These are different than most; they're designed from the point of view of someone who was trained in law enforcement. I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice. Entertainment value only.
RULE ONE: Find out what the self-defense laws are where YOU live, work, and visit. It's important to know what you are and are not permitted to do with regard to self-defense. Google is your friend. So is your local library, a criminal attorney who deals in self-defense cases, and even the local police department (although they are not lawyers either).
RULE TWO: It is not self-defense if the person making the threat has no means to carry it out. If a person is in a wheel chair and tells you that they're going to kick you in the head, perhaps a reasonable and prudent man would think they were not actually capable of doing so. Same thing if the person calls you on the phone and says they're going to punch you out. Over the phone? That would be interesting if they could do that. So no, you can't run over to their house and 'defend yourself' against their threat. They have no means by which to attack you (while they're on the phone, at least).
RULE THREE: It is not self-defense if there is no action. Saying "I am going to punch you," is not a reason to defend yourself if the person keeps their hands in their pockets or is twenty feet away from you. If they say it and then raise a fist, or start walking towards you in a threatening manner, then game on.
RULE FOUR: It is not self-defense if you do not believe you are in danger. If someone says they are going to slap your face off and you laugh because they are five years old, you are not in fear of great bodily harm, so you have no right to defend yourself against their 'attack'. Generally speaking, that is. If the five-year-old in question is a Ninja Master, then hey, whatever works. Just remember that one of the components of self-defense is that you have to actually have a reasonable fear that you are about to be injured. Oh, and by the way, tough guys; this means it's generally a poor idea to tell the cops afterwards that you were NOT IN FEAR because you have SWEET NINJA POWERS. yes, you were in fear. Nod your head 'yes' if you understand me. Keep your cojones under control and pretend you're scared if you have to. Yes, we know they clang together when you walk and shoot out sparks. Just keep that little fact to yourself when speaking to the authorities.
RULE FIVE: If you have to defend yourself, defend yourself. Spending a lot of time thinking about how you can defend yourself without doing harm to your assailant might be important to you; and if it is, great, do that. But in general, the laws of self-defense don't require it. There may be prohibitions against continuing to attack someone after the danger has passed, or against intentionally killing or injuring someone out of proportion with the threat (refer to RULE ONE), but the law does not (generally) describe what methods you can use to defend yourself, or that you must strive not to injure the person who attacked you. The law generally puts the responsibility for injury on the party who broke the law; that is not you.
RULE SIX: Words mean things. If you have the awe-inspiring ability to instantly assess a threat, select the least-violent response from your vast arsenal of martial arts skills, and employ them, doing only the damage you intend to do and no more, then great. DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. When you say what you can do, people (lawyers and cops) will hold you to it. If you say you possess the ability to do the least amount of damage, and you break the guy's knee and he never walks right again, you have basically just condemned yourself, because you said you had a choice not to, but you did it anyway. If you are entitled to defend yourself, do that. Say that. You defended yourself. End of story. Why did you break his kneecaps? It seemed the best way to protect yourself from serious injury or death at the time. Not "I could have just thrown him to the ground, but I decided to teach him a lesson," or "I'm a master of eleventy-seven different martial arts, and this way was freaking awesome." Words mean things. You were attacked. You defended yourself. Yes, if asked, you used your training, it's instinctive at this point. Get it? If you say you can choose a less-lethal response based on your training and ability, you may be EXPECTED TO DO SO and PUNISHED IF YOU FAIL TO. If simply defend yourself using your training, that's about it. I hope that makes sense here. I realize people get their pride in a tangle and feel the need to get all puffed up about here.
RULE SEVEN: If you engage in self-defense, you do so in order to end the threat to you or your loved ones. If that means shooting a gun, you do not 'shoot to kill' or 'shoot to wound' or (God help me) 'shoot to disarm'. You shoot to end the danger. If that means two in the head, that's what it means. But you did not, for God's sake, 'shoot to kill.' Maybe you're the best shot in the world and you can remove a hummingbird's wedding tackle from horseback using a rusty BB gun at a dead gallop. But again, if you SAY you can do it, you may be held responsible for what you say you can do. Make sense? Again, it's often not what you can do, or even what you choose to do; it's what you SAY you can do.
