# At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply?



## Snowy (Mar 6, 2013)

Hi guys. 

At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply? 
Would you defend yourself at the point of physical contact? If the other person has threatened to hurt you?
Or would you always try your best to avoid the situation and only act out once the assailant has thrown a strike?

This comes to mind after a WC classmate (roughly 6 months training) dropped a random street aggressor with 2 straight punches to the chest. The thug had grabbed him by the shoulder after acting all 'macho'.

I myself have been shoved, but obviously the wc stance absorbed it -and all I had to do was warn him not to come near me again.

When would you begin to defend yourself with your wing chun skills?


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 6, 2013)

Self defence begins with awareness, so as to avoid violence as a first line of defence. So, from before the situation arises. When should you start responding physically? When it's appropriate. When is that? Well, that's a question that can only be answered in terms of the context of the situation.

While this isn't a "Wing Chun" answer, it is a self defence one, so take it as it is there.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 6, 2013)

Every situation is different. We need to consider each interaction on it's own merit. Walking around with a (hair trigger) so to speak can cause more harm then good.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 6, 2013)

Snowy said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply?
> Would you defend yourself at the point of physical contact? If the other person has threatened to hurt you?
> ...



When they throw a strike at me.
Or when they start trying to rip my "Fence" down or get past it.


----------



## K-man (Mar 6, 2013)

Snowy said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply?
> Would you defend yourself at the point of physical contact? If the other person has threatened to hurt you?
> ...


Self defence begins the moment you step outside. You might call that basic awareness as Chris has already said. Once there is 'confrontation' there are rules that kick in. What form does the confrontation take? Are you being physically threatened or verbally abused?  Do you have a way out, away from any danger? Are you alone? Is the aggressor alone? Are there witnesses?

So the rules are in some ways basic and in other ways complex. If you feel physically threatened, in most places, you can take *reasonable* measures to defend yourself. The downside ... if you do a good job of defending yourself and the aggressor is injured, you may find yourself explaining your actions in court. You may even be sued for damages. If you have witnesses that testify that you were threatened and did nothing more than stop the threat, then you should have nothing to fear legally.

Something to consider is this. Getting into a fight is rarely spontaneous. For someone to physically threaten you means that he has assessed the situation and concluded that he can beat you. No-one goes into a street fight thinking they will lose.  So, if you could have escaped but chose instead to fight, you too must have come to the same conclusion. Now the question arises, which of you is right?  If you have called badly you could end up in hospital or even the morgue. Is it worth the risk? That's your call, but choose carefully.  Once a fight starts an enormous number of variables come into play.

As to using you WC skills.  You can do that at any time, but, the best option, normally, is not to engage at all.   :asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 6, 2013)

Snowy said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply?
> Would you defend yourself at the point of physical contact? If the other person has threatened to hurt you?
> ...



Self defense is a big issue.  I have to start with a caveat --  I am not providing specific legal advice.

In general -- you are allowed to use the least force reasonably necessary to stop an attack and allow you to get away safely.  This is a very loaded phrase; entire books have been written about it.  Focusing only on your question -- when should your defense start -- you have to look at 4 key factors:

*Intent*:  Is your assailant trying to hurt you?  Do they want to do harm to you?  You can't claim self defense for knocking out someone who innocently bumped into you on the street.  Signs of intent include behaviors, like making fists, and words, like threats.
*Means*: Do they have the capability to carry out the threat?  If someone threatens to nuke you, but they don't have a missile -- they lack the means.  A 4 year old generally lacks the means to carry out a threat against an adult...  Someone so drunk they can't stand up probably isn't really able to smash your skull in.
*Opportunity*:  Are they in a position to carry out the threat?  If I threaten to punch you in the face if you type another word -- can I really do that?  I've given you evidence of Intent, I have fists and can throw a punch so I have the Means... but you're not sitting in front of me, and I don't even know where you live, so I don't have the Opportunity.  Someone with a gun 30 feet away certainly has the ability to shoot you from there, but they can't punch you.
*Preclusion*:  This one often gets overlooked.  Generally, you have to be unable to avoid the use of force to protect yourself.  That doesn't mean you have to run before you defend yourself -- but that you have to have lesser options be unavailable or impractical or unsafe.  No time to run meets this requirement; so might having someone with you who would be unable to protect themselves if you left (kids, the elderly or infirm, for example).  This also applies to the question of how much force you can use; you can't use lethal force unless lesser force is unlikely to succeed.

All of this presupposes that you were in the right, in the first place.  You can't start a fight and then claim self defense.  

There's not an exact calculus of what is a reasonable level of force and what is not.  It's too variable based on too many factors.  So, your stance and deflection and your buddy's punches both could be reasonable, even in the exact same circumstances.  But neither of you would have probably been justified in hitting the guy with a baseball bat.  Factors that influence the reasonableness include things like your physical condition and heath, your relative sizes, special skills and training (like martial arts or LE training), and there's more.

Confused yet?  Kasey Keckeisen did a nice piece on it, by chance, yesterday.

I haven't even really addressed the idea that self defense is really an affirmative defense saying that you did something that should be illegal, but that you were justified in doing so...

And, of course, there are differences in different places and countries.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 6, 2013)

As a martial artist it is actually healthy to stop and say to your self, "What if things went down, right now? What is my plan?" If you do this enough you should make physical changes that give you an advantage, just in case. So, screw the Clark Kent stuff, think like Superman all the time.


----------



## sopraisso (Mar 6, 2013)

What would your friend have done if the thug had a knife, or there were other thugs waiting at the corner? What if they see your friend in the future and look for revenge? What if your friend defends himself but ends up killing the other guy - how would he deal with justice? What if your friend didn't fight with full commitment as to avoid killing the guy... but the guy ends up killing your friend?

You should not fight without full commitment, once it can get you killed or seriously injured. So you should only go to the physical part of self defense when you are sure you have no better option available. Most people don't understand this. The list of things worth fighting for its much smaller than is usually thought of. It should hardly be worth fighting for your wallet (risking your life for a few bucks?), our for your honor or status. But when it is fighting or having something unacceptable to happen (being or having a loved one being killed or raped, for example), that is the time. Even if you are the best fighter around, you'll probably have trouble if you mess things out before it's the last option available.

Self defense can and should be used all the time. When it's late time and I decide to call a cab instead of going back home by foot I'm using self defense. Same when I avoid the knowingly more dangerous streets and places, and when I don't buy the fights someone could invite me to. I'm using self defense when I decide not to fight - if fighting would get me in more serious trouble.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2


----------



## almost a ghost (Mar 6, 2013)

For me it's two situations 
1. When the attack has begun: a punch, push, kick, and even flashing a weapon at me.
2. When the attack is imminent. If I can get away from the person easily then it's not self defense, if I can't and I'm convinced 100% that it's going to go down then I'm not going to wait.

