Justified Force..?

[Draven]

I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.

To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.

Against an unarmed attacker?
An armed mugger?
A drunken/drugged out friend with a knife I intent to to harm you?

 

[K-man]

In most countries you can use whatever force is necessary to ensure your safety, or the safety of others. However, you must be sure that you do not use inappropriate or unnecessary force, or continue to use force when the threat is past. If the attacker is injured, regardless to who is in the right, you may in fact be charged with an offence. It is then up to the court to decide if your actions were justified.
In fact, most people using self defence are not charged, but keep in the back of your mind that that could happen. If it does, and the court is told of your martial art background, or that you have been charged before with a similar offence, then the court may not come out on your side if there is the hint of unreasonable force, even though the attacker was clearly the aggressor. :asian:

 

[Big Don]

The ideal seems to be to use enough force to protect one's self but, as little as possible.

 

[KenpoTex]

I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.

To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.

Against an unarmed attacker?
An armed mugger?
A drunken/drugged out friend with a knife I intent to to harm you?

In general, my opinion seems to be much like yours. Morally speaking, I feel that when one person sets out to victimize another--to violate their rights--they deserve whatever they get. If more of them got what they deserve, there'd be fewer of them to victimize the innocent.
Legally speaking "only enough to stop the threat...blah, blah, blah."

As far as the specific scenarios you mentioned, if they're armed it's a deadly force situation. I will respond in kind.
If they're unarmed, it depends on whether or not I feel that I can neutralize the threat with empty-hand techniques. If it turns out that I feel that I can't, due to a disparity of force (size, strength, numbers, etc.), then we're back to "whatever it takes" up to and including deadly force.

 

[TKDHomeSchooler]

In general, my opinion seems to be much like yours. Morally speaking, I feel that when one person sets out to victimize another--to violate their rights--they deserve whatever they get. If more of them got what they deserve, there'd be fewer of them to victimize the innocent.
Legally speaking "only enough to stop the threat...blah, blah, blah."

As far as the specific scenarios you mentioned, if they're armed it's a deadly force situation. I will respond in kind.
If they're unarmed, it depends on whether or not I feel that I can neutralize the threat with empty-hand techniques. If it turns out that I feel that I can't, due to a disparity of force (size, strength, numbers, etc.), then we're back to "whatever it takes" up to and including deadly force.

My thinking on this is inline with you KenpoTex.

We all have a right to be safe, you violate that right I will violate you. If I feel I can take you or at least change your mind on thinking I am a victim then I'll do it. If I have to convince you, or your group of friends, in a much stronger sense, so be it.

Occupational hazard is what it will be considered.

 

[Guardian]

Most states have laws that say minimal amount of force necessary to nuetralize the threat (now what is minimal is the question) especially depending on what the threat is.

I agree with the rest, I'm going to do what it takes to defend myself and basically go home afterwards.

 

[jks9199]

I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.

To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.

Against an unarmed attacker?
An armed mugger?
A drunken/drugged out friend with a knife I intent to to harm you?

If it's something that is already under litigation -- you might be wiser not to post about it. Or even hypotheticals that are close to it. Lawyers are looking on the web more and more, and something you say here could come back and bit you...

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If it's something that is already under litigation -- you might be wiser not to post about it. Or even hypotheticals that are close to it. Lawyers are looking on the web more and more, and something you say here could come back and bit you...

Sad but true, your own opinions will hang you in this suppossedly free country.

 

[celtic_crippler]

In the state of Georgia one is justified in using as much force against an attacker as is percieved as being used against them.

Of course, "percieved" leaves a lot of room for interpretation but I'm still more comfortable with our laws than those of many other states.

An LE buddy of mine was telling me how a fella got upset about getting his butt handed to him even though he didn't physically attack anyone. Fact was, he said (and was overheard saying) some pretty bad things to this fella's wife in public and so the fella rocked his jaw. Guess who my LE buddy cuffed and stuffed. It wasn't the fella that did the rocking, it was the fella that needed a lesson in manners.

I always endorse being familiar with your local and state laws regarding self defense and assualt and battery.

These laws are public record and there's no excuse not to be familiar with them beforehand.

Personally, I'm with you. I believe in personal responsibilty and accepting consequences for one's actions. If one freely chooses to commit unprovoked harm onto another then the negative repercussions are also freely chosen IMHO. It doesn't matter or not whether they were considered or not by the one causing harm. In short, you made your bed now lie in it.

