Do maiming and killing only work in SD?

[Draven]

Again, an understanding of the law in your situation would better help. You stated that you could have hit him without warning because you were in fear. Depends on the state. In some states you have the "duty to retreat" so why not just get back into your car? When you go to court you can bet that the attorney's are going to turn that around on you that you WANTED the confrontation and that you were trained (civil liability is only tipping the scales in your favor) and took advantage of their client to hurt him.

All I have is a bachelor's myself & I just got it for promotion points in the Army, then I started applying with my fireteam & I got hooked. As for the duty to retreat laws; there isn't any in WV. We adapted a castle law which allows me to use whatever force I feel is justified if I am threated or assault, including lethal force. The only restriction is I can't be doing anything illegal at the time of the event for it to protected under the castle law...

A brawl in the bar parking lot isn't covered under the fact I'd be guilty of public intox, but by the same standard I have no duty to retreat in public. So if I'm attacked, for any reason I don't have to retreat more so a good lawyer can disprove the "duty to retreat" in public claim, since you have no where to retreat to. So in the hypothetical extention of the same situation; I'm sure I can make the arguement that with a person 100lbs heavier then me is a significant threat the my safety & having threaten my life left no where to retreat to; retreating to my car only leaves me "pinned" and unable to properly defend myself. The legal arguement is sound & just leaves me to convense a jury; which is why I don't bother with legal stuff because until your in a trial; legal defenses don't matter.

If you don't feel comfortable with the legal aspect then bring in an attorney like alot of instructors do to explain the law and go over situations like that and what you can do. Also, explain that you have to do what you have to do sometimes and can't worry about "legal duty" in those situations. In today's society, a fight isn't over when the physical confrontation ends, it ends when it is finally over and there is no criminal charges or civil suits. If you are professing to teach "self-defense" then you need to teach everything that encompasses or just say you teach "fighting" or you teach "conflict resolution".

Unfortunately it is my personal experience that laws on the books don't matter, its the LEO's and Judge's interpetation of the law that counts. The LEO arrests you based their interpetiation of what they assume happened or is happening and the judge convicts you on what they assume occurred. Juries don't matter a great deal since the judge is responsible for administering jury instructions and a well doctumented case of where judges give misleading instructions based on laws. Now I am not saying all judges do this; but it is a well documented fact that many do...

If the local BJJ instructor who is also a local LEO teachs anything about the law to his students he is in violation of a specific WV code, which is a felony as only the first count, counts as a misdemeaner. I will tell people where to look up the codes themselves & I will advise them to see a lawyer. I can't afford to have a lawyer to come in to give a class & it simply is not my legal or moral responsibility to do so.

To take it even further, the legal system is broken when it comes to self-defense laws and in many cases staying alive means breaking the law. I've seen allot of SD guys teach according to what their local law where and handicap students (seen a lot of freezing here) because thay are given conflicting information; SD-wise you need to do "A", but legally you need to do "Z" and it causes the conflict that leads to freezing. Not one of my students have frozen or hesitated yet, because I don't give them conflicting information. I tell them using some techniques can send them to jail if they use them, but I also tell they have a choise a) take a chance on going to jail and b) take a chance on being crippled, maimed or killed.

Its a simple matter of priorities;
1. Immidiate Need: Staying alive...
2. Urgent Need: Staying unharmed...
3. Required Need: Food, Water, Shelter, Security & Medic needs
4. Social Need: Staying out of Jail/Legal Trouble, Paying Bills or Picking up Flowers for sposes birthday...

Staying alive can range from handing over your wallet to a mugger to letting go of your ego or to taking an attacker's life. In order to go to jail you need to stay alive to do that. I have no illusions about the law; its
a construct of a human mind with human goals & to be honest raises a society of cattle. You aren't concerned withpaying your bills while having to defend yourself or get flowers for your wife. So why hamper yourself, with worrying about legal issues; even if you obey the law and fullfill your "duty to retreat" you can still be charged. So trying to worry about something which won't matter until later on; because you have to have a bond hearing, intial apprearance, grand jury indictment before you even see trial. Legal defense don't matter until trial and have no effect on the LEO's investigation.