RULE EIGHT: Stop when the danger has passed. Even when you are authorized to defend yourself, you are not authorized to exact vengeance, justice, retribution, or just plain teach someone a much-needed lesson. If you happen to do something that some might consider gratuitous or on top after the need for self-defense is over, you might consider that you were just responding to the threat; it's hardly your fault if you reacted according to your training. That means NOT saying to the authorities that you decided to 'get even' for his having the gall to 'mess with you'. The next person who is likely to get messed with would be you. Maybe you kicked him in the head several times while he was on the ground because you thought he was still trying to get up and continue attacking you. That would be better than kicking him repeatedly knowing full well he was unconscious because you like to hear bones break. Refer to RULE SIX: words mean things.
I fear that people are often their own worst enemies with regard to self-defense. It's great if you are concerned about not hurting even a bad guy; but keep it to yourself or you may find yourself obliged to do the least amount of damage or held responsible if you don't. It's not for me to judge if you decide to take some mugger's knee out instead of his jaw, or if you shoot an armed intruder in the head twice instead of 'shooting the gun out of his hand' (as if you could). But it might be for someone ELSE to judge, you know? Run your mouth about your amazing abilities to the authorities at your own risk.
Summary:
Find out the self-defense laws where you live, work, and travel to. Figure out what they mean. If you a person threatens you, but they do not have the ability to actually do so, and they don't take any action besides running their mouth, or you're not afraid of them, then you cannot legally defend yourself in most places. If they have the ability to harm you, they take actions to indicate that they are about to do so, and you're reasonably afraid of being injured by their attack, then you have the right to defend yourself (in most places, generally speaking). Stop when the threat is over. And when you speak, remember that you were in fear of great bodily harm. Remember that you fought to end the attack and for no other reason. Remember that you engaged in self-defense, you didn't choose the most awesome of the eleventy seven one-finger dim mak techniques you happen to have mastered and taught to six foreign presidents and the Illuminati. You did not engage in revenge, retribution, and you were not out to teach anyone any lessons. You're a humble person who was forced to defend yourself and you sure wish you hadn't been forced to do that, you are not an Agent of Karma.
Hope that helps.
RULE ONE: Find out what the self-defense laws are where YOU live, work, and visit. It's important to know what you are and are not permitted to do with regard to self-defense. Google is your friend. So is your local library, a criminal attorney who deals in self-defense cases, and even the local police department (although they are not lawyers either).
RULE TWO: It is not self-defense if the person making the threat has no means to carry it out. If a person is in a wheel chair and tells you that they're going to kick you in the head, perhaps a reasonable and prudent man would think they were not actually capable of doing so. Same thing if the person calls you on the phone and says they're going to punch you out. Over the phone? That would be interesting if they could do that. So no, you can't run over to their house and 'defend yourself' against their threat. They have no means by which to attack you (while they're on the phone, at least).
RULE THREE: It is not self-defense if there is no action. Saying "I am going to punch you," is not a reason to defend yourself if the person keeps their hands in their pockets or is twenty feet away from you. If they say it and then raise a fist, or start walking towards you in a threatening manner, then game on.
RULE FOUR: It is not self-defense if you do not believe you are in danger. If someone says they are going to slap your face off and you laugh because they are five years old, you are not in fear of great bodily harm, so you have no right to defend yourself against their 'attack'. Generally speaking, that is. If the five-year-old in question is a Ninja Master, then hey, whatever works. Just remember that one of the components of self-defense is that you have to actually have a reasonable fear that you are about to be injured. Oh, and by the way, tough guys; this means it's generally a poor idea to tell the cops afterwards that you were NOT IN FEAR because you have SWEET NINJA POWERS. yes, you were in fear. Nod your head 'yes' if you understand me. Keep your cojones under control and pretend you're scared if you have to. Yes, we know they clang together when you walk and shoot out sparks. Just keep that little fact to yourself when speaking to the authorities.
RULE FIVE: If you have to defend yourself, defend yourself. Spending a lot of time thinking about how you can defend yourself without doing harm to your assailant might be important to you; and if it is, great, do that. But in general, the laws of self-defense don't require it. There may be prohibitions against continuing to attack someone after the danger has passed, or against intentionally killing or injuring someone out of proportion with the threat (refer to RULE ONE), but the law does not (generally) describe what methods you can use to defend yourself, or that you must strive not to injure the person who attacked you. The law generally puts the responsibility for injury on the party who broke the law; that is not you.