The result always justifies the means, and that's me getting home to my wife and kid and as far as I'm concerned that assaulter doesn't want me to do that. Being sued, spending a night/weekend in jail, and paying a fine are ant hills compared to what I would to get home to the family.


----------



## Snowy (Mar 7, 2013)

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

I agree that common sense goes hand in hand with staying out of trouble in the first place.
Sometimes it may be unavoidable for things to come to blows and I guess that is when our Wing Chun skills would come into play.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 7, 2013)

Snowy said:


> Sometimes it may be unavoidable for things to come to blows and I guess that is when our Wing Chun skills would come into play.



Not quite. Your Wing Chun skills are *mostly* for the fight stage of it. Theres a stage prior to that where one of you ultimately has to go for the other. That stage can be trained for, but even then its probably the most volatile part. After that, all your training should kick into gear.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 7, 2013)

Snowy said:


> Thanks for all the interesting replies.
> 
> I agree that common sense goes hand in hand with staying out of trouble in the first place.
> Sometimes it may be unavoidable for things to come to blows and I guess that is when our Wing Chun skills would come into play.



Go back and read jks9199's post.  What we all need to concentrate on is at what point does it really become unavoidable to retreat, and how do we respond?


----------



## Ediaan (Mar 14, 2013)

I think it's important to distinguish between self defence and self-protection.
With self protection, by being vigilant and alert, you can almost 90% of the time, prevent yourself from having to defend yourself.

Attackers, especially thugs and muggers, are opportunists and their victims are chosen.

Someone who looks alert, will not be as easily a victim as someone who is constantly texting on his cellphone and not being aware at what is around him.

To come back to the thread, IMO self defence happens when you have no other option but to fight, no matter what the situation is. Sometimes you cannot argue with someone who is on drugs or drunk, a mugger who is intent on getting what he wants or just a bully looking for someone to beat up.

Whether you should defend yourself or not, depends on the circumstances and situation you are in.


----------



## Zero (Mar 27, 2013)

Ediaan said:


> I think it's important to distinguish between self defence and self-protection.
> 
> To come back to the thread, IMO self defence happens when you have no other option but to fight, no matter what the situation is. Sometimes you cannot argue with someone who is on drugs or drunk, a mugger who is intent on getting what he wants or just a bully looking for someone to beat up.



Interesting, or maybe just semantics.  I had never thought of there being a delineation between "SD" and "self-protection".  All actions/behaviours that avoid confrontation or violence in my mind are SD.  That is how I have trained and look at it. If you are jumped by an assailent that you may or may not be able to handle and are spatialy aware of another couple running to join the fray and you are able to disengage and leg it, that spatial awareness is SD.  Likewise, when walking home and seeing a troublesome looking group up ahead and choosing another route or even when stepping out the door and thinking about the vibes you may be putting out, that to me is also SD.  At my old club, awareness of surroundings and the potential intentions of others featured as much (ok not as much, but quite a lot) as physical techniques in SD discussions and training and sadly I do not think this figures heavily enough, if at all, in many clubs - be they sport related or traditional.


----------



## Manseau (May 27, 2013)

I think this is a good assessment, but you might also want to know what your state's position is on "stand your ground" or "castle laws" to give yourself a clearer understanding of your responsibilities. I have a Utah concealed weapons license and a good point was made in that class by the instructor: If the police show up and want to get a statement after you have discharged a weapon, tell them that you want to co-operate and you will give them a full statement within 24 hours after talking to legal counsel. If you use a fire arm, you can bet on grand jury hearing. If you use your fist and it ends poorly for the assailant, you might be looking at a grand jury too. Discretion IS the better part of valor.   Regards,    David


----------



## mograph (May 27, 2013)

Another question might be "at what point in the interaction does it become a confrontation?"


----------



## Dummy (Jun 6, 2013)

From the point the physical aggression begins is the point it would be considered self defense, also if you manage to knock your attacker/attackers flat on their asses make sure to check their wallets for crispy goodies * KACHINGGGG!!* , if they don't have any money triple stomp the groin with full force.

Okay jokes aside , its story time , i use to have problems with certain people being extremely aggressive towards me during my later school years , im not proud to admit it but i took some really bad beatings... one day on our massive school campus these same people cornered me so i had no means of escape and then they took turns beating the **** out of me and then it turned into a stomping contest , i remember lying flat on my stomach while seven 17 year olds were kicking me from every angle imaginable , the best i could do was cover up , what really pissed them off was that even if they managed to give me a good beating i would never stop smiling in defiance , anyway after they were finished with me(which took a good 15 minutes or so) i washed the blood off the back of my head and cleaned my white school shirt which was mostly brown because of all the dirt and sweat,after this ordeal someone who was watching approached me , he said "you can take a beating but what good is it if you don't hit back", "HIT BACK HARDER THAN YOU DARE" he shouted , afterwards he told me how these people had bullied him too...well some uneventful days had passed and we both knew sooner or later they were going to come after us again only this time it was the two of us and we had 4 ft metal rods similar to barbells that body builders use in the gym , we had stashed them in a safe place and agreed that if they came looking for us again we would text each other and meet at the store room where we hid the metal rods...well that's exactly what happened when i got to the store room my friend was already there and as he handed me the metal rod we started swinging and even though we both took a few blows at the beginning we made sure that the every time we swung the rod it really counted ... three minutes later 4 of them were lying on the ground yelling in pain while the other 3 had run off...they never bothered us again.

What im trying to say is in the real world it really helps if you're prepared ,sometimes its not about how skilled you are at your art and more about how skilled you are at judging the situation.Ofcourse your training is the only thing that differentiates you from your assailant/s most of the times. Always be prepared for anything!


----------



## K-man (Jun 6, 2013)

Dummy said:


> From the point the physical aggression begins is the point it would be considered self defense.
> 
> What im trying to say is in the real world it really helps if you're prepared ,sometimes its not about how skilled you are at your art and more about how skilled you are at judging the situation.Ofcourse your training is the only thing that differentiates you from your assailant/s most of the times. Always be prepared for anything!


Actually self defence starts before the physical confrontation. Under certain circumstances where the threat is sufficient you can take physical action before you are physically attacked.

