Okay then we have differing perspectives of SD.
No. Not differing perspectives. You are applying a definition that is inapplicable.
I include the military and any other group like law enforcement within SD. If you're defending lives by taking the lives of bad guys who would prey on the innocent? That's self-defense to me.Because those bad guys will either come for you first or the people whom you love and/or are sworn to protect.
This is common defense and maintaining peace, not self defense. That is the function that the military and law enforcement perform.
Taking down a serial killer,a robber,a rapist,a guy that jumped bail,a internationally wanted terrorist,and the neighborhood bully are ALL SD to me...just one is CIVILIAN SD and the other is MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SD.
What you are talking about is not self defense. You are talking about arrest and incarceration of a felon. If the serial killer/robber/rapist/guy that jumped bail/internationally wanted terrorist or neighborhood bully attack the officer in question in the process, then the officer is
also defending him or herself at the time. But the act of going after the serial killer is not self defense.
Nor is the apprehension of internationally wanted terrorists by coordinated military action.
Self defense, by definition, is defense of one's self. Legally, this extends to include defense of property or of another person. Another term for self defense is private defense. By its nature, self defense is personal in nature. I defend myself, my family or my property. If I come to the direct aid of another person, I am now in harm's way and am really defending myself at that point.
But SD is SD.To me? The unspoken,tacit agreement regarding SD and martial training is that you're defending your life and/or the lives of others honorably using martial techniques.I think your definition is more exclusive to civilian SD,and therefore I understand where you're coming from.I hope that you now have a better understanding of my perspective now.
My definition is not the issue, as it is not my definition.
The reason that we differ has nothing to do with civilian vs. military/LEO. Honor and martial arts techniques have nothing to do with it either. If I decide to go to a crack house and start kicking the crap out of the crack dealer and he fights back without having had any training, he's still acting in self defense.
The reason that we differ is because you have made up your own definition.
The actual definition is not mine and is as follows:
Merriam-Webster said:
Definition of SELF-DEFENSE
1
: a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide
2
: the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative
If you disagree, take it up with these folks:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self defense
If you wish to debate the matter further? Fine with me too.
There is nothing to debate. Your definition is simply incorrect. Romantic perhaps, but incorrect. There are other terms for the things that you describe.
And comparing Mark Lopez' taekwondo skills to the specialized skills of anti terrorism units makes no sense.
If you feel that it does, then fine
. I have no personal investment in how you choose to re-purpose terms with established meanings for your own use.
My point was simply that your analogy is inapplicable. Mark Lopez doesn't go "smashing terrorists" for the same reason that firemen don't chase down suspects in a homicide: they are neither qualified nor have the tools needed to do so.
Daniel