To avoid getting into trouble with the law.
The laws regarding personal self-defense are generally not involved with the amount or degree of injury done to the attacker by the victim. There is a common but mistaken perception that a victim is required to apply the least amount of force necessary to end an attack. I am not a lawyer, but in my experience, this is simply not true. They must stop applying violence when the danger to themselves has ended, but that is not the same as limiting the degree of violence they use.
What the law is interested in is when a person may engage in self-defense, and more specifically, when a person may defend themselves with deadly force. If the conditions are met, then the self-defense is lawful, and the degree of injury experienced by the attacker is not a consideration.
When the
'degree of injury' might come to the fore is if a victim were to find himself or herself sued by an attacker, so one might think of that as a consideration; but I would not. Self-defense is perforce an immediate and urgent need. I would not want to hamstring myself by attempting to limit my response to that which would likely do the least damage to the attacker.
Police officers also need to consider the degree of force applied, but they operate under different rules. They are expected to use only that force which is required to secure an apprehension or to defend themselves. They are expected to have training and the ability to choose less lethal responses from among a variety of options.
For the citizen, the concerns are
'am I authorized to defend myself' and
'may I use deadly force in this case'?
Having said that, I still believe that analysis of a situation in a SD situation is important, and
'running away' is a valid response if it is safe to do so.
I can understand anyone desire to protect themselves but to avoid unnecessary injury to anyone, even an attacker. Like others, the first thing that came to my mind was Aikido. Also like others, I agree that it is down to the way it is used (degree of skill and intent of the practitioner) as to whether or not it will be especially non-injurious to the attacker.
Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to the school of thought that gives concern to the well-being of the attacker in a self-defense situation. I am primarily concerned with my own well-being, placing that above the well-being of anyone who attacks me. I am also concerned with not running afoul of the law, and I will absolutely turn tail and run or drive away or whatever else I can do to escape if I can reasonably do so to avoid being attacked. I'll even turn over my wallet and possessions if I feel that it will keep me from being killed or seriously injured. However, if I feel that I cannot retreat, and if I feel that turning over my possessions is still likely to get me killed or seriously injured, then I am going to defend myself with everything I have, and if the attacker gets seriously injured, I figure that's their karma, not mine. I'm not trying to kill them, but if they get dead, oh well.
