Someone fatally injures my wife in front of me, and there is a way that I can go after them...HELL YEAH, I'm going after them. And when I get them, I'm probably going to beat the **** out of them too! Duty to retreat or not, I dont care. I'd like to pose that same question to the judge and jury and lawyer for the dirtbag, that if they were in the same situation, that they would do the same thing, and they'd be lying if they said otherwise.
How far would you go?
- Thread starter JBrainard
- Start date
Someone fatally injures my wife in front of me, and there is a way that I can go after them...HELL YEAH, I'm going after them. And when I get them, I'm probably going to beat the **** out of them too! Duty to retreat or not, I dont care. I'd like to pose that same question to the judge and jury and lawyer for the dirtbag, that if they were in the same situation, that they would do the same thing, and they'd be lying if they said otherwise.
I think this is where French law has the best of it, it allows that people act under emotion and as long as you can prove it wasn't premeditated ie that you sat and planned it all out which is obvious you didn't in this case, you won't be charged with anything or at least if it goes to court you will go free.
So in situations like this where you are acting under extreme emotion it's clear that there's no 'crime' committed by yourself.
In the UK too it may go to trial but the defence of reasonable force will allow that if you have to kill someone to defend yourself and/or others then thats what you have to do. The law was changed a while back from 'minimum' force to reasonable force to allow for situations like this.
So in situations like this where you are acting under extreme emotion it's clear that there's no 'crime' committed by yourself.
In the UK too it may go to trial but the defence of reasonable force will allow that if you have to kill someone to defend yourself and/or others then thats what you have to do. The law was changed a while back from 'minimum' force to reasonable force to allow for situations like this.
While this wasn't directed at my post, my reply to the same question was the same as just2kicku, so I'll toss in my .02.
IMHO, I highly doubt that this dirtbag is going to just put his hands up and go willingly, so yes, I'll more than likely have to continue to fight with him, and yes, in that process, I'm sure he'd be hurt. I never said in my post that I'd kill him, I said I'd beat the **** out of him, and yes, I could live with myself saying that too.
Of course, if the calm, rational side of me took over, and I didn't beat the **** out of them, I can assure you that while I was holding them down, waiting for the police, that they'd be in pain. Interpret that as you wish.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
I would use AT LEAST whatever force is necessary to neutralize the threat.....nothing LESS!
Of course, if this were a lethal force situation, the issue of what would I do AFTER they are no longer a threat is irrelevant......as in gunfights, they are usually resolved in mere seconds......with someone being dead or dying on one side or another.
That is why you go get a CCH and carry a gun. It takes a whole lot less energy to squeeze a trigger then it does to run someone down.
This is what is deemed reasonable force here. The law was changed here because there is no way of knowing after an event what minimum force would have actually been needed to control a situation. reasonable means just that, if you are being pestered by someone who then throws a punch at you, you are certainly free to KO him but not then stamp on his head while he lies on the floor out of it,defending yourself, reasonable, stamping on head, not.
If you are in fear of your life even if you haven't been attacked yet you may attack first to save your life, thats reasonable (and sensible). You can't run across the road and hit someone because they said in passing they'd hit you if they ever met you again however.
Using whatever force is neccessary is reasonable, it also goes on who you are. A four foot ten little old lady will get away with stabbing a six foot male attacker but if the little old lady attacks the big guy (have seen it though they are usually related lol) he cannot use the same force, it's not reasonable. Doormen have to watch this rule, these days they are very careful.
It also goes on circumstances, if you are attacked it's taken into consideration that you are not able to make the clear concise decisions expected if you aren't. Fear,adreneline and emotion are taken into account. It's not a cut and dried thing, the law here allows for circumstances.
Far enough to keep them safe. If that means a dead perp, then so be it, though I'd prefer that not to be the case. If a perp dies in the process of attempting to kill you, that is one thing. If you render the perp harmless without killing them, and then go on to either dish out punitive damage or kill them, that is where issues come up with the legal system.
Regarding the law, it's just another aspect of the battlefield, so to speak. Know the lay of the land. I want to protect my family from physical harm, but I also want to protect them from being left with nothing due to some idiot with a lawyer. My family's well being goes beyond mere physical protection.
Daniel
While this wasn't directed at my post, my reply to the same question was the same as just2kicku, so I'll toss in my .02.
IMHO, I highly doubt that this dirtbag is going to just put his hands up and go willingly, so yes, I'll more than likely have to continue to fight with him, and yes, in that process, I'm sure he'd be hurt. I never said in my post that I'd kill him, I said I'd beat the **** out of him, and yes, I could live with myself saying that too.
Of course, if the calm, rational side of me took over, and I didn't beat the **** out of them, I can assure you that while I was holding them down, waiting for the police, that they'd be in pain. Interpret that as you wish.
I guess I don't have a problem with that, but that's now how I read just2kicku's comment.
"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."
I read 'putting them down' as killing the person. My apologies to both of you if that's not what was meant.
Even if that's not what was meant, I'm envisioning some of those responding here to be picturing some kind of martial-arts movie kind of scenario, where the good guy, whose family has just been brutally done in, stands and delivers, choosing to use less-lethal-but-more-painful techniques to exact revenge and inflict pain, before heroically delivering the coup de grace just before the police arrive, skidding to a stop with lights and sirens blaring on the dark, wet, backstreet near the factory, etc.
Makes for great movies.
