Is being a cop self defense

[drop bear]

Thats like saying that someone who takes a paintball to the eye and dies is somehow equivalent to an infantryman being killed by enemy fire.

What don't you understand. It's the risk of death due to the intentional use of force against another person we are talking about. Industrial accidents are a fallacious red herring.

Sport fighting with all sorts of rules and controls is still fighting. But it's not self-defense.

Someone outside of any controls/rules where a reasonable person believes their life or serious physical injury is in the offing is in a self-defense situation.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Police engage in self defence about as much as mma fighters.

Police arrest people. That is use of force but not self defence.
Arresting people with all sorts of rules and controls is fighting but not self defence.

 

[Tgace]

Arresting someone and wrestling them into cuffs and being beaten by an offender who is trying to take your gun are two different situations.

MMA competitors are engaging in sport.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Thats like saying that someone who takes a paintball to the eye and dies is somehow equivalent to an infantryman being killed by enemy fire.

What don't you understand. It's the risk of death due to the intentional use of force against another person we are talking about. Industrial accidents are a fallacious red herring.

Sport fighting with all sorts of rules and controls is still fighting. But it's not self-defense.

Someone outside of any controls/rules where a reasonable person believes their life or serious physical injury is in the offing is in a self-defense situation.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Just speaking for myself, it's not about equivalency. In fact, it's the opposite. Taking a paintball to the eye is a risk for someone who does that, but not a risk for someone who does not. And it's not at all equivalent to an infantryman who is in a combat zone. Which also isn't anything like a street level narcotics detective in Baltimore, MD. And that isn't anything like what me, a middle class, middle aged, Caucasian schlub will run into.

Conflating some of these things but not others is what makes no sense. There are always controls and rules. Some are more overt than others. And some risks are likely and others are not, and what is likely is relative to who you are and where you are. It's the tornado analogy. I live in Washington State. Preparing for a tornado makes no sense, but I have an earthquake kit, because the risk of one is non-existent, but the risk of the other is real.

And just to be clear, I said pages ago that I'm happy to agree for the sake of discussion that policing is self defense, in the hopes of moving beyond the posts above. I think the larger discussion is lost in the weeds of arbitrary distinction between sport, where there is violence and combat, and literally EVERYTHING ELSE in the known world that involves actual violence, potential violence, the threat of violence (real or imagined), defense in non-violent situations and any training that isn't sport, that addresses violence or soft skills that might possibly, maybe relate in some way to a violent encounter. And this includes literally every other possible context, from professional risk to personal risk, from non-lethal violence to homicide and everything in between.

As I said above, given this, what sense does it make to exclude anything at this point? Why not include self defense for surfers, who on exceedingly rare occasions find themselves attacked by sharks? It happens... maybe even .05% of the time.

 

[Tgace]

Actually Steve I would disagree with saying that "policing is self-defense". I would say that a cop can find him/herself is a self-defense situation.

Me pushing someone down and wrangling them into cuffs? Not self-defense.

Some guy ambushing me with a hatchet out of the blue as what happened in NYC? Self-Defense. Having a gun, OC, etc. doesn't really change that I'm defending myself from a braining. You could easily be armed with a gun, OC, cuffs too depending on your State laws.

Actually I think you and I are on pretty much the same page. Just being a Cop doesn't confer any sort of expertise in SD. Hell I know a few cops who's only use is issuing tickets and delivering court paperwork.

 

[Tgace]

And it's not at all equivalent to an infantryman who is in a combat zone. Which also isn't anything like a street level narcotics detective in Baltimore, MD. And that isn't anything like what me, a middle class, middle aged, Caucasian schlub will run into.

Certainly not. I agree.

But they (IMO) could ALL still be called self-defense depending on what situation we are discussing.

 

[Steve]

Actually I think you and I are on pretty much the same page. Just being a Cop doesn't confer any sort of expertise in SD. Hell I know a few cops who's only use is issuing tickets and delivering court paperwork.

I think we usually are pretty close to the same page. I believe it's because, much as I, you are a very reasonable person. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Tgace]

I think we usually are pretty close to the same page. I believe it's because, much as I, you are a very reasonable person. I could be wrong, though.

About yourself or me?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If I can find the thread, I'll post a link.

Please do. This would be great to discuss during classes and seminars. I have long believed that the real success of MA training is the list of secondary effects (confidence, etc.). I would expound on the thought more,but I don't want to hijack the thread.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why? The defining factor was risk. If we say. OK risk is not a factor. Then we can compare similarly of interpersonal violence.

So far risk is another convenient shifting goal post. We use it when we want and discount it when we want.

You are grossly (and purposely) over-generalizing terms. So let's go with that plan. ANYTHING that reduces your risk of injury or death falls under your new definition of self-defense. So now wearing sunscreen, putting on shoes, and going to the dentist are self-defense. So is not leaving your house, and avoiding hospitals (germs).

