Meeting force with force

[PhotonGuy]

Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.

Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.

 

[drop bear]

Some very basic guidelines.

Was your response to the threat.
Leagal.
Reasonable.
And proportionate.

Did the threat have.
Intent.
Ability.
A delivery system.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Some very basic guidelines.

- If it's just you, you should try to avoid the fight as much as possible.
- If it involve with your love one, you should try to protect your love one as much as possible.

 

[Tez3]

If it involve with your love one, you should try to protect your love one as much as possible.

What if your loved one is a better fighter than you are and is trying to protect you?

 

[drop bear]

What if your loved one is a better fighter than you are and is trying to protect you?

What if you get bashed. So your loved one jumped in to protect you and gets bashed. Then you have to get bashed again to protect her.

The old boomerang maneuver.

 

[Tez3]

What if you get bashed. So your loved one jumped in to protect you and gets bashed. Then you have to get bashed again to protect her.

The old boomerang maneuver.

What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, incapacitates them with reasonable force, does first aid on you, calls the police, directs the traffic including helping old man across the road and doesn't even mess her hair up?

 

[drop bear]

What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, incapacitates them with reasonable force, does first aid on you, calls the police, directs the traffic including helping old man across the road and doesn't even mess her hair up?

Bec?

Nah she has a boyfriend.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, ...

This is why girl's handbag is always big enough to carry a brick.

 

[CB Jones]

You aren't required to meet force with the same force.

If you or someone is at risk of losing life or sustaining great bodily injury you are justified to use reasonable force to stop the threat.

If it is reasonable that you needed to use a weapon to stop the threat you are justified regardless if the attacker is armed or not.

 

[oftheherd1]

What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, incapacitates them with reasonable force, does first aid on you, calls the police, directs the traffic including helping old man across the road and doesn't even mess her hair up?

Yes! I saw that. You weren't winded and didn't even get blood on your shoes. @drop bear it is a shame you didn't see it. It wasn't MMA but the clever use of moves from different kata made it look like it was. You would have been amazed.

 

[Tez3]

Man 'tries to attack female MMA fighter', ends up on the floor in a choke hold

Man tries to rob female UFC star, gets instant comeuppance

Female kickboxer knocks out sex attacker who pounces as she walks home

Not everyone needs a boyfriend to protect her or a brick.

 

[PhotonGuy]

You aren't required to meet force with the same force.

The point is, if I as a grown man fight off another grown man and I don't use and weapons then I did meet force with the same level of force, in such a situation we're both grown men and we both aren't using any weapons.

 

[pdg]

The point is, if I as a grown man fight off another grown man and I don't use and weapons then I did meet force with the same level of force, in such a situation we're both grown men and we both aren't using any weapons.

Still doesn't really explain why you posted the thread in the first place.

To me, it just reads like a random statement. There doesn't appear to be a question or invitation to discuss anything.

I like strawberries.

 

[Christopher Adamchek]

As @drop bear mentioned legality

It also depends on the laws of the area, even if the force is reasonable weapon or no and you stop the attacker and stop your attack on them - if you did so immediately when the confrontation started then this is "stand your ground" which some places dont protect that right. You would have to try [or at least say you tried] to get away prior to meeting them with [even reasonable] force. Be it "i took two steps that way to get away from them and they cut me off". But at times its also better to make sure you get out of the situation alive and go home to your loved ones and then deal with things in court.

 

[Bruce7]

Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.

Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.

1. Don't go to places that you might get into a fight.
2. If possible leave, don't fight.
3. If you can't leave, hit first don't stop till he is on the ground, then leave.
I have been very lucky, I have no record.

 

[Tez3]

The point is, if I as a grown man fight off another grown man and I don't use and weapons then I did meet force with the same level of force, in such a situation we're both grown men and we both aren't using any weapons.

Er, what?

 

[wab25]

Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.

Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.

These are very broad and dangerous statements. Dangerous because they could get you into real trouble. The problem is that you need to fully understand the law in the place where your situation occurs. Additionally, it depends on who calls the police and what the police are told before they arrive, it depends on how you and the other party react when the police show up. There are a lot of variables. Every situation is different.

Additionally the term "self defense" is a legal term, with a legal definition. That definition is different in different locations. You need to know what you are confessing to, when you claim "self defense."

The only broad statements I would make, would be to:
Before an incident:
KNOW your local law. Research it if you have too...
After an incident:
1. Get to safety
2. Make sure you call the police before the other guy
3. Get your lawyer involved as soon as possible

 

[Martial D]

Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.

Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.

I agree in principle, although the laws can be complicated.

The sticky part here is putting your finger on the line for 'stopped'.

You aren't required to meet force with the same force.

If you or someone is at risk of losing life or sustaining great bodily injury you are justified to use reasonable force to stop the threat.

If it is reasonable that you needed to use a weapon to stop the threat you are justified regardless if the attacker is armed or not.

One would think, logically.

If only laws were at all logical...

 

[Bruce7]

These are very broad and dangerous statements. Dangerous because they could get you into real trouble. The problem is that you need to fully understand the law in the place where your situation occurs. Additionally, it depends on who calls the police and what the police are told before they arrive, it depends on how you and the other party react when the police show up. There are a lot of variables. Every situation is different.

Additionally the term "self defense" is a legal term, with a legal definition. That definition is different in different locations. You need to know what you are confessing to, when you claim "self defense."

The only broad statements I would make, would be to:
Before an incident:
KNOW your local law. Research it if you have too...
After an incident:
1. Get to safety
2. Make sure you call the police before the other guy
3. Get your lawyer involved as soon as possible

I agree with you. My family of lawyers agree with you total.

When I was young and without resource leaving and getting back on base was the best coarse of action.
If their was a problem, I trusted the Navy more than the local police.
Lucky for me no one bother looking into those fights, probably because they were bad guys.

 

[Bruce7]

In the 1970's San Diego Police used to like arresting sailors for nothing, handcuffing you and beating you up for sport.
It got so bad the Admiral keep everyone on base for 3 days. It hurt San Diego's economy so the city agreed to straighten up their act.