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

[JowGaWolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BamBamx8]

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?

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