 

[still learning]

Hello, If there are witness around...you must do your best to act like you do not want to fight! ..you are not esclations the situtions...

Must be innocent as possible to the people watching..!

Laws are to protect the criminals first ...NOT us! They can beat the "****" of you...get off with probations or very short jail time...to do it all over again..

If we go to jail we lose our jobs, get a criminal record for life! ...those bad guys do not care about themselves...they already HAVE no life!

Know the laws in your state..each is different...and in your own home...the situtions of the laws changes here too...Best to learn your rights first...

Every martial arts...teaches..."awareness and avoidness" ...many do NOT teach the art of verbal descalationals.....BEST learn on you own...for proper verbal langange and Body langanges!

Purpose of Maritial arts is self improvements, self confidentance...and learn to be smarter....avoidance and awareness...

If you can escape or walk awalk away ..without a fight? ...You win all the time..!

OFF course there will be a few times...ONE must fight back? ...learn the laws!

Aloha,

 

[MJS]

I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.

To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.

Against an unarmed attacker?
An armed mugger?
A drunken/drugged out friend with a knife I intent to to harm you?

KT pretty much echoed my thoughts. I dont look for trouble, I do my best to avoid it, and stay out of areas that tend to breed trouble. That being said, I also dont believe in being someones punching bag. So, to answer your questions:

Unarmed: Adapt to whats being presented at the moment. Responding with enough force to end the altercation. I will most likely not use a weapon offensively in this case.

Armed mugger: All bets are off. I'm not standing around, waiting to see what happens. In other words, instead of complying first and then if that fails, act, I'm going to act first. Way too many cases of the person complying and getting killed. As soon as the opportunity presents itself, I'm acting. A weapon is being used, so deadly force, if need be would be used.

Armed friend intending to hurt me: Same as the 2nd case, but if at all possible, I'd do my best to avoid the death of that person. Its very possible that were they not under the influence of something, the intent to kill me may not be there. However, that doesnt mean that I wouldn't hurt the person.

SD laws will vary from state to state, so IMHO, I think its best to be familiar with what you can/can't do. OTOH, I'm not going to bind myself to them, so much to the point that I get injured. Law or not, my safety and well being, as well as that of anyone with me, will not be comprimised. That is #1 in my book.

Hope that answered your questions.

Mike

 

[Draven]

Well my case is interesting in itself because WV has a Castle Docturine which says I have no duty to retreat in my home. I'll give you all the details at a later a date if I don't go to jail in January.

My interest is is based more on seeing a lot of crime & violent crime rising in statistics, yet laws seem to favor the criminal in use of force. Something I find both sad & amusing in a sick sort of way.

 

[DerekB]

Being a Canadian I have a much tighter guideline for what is selfdefence and how much force I can use too defend. When I was younger I delivered pizza for 5years, got me through college, let me tell you a very dangerous job. In that 5 years had 10 robbery attempts ranging from the stupid drunk too the serious intent on killing me type. Out of all 10 I was charged with assault and excessive force 7 times, all thrown out in court. The last guy even stabbed me from behind, I only hit him twice shattered both his wrist and jaw. If not for a witness I would have been in jail after hospital. Now I'm older wiser and practice Selfdefence techniques I have had less problems. Still have had too use force too defend myself or others, but according too the police "due force".
1 If attacker is empty handed I can't use a weapon unless there is a large size difference.
2 If attacker has a weapon, I can use as much force as it takes too disarm him and restrain.
These unfortunatly are the individual Leo's guidlines, and I will always fall back too the fact that I prefer too be tried by 12 then carried by6.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Most laws states you can use only enough force that they use on you?

Most laws protect the bad guys from getting more hurt from the good guys?

FBI stats...70% of crimes comes from repeat offenders.....and we know overcrowding and early release and paroles early ONLY MAKES THE MATTERS WORST!

Imagine all the innocent people murder,rape, etc...could have been prevented!

Only in America...criminals got it better...IN/OUT just like IN/OUT burgers...easy to order it!

Aloha,

Justified force? ....we are suppose to hold back excess force...YET to survivie..one must go all out!

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I'll stop hitting him once he stops moving.

