to the police station.  Given that it was three-on-one and there were improvised weapons involved, I was pretty frightened but I still limited myself in what I did.  The real 'scare factor' kicked in later when i had time consider what _could_ have happened.

I have often said in times past tho', that the most dangerous person in the world is a surprised and scared martial artist - catch us before our forebrains have time to assess and basal relex will decide things for us.


----------



## chinto (May 18, 2008)

MJS said:


> In another thread that was talking about self defense while inside of your car, the subject of using the car as a weapon came up.  Another member commented on using a heavy car as a tool in your defense against a simple grab.  So, that led me to this thread...
> 
> How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself?  Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind?  Do you worry about things like that after the fact?
> 
> ...



I will use what ever force I have to to stop that attack. If I feel the intent of the attacker is to kill me or mine or badly injure them , maximum force possible till the attacker is rendered a non threat to me and mine!  If he stops before the ultimate force is used great! but I will do what ever I have to to survive!  ( I always pray that I will never have to use that kind of force or any for that matter.  I also work hard to be aware of what is going on around me and prevent any kind of violent encounter before it happens!! )


----------



## morph4me (May 18, 2008)

While I would prefer to walk away without any problems, I'm willing and committed to do whatever it takes to allow me to walk away. I've found that most times, my willingness comes through and I haven't had to use more than words in many years. In a self defense situation, worrying about what might happen later could prevent me from dealing effectively with what's happening now.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 18, 2008)

In truth I do not nor have I ever thought about the legal problems when I had to defend myself. If I do have to defend myself I do so in a way that stops the problem .  If that means walking away and having myself called names so be it, if it means just stepping away or aside and having a drunk fall on their face, good, if it means stopping a street attack with force then that is what will happen, if it means hitting someone with a club when they have a weapon or shooting them when they attack me with a weapon in my house then so be it


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 18, 2008)

MJS said:


> In another thread that was talking about self defense while inside of your car, the subject of using the car as a weapon came up.  Another member commented on using a heavy car as a tool in your defense against a simple grab.  So, that led me to this thread...
> 
> How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself?  Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind?  Do you worry about things like that after the fact?
> 
> ...



It is not good to be in court. It sucks. Everyone second guesses you. Everyone turns you into the criminal, no matter how "BAD" the other guys was before he got hurt. It Sucks. Did I mention it sucked? (* And I was only a witness in one case, and it still sucked as I knew those involved and the questions of why and why, and how and why did you not just let the other big guy with the axe handle just hit the guy repeatedly? Why did you just not run away and leave the others behind? Our state used to be a MUST Flee state. Luckily recently that has changed. 

I dislike the hospital and court even more.

I would not like to consider unable to be in a "suckie" situation. 


I am willing to use the force required for me to survive. If I can talk I will. If I can posture I will. If I can control I will. If I have to hurt, it usually means it is on and I am just defending myself.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2008)

Great replies.  Like I said in my OP..the situation can vary.  I didn't want to sit here and rattle off 20 scenarios, so thats why I kind of left it open ended.  In other words, it may require some use of your imagination.  

Like a few others have said, I'm also of the mindset to use the force that is necessary.  As tempting as it may be to continue to pummel the guy once he's down, that may not be the best choice, especially if he's not fighting anymore.  Talking your way out as well as maintaining an initial defensive, but ready posture is a good start.  Weapons...I don't want to take the chance that even if you comply, you'll still get shot or stabbed.  

Like a cop, I'm going to do as much as necessary to make sure I get home safe.  Personally, I value my life as well as the lives of my loved ones, too much to be a victim.


----------



## myusername (May 25, 2008)

Interesting thread. I echo those who talk about the response being proportianate to the level of threat. I would say that I am _willing_ to go as far as required to protect myself or family. 

