These are just some random thoughts; I am not structuring them as well as I might if I were taking the time to do this properly, my apologies in advance.
It's funny all the things I read in the news and Facebook and various places, where people describe something they have done or they believe they would have done in a given situation and then apply the label "self-defense" to it. In many case, it's the furthest thing from self-defense that I can imagine.
Let's start with the term itself. "Self-Defense," as one might presume, is concerned primarily with defense of self. Self meaning you. The singular you. Not your house, not your car, not your wallet, not even your loved ones. You.
Having said that, I will say that I tend to include family and loved ones under the same umbrella, even though technically they are not 'me'. So to me, self-defense can include the defense of a loved one. However, I don't feel I am really stretching the definition too much; if I am with a loved one (necessary for me to be defending them in real time), then one could presume that I am in as much danger as they are.
However, I do not include my property as being my 'self'. That is not to say I would not defend my property; I would. However, my standards for defending property are far different than my standards for defending my own life (or a loved one, as mentioned above).
So one can say that self-defense is about defending life.
It is also about defending life when life is in jeopardy or under threat.
Case in point; if a person walks up to you, smacks you in the head, and then turns and sprints away, it is in no way 'self-defense' to run after them and give them what they so clearly deserve. I won't say it's wrong to do just that; but it's not self-defense. When the threat ends, self-defense ends. Typically, so does the legal right to engage in self-defense (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice).
Things I have recently read in the news:
A man confronts a burglar in his home in the middle of the night. He chases the man down the street with a firearm, and eventually shoots the man. The burglar dies. The man is charged with a crime.
Why? Was that not self-defense? No, it was not. The threat to the man's life (and his property, if you want to take it that far) ended with the bad guy running away. Does it suck to let a bad guy run away? You bet it does.
However, it beats the alternative, which is another story I just read in the news the other day. A man confronts a burglar in his home. Chases him down the street, with the burglar and the homeowner both firing guns at each other. The burglar shoots the homeowner and with his dying breath, the homeowner kills the burglar. The homeowner's family arrives in time to watch helplessly as their family member bleeds out in front of them. Self-defense?
I will defend my life. I will defend the lives of anyone I am with, although frankly, if they are in danger, so am I, so it's basically the same thing. I may defend my property, depending on the circumstances. But I won't consider it 'self-defense' because it's not. And the law won't consider it that, either. Depending on how far a person takes things to defend their property (or honor, or seat at the bar, or parking spot, etc), the law might or might not agree that they were justified in whatever action they took.
Knowing how to defend yourself is fantastic and the right of every person, in my opinion. No one should have to suffer an attack on their person if they have the means to stop it. But if someone grabs my wife's purse and sprints off down the street, I'm not going to empty a magazine of 9mm into their retreating form. That would *not* be self-defense.
It's funny all the things I read in the news and Facebook and various places, where people describe something they have done or they believe they would have done in a given situation and then apply the label "self-defense" to it. In many case, it's the furthest thing from self-defense that I can imagine.
Let's start with the term itself. "Self-Defense," as one might presume, is concerned primarily with defense of self. Self meaning you. The singular you. Not your house, not your car, not your wallet, not even your loved ones. You.
Having said that, I will say that I tend to include family and loved ones under the same umbrella, even though technically they are not 'me'. So to me, self-defense can include the defense of a loved one. However, I don't feel I am really stretching the definition too much; if I am with a loved one (necessary for me to be defending them in real time), then one could presume that I am in as much danger as they are.
However, I do not include my property as being my 'self'. That is not to say I would not defend my property; I would. However, my standards for defending property are far different than my standards for defending my own life (or a loved one, as mentioned above).
So one can say that self-defense is about defending life.
It is also about defending life when life is in jeopardy or under threat.
Case in point; if a person walks up to you, smacks you in the head, and then turns and sprints away, it is in no way 'self-defense' to run after them and give them what they so clearly deserve. I won't say it's wrong to do just that; but it's not self-defense. When the threat ends, self-defense ends. Typically, so does the legal right to engage in self-defense (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice).
Things I have recently read in the news:
A man confronts a burglar in his home in the middle of the night. He chases the man down the street with a firearm, and eventually shoots the man. The burglar dies. The man is charged with a crime.
Why? Was that not self-defense? No, it was not. The threat to the man's life (and his property, if you want to take it that far) ended with the bad guy running away. Does it suck to let a bad guy run away? You bet it does.
However, it beats the alternative, which is another story I just read in the news the other day. A man confronts a burglar in his home. Chases him down the street, with the burglar and the homeowner both firing guns at each other. The burglar shoots the homeowner and with his dying breath, the homeowner kills the burglar. The homeowner's family arrives in time to watch helplessly as their family member bleeds out in front of them. Self-defense?
I will defend my life. I will defend the lives of anyone I am with, although frankly, if they are in danger, so am I, so it's basically the same thing. I may defend my property, depending on the circumstances. But I won't consider it 'self-defense' because it's not. And the law won't consider it that, either. Depending on how far a person takes things to defend their property (or honor, or seat at the bar, or parking spot, etc), the law might or might not agree that they were justified in whatever action they took.
Knowing how to defend yourself is fantastic and the right of every person, in my opinion. No one should have to suffer an attack on their person if they have the means to stop it. But if someone grabs my wife's purse and sprints off down the street, I'm not going to empty a magazine of 9mm into their retreating form. That would *not* be self-defense.
