How Far Are You Willing To Go?

[Sukerkin]

I also wonder for the more seasoned martial artists out there how much control do you actually have to not go a little too far?

It really does all depend on how surprised or tense you are (by 'tense' here I mean that alert state you are in when you are expecting trouble but don't know where from). If you've seen a situation building and are aware of the potential for for violence then you can gauge your response much more finely.

If someone grabs you out of the blue then there is a large degree of truth to the fact that why we train so hard is to drill things in below the level of conscious thought. You literally react on brain-stem reflex and your best hope of dialing it down is trying to stop the technique before it finishes e.g. open your fist, drop your shoulder, lift a foot, anything to take the power out of a strike.

 

[chinto]

yep, there is always some one out there that is better...... but if the threat realizes that he might just die trying it, they usually go looking for some one who is not willing to kill them if necessary and die before he quits. Most attackers on the street like muggers are bullies and do not want to face some one who will not only fight back but is willing to make them pay in blood and pain and possibly with their lives.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In another thread that was talking about self defense while inside of your car, the subject of using the car as a weapon came up. Another member commented on using a heavy car as a tool in your defense against a simple grab. So, that led me to this thread...

How far and how much force are you willing to use to defend yourself? Are you keeping the threat of a civil suit or jail time in the back of your mind? Do you worry about things like that after the fact?

Keep in mind, the nature of the attack for this discussion, can range from mild to wild. In other words, it could be a street person asking, persistantly for some spare cash to someone who follows you to your destination to confront you for cutting them off in traffic, to someone breaking into your home in the early hours of the AM, while you and your family are sleeping.

Looking forward to your replies!

Mike

Fortunately we in Missouri have saw fit to take control of out governments excesses and pass common sense 'enhanced castle doctrine' laws making our homes AND our vehicles sacrosanct from invasion, granting those defending themselves from attempted boarders justification for LETHAL FORCE in those instances where someone enters, attempts to enter or remains unlawfully in our home or our occupied vehicle! Moreover, it grants the lawfully user of such force virtual IMMUNITY from CIVIL LIABILITY as well!

 

[sgtmac_46]

You absolutely need to do what will be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

What was deemed reasonable will first be addressed by the responding officers, then the district attorney and probably finally a judge if it makes it that far. However, if you act reasonably based on the amount of force/threat coming at you then in general you will probably be viewed as using self defense in a legally permissable way. However, every situation is unique!

It's decided by the DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE HAND! And if we don't DIRECT our representatives properly we get the kind of society where those defending themselves are viewed as no different than those attempting to victimizing them in the first place.

A reasonable person sets out to adapting himself to the rules and settings of the world around him.......but i've never been a reasonable man! I believe we should shape our GOVERNMENT to fit OUR WORLDVIEW! That has been working throughout the US with CCW laws and enhanced castle doctrine laws being passed in numerous states!

 

[allenjp]

You absolutely need to do what will be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

What was deemed reasonable will first be addressed by the responding officers, then the district attorney and probably finally a judge if it makes it that far. However, if you act reasonably based on the amount of force/threat coming at you then in general you will probably be viewed as using self defense in a legally permissable way. However, every situation is unique!

And even more important every jury is unique...

 

[allenjp]

I don't generally think about the backlash of using force to stop someone. If I or someone I know is being threatened to the point where becoming physical is required then god have mercy on the poor bastard, because I know I won't. This doesn't mean I'm engaging a situation to kill someone or leave them crippled, but I will do what ever it takes to ensure my attacker is sorry for the fact they attempted and failed short of killing them.

IMHO sir, this is exactly the kind of attitude toward this that will PUT you in jail after an altercation, because the law in many places specifically requires that you have mercy after the threat has subsided. And the only thing that justifies using force is fear, and fear alone.

I sincerely hope that if you are ever in an altercation noone that is deciding your standing before the law reads this post...

 

[jks9199]

IMHO sir, this is exactly the kind of attitude toward this that will PUT you in jail after an altercation, because the law in many places specifically requires that you have mercy after the threat has subsided. And the only thing that justifies using force is fear, and fear alone.

I sincerely hope that if you are ever in an altercation noone that is deciding your standing before the law reads this post...

I wouldn't consider that a good phrasing. The law doesn't require you to show mercy; the law says that you may use no more force than is reasonably necessary, and that you cannot continue to use force once the threat is no longer present. That's not really the same as showing mercy.

Additionally, it's not "fear and fear alone" that justifies the use of force. I may feel no fear at all as someone sucker punches me -- but I'm still permitted to use force against the guy who did it! What's generally needed is the reasonable BELIEF that you are in imminent danger of attack or bodily harm. You generally need to show some form of intent (words, or actions) coupled with the ability to carry out that intent imminently. Subject to specific state laws, you may or may not need to show that you retreated; even if you do, often the "duty to retreat" is coupled with an assessment of how reasonable it is to retreat (or retreat further) in that situation.

 

[allenjp]

Fortunately we in Missouri have saw fit to take control of out governments excesses and pass common sense 'enhanced castle doctrine' laws making our homes AND our vehicles sacrosanct from invasion, granting those defending themselves from attempted boarders justification for LETHAL FORCE in those instances where someone enters, attempts to enter or remains unlawfully in our home or our occupied vehicle! Moreover, it grants the lawfully user of such force virtual IMMUNITY from CIVIL LIABILITY as well!