However, I have enough self awareness to know that my ability to recognise when I need to step my level of defence up a gear may in fact be a little warped due to my previous job working in secure mental health settings. I have become very adept at verbally de-esculating aggressive situations in an artificial environment where I know that if the worst happens I can pull my alarm and have support instantly. In some regards this is a positive and these verbal skills have gotten me out of bother in the past but I also feel that in a street altercation this could lead to an over reliance on verbal skills and slow my realisation of when I need to attack to defend. And that millisecond of doubt or indecision could cost me dearly.

I also wonder for the more seasoned martial artists out there how much control do you actually have to not go a little too far? 

I ask this as one of my nurse colleagues were telling me about a chap that they used to work with on a mental health ward who was a very experienced and successful (in competition) karate practitioner. One day whilst working on the ward a patient made a grab for this "karate nurse" unexpectedly. The Karate guy just dropped this patient instinctively with a backfist! Apparently the patient was knocked out cold and the Karate Nurse was so mortified by what he had done that he quit his job for fear of hurting anyone else. According to my colleague the incident happened very quickly and the Karate Guy just instinctively reacted without thought before anyone knew what had happened. This was obviously a reflex action on the part of the guy and he had no time to think about what was a proportianate reaction as he just did what he had drilled himself to do.

An experienced MA practitioners instincts will be so much sharper than the average person and a reflex action from an experienced martial artist could be deadly.


----------



## Jai (May 25, 2008)

I don't generally think about the backlash of using force to stop someone. If I or someone I know is being threatened to the point where becoming physical is required then god have mercy on the poor bastard, because I know I won't. This doesn't mean I'm engaging a situation to kill someone or leave them crippled, but I will do what ever it takes to ensure my attacker is sorry for the fact they attempted and failed short of killing them.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2008)

myusername said:


> I also wonder for the more seasoned martial artists out there how much control do you actually have to not go a little too far?


 
It really does all depend on how surprised or tense you are (by 'tense' here I mean that alert state you are in when you are expecting trouble but don't know where from).  If you've seen a situation building and are aware of the potential for for violence then you can gauge your response much more finely.  

If someone grabs you out of the blue then there is a large degree of truth to the fact that why we train so hard is to drill things in below the level of conscious thought.  You literally react on brain-stem reflex and your best hope of dialing it down is trying to stop the technique before it finishes e.g. open your fist, drop your shoulder, lift a foot, anything to take the power out of a strike.


----------



## chinto (May 29, 2008)

yep, there is always some one out there that is better...... but if the threat realizes that he might just die trying it, they usually go looking for some one who is not willing to kill them if necessary and die before he quits.  Most attackers on the street like muggers are bullies and do not want to face some one who will not only fight back but is willing to make them pay in blood and pain and possibly with their lives.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

MJS said:


> In another thread that was talking about self defense while inside of your car, the subject of using the car as a weapon came up. Another member commented on using a heavy car as a tool in your defense against a simple grab. So, that led me to this thread...
> 
> How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself? Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind? Do you worry about things like that after the fact?
> 
> ...


 Fortunately we in Missouri have saw fit to take control of out governments excesses and pass common sense 'enhanced castle doctrine' laws making our homes AND our vehicles sacrosanct from invasion, granting those defending themselves from attempted boarders justification for LETHAL FORCE in those instances where someone enters, attempts to enter or remains unlawfully in our home or our occupied vehicle!  Moreover, it grants the lawfully user of such force virtual IMMUNITY from CIVIL LIABILITY as well!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *You absolutely need to do what will be considered reasonable under the circumstances*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 It's decided by the DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE HAND!  And if we don't DIRECT our representatives properly we get the kind of society where those defending themselves are viewed as no different than those attempting to victimizing them in the first place.

A reasonable person sets out to adapting himself to the rules and settings of the world around him.......but i've never been a reasonable man!  I believe we should shape our GOVERNMENT to fit OUR WORLDVIEW!  That has been working throughout the US with CCW laws and enhanced castle doctrine laws being passed in numerous states!


----------



## allenjp (Jun 16, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *You absolutely need to do what will be considered reasonable under the circumstances*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And even more important every jury is unique...