Your story of hiding the bars is not one to emulate.  I would be interested in what the LEOs on the forum would say but I would suggest what you claim to have done would be a premeditated assault with a weapon. Two wrongs do not make a right!  
:asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 6, 2013)

K-man said:


> Actually self defence starts before the physical confrontation. Under certain circumstances where the threat is sufficient you can take physical action before you are physically attacked.
> 
> Your story of hiding the bars is not one to emulate.  I would be interested in what the LEOs on the forum would say but I would suggest what you claim to have done would be a premeditated assault with a weapon. Two wrongs do not make a right!
> :asian:



They could easily have turned a simple assault where they were defending themselves into a malicious wounding felony.  While they were dealing with a situation where they were being attacked, and the numbers probably justified some escalation of force, the premeditated nature creates a serious problem.


----------



## Dummy (Jun 7, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> They could easily have turned a simple assault where they were defending themselves into a malicious wounding felony.  While they were dealing with a situation where they were being attacked, and the numbers probably justified some escalation of force, the premeditated nature creates a serious problem.



It was either that or getting our **** kicked in again and again and again. And surely what they were doing was more than premeditated , it was habit for them. So i guess i won't be regretting my actions.


----------



## Bluesman (Nov 21, 2015)

If someone wont back off and you are feeling threatend then hit first and hit hard!!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 21, 2015)

For me self defense begins when I realize someone is trying to do harm to me. This often requires that I be aware.  I have no problem with throwing the first punch if needed.  I rather throw the first punch when things have gotten to the point where physical force is unavoidable. There's no need to wait for my enemy to attack me in this case.   If you are in a situation where someone physically attacks you, then it means that your first line of self defense has failed big time.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

When do you actually haul out and crack someone? It is really tricky and depends a bit on your motivation.

So if you are just being randomly confronted i would sugest you just create space.  And find an exit.  It is very hard to launch forward and attack someone. Who is constantly keeping distance.

If i am tied up or in close i would go for them first.  Because i am much less able to defend from there.

If i am being routinely harrased.  Or harassed in a manner that affects my freedom or comfort.  I may target them and just attack them.

If i am being paid. Then it will be at the point a job needs to be done.

Within that there are a whole bunch of responses i can go for.  Things like just taking someones back and picking them up.  To putting a hard beat down on the guy.


Otherwise i am always trying to fight for good position.  So inside being verbally abused.  I dont let them gain a good clinch.  Let them get good head position.  Or let them gain a uninterupted line between my head and their hands. Good position might also be pulling the confrontation towards my friends.  So if it does kick.  I have numbers.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 22, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So if you are just being randomly confronted


I don't get randomly confronted beyond verbal actions, and I rarely get the targeted verbal confrontations. This is probably because of how I carry myself and me using my non-physical self-defense methods of not looking like a target or at the very least not looking like an easy target.  Even the drug dealers that approached me stayed out of my striking range.  There are always exits but there may not always be an option to leave at that particular time.   In the case of the drug dealers, I didn't leave the scene because I worked there.  Leaving and running away would have embolden them making my situation worse for me and not better.  Showing fear, weakness, or giving the impression that their actions control mine is not something you want to if you have to return to the same place of conflict the next day.  

As for launching forward why would I do that if they are out of my striking range?  If they are out of my striking range then there's no need for me to engage because they equally out of range for attacking me.  I'll let people talk smack all day long and not be bothered by it as long as they do it outside of my zones of attack/defense. People verbally abusing me outside of my zones of attack/defense is not a threat that requires me to attack. Someone stepping in my zone talking a smack, is treated as if the smack talk is a diversion so that they can get of the first punch when I least expect it.  



drop bear said:


> If i am tied up or in close i would go for them first. Because i am much less able to defend from there.


What do you do that even makes being tied up a scenario for you?  Most people would rather just beat you into a  mess and leave you on the ground.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't get randomly confronted beyond verbal actions, and I rarely get the targeted verbal confrontations. This is probably because of how I carry myself and me using my non-physical self-defense methods of not looking like a target or at the very least not looking like an easy target. Even the drug dealers that approached me stayed out of my striking range. There are always exits but there may not always be an option to leave at that particular time. In the case of the drug dealers, I didn't leave the scene because I worked there. Leaving and running away would have embolden them making my situation worse for me and not better. Showing fear, weakness, or giving the impression that their actions control mine is not something you want to if you have to return to the same place of conflict the next day.
> 
> As for launching forward why would I do that if they are out of my striking range? If they are out of my striking range then there's no need for me to engage because they equally out of range for attacking me. I'll let people talk smack all day long and not be bothered by it as long as they do it outside of my zones of attack/defense. People verbally abusing me outside of my zones of attack/defense is not a threat that requires me to attack. Someone stepping in my zone talking a smack, is treated as if the smack talk is a diversion so that they can get of the first punch when I least expect it.




I used to work around night clubs and other areas where random attacks do occur. If you don't get them that is exelent. As far as creating space. I am suggesting it protects me because it is hard to effectively cross that gap.

If someone moves into range with the smack talk. I am happy to move back out of range again.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> What do you do that even makes being tied up a scenario for you? Most people would rather just beat you into a mess and leave you on the ground.



If I have been grabbed or clinched up on. Or confronted where I can't create space. This can still be at what the la de da set call the interview stage. So actual violence may not have occurred yet. But we may be position fighting here. Looking for the dominant grip or the inside arm.

So they might go arm around my neck. And I work for under hook.

I do a lot of this on the job because I have to hold a doorway. Or separate people.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 22, 2015)

drop bear said:


> If I have been grabbed or clinched up on. Or confronted where I can't create space. This can still be at what the la de da set call the interview stage. So actual violence may not have occurred yet. But we may be position fighting here. Looking for the dominant grip or the inside arm.
> 
> So they might go arm around my neck. And I work for under hook.
> 
> I do a lot of this on the job because I have to hold a doorway. Or separate people.


 What is your job?  Bouncer?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> What is your job?  Bouncer?



Yeah among other things.  I have quit now.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 22, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yeah among other things.  I have quit now.


Now your perspectives of self-defense make more sense to me. The same limitation that you would have as a bouncer doing a job wouldn't exist outside the world of security.  While the everyday person wouldn't need to show restraint someone that is working as a bouncer or police officer have the challenge of walking the fine line between breaking a leg "excessive force" and hyper extending a join "acceptable force." 

