'Reasonable' Self Defense

[Deaf Smith]

At the website, "Of Arms and the Law" there is an article on Self Defense (a PDF download) entitled "SELF-DEFENSE: REASONABLE BELIEFS OR

REASONABLE SELF-CONTROL?" byKenneth W. Simons*​

http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Selfdefense.pdf

According to the article in Germany a person under criminal attack is not required to use only a reasonable amount of force, but rather is allowed to use force unless it is grossly disproportionate to the attack.

I find that very interesting since in many contries they try to limit you to use force preportionate to the attack presented, and they are the ones to judge what is 'preportionate'.

Here in Texas one uses enough force to stop the attack... but just what is 'enough', or to much, is what the jury would decide.

Deaf

 

[KempoGuy06]

this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.

I was wondering to...

Say I got in an altercation at the bar. Some guy think Im hitting on his girlfriend or whatever you want it to be. He cocks back to swing at me what are my options:

Most people would do the sensible thing and only use physical actions as a last resort but when that moment comes what do you do?

personally I want to end it quickly. Im not going to hit a guy in the face and hope that stops him. Im going for his throat or groin or some other weaker area to end it quickly, but is that considered to much force? What if I decide to strke only to the stomach or face and he gets the better of me? Would this change my decision in the future?

sorry for the long post

B

 

[zDom]

this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.

I was wondering to...

Say I got in an altercation at the bar. Some guy think Im hitting on his girlfriend or whatever you want it to be. He cocks back to swing at me what are my options:

Most people would do the sensible thing and only use physical actions as a last resort but when that moment comes what do you do?

personally I want to end it quickly. Im not going to hit a guy in the face and hope that stops him. Im going for his throat or groin or some other weaker area to end it quickly, but is that considered to much force? What if I decide to strke only to the stomach or face and he gets the better of me? Would this change my decision in the future?

sorry for the long post

B

To me, that is one of the benefits of continuing to hone my skills:

The better I am, the less drastic I need to be in defending myself.

Do we REALLY need to crush a windpipe or a testicle to avoid getting sucker punched by a drunk?

The last time I had to defend myself against a guy winding up a haymaker, a single punch to the philtrim (upper lip under the nose) was all it took to end it. He dropped like a felled tree.

I think our response should be tailored to fit how much danger we are really in.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Thats a good point. Ill have to think on my response

B

 

[jks9199]

this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.

I was wondering to...

Say I got in an altercation at the bar. Some guy think Im hitting on his girlfriend or whatever you want it to be. He cocks back to swing at me what are my options:

Most people would do the sensible thing and only use physical actions as a last resort but when that moment comes what do you do?

personally I want to end it quickly. Im not going to hit a guy in the face and hope that stops him. Im going for his throat or groin or some other weaker area to end it quickly, but is that considered to much force? What if I decide to strke only to the stomach or face and he gets the better of me? Would this change my decision in the future?

sorry for the long post

B

The laws on use of force to defend yourself vary greatly from state to state and country to country. I can't provide legal counsel, since I'm not a lawyer, and nothing written here should be taken as such. For legal counsel, you need to contact a lawyer licensed in your state with experience in defending the use of force.

Self defense is really an affirmative defense; you're admitting you did something that would ordinarily be a crime (batter someone), but you were justified in doing so because they were attacking you. As a very loose rule, you don't need to wait to be hit; you can act as soon as you realize that the attack is imminent, and will likely occur if you don't act. This is generally more than someone saying "I'm gonna smash you!", but not necessarily as late as the punch being on the way. Things that will be looked at will likely include the threat presented (an 80 year old with a cane threatening to hit you isn't the same apparent threat as a 20 year old college boxer), whether it can reasonably be carried out (I can threaten to punch you all day on the computer, without knowing where you are... not likely to succeed, am I? But that guy on the bar stool next to you? Yeah, he can do it!), and what options you had to escape without using force.

How much force you can use is also complicated. The general rule in the US is that you can only use force that is reasonable in light of the attack. Someone punching you probably won't justify your breaking their neck -- but you'd probably be OK punching them back. There are quite a few threads on this, and I'm not even going to try to rehash them because it's a very complicated determination; just read them for yourself. Just remember that you can't do greatly more harm to them than they were going to do to you.

 

[tshadowchaser]

When the courts decide what was justifiable for defense we have to realize that none of them where there and they can never understand all that was happening. It is a shame that if you put an attacker to the ground with a controlled move then hit him to make sure he will not attack once again you become the attacker. Keeping an aggressor down so they will not escalate should be considered but often it is not because of some slick talking attorney

 

[KempoGuy06]

The laws on use of force to defend yourself vary greatly from state to state and country to country. I can't provide legal counsel, since I'm not a lawyer, and nothing written here should be taken as such. For legal counsel, you need to contact a lawyer licensed in your state with experience in defending the use of force.