 

[Draven]

There seems to be some confusion regarding the context of my question. I'm not really asking the question in the narrow context of working as a security officer I'm asking it more in the context of a defense against a very serious assault. That assault may happen during work as a security officer or it may happen outside of that context. The question really is do techniques that don't involve killing, maiming or knocking out an attacker who is engaged in a very serious assault against you (ie he is trying to kill, rape, or beat the holy crapola out of you or a combination of the two or more) work.

I think less drastic responses to such an attack than killing or maiming or knocking out an attacker might work in any given situation provided you are an expert, I'm certainly far from being an expert in any martial art. Thanks for your responses.

They work, but it highly unlikely to work even for an expert. Its a fantasy to think that anyone of use if going the DBZ, anime, hollywood BS a fight by using our inhuman speed and skill to "toy with" an attacker and defeat him without harming him. Even with Aikido, allot of those "harmonious" throws will destroy an arm and seriosuly hurt someone depending on the surface. They work but aren't likely to work, depending on the level of violence involved you may be done from the start of the fight...

 

[punisher73]

All I have is a bachelor's myself & I just got it for promotion points in the Army, then I started applying with my fireteam & I got hooked. As for the duty to retreat laws; there isn't any in WV. We adapted a castle law which allows me to use whatever force I feel is justified if I am threated or assault, including lethal force. The only restriction is I can't be doing anything illegal at the time of the event for it to protected under the castle law...

A brawl in the bar parking lot isn't covered under the fact I'd be guilty of public intox, but by the same standard I have no duty to retreat in public. So if I'm attacked, for any reason I don't have to retreat more so a good lawyer can disprove the "duty to retreat" in public claim, since you have no where to retreat to. So in the hypothetical extention of the same situation; I'm sure I can make the arguement that with a person 100lbs heavier then me is a significant threat the my safety & having threaten my life left no where to retreat to; retreating to my car only leaves me "pinned" and unable to properly defend myself. The legal arguement is sound & just leaves me to convense a jury; which is why I don't bother with legal stuff because until your in a trial; legal defenses don't matter.



Unfortunately it is my personal experience that laws on the books don't matter, its the LEO's and Judge's interpetation of the law that counts. The LEO arrests you based their interpetiation of what they assume happened or is happening and the judge convicts you on what they assume occurred. Juries don't matter a great deal since the judge is responsible for administering jury instructions and a well doctumented case of where judges give misleading instructions based on laws. Now I am not saying all judges do this; but it is a well documented fact that many do...

If the local BJJ instructor who is also a local LEO teachs anything about the law to his students he is in violation of a specific WV code, which is a felony as only the first count, counts as a misdemeaner. I will tell people where to look up the codes themselves & I will advise them to see a lawyer. I can't afford to have a lawyer to come in to give a class & it simply is not my legal or moral responsibility to do so.

To take it even further, the legal system is broken when it comes to self-defense laws and in many cases staying alive means breaking the law. I've seen allot of SD guys teach according to what their local law where and handicap students (seen a lot of freezing here) because thay are given conflicting information; SD-wise you need to do "A", but legally you need to do "Z" and it causes the conflict that leads to freezing. Not one of my students have frozen or hesitated yet, because I don't give them conflicting information. I tell them using some techniques can send them to jail if they use them, but I also tell they have a choise a) take a chance on going to jail and b) take a chance on being crippled, maimed or killed.

Its a simple matter of priorities;
1. Immidiate Need: Staying alive...
2. Urgent Need: Staying unharmed...
3. Required Need: Food, Water, Shelter, Security & Medic needs
4. Social Need: Staying out of Jail/Legal Trouble, Paying Bills or Picking up Flowers for sposes birthday...

Staying alive can range from handing over your wallet to a mugger to letting go of your ego or to taking an attacker's life. In order to go to jail you need to stay alive to do that. I have no illusions about the law; its
a construct of a human mind with human goals & to be honest raises a society of cattle. You aren't concerned withpaying your bills while having to defend yourself or get flowers for your wife. So why hamper yourself, with worrying about legal issues; even if you obey the law and fullfill your "duty to retreat" you can still be charged. So trying to worry about something which won't matter until later on; because you have to have a bond hearing, intial apprearance, grand jury indictment before you even see trial. Legal defense don't matter until trial and have no effect on the LEO's investigation.