Feel better now?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Don't get me wrong. Take seriously whatever you'd like. But two things to consider. First, you say .5%... is that a real standard you have? What about something that is .05% likely (or even .005%)? Because, we don't know what the actual odds are. Second, and this is a big one for me, what if attention on that .5% chance of something actually distracts you from addressing something that is 5% likely, 25% likely or more? In the example of the training program put together in Canada to address sexual assault, some in that thread suggested that the training would be more effective if there was more physical self defense training in it. What if that isn't the case?

And please don't misunderstand. I mean it when I say that if it's serious to you, then it's serious. Train what makes sense for you. But, what makes sense? How much time should be spent preparing for something that is exceedingly unlikely to occur?

I think we are on the same page in agreeing that the amount of time we (as dedicated martial artists) spend training is completely out of proportion to the likelihood of most of us ever having to use it in a life-or-death situation. As you've said in previous threads, we can get more "bang for the buck" self-protection-wise with lifestyle choices, interpersonal skills, running track, etc, etc. Those of us who dedicate a significant portion of our lives to martial arts training and don't have a profession which involves regular exposure to violence are doing it because we love the art.

That said, I subscribe to the philosophy of "first do no harm." If I am teaching someone an art in the context of it being useful for self-defense, I don't want to introduce habits that would be counter-productive and possibly get them hurt if they ever do have to apply those skills to defend against a real assault. There are lots of skills and attributes that carry over usefully from sport to street settings, but there are important differences in the applicable tactics. I try to make sure my students understand the appropriate self-defense applications before they get too caught up in preparing for competition.

 

[Phobius]

You are grossly (and purposely) over-generalizing terms. So let's go with that plan. ANYTHING that reduces your risk of injury or death falls under your new definition of self-defense. So now wearing sunscreen, putting on shoes, and going to the dentist are self-defense. So is not leaving your house, and avoiding hospitals (germs).

Feel better now?

A good definition of self defense. There is a legal definition but I cant seem to find it however a more complex way to say it...

1.
the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant:
the art of self-defense.
2.
a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack:
He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
3.
an act or instance of defending or protecting one's own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.

Putting on sun lotion or working at a tuna factory but requesting better safety is not self defense. Self preservation and other terms but still not self defense.

 

[Steve]

Please do. This would be great to discuss during classes and seminars. I have long believed that the real success of MA training is the list of secondary effects (confidence, etc.). I would expound on the thought more,but I don't want to hijack the thread.

here's a link to the report.

MMS: Error

 

[drop bear]

You are grossly (and purposely) over-generalizing terms. So let's go with that plan. ANYTHING that reduces your risk of injury or death falls under your new definition of self-defense. So now wearing sunscreen, putting on shoes, and going to the dentist are self-defense. So is not leaving your house, and avoiding hospitals (germs).

Feel better now?

Yes. Because if we worked in specifics. Then you deliberately cherry pick self defence into what you consider important.

I dont really like this nebulous self defence concept anyway. We all just try to fight for ownership of a very vague term.

 

[Phobius]

Yes. Because if we worked in specifics. Then you deliberately cherry pick self defence into what you consider important.

I dont really like this nebulous self defence concept anyway. We all just try to fight for ownership of a very vague term.

Just to add, it is a legal term and very well defined. (although quite vague in terms of rights to defend property or ideas)

You are trying to change the term but no judge would grant you such a wish.

 

[drop bear]

Just to add, it is a legal term and very well defined. (although quite vague in terms of rights to defend property or ideas)

You are trying to change the term but no judge would grant you such a wish.

As a legal term. Self defence is fighting. It is a defence against assault.

This means if you have used awareness and deescalation to avoid a fight you are not doing self defence. Changing the term to suit the argument is a pretty consistent theme.

A cop when he uses force rarely does it under the umbrella of self defence. In general he is making an arrest.

 

[Tgace]

Why Officer Darren Wilson wasn't indicted

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

Police: officer shoots suspect in self-defense, suspect in critical condition

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

In my state self defense is defined as:

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person,

If I'm arresting someone for say...driving with their license suspended for failure to pay a traffic ticket...I have no right to use force on them initially. If they refuse to be co-operative I can use force to make the arrest. I can force them to the ground, pepper spray them etc. If they are just being resistive and not attacking me per se. I would not call it self defense.

If however, the person pulls a knife on me and attacks to prevent arrest. I have the legal right to SELF DEFENSE to defend myself from bodily injury...like anyone else. That force is not being used to effect the arrest at that point. It's being used to defend my life.

I am subject to the exact same law as anyone else. The ONLY legal difference I have from anyone else in this situation (regarding the use of force) is that if the person displays a knife but doesn't attack I have no "duty to retreat". I can still remain and use force (maybe not necessarily deadly force) to resolve the situation.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tonita Rervant]

Answer vary from time to time. Violence is not a good answer. But on the other hand, it is a good last solution. But if you see videos on internet, most of them are showing the cruel behavior.

I personally feels that people are responsible for their behavior. And try to cross the line between perfect confrontation and violence.

 

[Whitespace]

Personally I think being a cop is not self defense but rather doing your duty and when violence comes protecting yourself AND others.