How Do You Define "Self Defense?"

[MJS]

As a spin off to my "How do you define martial arts?" thread in the GMA section, the mention of SD came up in that thread, so rather than side track it, I thought I'd start a new thread.

So, how do you define self defense?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I define it rather strictly as 'defense of the physical self.' My life, my physical well-being.

Not for my family or loved ones. Yes, I'd fight to defend them, but that's not self-defense. Not for my community or county. Not for my morals or values. Not for my pride. Not because "I should not have to put up with" whatever it is I am being asked to do. I might fight for any of those reasons, but I do not define them as self-defense.

I think people get wrapped around the axle when discussing those topics. Mention that you'd give up your wallet if you thought it was the best way to avoid being killed in a confrontation, and you're a coward who wants to see society go to the dogs and thinks it would be nifty keen if your children were murdered before your eyes. You love murderers and probably want to die a victim. It's nothing of the kind.

To me, self-defense means every component that goes into keeping myself safe, alive, and reasonably intact. It means staying out of places I know to be risky unless I have some overwhelming reason to be there. And "I should be able to walk down any street I want in America" is not a good enough reason.

It means martial arts training. It means thinking strategically. It means planning. It means evaluating options quickly and executing quickly without regard to my ego. Yes, I'm a big old yellow-bellied coward commie no good rotten punk if I hand over my wallet to a guy with a knife instead of executing my ninja stealthy upside-down spinning backwards double eye-gouge on him. Yes, I realize it means I really want the world to come to an end as the criminals take over. Yes, I realize he'll probably kill me anyway. And blah, blah, blah, blah (for those about to recite the usual litany of anger-management issues, not you MJS).

But in fact, most who rob do not kill; they rob and go. Statistics are on my side, and yeah, I've done my homework. Despite what the 'common wisdom' says about armed robbers, the facts are that they mostly do not kill their victims. Of course I am not going to blindly put my faith in what statistics say; I will engage my eyes, ears, and brain; if I *do* think I'm going to be killed anyway after turning over my wallet, then I'm going to choose some other response.

Run away, Avoid bad areas, keep my wits about me, don't go into bars, don't get intoxicated in public, avoid ostentatious displays of wealth (like I had any), comply with demands, make noise, carry a firearm, use physical force, these are all options and methods of self-defense. Don't chase down criminals, don't try to be a hero, be a good witness, have a cell phone. Have a plan.

It means I like staying on the topside of the grass, and I like my blood where it is. Whatever I have to do to keep that happening, I'll do. If the circumstances favor fleeing, I'll do that. If the circumstances favor complying with demands, then bye-bye to my wallet. If the circumstances favor physical violence, then I'm going to give it all I've got.

I am reminded of a coworker a couple years ago who got into a fight in a bar parking lot. He and the guy exchanged words, and punches were thrown. He fell down and hit his head on a parking divider. That's it, he died.

I will not die like that if I can help it. Not for my money, not for my honor, not because someone looked at me funny, not because someone said something nasty about my family tree or my wife, not even because someone demanded my wallet. Screw that noise, I want to live. My family depends on me, I have responsibilities that are way more important than my buddies telling my widow at my funeral that "at least he went down fighting," while she can't pay the rent or buy food. Coward? Yellow? You bet. Alive, that's what matters. That is self-defense.

 

[Noah_Legel]

My best definition of "self defense" is this:

Prevention/mitigation/cessation of immediate harm (physical, psychological or emotional) being inflicted upon you.

I feel that this is generally a sufficient definition and covers all aspects of self defense through its vagueness. I think Bill summed up what it can consist of fairly well:

...snip

It means martial arts training. It means thinking strategically. It means planning. It means evaluating options quickly and executing quickly without regard to my ego.

...snip

Run away, Avoid bad areas, keep my wits about me, don't go into bars, don't get intoxicated in public, avoid ostentatious displays of wealth (like I had any), comply with demands, make noise, carry a firearm, use physical force, these are all options and methods of self-defense. Don't chase down criminals, don't try to be a hero, be a good witness, have a cell phone. Have a plan.

...snip

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Self-defense is the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones (or another person) from an attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

 

[Steve]

Self defense is everything you do to avoid physical altercation. If you're fighting with someone, you have fundamentally failed at self defense.

 

[Big Don]

The use of force to defend myself, my property, or another person.

 

[puunui]

I define it rather strictly as 'defense of the physical self.' My life, my physical well-being. Not for my family or loved ones. Yes, I'd fight to defend them, but that's not self-defense.

What would defense of your family or loved ones be considered then and how does that differentiation change what you would do if they were being physically attacked? Is there a separate standard for self defense and the defense of others from your point of view?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What would defense of your family or loved ones be considered then and how does that differentiation change what you would do if they were being physically attacked? Is there a separate standard for self defense and the defense of others from your point of view?