Thanks for sharing more of WV law. It sounds as if we are actually closer to the same page than at first glance. The laws in MI are different. To my knowledge, unless you are posing as an attorney you aren't going to get in trouble for giving an opinion on a legal matter.

For me personally, I am also of the mindset that I am going to do what needs to be done, and then take appropriate steps after.

 

[MJS]

There seems to be some confusion regarding the context of my question. I'm not really asking the question in the narrow context of working as a security officer I'm asking it more in the context of a defense against a very serious assault. That assault may happen during work as a security officer or it may happen outside of that context.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Perhaps this thread would've been better suited in the General SD area.

The question really is do techniques that don't involve killing, maiming or knocking out an attacker who is engaged in a very serious assault against you (ie he is trying to kill, rape, or beat the holy crapola out of you or a combination of the two or more) work.

Yes they do work. Let me put it to you this way. There are people who eat, sleep, breath and poop BJJ. Obviously that art consists of takedowns, controlling methods, chokes and locks. Many Military and LEO branches are training in it. There are BJJ schools all over the place. That being said, something must be working right. . Of course, as I said, its important to assess the situation. Someone coming at you, trying to punch you...well, that probably doesnt warrant busting their arms, nose, knocking half their teeth out and breaking their neck. Someone coming at you with a gun or knife....deadly force is being used against you and you should be able to respond in similar fashion.

 

[jks9199]

There seems to be some confusion regarding the context of my question. I'm not really asking the question in the narrow context of working as a security officer I'm asking it more in the context of a defense against a very serious assault. That assault may happen during work as a security officer or it may happen outside of that context. The question really is do techniques that don't involve killing, maiming or knocking out an attacker who is engaged in a very serious assault against you (ie he is trying to kill, rape, or beat the holy crapola out of you or a combination of the two or more) work.

I think less drastic responses to such an attack than killing or maiming or knocking out an attacker might work in any given situation provided you are an expert, I'm certainly far from being an expert in any martial art. Thanks for your responses.

As I've said, you must be prepared to meet real violence real violently. However, being a human being and not a dumb brute, you can choose to lesser force. The danger is when, with insufficient skill and poor acceptance of the realities, you focus on using lesser force, and thus find yourself unprepared to escalate. If you start by looking for the submission, you'll probably find yourself submitting to their attack.

 

[jks9199]

All I have is a bachelor's myself & I just got it for promotion points in the Army, then I started applying with my fireteam & I got hooked. As for the duty to retreat laws; there isn't any in WV. We adapted a castle law which allows me to use whatever force I feel is justified if I am threated or assault, including lethal force. The only restriction is I can't be doing anything illegal at the time of the event for it to protected under the castle law...

A brawl in the bar parking lot isn't covered under the fact I'd be guilty of public intox, but by the same standard I have no duty to retreat in public. So if I'm attacked, for any reason I don't have to retreat more so a good lawyer can disprove the "duty to retreat" in public claim, since you have no where to retreat to. So in the hypothetical extention of the same situation; I'm sure I can make the arguement that with a person 100lbs heavier then me is a significant threat the my safety & having threaten my life left no where to retreat to; retreating to my car only leaves me "pinned" and unable to properly defend myself. The legal arguement is sound & just leaves me to convense a jury; which is why I don't bother with legal stuff because until your in a trial; legal defenses don't matter.

Which code section is that? Generally, in most states, it's not illegal for a person to give advice, only to give specific legal guidance and/or to create the impression that the advice giver is an attorney, or representing someone in court. Generally speaking, so long as I'm honest about what I tell you and my status, I can give you all the legal advice you want. And it'll be worth every penny you're not paying... But so long as you understand that, and I'm not going before the bar to represent you.

Unfortunately it is my personal experience that laws on the books don't matter, its the LEO's and Judge's interpetation of the law that counts. The LEO arrests you based their interpetiation of what they assume happened or is happening and the judge convicts you on what they assume occurred. Juries don't matter a great deal since the judge is responsible for administering jury instructions and a well doctumented case of where judges give misleading instructions based on laws. Now I am not saying all judges do this; but it is a well documented fact that many do...