I could get a way with breaking someone's arm in self-defense where a police officer would be in trouble. Police in the U.S. can body slam a person but then run the risk of losing his job or the department being sued for excessive force.  Bouncers have the similar limitations as no one wants to have a bouncer that will cost the club or business millions of dollars in legal fees and a bad image.   Here's a news video about a pregnant woman breaking a guy's leg after she chased him


----------



## drop bear (Nov 23, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Now your perspectives of self-defense make more sense to me. The same limitation that you would have as a bouncer doing a job wouldn't exist outside the world of security.  While the everyday person wouldn't need to show restraint someone that is working as a bouncer or police officer have the challenge of walking the fine line between breaking a leg "excessive force" and hyper extending a join "acceptable force."
> 
> I could get a way with breaking someone's arm in self-defense where a police officer would be in trouble. Police in the U.S. can body slam a person but then run the risk of losing his job or the department being sued for excessive force.  Bouncers have the similar limitations as no one wants to have a bouncer that will cost the club or business millions of dollars in legal fees and a bad image.   Here's a news video about a pregnant woman breaking a guy's leg after she chased him



I wouldn't do it if i can help it anyway. I have broken a guys arm and it isn't very nice.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I wouldn't do it if i can help it anyway. I have broken a guys arm and it isn't very nice.


That's the thing about martial arts.  It wasn't developed to be nice or kind.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 23, 2015)

We do not need to demonstrate our machismo to discuss the legitimate question (from 2013, so a necro-thread, but whatever).

Much of what I have read in this thread seems to be centered on what one's concept of self-defense happens to be.  I think everyone's concept is a bit different, so before anyone can really answer the question, first they must establish what they are speaking of.

As others mentioned, if self-defense as a concept includes being on guard at all times, then self-defense starts the moment your feet hit the floor in the morning.

However, if we're talking about a physical confrontation, then the answer is different.

Theoretically (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice) everyone has the right to defend themselves from violence, and may use violence themselves to avoid being assaulted.

It seems to me that unfortunately, many have jumped on this notion and decided that* 'the law'* requires them to be punched first, before they can legally fight back, so therefore *'the law'* is wrong and they promise to attack first.  Yeah, no.

Generally speaking, the law does not require that a person wait to be hit before they can defend themselves.  If a person raises their hand to you, that's assault in most places, and self-defense becomes a legal option as a response.  In fact, if they make statements or take actions that would make a 'reasonable and prudent' person fearful that they were about to be struck, they have the right to self-defense then and there.  In other words, if Joe Schmuckatelli tells me his is about to kick my booty, and he stands up and starts walking towards me, that's pretty much enough for me to defend myself in most locations (check your local laws, as they do vary).  I do not have to wait for him to get in my face, raise his hand to me, or actually hit me.  I am under no obligation to let myself be hit first before I can fight back.  It is still 'self-defense' under the law if I take steps to stop Joe from making good on his threat.  For example, a nice kick to the wedding tackle before he gets close enough to deck me.

So when does self-defense start (in the case described above)?  It starts as soon as a person realizes that they are in danger of bodily injury.  Note that this need not always require a physical altercation.  If one can safely leave, that sounds like a pretty good option to me, and that does count as self-defense as far as I am concerned.

I will give you an example.  A couple years back, I was on my way home from my dojo, fairly late at night, driving through a not-nice part of town.  A guy passed me, honking and flipping me off, I presume because I was driving too slowly for him.

Because I have a self-defense mentality, I realized that there was a traffic light coming up and we were liable to get stopped at it.  Sure enough, that's what happened.  But I had planned for that; I came to a stop 20 feet behind him, not right up on him.  And lo and behold, he jumped out of his car and started back towards mine.

Now, I realize that in the heroics department, my next actions are a distinct *'fail'*, but did not jump out of my car in full gi and teach that belligerant so-and-so a lesson.  In fact, given the number of road rage incidents that end in people being shot, what I did was to use the space between our cars to turn around and drive the other way, leaving him standing in the street alone, screaming obscenities at me.  Not very glamorous, eh?  *That, my friends, is self-defense*.  It started when he passed me cursing and honking and flipping me off and I realized that the next traffic light was liable to be the scene of an altercation.

Had he followed me after that, or had I been blocked in by other cars and not able to turn around, I would have considered other options, and chosen the one least likely to get me killed given whatever options I did have - for example, running over him, or driving into another car to get away, etc.  My nearly-last option would have been to jump out of my car and engage in fisticuffs, but only if there was no other option.

And that's part of self-defense also.  Evaluating threats and choosing the solution least likely to result in your own injury or death.  Being good at physical defense is a very important thing.  But any physical altercation can end badly, no matter how highly trained you are.  I've worked in law enforcement, I've seen too many people dead on the ground from simply slipping in a parking lot and hitting their head when engaged in a fistfight with another drunk.  It doesn't matter how high your rank is or what style you train in; anyone can slip and fall down and hit their head and that's all she wrote.  Physical fighting always brings risk; avoid it to the extent possible if your goal is really to defend yourself.  If you must fight, fight as hard as you can, fight to win, fight to end the engagement and leave as quickly as possible, but if you do not have to fight, if there is another option, take it.  That, my friends, is self-defense.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you must fight, fight as hard as you can, fight to win, fight to end the engagement and leave as quickly as possible, but if you do not have to fight, if there is another option, take it


Pretty much what it says in my book.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 23, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's the thing about martial arts.  It wasn't developed to be nice or kind.


----------



## mograph (Nov 23, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ... what I did was to use the space between our cars to turn around and drive the other way, leaving him standing in the street alone, screaming obscenities at me.  Not very glamorous, eh?  *That, my friends, is self-defense*.


Amen, brother Bill.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


>


 I don't subscribe to that. Responsibility is limited to ones group or affiliation  Respecting others is not bound by group or one's affiliation.  Even without responsibility there can be peace, but without respect there is only conflict.
It also has no bearing on the fact that martial arts were developed to inflict damage.


----------



## mograph (Nov 25, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't subscribe to that. Responsibility is limited to ones group or affiliation  Respecting others is not bound by group or one's affiliation.  Even without responsibility there can be peace, but without respect there is only conflict.
> It also has no bearing on the fact that martial arts were developed to inflict damage.


Well ... here's my take on that, at least based on my understanding of the concept of responsibility. In my opinion, we're responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group. In this modern world, (trying to stay general), we have seen that our actions have consequences across the globe; the greater the power to affect, the greater and farther-reaching the consequences which affect those outside our in-group. Even in a martial confrontation, I think that it's healthy for us to maintain a sense of responsibility to (not _for_) those with whom we engage, though they may not be members of our in-group. Of course, we do what's necessary in a situation, but we need to be aware of the broader consequences of our actions to ourselves and others, even those outside of the immediate situation.