 

[Tez3]

In this country we have 'reasonable' force not justified force. That makes it an easy one, reasonable is KOing an attacker, unreasonable is beating the whasit out of him while he's unconcious. Reasonable is shooting him to stop him, unreasonable is kneecapping him first. Reasonable is disarming him of his weapon, unreasonable is cutting his arms off. You get the idea.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In this country we have 'reasonable' force not justified force. That makes it an easy one, reasonable is KOing an attacker, unreasonable is beating the whasit out of him while he's unconcious. Reasonable is shooting him to stop him, unreasonable is kneecapping him first. Reasonable is disarming him of his weapon, unreasonable is cutting his arms off. You get the idea.

It's pretty much the same here. Some of these guys are talking out their zippers.

General rule on self-defense: That force which a reasonable and prudent man would feel is necessary to end the threat. There is no such thing as force-matching, 'justified force' or anything like that. I don't know where people come up with this stuff.

WikipediaSelf-defense

One is permitted to defend oneself. Once the threat is ended, then the right to use violence in self-defense ends as well.

Anyone interested in self-defense would be well-served to learn the law regarding self-defense in the state or country in which they live. Different states in the USA have different laws regarding concepts such as the 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Duty to Retreat' versus 'Stand Your Ground'. If a person does not know the law of their own state, and choses to engage in violence which they feel is self-defense, they're rolling the dice.

 

[Draven]

In this country we have 'reasonable' force not justified force. That makes it an easy one, reasonable is KOing an attacker, unreasonable is beating the whasit out of him while he's unconcious. Reasonable is shooting him to stop him, unreasonable is kneecapping him first. Reasonable is disarming him of his weapon, unreasonable is cutting his arms off. You get the idea.

Well you can call what you like, justified or reasonable force, I prefer justified since reasonable is based on what someone else (i.e. the courts find reasonable). Case law gets really scaetchy when this examined because in many cases, you can't defend yourself. They claim you have a duty to retreat under to pretext that LEOs will save you but its an established fact of law that LEOs & PDs have "no duty to protect individuals."

 

[Tez3]

Well you can call what you like, justified or reasonable force, I prefer justified since reasonable is based on what someone else (i.e. the courts find reasonable). Case law gets really scaetchy when this examined because in many cases, you can't defend yourself. They claim you have a duty to retreat under to pretext that LEOs will save you but its an established fact of law that LEOs & PDs have "no duty to protect individuals."

Well, I don't call it that, the law here calls it that and it works. No one has been done for using reasonable force in this country. Reasonable isn't hard to imagine to be honest and the police here understand that, it doesn't get to court. The police here would prefer you not to be involved, for your own safety only but it's understood that if the situation arise you have to defend yourself and you will to the best of your ability.
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

"Public Perception of Self-Defence

There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.



However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

• an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
• they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
• the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
• an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence"

"The law as it stands offers very wide protection to those individuals who use violence to protect themselves or others. Such is the protection that an act which could otherwise have constituted a very serious offence becomes lawful. Further, it is the stated intention of the CPS that individuals who act in this way should not even find themselves in court."

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, this may just be the mood I'm in right now, but this is just sad.

Draven, if you are getting into situations where you are in trouble with the law afterwards because you can't differentiate between what is and is not reasonable, you have real boundary and ego issues. You need to grow up. By the way, this is not just directed towards you, there are a number of others I have seen posting similar threads here and elsewhere, and it just really frustrates me. Listen to what Tez is saying, listen to what Bill is saying. They are steering you in the right direction.

If you need to ask what is reasonable, stop before you get there. If you can't get an idea of what it might be, then you have too much ego riding on the idea, and frankly will deserve whatever you get. Cold, I know. But hopefully it'll wake you up a bit. Too much ego will make you go into situations you don't need to. It'll make you stay when you should leave. It'll make you go overboard when you should stop. And it'll end up with you in jail, or worse. Drop the ego, and grow up. Then you won't have to worry about what the courts may think, as you will know that you were in the right.

Can't remember who said this, but "I'll stop hitting when they stop moving" is a classic example of this ego. It is either empty words (pride), or an indication of an immature mindset. Sorry guys, but it is.

Oh, and Bill, "talking out their zippers"? That has to be one of the most perfectly shaped phrases I have heard in a long time! I'm stealing it!