If the local BJJ instructor who is also a local LEO teachs anything about the law to his students he is in violation of a specific WV code, which is a felony as only the first count, counts as a misdemeaner. I will tell people where to look up the codes themselves & I will advise them to see a lawyer. I can't afford to have a lawyer to come in to give a class & it simply is not my legal or moral responsibility to do so.

To take it even further, the legal system is broken when it comes to self-defense laws and in many cases staying alive means breaking the law. I've seen allot of SD guys teach according to what their local law where and handicap students (seen a lot of freezing here) because thay are given conflicting information; SD-wise you need to do "A", but legally you need to do "Z" and it causes the conflict that leads to freezing. Not one of my students have frozen or hesitated yet, because I don't give them conflicting information. I tell them using some techniques can send them to jail if they use them, but I also tell they have a choise a) take a chance on going to jail and b) take a chance on being crippled, maimed or killed.

Its a simple matter of priorities;
1. Immidiate Need: Staying alive...
2. Urgent Need: Staying unharmed...
3. Required Need: Food, Water, Shelter, Security & Medic needs
4. Social Need: Staying out of Jail/Legal Trouble, Paying Bills or Picking up Flowers for sposes birthday...

Staying alive can range from handing over your wallet to a mugger to letting go of your ego or to taking an attacker's life. In order to go to jail you need to stay alive to do that. I have no illusions about the law; its
a construct of a human mind with human goals & to be honest raises a society of cattle. You aren't concerned withpaying your bills while having to defend yourself or get flowers for your wife. So why hamper yourself, with worrying about legal issues; even if you obey the law and fullfill your "duty to retreat" you can still be charged. So trying to worry about something which won't matter until later on; because you have to have a bond hearing, intial apprearance, grand jury indictment before you even see trial. Legal defense don't matter until trial and have no effect on the LEO's investigation.

Again -- please cite the code section. I'd love to read it.

 

[KenpoTex]

Yes they do work. Let me put it to you this way. There are people who eat, sleep, breath and poop BJJ. Obviously that art consists of takedowns, controlling methods, chokes and locks. Many Military and LEO branches are training in it. There are BJJ schools all over the place. That being said, something must be working right. .

But lets not forget that the difference between a submission and a limb-destruction is often merely an issue of intent (i.e. the fraction of an inch that you don't crank the joint because you're not trying to break the guy).
Furthermore, that takedown or throw that may only take down or knock the wind out of a guy when performed on the mat is potentially fatal when executed on concrete or asphalt.

 

[MJS]

But lets not forget that the difference between a submission and a limb-destruction is often merely an issue of intent (i.e. the fraction of an inch that you don't crank the joint because you're not trying to break the guy).

Agreed. I was just commenting to what the OP was asking....if locks, holds, etc., are effective against a real aggressive person. I was simply pointing out the effectiveness, both standing and on the ground, of the things you'd find in BJJ.

Furthermore, that takedown or throw that may only take down or knock the wind out of a guy when performed on the mat is potentially fatal when executed on concrete or asphalt.

Agreed, and I'd be willing to bet that a good majority of people who do things like that, probably aren't thinking of that.

On a sidenote, if you havent already, take a look at that other thread in the Gen. SD area, that I started. I was gearing it towards some of the very things that we're discussing here.

 

[Draven]

Thanks for sharing more of WV law. It sounds as if we are actually closer to the same page than at first glance. The laws in MI are different. To my knowledge, unless you are posing as an attorney you aren't going to get in trouble for giving an opinion on a legal matter.

For me personally, I am also of the mindset that I am going to do what needs to be done, and then take appropriate steps after.

I can give an opinion but not advise its considered impersonation "preport to have the authority" to give legal advise. Opinion is how I feel, such as I can say I feel its wrong to have to retreat before defending yourself, your home or your family. I can't legally advise you defend yourself.

Its a slippery slope because its up to the court or PA to decide if the opinion was stated as advise.

Which code section is that?

Again -- please cite the code section. I'd love to read it.

I quoted them in the what you can/can't do thread for you... Even posted links.

 

[BLACK LION]

That is, when faced with an attacker who intends to do you serious bodily harm, are the only techniques that work in such a self defense emergency those that kill, maim or knock out your attacker? When an attacker is "keyed up" with adrenaline flowing through his body very fast do pain compliance techniques fail? In the case of someone who has suffered a lot of personal pain all his life through being abused all his life essentially immuned to a defense that merely causes pain? And in the case of somebody who is on serious drugs is that especially true?