It is similar in California...not the taking control of the government thing, although for crying out loud I wish we could! I mean the fact that the whole legal dynamic changes once someone forcibly enters your house. Under California law, one whose house has been forcibly entered has the right to a presumption of reasonable fear that authorizes them to use deadly force. You don't even have to be attacked to shoot the guy if he has broken into your house. Now it might be a different situation if it can be shown that you repeatedly hit him in the head with a baseball bat while he was already down, but the presumption is there for the use of deadly force when someone has broken into your home. No such presumption exists otherwise.

 

[allenjp]

I wouldn't consider that a good phrasing. The law doesn't require you to show mercy; the law says that you may use no more force than is reasonably necessary, and that you cannot continue to use force once the threat is no longer present. That's not really the same as showing mercy.

What would you say is the difference between showing mercy, and desisting an attack? I know mercy can have a broader meaning than that, but I think the tone of his post clearly shows what hhis intent is...

 

[jks9199]

What would you say is the difference between showing mercy, and desisting an attack? I know mercy can have a broader meaning than that, but I think the tone of his post clearly shows what hhis intent is...

Mercy is really a proactive thing; showing mercy is not simply ceasing the attack, but rendering aid, for example. I'm not aware of any state requiring a person who has successfully defended themselves to then turn and try to help their assailant. So long as you don't turn you justified defense into a new assault -- you're free to watch them die, or to run away and get help for yourself.

 

[allenjp]

Mercy is really a proactive thing; showing mercy is not simply ceasing the attack, but rendering aid, for example. I'm not aware of any state requiring a person who has successfully defended themselves to then turn and try to help their assailant. So long as you don't turn you justified defense into a new assault -- you're free to watch them die, or to run away and get help for yourself.

See...this is precisely where it gets sticky. I admittedly don't know much about these laws in VA, but in CA it is precisely those type of actions (watching them die without calling for help) that will be used to argue that you had an offensive state of mind, and not a defensive one. Being that the defense laws hinge on your mental state, and fear is the only state which warrants violence, if you afterward take this type of action (lack of action is in fact action), most juries, at least in CA, are going to find it hard to believe that your actions were purely defensive. I am not saying this is how I think it should be, just that that is how it is. And believe me, I have been through enough trials (criminal and civil) to know what it is like.

Perhaps I worded my post poorly by saying the law specifically requires mercy, but it stops just short of that, at least in CA, which last time I checked has the largest population of any state in this great nation of ours.

 

[MJS]

See, IMO, no matter what we do, we're probably not going to look good in the eyes of any jury, because there is a very good chance that the people sitting on it will have zero knowledge of the arts.

This is why I feel that we really need to assess whats happening and respond in the proper fashion. As tempting as it may be to keep pounding on the guy after he's down, thats not the best option IMO. Is the threat over? Yes, then your actions should stop. If not, then continue in the proper fashion.

 

[wrc619]

One step farther than the aggressor. It is a product of military security training on top of martial arts training. Proactive, not reactive, and all that stuff.

 

[The Anarchist]

About 600 meters.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

It's the aggressor's responsibility to acknowledge that the person he's assaulting may think he's trying to kill him and respond with deadly force, part and parsel of being an oxygen thief, you wanna hurt people, you'll get hurt. My impression of fighting isn't the "step outside, mano-a-mano duel" which I avoid at all costs but rather the real times where you don't have a choice. I assume they're trying to kill me, I'll do the same to them. If the attacker gets killed it's because it works both ways. Try telling a cop that you didn't know the rules or see a sign when he writes you up for speeding. Same thing in the streets. Life and death. I have no sympathy for an aggressor laid down by karma.

 

[lemon_meringue]

I honestly have no idea, because I have never been in such a situation (thank God). I'd like to think that I would do whatever it takes to get out alive, but unless you are actually in that situation, you can't really know how you would react. There are so many factors to take into account, and I think "fear" would be a major one. It depends entirely on how much fear you feel and how high you perceive the threat level to be.

 

[shihansmurf]

I am, on a personal level, willing to use any degree of force that I have to in order to survive violent encounter. I am of the opinion that the moment a person places my safety or the safety of my family in jeopardy they have forfeited their rights. I am ethically comfortable with using deadly force to protect my family, home, or self.

Mark

 

[Jdokan]

I am, on a personal level, willing to use any degree of force that I have to in order to survive violent encounter. I am of the opinion that the moment a person places my safety or the safety of my family in jeopardy they have forfeited their rights. I am ethically comfortable with using deadly force to protect my family, home, or self.

Mark

I like this guy already & I don't even know him....Kudo's to those willing to do/accept whatever it takes to protect their family...I think too often too many expect others (Police, etc) to do what we have inherently bred into us......

 

[sgtmac_46]

First order of business....SURVIVE PHYSICALLY!

All else is secondary to that.

Now, once you've survived physically, then you should turn strong attention to surviving legally, both criminally and civilly.....but to even CONSIDER any of that WHILE fighting for your life is likely to bring the kind of hesitation that gets you hurt or killed......I know that kind of fear of criminal and civil liability has gotten a few cops hurt and killed....caused them to second guess their training because they were more afraid of getting sued or prosecuted, than the guy trying to harm them.

Most folks don't fail to defend themselves out of fear of the other person.....they do it because they are taught not to fight because they might 'get in trouble'.