First, the term is 'self' defense. Self means self. My wife is not my 'self', and neither is my house or my wallet.

This is not just a term or art. Consider that self-defense laws are constructed with the person's defense of self in mind.

Second, I believe that defending others - whether it is one's family, one's property, or other people - is a different proposition, requiring different responses. As a simple example, if I am defending my own life, I do not have to consider what happens if I respond with violence and I am killed. My life does not exist beyond that point. However, if I am defending my wife, and I am killed, she is (presumably) still in danger, and now I can do nothing to protect her because I am dead. Likewise, I may choose to run away away from an attacker if alone, but if I am with someone who cannot run, then my response will be necessarily different.

The term, 'self-defense' is explicit. Defense of the self. There is nothing else it describes. What would I call defense of others? Defense of others, I guess. Not trying to be cute; I don't think there is a specific term for it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What would defense of your family or loved ones be considered then and how does that differentiation change what you would do if they were being physically attacked? Is there a separate standard for self defense and the defense of others from your point of view?

Addendum: I would also like to point out that by conflating 'self' defense with defense of one's property or defense of other people, it often causes disagreement between people discussing appropriate responses to threats or danger, because they are operating with different modalities. If my concept of 'self-defense' is different than yours, my thoughts about appropriate responses are going to be very different as well. In order to have the discussion, one must first agree on what is meant by the terms themselves, in my opinion.

 

[JohnEdward]

My definition of self-defense is flexible, it is dictated by the laws of state that am in. That is my personal definition.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My definition of self-defense is flexible, it is dictated by the laws of state that am in. That is my personal definition.

Technically, that's metadata. You are describing information about your definition, but not the definition itself. You're telling us that you have different definitions of self-defense but not what they are.

 

[JohnEdward]

Oh, am sorry, thank you Bill for letting me know. I appreciate that. Personally, then maybe I don't have a personal definition. I am subjected to the law of the land in which I am present. In most places there is a core definition of self defense that is basic and universal. But the law dictates to what extent that will be, what you and can't do, in terms of what is justifiable self defense. My personal definition must fit in with the law. If some one slaps me, am not going to shoot them. I am going to act in kind or less in return. Not every where you go has the same law for defending yourself, but the core definition is pretty much universally the same, to protect one's self against a threat or attack.

 

[puunui]

The term, 'self-defense' is explicit. Defense of the self. There is nothing else it describes. What would I call defense of others? Defense of others, I guess. Not trying to be cute; I don't think there is a specific term for it.

I used the term "defense of others" because it is a specific term. For one thing, you have no duty to act is someone else is in danger or peril. You are on the beach and see someone drowning in the water. Unless you are the lifeguard, you have no duty to try and save him/her, and you cannot get sued or arrested for failing to save him/her if you did nothing. So the standard is different for self defense and defense of others.

 

[MJS]

I view SD as not only the physical techniques but also the common sense things, such as how to verbally defuse something, as well as awareness. If you can see potential trouble, and allow yourself to not be there, you've won without having to fight.

 

[UKS]

For me SD is protecting myself, my property and my family.

 

[MJS]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2011/06/man_shot_after_telling_robber.html

Rich Parsons posted this on his FB.

FLINT, Michigan —

A man was shot Sunday night after having only change to offer a robber, according to a police report.

The man told police he was leaving a store at East Flint Park Boulevard near King Avenue about 11 p.m. when he was approached by a man demanding money.

When the victim told the suspect he only had some change, the robber pulled out a revolver and shot him in the thigh, according to the report.

The suspect ran northeast and a witness transported the victim to an emergency room, where the man was listed in good condition, according to the report.

Could this guy have been shot somewhere else? Sure. Could this guy, if nobody was around to help him or if he wasn't able to drive himself, die from his shot to the leg, if he started losing alot of blood? Sure. That being said, my view will continue to remain the same....for myself, I'd rather not wait to see whether or not the guy is going to simply intimidate me with the weapon, actually follow thru and shoot/stab, shoot me in the leg or the chest...if I have the potential to get really hurt or worse, I may as well go out with a fight.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2011/06/man_shot_after_telling_robber.html

Rich Parsons posted this on his FB.



Could this guy have been shot somewhere else? Sure. Could this guy, if nobody was around to help him or if he wasn't able to drive himself, die from his shot to the leg, if he started losing alot of blood? Sure. That being said, my view will continue to remain the same....for myself, I'd rather not wait to see whether or not the guy is going to simply intimidate me with the weapon, actually follow thru and shoot/stab, shoot me in the leg or the chest...if I have the potential to get really hurt or worse, I may as well go out with a fight.