Paradoxically, the result of such a sense of responsibility towards members of the out-group can serve to _expand_ the in-group. To me, a lot of our problems can be solved by an expansion of our concept of our in-group.

One definition of in-group and out-group:
Ingroups and outgroups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2015)

mograph said:


> Well ... here's my take on that, at least based on my understanding of the concept of responsibility. In my opinion, we're responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group. In this modern world, (trying to stay general), we have seen that our actions have consequences across the globe; the greater the power to affect, the greater and farther-reaching the consequences which affect those outside our in-group. Even in a martial confrontation, I think that it's healthy for us to maintain a sense of responsibility to (not _for_) those with whom we engage, though they may not be members of our in-group. Of course, we do what's necessary in a situation, but we need to be aware of the broader consequences of our actions to ourselves and others, even those outside of the immediate situation.
> 
> Paradoxically, the result of such a sense of responsibility towards members of the out-group can serve to _expand_ the in-group. To me, a lot of our problems can be solved by an expansion of our concept of our in-group.
> 
> ...


  We believe similar, it's just that responsibility means something totally different for me.
Keep reading if you want to see my perception of it.  Otherwise you can stop here.

I used to think the same way until I started thinking about how the U.S. tries to be responsible for stuff only to make matters worse.  The U.S. doesn't always goof on it, but when we do it tends to be big.  So I went back and took a look at history through many cultures and countries and what I found is that leaders, people of power, and countries had responsibility but it didn't extend beyond their groups.  I also found that there were groups who didn't want someone else to be responsible for them.  Britain used to be responsible for the U.S. when they were only colonies of the British.  The colonies decided that they wanted to be responsible for themselves and to be free of Britain's control.  Then karma kicked in and the U.S. went to war with itself over similar issues where the group with power was responsible for the group that was complaining.

All of this was going on while Native Americans were being systematically wiped out.  You see this pattern all through out history as one group has responsibility for those who they consider as part of their group.  Part of a group could be locally like my kung fu school or globally like NATO or the relationship with allies.  This pattern continues today all in the name of Responsibility to one's duties, group, country, allies, own desires.  In the U.S. the Republican party believes that people should be responsible for their own actions, but when it comes to the Government being responsible for people, they say "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" "No socialism"  Out of all of this the one thing that's rarely present is Respect for one's fellow man.

I'm pretty sure that many of us think we are responsible people but I know that many of us know of a group or groups that we would be glad not to be responsible for or of. We would just as soon rather wipe them off the planet than to help convert them to become more civilized so that they will act in the better interest of society.  All throughout  history there has been tons of responsibility and very little respect.

Those who we respect are almost always treated better than those who fall under the duties of responsibility.

I used to say this a lot  "we're responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group" but now its "we should be respectful with our actions and take into consideration the effect that our actions may have on others be it good or bad." What is good for one group maybe really horrible for another.

Here's something to think about.

Here are some definitions for responsibility:
- something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc (morality and legality isn't universal it changes from culture to culture. The Native Americans were almost wiped out because of what one group though was morally right.)
- the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.  (within one's power, control, or management again this is done based on what  group who has power see's fit)
-a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible (If a group feels that they are not responsible for another group then there is no obligation, regardless of the power they have.)
-good judgement and the ability to act correctly and make decisions on your own (judgement and "act correctly" is differs from culture to culture and from group to group)

Here are some definitions for respect
- a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way
- deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: 
- to show regard or consideration for (this is where your perception of responsibility fits "responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group." 
- to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

Bluesman said:


> If someone wont back off and you are feeling threatend then hit first and hit hard!!



You might want to check your local self-defense laws.  Frankly, that's dangerous advice.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You might want to check your local self-defense laws.  Frankly, that's dangerous advice.


Not really. Put your safety first.  This is why we have court systems to work out the finer details.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 25, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You might want to check your local self-defense laws.  Frankly, that's dangerous advice.



Is it? Can you find an example of a US law that requires you to wait until you're actually attacked before you can defend yourself? 
Everything I've ever seen requires that you have a "reasonable" fear; not that you wait till you're actually attacked.


----------



## mograph (Nov 25, 2015)

I think we need to have common definitions here.


----------



## Steve (Nov 25, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not really. Put your safety first.  This is why we have court systems to work out the finer details.


So I'm clear.  It seems like you're advocating that someone feels threatened, risking incarceration is a reasonable outcome.  That sounds a little crazy.  Sort of a "let the chips fall where they may" approach to self defense.  So, I'm just walking down the street, minding my own business.  I bump into someone who gets angry.  I feel threatened, so I hit first and hit hard.  (Hey!  I felt threatened!)  Your position is that this is perfectly acceptable, as I felt my safety was at risk.  So, when (likely when and not if) I get arrested for assault, it's all good because the court will work out the finer details.

What if I go to jail?  Can that still be considered self defense?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 25, 2015)

Steve said:


> So I'm clear.  It seems like you're advocating that someone feels threatened, risking incarceration is a reasonable outcome.  That sounds a little crazy.  Sort of a "let the chips fall where they may" approach to self defense.  So, I'm just walking down the street, minding my own business.  I bump into someone who gets angry.  I feel threatened, so I hit first and hit hard.  (Hey!  I felt threatened!)  Your position is that this is perfectly acceptable, as I felt my safety was at risk.  So, when (likely when and not if) I get arrested for assault, it's all good because the court will work out the finer details.



I won't say I've checked the law everywhere. I haven't. But I've spent about 45 minutes goggling different state laws on self defense since the topic came up here.
Every place I've been able to check - every single one -  relies on the "reasonable person" assumption.

So, are you a reasonable man? If so, and you felt that you needed to use force to defend yourself, then you're legally allowed to do so.

You bump into that guy. He says "Pull your head out of your *** and watch where you're going, butt munch!" and you hit him. You're probably in trouble.
You bump into that guy. He says " I'm going to kick your ***, mother ******!", lifts his fists and moves towards you. Assuming he's not so physically handicapped as to be incapable of harming you, you're going to be justified in punching him. He has threatened you verbally, and his actions show his intent to carry out those threats. You can reasonably assume that if you do not defend yourself, you're going to get your *** kicked. Just as he said.
I don't necessarily think you're justified in shooting him, but even that might be justified, depending on the specific details of the situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not really. Put your safety first.  This is why we have court systems to work out the finer details.



Safety first, yes.  Blasting anyone who makes you feel threatened?  No.  They're not the same thing.  You're giving bad advice.  Are you going to pay the legal bills of anyone who does what you advise and gets arrested for punching someone who 'makes them feel threatened?'