That is the contention of a former self defense teacher of mine who is well regarded in the field. His resume is very impressive. In general, I've tended to go along with his arguements, as distasteful as I find them, as he seemed to know what he was doing, and his decades long teaching of law enforcement personnel seemed to indicate somebody who knew what he was talking about. Still, it is only one opinion, and in every field there are experts with differing opinions, differing interpretations.

My personal experience with serious self defense is very limited. I was attacked by somebody on serious drugs once and found solid kicks to the testicles didn't slow him down at all, he acted like he hadn't even been kicked. Of course a kick in the knee that broke his leg would have certainly worked, no matter if he felt any pain or not.

So the question, primarily to those who have been atttacked in a very serious way in a very serious self defense situation is whether or not there are alternative ways to defend yourself without killing, maiming or knocking out your attacker?

*****DISCLAIMER: When I say you, I mean everyone******

Without getting into the legalities or any contextual bs, I will regurgitate what has probably already been said...



Fight

Flight

Freeze

Those are your choices what you do is up to you. How you adress your threat is up to you because no one is going to be there to hold your hand.

The triple F's all equal one thing... FEAR. Its natural and its there for a reason...own it, hone it. If you are on the right path you will know when certain direct action is authorized and when it is not... when it is on, the legal system man created gets disconnected until a higher power is satisfied with my work.
If its your goal to be successful in violence then you better train that way... If you wish to force your will upon others so as to protect and preserve life, liberty and the freedom that is inherited by all living things at birth then you better have the means to combat the worst of the worst...

"The ends justify the means"... train this way and you should be without guilt. I used to train in a way that did noy imply ultimate force or debilitating injury. I wanted to be a good fighter and I didnt understand the dark underbelly of the earth we trudge on daily. I found myself caught up in numerous scuffles over absolute nonsense. Some of them I was blindsided by and unprepared for completely. I have been blessed to still be alive as some that I have known lost thier chance at life already. When I shifted mindset and focus on to the means that could actually save lives and the more my actions became decisive and insistent upon taking everything away from my opposition, wether it be life or limb...the more I drifted away from the assinine primal politics that plague us daily...wether it be the drunk, the stuopid driver, the persistent bum or what have you.

If you choose the path of a warrior, training to stop life or debilitate life is all part of the package so get over it. Be polite, be professional, have integrity and be of good character and most of all humility. No one can ask any more of you.
To kill a predator...you must be a better one and its not for everyone... if you are not willing to do violence on behalf of others then you have nothing to say or feel.
I dont care about tiddlywink spirit when it comes to protection...if you are not willing to stand side by side and diminish eveil lives so those that deserve thier skin and ticker can... then we have nothing to discuss in regards to anything relative to that subject.



End rant...

 

[BloodMoney]

If all you teach them is a hammer, then all problems look like a nail.

Awesome, love that quote man

 

[K-man]

Working in law enforcement/corrections for 13 years, as well as being a defensive tactics instructor for the department, most of what I see taught by MA instructors for self-defense is going to get their student arrested because the background is never given WHEN to use those tactics and everything is the worst case scenario.

This is really important information. Fortunately in Australia we don't have the problems and fears that the majority of US members seem to confront on a daily basis. However, I teach self defence. The first thing I tell my students is that if they damage anyone for any reason the chances are they will be charged by the police. The police don't really have a lot of discretion as any 'victim' can take action against anyone that has caused them harm. (A legacy of the US legal system, that has spread to Australia, of suing anyone with money for any conceivable reason) If they were successful the police would be given a hard time whether they were right in their assessment or not.
Once charged you then need to present you case of 'self defence' to the court. 'Reasonable' force and 'excessive' force will be examined by the court.
To make the claim that you would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six is, quite honestly, CRAP. We have special skills by virtue of our training but we also have the responsibility to avoid trouble if at all possible. If we can not avoid trouble we are entitled to use 'reasonable' force to ensure our safety or the safety of others. If you use excessive force, you are as bad as the assailant. You may well be given an all expenses paid holiday in one of the community institutions. And remember, as soon as the threat to you is removed, if you continue to damage you assailant you have moved from 'self defence' to 'retaliation'.

