A few caveats:
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not providing any sort of legal advice or guidance. Each state's laws are different, and these laws may and must shape your actions. You should spend some time learning your state laws, as well as the general principles.
With those out of the way...
First -- let's recall that any time we use force to defend ourselves, we have to justify that force. We have to be able to show that we reasonably believed (I prefer this phrasing to fear; you don't have to fear something to realize it's about to happen.) that the person would inflict bodily harm on us. This belief has to be based on facts that a person of normal intelligence and experience would find believable and credible. If we react to an actual attack, whether or not we're successfully struck, this is pretty easy. After all -- they either hit or tried to hit us!
In this case I'd think that each case is going to be different. Defender A may feel that an attack will not happen, while Defender B may feel that it will 10 secs. after the altercation starts. Obviously in that case, that would probably fall into the pre-empt category. If the attack is actually launched, well, that should be obvious.
When we move into a preemptive strike -- things get harder. A preemptive strike occurs BEFORE the suspected attack has been fully initiated; you have to be able to show that the attack was about to happen, and that your direct intervention was reasonable and appropriate to the circumstances. This isn't really different for a cop or bouncer or similar person on duty and a private person; the "pros" just run into more situations where they are likely to be justified in acting preemptively. It's impossible to generate every possible situation, but some typical elements that support acting preemptively would include a verbalized intent to attack, coupled with the ability to carry out the attack. A guy so drunk that he can't sit, let alone stand, is not likely to be considered able to carry out even the most horrific of threats. It's going to have to be pretty imminent, likely to occur in the very near future. Just because he might attack someone, I can't go out right now and beat down the Sergeant-at-Arms for the local outlaw motorcycle gang; he's actually got to be getting ready to attack me or someone else. Most importantly, the force used has to be reasonable to the threat presented.
Yes, I can see how that can be the hard part..showing that it was about to happen. Then again, IMO, any aggressive action I feel would justify a pre-empt. Perhaps everyones idea of a pre-empt is different. I'm thinking things along the lines of...from hands up in a defensive posture, a quick palm to the face, a kick to the shin, or something along the lines of the SPEAR ala Tony Blauer. IMO, none of the mentioned things seem too over the top, compared to a punch, elbowing the guys head, etc. Then again, depending on the situation, our action may need to be raised.
The reasonableness of the level of force is a complicated calculus. It has to take into account factors about the victim, the assailant, and the total circumstances. Note that reasonable force does not mean "force exactly equal to that used to commit the attack." If someone pushes you, you're not necessarily limited to pushes to protect yourself, but you also are probably not justified in using lethal force. But you also aren't limited to saying "please, stop hurting me..." You can generally use sufficient force to stop the attack and prevent a further attack -- but you can't just keep thumping them after their down, and you can't chase them down as they run away from you.
Can't disagree with any of this.
It's not an easy thing to judge in the heat of the moment, and it's not easy for a jury to judge it after the fact -- if you've done the "second part" of your job well. That second part is articulating the facts and circumstances that led you to believe that you were going to be attacked. The whole issue of talking to the police or not has been discussed (see
here, for one of the more recent threads); I say that making enough of a statement to allow the responding officers to assess the circumstances may just save you a visit to the jail, but I respect the arguments of those who counsel you to say nothing without an attorney. And juries are notoriously unpredictable should you face one -- but the better you can paint that picture that you believed what you did was necessary to protect yourself, and the more effectively you can put those jurors in your shoes, the more likely that you'll have a desirable outcome.
Again -- it's important that, if you train with any sort of an eye towards self defense, you invest the time to learn the basic laws regarding defending yourself.
Hmmm..the old saying, "Think before you speak" comes to mind here.
Saying the wrong thing could jam you up.