Self defense is really an affirmative defense; you're admitting you did something that would ordinarily be a crime (batter someone), but you were justified in doing so because they were attacking you. As a very loose rule, you don't need to wait to be hit; you can act as soon as you realize that the attack is imminent, and will likely occur if you don't act. This is generally more than someone saying "I'm gonna smash you!", but not necessarily as late as the punch being on the way. Things that will be looked at will likely include the threat presented (an 80 year old with a cane threatening to hit you isn't the same apparent threat as a 20 year old college boxer), whether it can reasonably be carried out (I can threaten to punch you all day on the computer, without knowing where you are... not likely to succeed, am I? But that guy on the bar stool next to you? Yeah, he can do it!), and what options you had to escape without using force.

How much force you can use is also complicated. The general rule in the US is that you can only use force that is reasonable in light of the attack. Someone punching you probably won't justify your breaking their neck -- but you'd probably be OK punching them back. There are quite a few threads on this, and I'm not even going to try to rehash them because it's a very complicated determination; just read them for yourself. Just remember that you can't do greatly more harm to them than they were going to do to you.

Thats some good info.

Ive read a lot of those threads (and started a couple i believe).

There was an article in BB Magazine covering this very topic.

Either way its a screwed up system and no matter what you do the outcome is never going to be good.

B

 

[Tez3]

this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.

I was wondering to...

Say I got in an altercation at the bar. Some guy think Im hitting on his girlfriend or whatever you want it to be. He cocks back to swing at me what are my options:

Most people would do the sensible thing and only use physical actions as a last resort but when that moment comes what do you do?

personally I want to end it quickly. Im not going to hit a guy in the face and hope that stops him. Im going for his throat or groin or some other weaker area to end it quickly, but is that considered to much force? What if I decide to strke only to the stomach or face and he gets the better of me? Would this change my decision in the future?

sorry for the long post

B

Subject to the usual legal disclaimers lol, over here it's acceptable to defend yourself even if you knocked him out. If you used only as much force as was needed that's fine, what wouldn't be is if you continued to strike him once he was no threat ie 'to teach him a lesson'.
If he were drunk and just swung at you, you give him a tap ( that always make me laugh when my instructor says that!) that's fine but don't then go in with knees, kicks elbows etc. If it's an attacker with murder in mind you can however then strike first 'being in fear of your life' and use whatever you have to survive.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Subject to the usual legal disclaimers lol, over here it's acceptable to defend yourself even if you knocked him out. If you used only as much force as was needed that's fine, what wouldn't be is if you continued to strike him once he was no threat ie 'to teach him a lesson'.
If he were drunk and just swung at you, you give him a tap ( that always make me laugh when my instructor says that!) that's fine but don't then go in with knees, kicks elbows etc. If it's an attacker with murder in mind you can however then strike first 'being in fear of your life' and use whatever you have to survive.

see thats the way it should be over hear, but with our laws (and the prejudice towards MA'ist in general) id probably get slapped with a huge law suit and/fine and/or time. if you are trained its almost better to take the hit and do nothing (at least it seems that way)

Am I crazy for thinking that?

B

 

[Rich Parsons]

The laws on use of force to defend yourself vary greatly from state to state and country to country. I can't provide legal counsel, since I'm not a lawyer, and nothing written here should be taken as such. For legal counsel, you need to contact a lawyer licensed in your state with experience in defending the use of force.

Self defense is really an affirmative defense; you're admitting you did something that would ordinarily be a crime (batter someone), but you were justified in doing so because they were attacking you. As a very loose rule, you don't need to wait to be hit; you can act as soon as you realize that the attack is imminent, and will likely occur if you don't act. This is generally more than someone saying "I'm gonna smash you!", but not necessarily as late as the punch being on the way. Things that will be looked at will likely include the threat presented (an 80 year old with a cane threatening to hit you isn't the same apparent threat as a 20 year old college boxer), whether it can reasonably be carried out (I can threaten to punch you all day on the computer, without knowing where you are... not likely to succeed, am I? But that guy on the bar stool next to you? Yeah, he can do it!), and what options you had to escape without using force.

How much force you can use is also complicated. The general rule in the US is that you can only use force that is reasonable in light of the attack. Someone punching you probably won't justify your breaking their neck -- but you'd probably be OK punching them back. There are quite a few threads on this, and I'm not even going to try to rehash them because it's a very complicated determination; just read them for yourself. Just remember that you can't do greatly more harm to them than they were going to do to you.

Yes please contact a local lawyer for legal advise.

As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.

"You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."

Or

"You do not have the right nor the responsibility to defend someone else. After they hit the person you can get involved if their life is at danger. But before hand I can tell you that YOU cannot make that call."


While Striking first even on someone swinging on you, or blocking or passing or steeping out of the way and striking means you have made first contact. The law could state that you were able to pass or block, why not continue until the other guy decided to stop.

So understand no matter where you are, no matter what you do, the situation will be taken in the worse possible light. At least that is my experience. With time and money one can usually defend oneself with reports to the detectives and their further follow up. But the first responder has to make a call the best they can, and if the other guy is bleeding or bruised and you are not and their are witnesses (* assume all the other guys friends who may have not seen a thing in reality *) will say that you started it you made first contact.

