How far would you go?

[JBrainard]

I was reading the "most ruthless martial art" thread and something occured to me... Something that was said in many posts was to the effect of "being sure to not use more force than is needed so that I don't get in trouble with the law." That is a very interesting statement, if you think about it. So, I pose the question, if you or your loved ones were attacked and you had legitimate cause to defend yourself / loved ones, how much restraint would you have if you didn't have to worry about excessive force laws and civil suits?
I would like to think that I would always use only the amount of force needed to protect myself, family, and/or friends. But to be quite honest, if someone brutalized my 7 year old son, I would cross that line. I'm not trying to sound like a bad-***, I just know myself well enough to say that truthfully.
So, how far would you go? Honestly.

 

[terryl965]

JB I can only put it like this if anyone ever does anything to my family, I would spend the rest of my life in jail. I would absolutely do what ever was necessary to make sure the person could never weed aylight again. I am so tired of people saying we must show mercy to people trying to hurt us or our family members, I would love to see the law says if you are attack do what you must to defend yourself. The courts and civil right leaders do not look at the vitom point of view. Like I said I will be justified by GOD himself and he will have the final say whether or not it was wrong.

 

[searcher]

I would go as far as is needed. How far is that? I would go to the fullest of my abilities. Not to sound cleche' or use to many movie lines, but the character John Kreese in the Karate Kid had the best way to put it, A man confronts you on the street, he is the enemy and an enemy deserves no mercy. IMO, I would make them beg for death. Sounds kinda harsh, but you asked.

I don't think we can truly know until we are put in that situation, but it is a good thing to take a guess. Just make sure you can go through with it, if the time comes.

 

[just2kicku]

JB, like you I think of my two year old, although I can sit here and say I would do this or that, the truth is, I don't know. I know myself, and think with a great amount of certainty that they would only get one side of the story.....mine.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would and will defend my life and the lives of my family to the extent that I am capable of doing so. Issues of legality and civil liability have no place in such calculations. I would take no action that was not self-defense; once the threat no longer existed, I would cease any violence immediately.

People get into trouble because they do not understand what self-defense is, or they do not understand what the 'reasonable man' test for the use of deadly force is. They get into trouble because they do not understand that they must cease 'defending themselves' the moment they are no longer in danger.

Talk about 'making someone beg for their life' is exactly why this is so.

 

[blindsage]

It's a tough question. If the situation is immediate I would act with whatever force I found necessary to end it and extract myself and my child/wife/mother, whomever, safely. I may be more brutal than in a normal fight, since I would probably not feel any need to hold back, but I don't think I would take it to the point of torture or killing.

After the fact to me is moot. It's not immediate. At that point I'd be more interested in investing all my energy into the slow, difficult, painful recovery of the family member hurt. Trying to attack or hurt the person who did it wouldn't change any of that to me, no matter how viscerally angry I was.

 

[Drac]

Ya do what ya gotta do to protect your loved ones...I'd rather have an ugly trial than a beautiful funeral..

 

[Stac3y]

People get into trouble because they do not understand what self-defense is, or they do not understand what the 'reasonable man' test for the use of deadly force is. They get into trouble because they do not understand that they must cease 'defending themselves' the moment they are no longer in danger.

This is so true. Often, people don't know when to start defending themselves, either. To attack in "self defense" when one could easily retreat and get away from the threat can also get you in trouble. An example of this is the man in Louisiana who, when he saw a person he considered threatening on his property, left the relative safety of his home, pursued the person, and shot him dead. Despite Louisiana law being strongly biased toward a person's right to protect his property (rather than just his/his family's safety), the man was convicted of manslaughter and served time. Why? Because he could have easily locked his doors and called the police. The intruder was not an immediate threat; so the shooting was not considered self defense.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is so true. Often, people don't know when to start defending themselves, either. To attack in "self defense" when one could easily retreat and get away from the threat can also get you in trouble. An example of this is the man in Louisiana who, when he saw a person he considered threatening on his property, left the relative safety of his home, pursued the person, and shot him dead. Despite Louisiana law being strongly biased toward a person's right to protect his property (rather than just his/his family's safety), the man was convicted of manslaughter and served time. Why? Because he could have easily locked his doors and called the police. The intruder was not an immediate threat; so the shooting was not considered self defense.