RULE SIX: Words mean things. If you have the awe-inspiring ability to instantly assess a threat, select the least-violent response from your vast arsenal of martial arts skills, and employ them, doing only the damage you intend to do and no more, then great. DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. When you say what you can do, people (lawyers and cops) will hold you to it. If you say you possess the ability to do the least amount of damage, and you break the guy's knee and he never walks right again, you have basically just condemned yourself, because you said you had a choice not to, but you did it anyway. If you are entitled to defend yourself, do that. Say that. You defended yourself. End of story. Why did you break his kneecaps? It seemed the best way to protect yourself from serious injury or death at the time. Not "I could have just thrown him to the ground, but I decided to teach him a lesson," or "I'm a master of eleventy-seven different martial arts, and this way was freaking awesome." Words mean things. You were attacked. You defended yourself. Yes, if asked, you used your training, it's instinctive at this point. Get it? If you say you can choose a less-lethal response based on your training and ability, you may be EXPECTED TO DO SO and PUNISHED IF YOU FAIL TO. If simply defend yourself using your training, that's about it. I hope that makes sense here. I realize people get their pride in a tangle and feel the need to get all puffed up about here.
RULE SEVEN: If you engage in self-defense, you do so in order to end the threat to you or your loved ones. If that means shooting a gun, you do not 'shoot to kill' or 'shoot to wound' or (God help me) 'shoot to disarm'. You shoot to end the danger. If that means two in the head, that's what it means. But you did not, for God's sake, 'shoot to kill.' Maybe you're the best shot in the world and you can remove a hummingbird's wedding tackle from horseback using a rusty BB gun at a dead gallop. But again, if you SAY you can do it, you may be held responsible for what you say you can do. Make sense? Again, it's often not what you can do, or even what you choose to do; it's what you SAY you can do.
RULE EIGHT: Stop when the danger has passed. Even when you are authorized to defend yourself, you are not authorized to exact vengeance, justice, retribution, or just plain teach someone a much-needed lesson. If you happen to do something that some might consider gratuitous or on top after the need for self-defense is over, you might consider that you were just responding to the threat; it's hardly your fault if you reacted according to your training. That means NOT saying to the authorities that you decided to 'get even' for his having the gall to 'mess with you'. The next person who is likely to get messed with would be you. Maybe you kicked him in the head several times while he was on the ground because you thought he was still trying to get up and continue attacking you. That would be better than kicking him repeatedly knowing full well he was unconscious because you like to hear bones break. Refer to RULE SIX: words mean things.
I fear that people are often their own worst enemies with regard to self-defense. It's great if you are concerned about not hurting even a bad guy; but keep it to yourself or you may find yourself obliged to do the least amount of damage or held responsible if you don't. It's not for me to judge if you decide to take some mugger's knee out instead of his jaw, or if you shoot an armed intruder in the head twice instead of 'shooting the gun out of his hand' (as if you could). But it might be for someone ELSE to judge, you know? Run your mouth about your amazing abilities to the authorities at your own risk.
Summary:
Find out the self-defense laws where you live, work, and travel to. Figure out what they mean. If you a person threatens you, but they do not have the ability to actually do so, and they don't take any action besides running their mouth, or you're not afraid of them, then you cannot legally defend yourself in most places. If they have the ability to harm you, they take actions to indicate that they are about to do so, and you're reasonably afraid of being injured by their attack, then you have the right to defend yourself (in most places, generally speaking). Stop when the threat is over. And when you speak, remember that you were in fear of great bodily harm. Remember that you fought to end the attack and for no other reason. Remember that you engaged in self-defense, you didn't choose the most awesome of the eleventy seven one-finger dim mak techniques you happen to have mastered and taught to six foreign presidents and the Illuminati. You did not engage in revenge, retribution, and you were not out to teach anyone any lessons. You're a humble person who was forced to defend yourself and you sure wish you hadn't been forced to do that, you are not an Agent of Karma.
Hope that helps.
), and take 1-2 Steps back - There are many Reasons for this. The First is so its Abundantly Clear that I am not being Hostile. The Second, is that the Aggressor might Charge into something.