That's a personal choice. I can't say you'd be right or wrong to make that decision. What I do say is that every situation is different, and for me, the definition of self-defense is to defend my own life. If I were confronted in the same manner as the story above, I cannot say I would definitely do this or definitely do that. I can say I would act in the interest of preserving my own life, *not* in making unwarranted assumptions about what was about to happen next.

Choices are not guarantees. People make their choices and don't know what the consequences will be until they happen. I could decide to run, and the guy runs faster than me. I could decide to give up my property and the guy stabs me anyway (as he did in the story). I could decide to fight and perhaps win or run off the bad guy. No one knows what will happen until it happens.

I do know this - the moment I engage in violence, the chances that I will be injured or killed go up. Period. That's not a personal belief, that's simple fact.

It is also a fact that once I begin to engage in violence as a response, the chances that I will be able to disengage and simply give up my property or run away are pretty much eliminated. I am committed to a course of action with little chance of changing my mind.

However, if I run, or if I turn over my property, I am not eliminating the possibility of fighting. I could hand over my property, become convinced that I was going to be assaulted anyway, and fight based on that new belief.

So given that fact, I have to decide if I have a better chance to survive by fighting or by complying or by choosing some other response.

No confrontation is a set-piece battle. No one is locked into their choices, but once a violent response is engaged, it is very hard to de-escalate and choose another option. Having chosen a non-violent response, one is not locked out of choosing violence as another response if conditions change.

I don't like making statements like "I would always attack if confronted." It eliminates other options that might better serve the concept of 'self-defense'. Every situation is different.

If you want to point at news articles about other situations to try to use as a catch-all, I have a number of links to recent news stories of victims who fought back and were killed or seriously injured. Would they have been killed or injured anyway if they had not fought back? We don't know. No one knows. I therefore don't bet my life on what happens to other people. If I wanted to play statistics, the statistics are that most muggers do NOT stab or kill anyone. Those are actually the odds if you want to play odds instead of keeping your options open.

 

[MJS]

That's a personal choice. I can't say you'd be right or wrong to make that decision. What I do say is that every situation is different, and for me, the definition of self-defense is to defend my own life. If I were confronted in the same manner as the story above, I cannot say I would definitely do this or definitely do that. I can say I would act in the interest of preserving my own life, *not* in making unwarranted assumptions about what was about to happen next.

Choices are not guarantees. People make their choices and don't know what the consequences will be until they happen. I could decide to run, and the guy runs faster than me. I could decide to give up my property and the guy stabs me anyway (as he did in the story). I could decide to fight and perhaps win or run off the bad guy. No one knows what will happen until it happens.

I do know this - the moment I engage in violence, the chances that I will be injured or killed go up. Period. That's not a personal belief, that's simple fact.

It is also a fact that once I begin to engage in violence as a response, the chances that I will be able to disengage and simply give up my property or run away are pretty much eliminated. I am committed to a course of action with little chance of changing my mind.

However, if I run, or if I turn over my property, I am not eliminating the possibility of fighting. I could hand over my property, become convinced that I was going to be assaulted anyway, and fight based on that new belief.

So given that fact, I have to decide if I have a better chance to survive by fighting or by complying or by choosing some other response.

No confrontation is a set-piece battle. No one is locked into their choices, but once a violent response is engaged, it is very hard to de-escalate and choose another option. Having chosen a non-violent response, one is not locked out of choosing violence as another response if conditions change.

I don't like making statements like "I would always attack if confronted." It eliminates other options that might better serve the concept of 'self-defense'. Every situation is different.

If you want to point at news articles about other situations to try to use as a catch-all, I have a number of links to recent news stories of victims who fought back and were killed or seriously injured. Would they have been killed or injured anyway if they had not fought back? We don't know. No one knows. I therefore don't bet my life on what happens to other people. If I wanted to play statistics, the statistics are that most muggers do NOT stab or kill anyone. Those are actually the odds if you want to play odds instead of keeping your options open.

I'm not from MI, so I have no idea whether or not that area is good, bad or anything else. I can say that upon initial read, I'd say its not a great area...again, I dont know. Unless a dire emergency, I try not to make a 'pitstop' anywhere, at that hour. Paranoid? Not at all. In fact, I have stopped for gas after I've gotten out of work, at midnight. But yeah, at that hour, I'm always looking over my shoulder.

One of the reasons I'm not fond of stats, is because personally, I dont find them reliable. To use martial arts as an example: We always hear people talk about 'high percentage' moves. Ok, high percentage to who? Me? You? 10 other people, of various shapes, sizes, althletic ability? So whats HP to Rocye Gracie, may not be HP to me. A Kenpo tech. that my teacher can pull off in his sleep, he will probably consider HP, whereas I may opt for something else.

You are right...I could hand over my cash, and this could be nothing more than a bad memory. I could hand it over and as he's walking away, he could turn around and shoot me. We could what if this all day.