As in the movie "War Games" The only winning move is not to play.

 

[zDom]

And, on the other side of the coin (the EXTREME other side...)

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

 

[Tez3]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html

Here, you need to show that you had an honest belief you were in fear of your life and you acted instinctively without sitting planning your attack. You can attack first to defend yourself and others. The police will of course look at your statement because they obviously cannot take at face value that it was self defence but if genuine you'll be fine.
The second link I put up has a very valid point about the media and self defence here. We had a high profile case where someone was jailed for shooting intruders leaving his house but the view was skewed by the press, he shot them as they were leaving, it was also a premeditated act as he was never threatened, he didn't even meet them in the house, he had had ample time to call the police so it was unreasonable force to kill someone in that way. If they'd broken in and he was defending himself it would have been different.

 

[Rich Parsons]

And, on the other side of the coin (the EXTREME other side...)

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Each person makes their own decision.

I have made up my mind and know how I react.

I am not saying this is a bad idea. What I am saying is that people should understand both sides and not be surprised because they only heard the above.

 

[Deaf Smith]

As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.

"You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."

Or

"You do not have the right nor the responsibility to defend someone else. After they hit the person you can get involved if their life is at danger. But before hand I can tell you that YOU cannot make that call."

First if the remark about not knowing if they might have stopped was true then lots of cops sure don't need to shoot people they 'thought' were going for a gun! The key to this, at least in Texas, is being in "fear of one's life" or the life of a third party. It does not matter if the attacker may or may not have thrown the punch or fired the gun, it's if you were in what a 'reasonable' person would have considered fear of their life or bodly harm.

Second, under criminal law here in Texas you can use force, or deadly force, to protect a third party (but under civil law you still can be sued, maybe not sucessfully, but they can try.)

Know your state laws, and if traveling to another state, or country, know those laws to!

Deaf

 

[still learning]

Hello, The rules of the law? ....made by man......man is not perfect....so we will have many unperfect laws.

That being said: Have you notice the "bad guys" are more protected by the laws than we are?

and only to have them release early..to do it again and again...again....

Reasonable ? Do not apply to rapist or predertors...KNOWN FACT IS TIME IN JAIL? ...HAS NEVER CURE THIS SICKNESS.....yet they are release on a regular basis all around the country! ...they get to do it again and again...

What can we do for ourselfs? ....awareness and voidance...skills that can be learn thru martial art classes if they teach them.

Aloha,

 

[jks9199]

Hello, The rules of the law? ....made by man......man is not perfect....so we will have many unperfect laws.

That being said: Have you notice the "bad guys" are more protected by the laws than we are?

and only to have them release early..to do it again and again...again....

Reasonable ? Do not apply to rapist or predertors...KNOWN FACT IS TIME IN JAIL? ...HAS NEVER CURE THIS SICKNESS.....yet they are release on a regular basis all around the country! ...they get to do it again and again...

What can we do for ourselfs? ....awareness and voidance...skills that can be learn thru martial art classes if they teach them.

Aloha,

As frustrating as the rules can sometimes be, especially when they "protect" someone I'm "certain" is guilty...

They actually serve to protect us all; were the rules and rights and protections of the US not so strong on protecting the accused from the might of the government, we'd all have no defense against power of the State.

 

[GBlues]

In the state of AZ it's just a matter of if you feel that your life is in danger you can take whateversteps you feel necassary to protect your life. Example: Guy comes at you with a baseball bat, and you pull out a .45 and shoot him dead! As long as you can prove that you were in fear for your life, you golden. Used to be however that you had to use the equal force. I.E. baseball bat vs. stick, bat, etc. Just think it's stupid. Everyone has a different point of view to when they feel their life is in danger you know.

 

[KenpoTex]

see thats the way it should be over hear, but with our laws (and the prejudice towards MA'ist in general) id probably get slapped with a huge law suit and/fine and/or time. if you are trained its almost better to take the hit and do nothing (at least it seems that way)

Am I crazy for thinking that?

B

just curious...have you ever actually read your state's Use of Force statutes?

As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.

"You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."

Or

"You do not have the right nor the responsibility to defend someone else. After they hit the person you can get involved if their life is at danger. But before hand I can tell you that YOU cannot make that call."

Sometimes cops aren't the best sources of information on what's legal and what isn't.

just sayin...

 

[seasoned]

Young and strong you will do what ever, and suffer the consequences later. Old and Seasoned you will try and buy time and elicit wittiness’s while looking for the way out. If this person is bent on harming you it will stand out, so my advice is to get it over with as soon as possible and administer first aid soon after. It will look good in court. J

 

[Carol]

Sucker punched by a drunk? Wait a minute...doesn't anyone teach blocking anymore? If someone is determined to do you some harm, they will go at you. But for a random fool thats thinking right because he's half in the bag...he's going to punch at you expecting to be punched back. He'll probably be telegraphing like hell and won't expect a parrie...it may even be enough for him to stop the shenanigans.