I'm all for differing opinions and such.  But your advice is bad advice, and dangerous.  Sorry.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

Steve said:


> So I'm clear.  It seems like you're advocating that someone feels threatened, risking incarceration is a reasonable outcome.  That sounds a little crazy.  Sort of a "let the chips fall where they may" approach to self defense.  So, I'm just walking down the street, minding my own business.  I bump into someone who gets angry.  I feel threatened, so I hit first and hit hard.  (Hey!  I felt threatened!)  Your position is that this is perfectly acceptable, as I felt my safety was at risk.  So, when (likely when and not if) I get arrested for assault, it's all good because the court will work out the finer details.
> 
> What if I go to jail?  Can that still be considered self defense?



Agreed.  Self-defense laws vary, but they typically revolve around the idea that a 'reasonable and prudent' person would feel in danger.  To wit, Michigan law:

"An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she *honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual."*

Important parts in the above law cite - honestly and reasonably.  I can _honestly feel threatened _and it may still not pass the '_reasonable man_' test.  Some people feel threatened when someone makes a face at them.

I don't get to blast anyone who makes me feel threatened.  And as to the courts sorting it out, yeah, that sounds good on paper.  Now imagine losing your job (and therefore, your career) at age 54, as I am currently.  Losing all my savings on legal bills, leaving my wife destitute while I go to prison when they jury says I wasn't being 'reasonable' at the time, then losing my house and being unable to feed my family.  Sounds like a real hoot.

If someone 'gets in my face' and 'makes me feel threatened', I may have to defend myself, and it might involve hitting first.  But I will be very certain in my own mind that my use of force passes muster with the laws on self-defense where I live first.  I've got too much that I am responsible for to play macho kiddy games.


----------



## Steve (Nov 25, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Is it? Can you find an example of a US law that requires you to wait until you're actually attacked before you can defend yourself?
> Everything I've ever seen requires that you have a "reasonable" fear; not that you wait till you're actually attacked.


I understand that laws vary from place to place, but if this helps, this is written in plain language and is pretty clear:
Self-Defense

I don't go out of my way to read case law, but my impression has always been that the key to self defense being justified is dealing with imminent danger.


Dirty Dog said:


> I won't say I've checked the law everywhere. I haven't. But I've spent about 45 minutes goggling different state laws on self defense since the topic came up here.
> Every place I've been able to check - every single one -  relies on the "reasonable person" assumption.
> 
> So, are you a reasonable man? If so, and you felt that you needed to use force to defend yourself, then you're legally allowed to do so.
> ...


I understand your position, and am familiar with the "reasonable person" assumption.  I think the key is feeling threatened leading to "hitting first and hitting hard" vs what I would consider the actions of a reasonable person.  Or said plainly, I do consider myself to be a reasonable person, and my immediate reaction to the suggestion that when you feel threatened, hit first and hit hard is that this is unreasonable.  I think your examples are clear, and make perfect sense to me.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2015)

Steve said:


> So I'm clear.  It seems like you're advocating that someone feels threatened, risking incarceration is a reasonable outcome.  That sounds a little crazy.  Sort of a "let the chips fall where they may" approach to self defense.  So, I'm just walking down the street, minding my own business.  I bump into someone who gets angry.  I feel threatened, so I hit first and hit hard.  (Hey!  I felt threatened!)  Your position is that this is perfectly acceptable, as I felt my safety was at risk.  So, when (likely when and not if) I get arrested for assault, it's all good because the court will work out the finer details.
> 
> What if I go to jail?  Can that still be considered self defense?



Nope you aren't clear on what I'm saying. There's a difference between feeling threaten and knowing for a fact that you are threaten.  You can be afraid of big black people who dress like thugs and that doesn't give you grounds to attack them.  But if that same person approaches you in a violent manner with the intent to do harm to you, then why would I wait for him to hit me first?  (Unless I'm a counter fighter).   Approach a police officer in that same manner and he's going to do one of three things: Pull out a taser, Pull out a gun, or put his hand up as warning that you are about to make a big mistake.  A police officer will not just sit there to see if a person is going to throw the first punch.

Here's the assumption of your scenario.  Anger is not always projected in a threatening manner.  A person can be angry at another person without being threatening. 
Have you not seen two people argue and keep their distance with each one not wanting to get into a physical conflict?  People who do retail and customer service can tell you about angry customers all day.









Being angry and feeling threaten are not the same thing. Someone can threaten you without being angry.  Being angry isn't a requirement for feeling threatened.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 25, 2015)

Rampant douchebaggery in those videos, but nothing that requires smacking someone.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 25, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I won't say I've checked the law everywhere. I haven't. But I've spent about 45 minutes goggling different state laws on self defense since the topic came up here.
> Every place I've been able to check - every single one -  relies on the "reasonable person" assumption.
> 
> So, are you a reasonable man? If so, and you felt that you needed to use force to defend yourself, then you're legally allowed to do so.
> ...



Reasonable isnt what you and your mates decide. It is what a judge decides based on precedent. And once you are in court basing your defence on the definition of reasonable is a high risk move.


----------



## Bluesman (Nov 26, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You might want to check your local self-defense laws.  Frankly, that's dangerous advice.


 I completely disagree. If it is my or my families safety & well being at stake then I will take whatever consequences!! Nothing wrong with a preemptive strike.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Is it? Can you find an example of a US law that requires you to wait until you're actually attacked before you can defend yourself?
> Everything I've ever seen requires that you have a "reasonable" fear; not that you wait till you're actually attacked.



Correct. My objection was to what appeared to be a rather loose definition of 'reasonable'. It is a term of art intended to try to apply an objective standard to a subjective opinion.

You do not have to wait to be attacked. You do have to fear attack which a reasonable person would also. Saying you were in fear of attack may not rise to that standard.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2015)

Bluesman said:


> I completely disagree. If it is my or my families safety & well being at stake then I will take whatever consequences!! Nothing wrong with a preemptive strike.



Foolish attitude, coupled with a lack of understanding. You can of course strike first. But not until the 'reasonable man' would fear immenent attack. Someone failing to get out of your face isn't that.


----------



## Bluesman (Nov 26, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Foolish attitude, coupled with a lack of understanding. You can of course strike first. But not until the 'reasonable man' would fear immenent attack. Someone failing to get out of your face isn't that.


 
Lack of understanding?? Based on what?? If someone is about to break your nose or pull a knife they have no regard for the law. I would not be willing to take a chance. If someone is in your face in an aggressive manner and you have asked them to retreat on several occasions and they refuse then I would see that as an immediate threat.