Absolutely. There have been numerous cases where people have pursued their attackers after having forced them to break off the attack - and gotten into legal trouble for doing so. Laws on self-defense vary, but many of them share common principles - that the right to self-defense ends when the immediate threat ends.

In addition, some states have 'duty to retreat' requirements as part of their self-defense laws (this does not pertain to self-defense in the home, where there is almost never a duty to retreat under so-called 'castle' laws). Some states do not have 'duty to retreat,' they have instead 'stand your ground' laws. Some states incorporate immunity from civil prosecution as well when self-defense is legitimately used.

The smart citizen really should acquaint themselves with the self-defense laws in their area and make sure they understand them.

Self-defense is generally not the problem - the problem is generally not understanding what self-defense is and isn't.

 

[JBrainard]

Absolutely. There have been numerous cases where people have pursued their attackers after having forced them to break off the attack - and gotten into legal trouble for doing so. Laws on self-defense vary, but many of them share common principles - that the right to self-defense ends when the immediate threat ends.

In addition, some states have 'duty to retreat' requirements as part of their self-defense laws (this does not pertain to self-defense in the home, where there is almost never a duty to retreat under so-called 'castle' laws). Some states do not have 'duty to retreat,' they have instead 'stand your ground' laws. Some states incorporate immunity from civil prosecution as well when self-defense is legitimately used.

The smart citizen really should acquaint themselves with the self-defense laws in their area and make sure they understand them.

Self-defense is generally not the problem - the problem is generally not understanding what self-defense is and isn't.

Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.
This is all hypothetical, of course. What I'm driving at is that it's all fine and good for us to say we would do "only what is needed to end the threat." I'm just curious to see how many of us have really given thought to how they would react to such an emotionally charged situation (like the one I outlined above).

 

[Flying Crane]

Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.
This is all hypothetical, of course. What I'm driving at is that it's all fine and good for us to say we would do "only what is needed to end the threat." I'm just curious to see how many of us have really given thought to how they would react to such an emotionally charged situation (like the one I outlined above).

Hopefully you'd have the presence of mind to administer CPR/First Aid on the chance that she might still be alive. In that case, let the guy go.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.

It's an odd question - there are no such laws that I am aware of, so what would be the point of supposing?

However, it is true that in many (most?) states, it is legal for a citizen to use force to stop a fleeing felon when one has witnessed the felony being committed. In such states, you'd be justified in using force (perhaps deadly) to stop the person from escaping.

Even if there were no such law, if I knew my wife was deceased, I would take whatever action I could to stop the person from fleeing. I would not 'exact revenge' or 'administer justice,' I would stop them fleeing if possible. We live in a society of laws.

This is all hypothetical, of course. What I'm driving at is that it's all fine and good for us to say we would do "only what is needed to end the threat." I'm just curious to see how many of us have really given thought to how they would react to such an emotionally charged situation (like the one I outlined above).

I'm not Rambo, and life is not a movie. I would abide by the law.

 

[just2kicku]

Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.
This is all hypothetical, of course. What I'm driving at is that it's all fine and good for us to say we would do "only what is needed to end the threat." I'm just curious to see how many of us have really given thought to how they would react to such an emotionally charged situation (like the one I outlined above).

In a word....NO! I would not let them run, I would deal out my own brand of punishment. Even with the laws, I would still do the same. I would do everything in my power to make it as painful as I possibly could before putting them down.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In a word....NO! I would not let them run, I would deal out my own brand of punishment. Even with the laws, I would still do the same. I would do everything in my power to make it as painful as I possibly could before putting them down.