----------



## allenjp (Jun 16, 2008)

Jai said:


> I don't generally think about the backlash of using force to stop someone. If I or someone I know is being threatened to the point where becoming physical is required then god have mercy on the poor bastard, because I know I won't. This doesn't mean I'm engaging a situation to kill someone or leave them crippled, but I will do what ever it takes to ensure my attacker is sorry for the fact they attempted and failed short of killing them.


 
IMHO sir, this is exactly the kind of attitude toward this that will PUT you in jail after an altercation, because the law in many places specifically requires that you have mercy after the threat has subsided. And the only thing that justifies using force is fear, and fear alone.

I sincerely hope that if you are ever in an altercation noone that is deciding your standing before the law reads this post...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 16, 2008)

allenjp said:


> IMHO sir, this is exactly the kind of attitude toward this that will PUT you in jail after an altercation, because the law in many places specifically requires that you have mercy after the threat has subsided. And the only thing that justifies using force is fear, and fear alone.
> 
> I sincerely hope that if you are ever in an altercation noone that is deciding your standing before the law reads this post...


I wouldn't consider that a good phrasing.  The law doesn't require you to show mercy; the law says that you may use no more force than is reasonably necessary, and that you cannot continue to use force once the threat is no longer present.  That's not really the same as showing mercy.

Additionally, it's not "fear and fear alone" that justifies the use of force.  I may feel no fear at all as someone sucker punches me -- but I'm still permitted to use force against the guy who did it!  What's generally needed is the reasonable BELIEF that you are in imminent danger of attack or bodily harm.  You generally need to show some form of intent (words, or actions) coupled with the ability to carry out that intent imminently.  Subject to specific state laws, you may or may not need to show that you retreated; even if you do, often the "duty to retreat" is coupled with an assessment of how reasonable it is to retreat (or retreat further) in that situation.


----------



## allenjp (Jun 16, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Fortunately we in Missouri have saw fit to take control of out governments excesses and pass common sense 'enhanced castle doctrine' laws making our homes AND our vehicles sacrosanct from invasion, granting those defending themselves from attempted boarders justification for LETHAL FORCE in those instances where someone enters, attempts to enter or remains unlawfully in our home or our occupied vehicle! Moreover, it grants the lawfully user of such force virtual IMMUNITY from CIVIL LIABILITY as well!


 
It is similar in California...not the taking control of the government thing, although for crying out loud I wish we could! I mean the fact that the whole legal dynamic changes once someone forcibly enters your house. Under California law, one whose house has been forcibly entered has the right to a presumption of reasonable fear that authorizes them to use deadly force. You don't even have to be attacked to shoot the guy if he has broken into your house. Now it might be a different situation if it can be shown that you repeatedly hit him in the head with a baseball bat while he was already down, but the presumption is there for the use of deadly force when someone has broken into your home. No such presumption exists otherwise.


----------



## allenjp (Jun 16, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I wouldn't consider that a good phrasing. The law doesn't require you to show mercy; the law says that you may use no more force than is reasonably necessary, and that you cannot continue to use force once the threat is no longer present. That's not really the same as showing mercy.


 
What would you say is the difference between showing mercy, and desisting an attack? I know mercy can have a broader meaning than that, but I think the tone of his post clearly shows what hhis intent is...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 16, 2008)

allenjp said:


> What would you say is the difference between showing mercy, and desisting an attack? I know mercy can have a broader meaning than that, but I think the tone of his post clearly shows what hhis intent is...


Mercy is really a proactive thing; showing mercy is not simply ceasing the attack, but rendering aid, for example.  I'm not aware of any state requiring a person who has successfully defended themselves to then turn and try to help their assailant.  So long as you don't turn you justified defense into a new assault -- you're free to watch them die, or to run away and get help for yourself.


----------



## allenjp (Jun 16, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Mercy is really a proactive thing; showing mercy is not simply ceasing the attack, but rendering aid, for example. I'm not aware of any state requiring a person who has successfully defended themselves to then turn and try to help their assailant. So long as you don't turn you justified defense into a new assault -- you're free to watch them die, or to run away and get help for yourself.