Whilst I've never had a family member gunned down in a hail of bullets and had to tear my shirt off and get all medieval on some punks from out of town, I have had to chase down and tackle bad guys, occasionally armed bad guys (mostly I found that out later). It really doesn't work like all of that, in my experience. And that was 20 years ago, when I had no MA training but was in good physical condition. No protracted stand-up punch-em-up, just a wild swing or two, everybody falls down (tripping, sliding, and falling over accidentally happen a LOT more than a MMA-style takedown, in my experience), hurt knees and elbows, glasses broken, nose bleeds, and I finally get the guy over on his belly and put the hand irons on. Shirt torn, hat missing, baton twenty feet away, taste of copper in my mouth, panting like a steam train, handset screaming at me with 'what's your 20?' questions from fellow officers, and wondering why the heck I chose that career path.
My guess is that in the OP's 'scenario' that's pretty much how it would go, presuming a) I could catch the guy, and b) I could subdue him once I did. Granted that as a civilian, I'd have no hand-irons and no backup - so I might have to run his head into the pavement a few times to get him to quit fighting to get up. I think revenge, anger, extracting vengeance, and so on would be out of my concious thought until much, much, later. This is primitive mind stuff - survival, immediate needs, stuff like that. I'd be more into finding a place to pee than thinking about how to put a dramatic flourish on my ax-kick to the back of his noggin.
No offense meant to anyone who has a more dramatic notion of how things would go, but since rolling around in the dirt with drunken idiots used to be my job, I kind of remember how it goes.
Because for someone to do something that bad, They deserve it!! It is punishment, if they did it to me and I let them go, they'll do it again to someone else. If it was just vengance, I would take everyone near and dear to him away and make him live with that. They do not deserve to use up air that a good person could be breathing. But, most of all, because I am human, and it would probably give me some short term satisfaction to do it.
Anyway, laws are so jacked up that the perp has more rights than you do.
And that is why I would do it Bill. I don't care about being no better than him or rising above a slime like that, I would just want them DEAD.
Just being honest.
OP
JBrainard
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #31
I was thinking about this as I was driving home from work Friday. We here on MT, being intelligent and trained martial artists/students, tend to talk about self defence with a great deal of detatchment, and it occured to me when I wrote the OP that this is a very strange way to discuss a situation that would be incredibly emotional, and you would (unless you have a tendence to mentally check out in bad situations) be anything but emotionally detatched.
I'd like to personally thank everyone here in this thread for contributing. I think that all of your responses were fascinating, and I hope that it spurred some of us to be a little introspective for a moment.
:asian:
I'd like to personally thank everyone here in this thread for contributing. I think that all of your responses were fascinating, and I hope that it spurred some of us to be a little introspective for a moment.
:asian:
Its very possible that is what he meant. For myself, I think I've covered my intentions in other threads, but I'll post again for the sake of the thread. I don't want to sound like I'm some blood thirsty killer. However, if someone is intent on causing me harm, my family, etc., then I really don't feel sorry for what happens to that person. I'm probably going to base my response on what I'm facing. If someone is coming after me with a knife, then I'm faced with deadly force and will probably return the same.
Well, I don't think a beating is less lethal. I mean, you could beat the crap out of someone bad enough to put them in ICU. During that beating, I doubt I'd be using a wrist lock. As I said, if I didn't beat them, and chose the less lethal route, I'm sure we could think of a few nasty things to do, to cause pain.
Of course, I'm sure we both know that usually after that happens, the suspect suddenly gets back to HQ with an injury or two. I recall one foot chase on the 4-12 shift. After the cops caught the guy, an ambulance was requested....for a head injury. Hmmmm......
Well, if someone were to kill one of my family members, unless I too, was injured enough to prevent movement, yes, I'd do my best to catch the SOB. It has nothing to do with movies for me, it has to do with the fact that some **** bag just killed a family member. I have no remorse or respect for people like that. Even those that choose to mug someone, rape someone, etc. As just2kicku said, the laws are so messed up, and protect the bad guy more than the victim, if I have a chance to get a dig in, I'm taking it.
No offense taken.
What we are talking about is raw emotion, I can't speak for anyone else but for me it would be immediate retaliation. I have had a family member murdered, I was not there but my feeling at the time was the same. I would kill the SOB if I ever got my hands on him/her/them. The perp was never caught and it's been about fifteen years.
When something like this happens, you don't care about consequences and rational thought is out the window. Now if you were to see this happen in front of your eyes to your wife and child, then you are a bigger man than I if you could control your anger, hate and rage.
i would go so far if my couson was being attaked by a ruthless man at my school and if the cops said 'kid you just let the professionals do the job and kid martial arts is not going to help you! i would tell them ''well im willing to risk my life to protect my loved one's and god is the one who will decide my fate not the law! im not afread of anything even an armed man i would go so far as to breaking the joints on the criminal that harmed my sweet couson.
Cirdan
Senior Master
Hmm. I figure I would show restraint, but not at the cost of putting us in continued danger.
Hard to give a general statement here, so much depends on the situation and "the line" is hard to define as it is.
As far as for myself... well, I've been attacked, and walked away as soon as I could. Without incapacitating the assailants. Once I got inside my assailants heads, I had won. I didn't need to fight, so I didn't continue. (Thankfully, in neither of these situations, neither people were armed. That would likely have changed things a bit.)
As far as my loved ones... I would do my best to do only as much as necessary to protect us, but it has nothing to do with the law. I have no children, but I can only imagine that beating a man to death in front of a child would do immense psychological damage even if it's required to protect them. How much more damage would it do to a child to watch their parent keep pummelling an unconscious man to death?
It's not an easy topic, for me, to be cut and dry about. If my family was killed, I would most definately seek justice. Would I go vigilante? Well, I honestly hope I'll never have to find out.
