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

[Dirty Dog]

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]

I think we need to have common definitions here.

 

[Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[drop bear]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

"...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.

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]

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?

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....