An instructor that I used to train with, used to have a saying: "If you wait too long, you wait wrong." He'd say this most often, during sparring. If you see an opening, take it because that opening may not present itself again. IMO, the best time to act, is when the badguys attention is on something else. He's expecting to see movement, while I'm reaching to give him my cash, keys, etc. Once he has it, any other suddenm unexpected movement, will probably result in nothing good happening.

The simple fact that I dont walk around with hundreds in my pocket, could very well, be enough to piss this guy off, when he only gets $5, such as we saw with this article, and that was only change.

Personally, these are stories that I like to read about.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/New-Haven-police-say-mugging-target-s-gun-trumped-464244.php

 

[tshadowchaser]

Self defense to me starts with awareness: of your surroundings, the community you live in, of those in your immediate vicinity. Possibly talking your way out of a situation,and knowing when to shut up and walk away. After those it becomes a matter of protecting myself from harm.
Two short stories of self defense:
1. I was walking to work one day when two young men on bicycles road by then stopped, got off there bikes and approached me. They demanded that I hand over my back packs to them. I refused and a game of words ensued with threats by them being made. All was resolved when a police car came into sight and the two young men departed.
That night on the way home I stopped at a local convenience store and spoke to a person there known to run meth runners in the area. I explained to him the incident and described the young men. I also told him I would not relinquish my property and that someone would go to the hospital or worse if they pulled weapons on me. He was polite and said he perhaps knew the two men and would speak with them.
The next morning they once again went by me on their bikes, stopped and took a couple of steps towards me. They then held each held up one hand in a show of not wanting a confrontation and said they apologized for the misunderstanding the day before and wished me a good day. After which they got on their bikes and went on their way.

1. On another day I was walking to work and I saw a young man walking my way, by the way he was walking and dressed I knew he was a local gang member. As we came within talking distance I said good morning. He did a double take, looked momentarily confused then smiled and said good morning.
   As I went home that night he was setting on a door step with some friends. Before I even got within speaking distance one of his companions started off the steps with malice in his eyes and face. The man I had spoke to in the morning grabbed the others arm said something I could not hear and then smiled in my direction. The 2nd youth sat back down and just nodded. I waved and nodded my head and continued on my way and never had any trouble in that area again.

Now in the first instance speaking to someone who knew me and who had some control of those in the meth dealing area saved me a possible combat situation
In the 2nd being polite and friendly to someone looking for trouble gave me save passage in a neighborhood that was at war (shooting each other) with those outside of their group.


Self defense dose not always mean combat sometimes it just means being intelligent and/ or maybe asking for help with a situation that may occur. Defending one self from harm is also self defense.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

One of the reasons I'm not fond of stats, is because personally, I dont find them reliable. http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/New-Haven-police-say-mugging-target-s-gun-trumped-464244.php

Like them or not, you use them. We all do. And of course, statistics are accurate applied to the aggregate, not to the individual. That's why insurance companies can accurately predict their financial exposure to a given liability, but can't tell you if *you* personally will be in a car accident or contract a disease.

However, the fact that they are accurate in the aggregate is a basis point that can be used to reach a logical conclusion. I am not saying it is the only factor; else I'd be arguing with a guy as he stabbed me that "The odds say you should not be doing this." I don't suggest slavishly paying attention to statistics and not the actual situation you find yourself in.

But you use statistics, as I said. You are making an evaluation that includes what you think your chances are in any given situation. Oops, late for an exit ramp on the highway. Too late to go for it across several lanes of traffic? What are the chances a cop sees you? What are the chances someone is in your blind spot? You make your decision and you act on it. But yes, you're using statistics - your own internal statistics.

The main difference is that your internal statistics are based on your experiences and your anecdotal information. Everybody knows bad news comes in threes. Except it doesn't, not statistically. If you decide it's true and order your life by it, well, that's up to you. Now shift that to self-defense. If you decide that every confrontation is liable to end in you being attacked no matter what response you use, so you "might as well go down swinging," (as Rich said) you may find yourself responding to a non-life threatening event in a way that now ensures it is a life-threatening event.

All I'm saying is that the moment you decide to respond with violence, you have moved the confrontation to a new level of risk, one which you may not have needed to do. You may have lowered your personal risk somewhat by 'getting the jump' on the BG. But you have pretty much eliminated the possibility that you're going to emerge unscathed.

I contend that such absolutist logic is not very good logic. Sure, it's your choice, and you may well be right - attack first, attack hard, and don't even bother thinking there might be less risky options and you may come out on top. But you might not be right also.

Self-defense means (to me) that my first responsibility is to myself. I use the information available to me to make a decision when necessary. Pre-determined responses are good for the military, but are not overly conducive to personal survival, IMHO.