 

[girlbug2]

To make the claim that you would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six is, quite honestly, CRAP. We have special skills by virtue of our training but we also have the responsibility to avoid trouble if at all possible. If we can not avoid trouble we are entitled to use 'reasonable' force to ensure our safety or the safety of others. If you use excessive force, you are as bad as the assailant. You may well be given an all expenses paid holiday in one of the community institutions. And remember, as soon as the threat to you is removed, if you continue to damage you assailant you have moved from 'self defence' to 'retaliation'.

If I believe myself in danger of serious bodily harm, then any use of force automatically becomes reasonable. I disagree, legally and morally, that defending myself makes me "as bad as the assailant".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If I believe myself in danger of serious bodily harm, then any use of force automatically becomes reasonable. I disagree, legally and morally, that defending myself makes me "as bad as the assailant".

I won't comment on the morals, but you might have a look at California law regarding self-defense:

http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html#law

The general rule under California self-defense law is that you are only allowed to use enough force to combat the force being used against you.
However, if you have previously been threatened by your attacker, you are entitled to act more quickly and with more force than someone who has not been threatened.17 Deadly force, however, may only be justified if you are about to suffer great bodily injury or death and if there is no other alternative.

I'm not sure if there is a distinction between your statement of 'serious' bodily harm and 'great' bodily harm. Just FYI...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

There seem to be three ways of approaching these discussions for those without a law enforcement or legal background.

1: Layman with an emotional 'they hurt me/are going to hurt me, so I have every right to use as much force as I deem necessary in order to defend my life.

2: Layman with moral high ground-non violent: All such situations can be avoided and there is a nonviolent resolution to everything. People who end up needing to defend themselves are probably seeking out trouble. Use of excessive force makes you as bad as the assailant.

3: Layman addresses the issue based on common sense. 'we should defend ourselves within reason, but should the bad guy end up on the short end of the stick, well, he did attack me.'

All three of these are frequently countered with LEO or someone with a legal background who either tells people to check out the SD codes in their areas, or picks apart their statements, sometimes smugly, sometimes not, using their knowledge of the legal system.

The problem here is that most people are laymen and the legal system is convoluted and seemingly defies logic to the untrained. The legal system must also address things that the guy who is asking SD questions may never think of. Of those who respond on these threads, most of those fall into category two or three. The layman who relies on common sense is less likely to engage in these topics because they assume that they already have it figured out.

Category two and three people spend a goodly amount of time sparring with each other and occasionally with LEO/legal background posters. Category two and three also have vested interest in winning the debate, often to the point of either responding to unasked questions or responding with answers that come off more as sermons.

Another issue, such as in this thread, is that the initial OP often begins with a question about the practical effectiveness of a technique or group of techniques against an assailant. Legal and/or moral issues may or may not be part of the OP. While the legal opinions may be well intentioned, they sometimes do not answer the question being asked.

I will reiterate what Bill said about having a look at state law regarding self defense.

From a practical standpoint, be careful where you go and be alert. Don't go to stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things. Don't jump to save face in the light of every slight, real or perceived. Understand that the more you raise your voice, the more likely you are to agitate the person to whom you are raising it.

And if you find yourself in a hostile situation, accept that flight is probably a better option than fight and is definitely a better option than freeze. If fight is your only option, do what you are going to do quickly and once the attacker is no longer a threat, stop.

And for crying out loud, learn to assess the threat level and think about what your options in different scenarios are before you find yourself in the middle of it. Force is not the only answer, even if one can justify it legally. Just because one could does not necessarily mean that one should.

As far as what techniques you should use, could use, or should be training in, there are a million threads debating the answer. Generally, I recommend being very, very good at a few solid basics rather than trying to master special killing or maiming techniques that you cannot practically practice with a partner. Techniques that rely more on gross motor coordination that you can use durign adrenaline dump.

This post is long enough.

Daniel

 

[jks9199]

If I believe myself in danger of serious bodily harm, then any use of force automatically becomes reasonable. I disagree, legally and morally, that defending myself makes me "as bad as the assailant".