Why?

 

[Jaspthecat]

Once the opponent was down and out, I don't think I could continue attacking.

 

[searcher]

Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.
This is all hypothetical, of course. What I'm driving at is that it's all fine and good for us to say we would do "only what is needed to end the threat." I'm just curious to see how many of us have really given thought to how they would react to such an emotionally charged situation (like the one I outlined above).

During a different part of my life, I received training on how to hunt people. For me, I would not let them get to far. But if they did run, I would make sure it was not for long. Never underestimate the drive of a PO'd guy with a certain set of skills.

 

[Ronin74]

I would and will defend my life and the lives of my family to the extent that I am capable of doing so. Issues of legality and civil liability have no place in such calculations. I would take no action that was not self-defense; once the threat no longer existed, I would cease any violence immediately.

People get into trouble because they do not understand what self-defense is, or they do not understand what the 'reasonable man' test for the use of deadly force is. They get into trouble because they do not understand that they must cease 'defending themselves' the moment they are no longer in danger.

Talk about 'making someone beg for their life' is exactly why this is so.

Couldn't have said it better. As fine as the line may be, there's a difference between self-defense and going overboard. As far as knowing the difference, I think this is where our training and ethics are put to the test- not just how far to go, but also when enough is enough.

 

[Ronin74]

Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.

This is a tough one, because it's got the element of emotion tagged onto it, and you're adding the condition that laws and legal actions won't apply. I don't know how difficult it would be to show restraint in a situation where my loved ones were taken from me right before my eyes. I'm sure it would be next to impossible. However, from another person's perspective, what may be justice for one person can be seen as vengence by another. From that standpoint the question could be asked, was the person person acting in self-defense or were they giving into their emotion and satisfying an urge to "even things out" (i.e., that person killed my family, so it's only fair that I kill him/her)?

 

[jarrod]

Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.
This is all hypothetical, of course. What I'm driving at is that it's all fine and good for us to say we would do "only what is needed to end the threat." I'm just curious to see how many of us have really given thought to how they would react to such an emotionally charged situation (like the one I outlined above).

i would probably snap & do my best to run them down & kill them. it's not based on any sort of rationality, i just don't handle trauma very well sometimes.

jf

 

[MJS]

I was reading the "most ruthless martial art" thread and something occured to me... Something that was said in many posts was to the effect of "being sure to not use more force than is needed so that I don't get in trouble with the law." That is a very interesting statement, if you think about it. So, I pose the question, if you or your loved ones were attacked and you had legitimate cause to defend yourself / loved ones, how much restraint would you have if you didn't have to worry about excessive force laws and civil suits?
I would like to think that I would always use only the amount of force needed to protect myself, family, and/or friends. But to be quite honest, if someone brutalized my 7 year old son, I would cross that line. I'm not trying to sound like a bad-***, I just know myself well enough to say that truthfully.
So, how far would you go? Honestly.

IMO, I think it takes alot of self restraint to be able to stop yourself. I mean, the adrenaline is pumping, lots of stress, etc, and the guy goes down, and now you proceed to kick his ribs 10 more times.

Sad part is, is that even if we busted the guys nose, for trying to mug us, he could turn around and sue. Excuse me...but, this guy just tried to mug me, steal my personal belongings and now, because I defend myself, he sues me. I say screw him, he got what he deserved.

I know its not popular, but I still say, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. My life, well being, my family and personal belongings are much more important to me, than the well being of some dirtbag, trying to prove something or get cash for his next fix.

So, to answer the question, I'm going to do what is necessary to end the situation. If he's down, but starts to get up, and it requires me to use his ribs as a football, then so be it.

Of course, depending on time of day, witnesses, you may be able to just get the hell out of there. I'm walking to my car at 11pm, nobody in the area, etc., I just may get in the car and drive off. After all, if this dirtbag does in fact whip my ***, I'm sure he'd not think twice about leaving me, so whats good for one.....