 
See...this is precisely where it gets sticky. I admittedly don't know much about these laws in VA, but in CA it is precisely those type of actions (watching them die without calling for help) that will be used to argue that you had an offensive state of mind, and not a defensive one. Being that the defense laws hinge on your mental state, and fear is the only state which warrants violence, if you afterward take this type of action (lack of action is in fact action), most juries, at least in CA, are going to find it hard to believe that your actions were purely defensive. I am not saying this is how I think it should be, just that that is how it is. And believe me, I have been through enough trials (criminal and civil) to know what it is like.

Perhaps I worded my post poorly by saying the law specifically requires mercy, but it stops just short of that, at least in CA, which last time I checked has the largest population of any state in this great nation of ours.


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2008)

See, IMO, no matter what we do, we're probably not going to look good in the eyes of any jury, because there is a very good chance that the people sitting on it will have zero knowledge of the arts.  

This is why I feel that we really need to assess whats happening and respond in the proper fashion.  As tempting as it may be to keep pounding on the guy after he's down, thats not the best option IMO.  Is the threat over?  Yes, then your actions should stop.  If not, then continue in the proper fashion.


----------



## wrc619 (Aug 6, 2008)

One step farther than the aggressor.  It is a product of military security training on top of martial arts training.  Proactive, not reactive, and all that stuff.


----------



## The Anarchist (Aug 6, 2008)

About 600 meters.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Aug 6, 2008)

It's the aggressor's responsibility to acknowledge that the person he's assaulting may think he's trying to kill him and respond with deadly force, part and parsel of being an oxygen thief, you wanna hurt people, you'll get hurt.  My impression of fighting isn't the "step outside, mano-a-mano duel" which I avoid at all costs but rather the real times where you don't have a choice.  I assume they're trying to kill me, I'll do the same to them.  If the attacker gets killed it's because it works both ways.  Try telling a cop that you didn't know the rules or see a sign when he writes you up for speeding.  Same thing in the streets.  Life and death.  I have no sympathy for an aggressor laid down by karma.


----------



## lemon_meringue (Aug 6, 2008)

I honestly have no idea, because I have never been in such a situation (thank God). I'd like to think that I would do whatever it takes to get out alive, but unless you are actually in that situation, you can't really know how you would react. There are so many factors to take into account, and I think "fear" would be a major one. It depends entirely on how much fear you feel and how high you perceive the threat level to be.


----------



## shihansmurf (Aug 6, 2008)

I am, on a personal level, willing to use any degree of force that I have to in order to survive violent encounter. I am of the opinion that the moment a person places my safety or the safety of my family in jeopardy they have forfeited their rights. I am ethically comfortable with using deadly force to protect my family, home, or self.

Mark


----------



## Jdokan (Aug 7, 2008)

shihansmurf said:


> *I am, on a personal level, willing to use any* degree of force that I have to in order to survive violent encounter. I am of the opinion that the moment a person places my safety or the safety of my family in jeopardy they have forfeited their rights. I am ethically comfortable with using deadly force to protect my family, home, or self.
> 
> Mark


 
I like this guy already & I don't even know him....Kudo's to those willing to do/accept whatever it takes to protect their family...I think too often too many expect others (Police, etc) to do what we have inherently bred into us......


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2008)

First order of business....SURVIVE PHYSICALLY!

All else is secondary to that.

Now, once you've survived physically, then you should turn strong attention to surviving legally, both criminally and civilly.....but to even CONSIDER any of that WHILE fighting for your life is likely to bring the kind of hesitation that gets you hurt or killed......I  know that kind of fear of criminal and civil liability has gotten a few cops hurt and killed....caused them to second guess their training because they were more afraid of getting sued or prosecuted, than the guy trying to harm them.

Most folks don't fail to defend themselves out of fear of the other person.....they do it because they are taught not to fight because they might 'get in trouble'.


----------