The line is crossed when you cease to be in danger, but continue the attack, or when you become excessive in your response. A full force punch from an adult in response to a 3 year old kicking them is not proportional; it'll get you in trouble. Shooting someone 50 yards away because they're insulting you is not proportional; you'll probably go to jail. Chasing after the person who attacked you as they run away in terror is initiating a new assault; you'll have problems explaining it.

 

[K-man]

If I believe myself in danger of serious bodily harm, then any use of force automatically becomes reasonable. I disagree, legally and morally, that defending myself makes me "as bad as the assailant".

I think you have taken my post out of context. However, I would like to look at your statement. If you reasonably believe yourself to be in danger of serious bodily harm, then the use of force automatically becomes reasonable. The use of any force, may or may not be reasonable depending on the circumstances. Reasonable force is sufficient force to remove the threat. Just that. You may feel morally entitled to belt the crap out of somebody for something they have done but if at the time you do it there is no threat, then legally you have no right and you are then "as bad as your assailant", legally and morally. :asian:

 

[BloodMoney]

Some good thoughts here, and sound advice. I think where in the world you live makes a bit of a difference too. In the States you can be sued and all sorts, where i live things are a bit simpler, and its generally the police that press assault charges against you not the the person you assaulted.

My personal stance is do what needs to be done to stop that person from hurting you. If that means stomping on his knee while hes down, so he cant get back up and continue fighting or chase me as I run away, then so be it. I dont care if hes'd KO'd, people wake up, im stomping. Difference is I wouldnt Bruce Lee style stomp on the guys head, ever. Just enough to end the fight, not their lives.

Over here theres often a gap between the system and the cops. Some cops literally laugh and think its awesome you kicked that guys **** (trust me ive seen it) while a judge would jail you for the same thing. Its a tricky situation. Personally I dont wait around for the law to show up, and I use as much force is necessary to GUARANTEE my safety, not only the bare minimum. People die from doing the bare minimum, I read the papers. I would rather be in prison for manslaughter than a cop telling my wife im dead any day of the week.

 

[Disco]

"So the question, primarily to those who have been attacked in a very serious way in a very serious self defense situation is whether or not there are alternative ways to defend yourself without killing, maiming or knocking out your attacker?"

Since you initially stipulated that the attacker could possibly be on chemical dependence (doesn't feel pain), then I will refer to an old saying when dealing with these types of attackers........."If he/she can't see, breathe or stand, then he/she can't fight"......................I don't have to kill, but maiming and knocking out will always be viable when dealing with a committed attacker, whom you realize wants to do you serious physical harm, that could lead to you being killed, maimed and/or knocked out.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That is, when faced with an attacker who intends to do you serious bodily harm, are the only techniques that work in such a self defense emergency those that kill, maim or knock out your attacker? When an attacker is "keyed up" with adrenaline flowing through his body very fast do pain compliance techniques fail? In the case of someone who has suffered a lot of personal pain all his life through being abused all his life essentially immuned to a defense that merely causes pain? And in the case of somebody who is on serious drugs is that especially true?

That is the contention of a former self defense teacher of mine who is well regarded in the field. His resume is very impressive. In general, I've tended to go along with his arguements, as distasteful as I find them, as he seemed to know what he was doing, and his decades long teaching of law enforcement personnel seemed to indicate somebody who knew what he was talking about. Still, it is only one opinion, and in every field there are experts with differing opinions, differing interpretations.

My personal experience with serious self defense is very limited. I was attacked by somebody on serious drugs once and found solid kicks to the testicles didn't slow him down at all, he acted like he hadn't even been kicked. Of course a kick in the knee that broke his leg would have certainly worked, no matter if he felt any pain or not.

So the question, primarily to those who have been atttacked in a very serious way in a very serious self defense situation is whether or not there are alternative ways to defend yourself without killing, maiming or knocking out your attacker?

I can say from personal experience that, against a motivated pain compliance techniques don't work. Many of the 'control' techniques we practice work best when we have physical superiority over the person we are attempting to control. When the subject is as stronger or stronger than us, and our skill level isn't vastly superior to theirs, those options don't work.

Now, the fact is that many or even most physical confrontations probably aren't truly motivated attackers. But if one finds themselves confronted by such an attacker, pain compliance techniques do not work. So one should be prepared to escalate accordingly. One should also avoid escalating unnecessarily when a lower level of force would suffice.