So you are saying that you would wait for them to strike?? Good luck if he is a boxer, especially at close range. You would most probably be looking for new set of teeth or much worse. That really would be a bad example of self defense so maybe it is you that has a lack of understanding!!


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 26, 2015)

Bluesman said:


> I completely disagree. If it is my or my families safety & well being at stake then I will take whatever consequences!! Nothing wrong with a preemptive strike.


Yet another variant of the hackneyed "tried by 12/carried by 6" line.  Why not learn what the laws mean, as well as how to prevent the whole mess in the first place, and avoid either situation? 

There's an important concept that nobody has mentioned -- PRECLUSION.  Any claim of self defense -- especially if you acted preemptively -- almost certainly require that you show that your use of force was the only way you could prevent greater harm.  That's the one sentence explanation; there's a bit more to it, but I'm not going to try to type on the phone.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2015)

Bluesman said:


> Lack of understanding?? Based on what?? If someone is about to break your nose or pull a knife they have no regard for the law. I would not be willing to take a chance. If someone is in your face in an aggressive manner and you have asked them to retreat on several occasions and they refuse then I would see that as an immediate threat.
> 
> So you are saying that you would wait for them to strike?? Good luck if he is a boxer, especially at close range. You would most probably be looking for new set of teeth or much worse. That really would be a bad example of self defense so maybe it is you that has a lack of understanding!!



I said nothing of the sort.

I said that "feeling threatened" because someone is "in your face" may not rise to the definition of self-defense.  

There is a legal standard. Get your learn on.

Yes, if a "reasonable person" would believe they were about to be assaulted, they are generally permitted to defend themselves with violence, even by striking first.

I have NEVER said anyone should wait to be hit first. In fact, I keep saying the opposite.


----------



## Bluesman (Nov 26, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> I said that "feeling threatened" because someone is "in your face" may not rise to the definition of self-defense.
> 
> ...


This is what I said - " I completely disagree. If it is my or my families safety & well being at stake then I will take whatever consequences!! Nothing wrong with a preemptive strike"
This is what you said "Foolish attitude, coupled with a lack of understanding"

So I am saying that if I feel that my or my families safety & well being is at stake I will hit first and hit hard!! Your response to that was that I have a "foolish attitude, coupled with a lack of understanding". Is there something I am not getting or are you just being a jobsworth and looking to pull peoples opinions apart for the sake of it??? If you argee with me about hitting first then why make those statements about me??


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2015)

Bluesman said:


> This is what I said - " I completely disagree. If it is my or my families safety & well being at stake then I will take whatever consequences!! Nothing wrong with a preemptive strike"
> This is what you said "Foolish attitude, coupled with a lack of understanding"
> 
> So I am saying that if I feel that my or my families safety & well being is at stake I will hit first and hit hard!! Your response to that was that I have a "foolish attitude, coupled with a lack of understanding". Is there something I am not getting or are you just being a jobsworth and looking to pull peoples opinions apart for the sake of it??? If you argee with me about hitting first then why make those statements about me??



_*"...if I feel..."*_  What you 'feel' has got jack to do with it, legally speaking.  The reasonable man test doesn't apply to your feelings.  As others have said, some people 'feel threatened' when a person of another color walks up to them, or when a neighbor plays his music too loud.  How you 'feel' is not sufficient.  If a 'reasonable man' would agre that they would feel that they were in immanent danger of being assaulted, then yes.  

I'm not pulling your statements apart for fun.  The difference between how someone making you feel threatened and you actually being threatened based on the 'reasonable man' test can be immense, depending on many things, including what it takes to make you feel threatened.

You also said _*"then I will take whatever consequences,"*_  which to me implies that you are well aware you may be breaking the law, but do not care.  If you are within your rights to defend yourself, there should ideally be no consequences for you.

And then you said _*"Nothing wrong with a preemptive strike"*_ as an absolute.  Of course there is.  There are all kinds of things wrong with preemptive strikes, depending on the context.  In the proper context of legal self-defense, a preemptive strike is actually not preemptive in any case; legitimate fear of immediate assault by another is under most legal definitions, assault.  You have already been assaulted, your strike is not preemptive but one of self-defense against that assault.

Why am I picking at you?  Because your statements, taken as a whole, come across as a cocky chip-on-the-shoulder type of wideboy who is not particularly interested in the rule of law, but who will cheerfully have a go at anyone whom he 'feels' is a threat, regardless of whether or not the law would agree.

While your definition of threat might actually be the same as mine, in which case you'd be within your rights to defend yourself, the way you say it implies otherwise, to me.


----------



## Bluesman (Nov 26, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> _*"...if I feel..."*_  What you 'feel' has got jack to do with it, legally speaking.  The reasonable man test doesn't apply to your feelings.  As others have said, some people 'feel threatened' when a person of another color walks up to them, or when a neighbor plays his music too loud.  How you 'feel' is not sufficient.  If a 'reasonable man' would agre that they would feel that they were in immanent danger of being assaulted, then yes.
> 
> I'm not pulling your statements apart for fun.  The difference between how someone making you feel threatened and you actually being threatened based on the 'reasonable man' test can be immense, depending on many things, including what it takes to make you feel threatened.
> 
> ...


 
Personally I think that you are reading far too much in to a very very short sentence. Almost "psychoanalysis". We can rule out load music and people of another race as I clearly stated in my "face". My common sense would also allow me to judge if they were going in for a long deep kiss!! So assuming that the kiss was not the reason they were in my face and having warned them to back off, a strike would be my only option if my request was ignored. Nothing more and nothing less.
Of course we have to look at awareness and avoiding the situation as well as de escalation but as an experienced martial artist I would expect you to agree that when someone is in your face and are refusing to back off then you have already gone past the point of no return and you deal with the situation quickly or risk being attacked!!

There are also plenty of crazy people out there who can't be reasoned with.

Anyway......Nothing wrong with a good old debate. Nice speaking to you!


----------



## elder999 (Nov 26, 2015)

Snowy said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply?
> Would you defend yourself at the point of physical contact? If the other person has threatened to hurt you?
> ...



Legally, in most U.S. states, "self-defense" begins when a "reasonable person" perceives a threat, and acts as a "reasonable person" would.

Someone raises their fist, rage in their face, and shouts, "I'm gonna kill you!!!" You can pretty much legally punch him out.

and so on...._philosophically,_ of course, it's a different story....and an individual, and circumstantial thing-in the example I just gave, for instance, the situation was changed by my simply pointing that legal factoid out-that, as the aggressor, he would go to jail with a broken jaw, and I would go have a sandwich....


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 26, 2015)

Sources in the link
Can I claim self-defense if I hit someone first?
"There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves"  UK.
"You must have honestly and reasonably believed that you had to use force to protect yourself from the imminent unlawful use of force by another.  If a Judge or Jury finds that your belief was honest and reasonable, it means you were allowed to act at right away to defend yourself.  You DON’T have to wait until the other person touches you, grabs you, or hits you to hit them."


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 26, 2015)

Any type of legal positioning should be done before or after the attacker is no longer a threat. If you knock someone out because of defending yourself, still get help, still be the one calling the police.  Thing like that will help deal with all of the legal study that may come later, provided that it comes at all.

By the way. Real victims don't think about legal matters when they are about to be attacked.  All they know at that moment is that they are in danger.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

I can't believe so many people have so little understanding of the _'reasonable man' _standard.

It does not mean you have to wait to be hit.

It also does not mean you can attack first anytime you feel threatened.

It means that if you _'reasonably'_ feel threatened with bodily injury or attack, you are generally entitled to defend yourself with force.

Here's the part everyone seems to have a lot of trouble grasping:  You do not get to decide what is reasonable.  That's what cops, district attorneys, judges, and juries do.

There is no hard-and-fast rule, either.  It's an attempt by the law to make a subjective area (meaning subject to opinion) somewhat more objective.  It is an interpretation.

By the same token, this _"I'm not going to wait around to figure out if I'm legally allowed to use self-defense before fighting back"_ nonsense is clearly being bandied about by people who have actually never done so.  What it means to me is _"I am ignorant of the law, and I like it that way."_ 

And I'll tell you why.  Once you've been through the court system as an arrestee, charged with a violent crime, had to raise bail, lost your job, been prosecuted, had to mortgage your house to pay the attorney fees, maybe done some jail time, and then been sued by the moron you put the beat-down on over a parking spot or whatever your monkey-dance-du-jour happened to be, you won't be so flippant about it.  It ruins your life, more or less, depending on severity of the accusation and whether or your you're found guilty.  Chest-thump all you like and say _"better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."_  Yes, that's true, if those were the only two choices.  But it overwhelmingly ISN'T, so it's a foolish thing to say.  I have never been on that side of the bars.  But I've certainly put a few morons there, and they all seem to think they were within their rights to punch out the guy at the Walmart for grabbing the last shopping cart and then getting in his face about it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> By the way. Real victims don't think about legal matters when they are about to be attacked.  All they know at that moment is that they are in danger.



Really smart people read the law and understand it before they ever get in situations like that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Really smart people read the law and understand it before they ever get in situations like that.


We can't always pick the situations that we want to be in.  When the crap hits the fan the only thing you'll be thinking about is saving your butt or saving the person that you are trying to protect.  No one decides to be in this situation.




I'm pretty sure the last thing she cared about were legal issues.
If the first thing you think about when someone is about to attack you is the law, then you have truly failed with the focus of self-defense.   If you are walking down the street and someone comes after to attack you, the first thing that pops up in your mind is legal matters?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> We can't always pick the situations that we want to be in.  When the crap hits the fan the only thing you'll be thinking about is saving your butt or saving the person that you are trying to protect.  No one decides to be in this situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What did I say? The smart person knows the laws on self defense before they need to use it.

Before meaning not during, not after. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> We can't always pick the situations that we want to be in.  When the crap hits the fan the only thing you'll be thinking about is saving your butt or saving the person that you are trying to protect.  No one decides to be in this situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I gotta agree with Bill here.

If it had been me when that guy in the video busted in, I'd have shot him, knowing full well before hand that I was legally in the right.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 28, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What did I say? The smart person knows the laws on self defense before they need to use it.
> 
> Before meaning not during, not after. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?


No it's not a hard concept to understand because I've already have made that statement in this discussion (actually before you made it lol)  My point is the woman being brutally attack situation doesn't change regardless of what she knows of the law.  How does knowing the law change the danger that she's in or her right to defend herself?  This is the point that I'm trying to get across.  So what you and elder999 are telling me is that if this dude came into your house like this and it was against the law to shoot him or viciously attack him back, then you wouldn't fight back with all your might, because the law says so?  

This isn't a hypothetical questions because the school systems in my state have policies and rules for students. If a student fights in school then they will be expelled.  Because of these policies, kids don't fight back which means the attacking kids beats on the victim just like this man did to this woman. 

I'm pretty sure that women who are dealing with a guy who is trying to rape them don't care much about the legal wording of self-defense.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> No it's not a hard concept to understand because I've already have made that statement in this discussion (actually before you made it lol)  My point is the woman being brutally attack situation doesn't change regardless of what she knows of the law.  How does knowing the law change the danger that she's in or her right to defend herself?  This is the point that I'm trying to get across.  So what you and elder999 are telling me is that if this dude came into your house like this and it was against the law to shoot him or viciously attack him back, then you wouldn't fight back with all your might, because the law says so?
> 
> This isn't a hypothetical questions because the school systems in my state have policies and rules for students. If a student fights in school then they will be expelled.  Because of these policies, kids don't fight back which means the attacking kids beats on the victim just like this man did to this woman.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that women who are dealing with a guy who is trying to rape them don't care much about the legal wording of self-defense.



So because a woman got brutally beaten in a home invasion. You have decided it is OK to go crazy town on anybody who lifts a finger on you at any time.

Mabye try this. If you ever become a woman and then are getting home invaded I will support your decision to go crazy town on the attacker.

Until that happens how about we use some proportionate force.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> No How does knowing the law change the danger that she's in or her right to defend herself?  This is the point that I'm trying to get across.  So what you and elder999 are telling me is that if this dude came into your house like this and it was against the law to shoot him or viciously attack him back, then you wouldn't fight back with all your might, because the law says so? .



No-what I'm telling you is that I know the law, and if somebody comes invades my home, it's a justification of lethal force, and I'm going to kill them, knowing full well that the law is on my side. If I can get to one of the firearms deployed in the home, I'll use it. If I have to club him to death, or cut him with a knife, I will. If it comes to hand-to-hand, and I get the upper hand, I'll stop after he stops moving.

I mean, the law _doesn't_ say so-and notice how I worded that last one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 28, 2015)

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## BamBamx8 (Dec 17, 2015)

Snowy said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply?
> Would you defend yourself at the point of physical contact? If the other person has threatened to hurt you?
> ...


If you know its going south strike first then walk away.The police will only second guess you and just might charge you.


----------

