When should you fight?

[BrothersMA]

when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?

(note: the law might not agree but im asking from more a moral point)

Thank you

 

[Transk53]

So many scenarios. Anyone in particular that makes you ask?

 

[BrothersMA]

No. Just looking to see what people say.

 

[Transk53]

In my previous line of work, hands was all the time, albeit in a passive fashion until it was time not to be. In everyday life I would rather walk away and let them have their five minutes of gloating. Happens that way the older you get, despite having feelings to the contrary. Well does to me anyway.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?

(note: the law might not agree but im asking from more a moral point)

Thank you

When I feel that someone is about to lay their hands on me in a threatening manner. I always have the right to defend myself, and that includes by striking first if I (as a 'reasonable man') believe I am about to be attacked.

For example, a person approaches me, stating that he is going to hit me, and raises his fist in a threatening manner. I am not going to wait for him to throw the punch before I strike him.

If a person says he is going to punch me, but doesn't close the distance between us and doesn't appear to be about to hit me, then I will not strike him. At least not until it becomes clear that he a) can hit me and b) is about to hit me.

If I can simply leave and avoid the entire thing, I will do that.

 

[Tez3]

In this country the law and the moral right agree when it comes to self defence.

 

[Transk53]

In my previous line of work, hands was all the time, albeit in a passive fashion until it was time not to be. In everyday life I would rather walk away and let them have their five minutes of gloating. Happens that way the older you get, despite having feelings to the contrary. Well does to me anyway.

Should have added in a verbal person mouthing off type of thing. No shame in letting someone think they are Superman, different if they want to test that.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

When I feel that there is a 'reasonable enough' (it is reasonable if someone is rushing towards me with a knife, it is not reasonable if I'm in a low income area and someone comes towards me without giving an explanation) threat or chance that someone is about to attack me or someone that I care about. Very situational, and can't really give a distinct answer.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

In this country the law and the moral right agree when it comes to self defence.

What is the law/moral right? I find it too situational to see how a complete agreement would occur.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When I feel that there is a 'reasonable enough' (it is reasonable if someone is rushing towards me with a knife, it is not reasonable if I'm in a low income area and someone comes towards me without giving an explanation) threat or chance that someone is about to attack me or someone that I care about. Very situational, and can't really give a distinct answer.

Actually, the 'reasonable person' standard doesn't get that nuanced as to be concerned with specifics such as neighborhood.

Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With regard to self-defense, this is instructional:

Self-Defense Overview - FindLaw

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable man” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable man” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

- See more at: Self-Defense Overview - FindLaw

The right to self-defense cannot be reduced a set of 'yes' and 'no' illustrations; each use of force in self-defense is different. The 'reasonable person' test is the general litmus test to discover whether or not (usually in retrospect) a given use of self-defense was legal or not.

In my experience, far too many people either try to reduce the 'reasonable person' test to a set of rules that can be always and reliably applied, or they decide that whatever *they* personally find threatening is therefore justified in self-defense, which is very far from the truth.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Actually, the 'reasonable person' standard doesn't get that nuanced as to be concerned with specifics such as neighborhood.

I guess reasonable was the wrong word, as I was not referring to the 'reasonable person' standard.

In my experience, far too many people either try to reduce the 'reasonable person' test to a set of rules that can be always and reliably applied, or they decide that whatever *they* personally find threatening is therefore justified in self-defense, which is very far from the truth.

Yup, not referring to the test/standard, I am referring to what I would personally find threatening. I consider myself to be reasonable, which is why I used that word, but did not realize this was a reference to a specific concept. However, and regardless of what should be morally or legally correct, if I am feeling threatened and there is a legitimate reason for it based on another's actions, I will respond. Now, if you include the law, my standard for what constitutes as a threat will likely rise so I don't get in legal trouble, but I see that as a problem rather than a benefit, since it's adding an extra fear that gets in the way of my judgment.

This is something specifically for me in response to absence of law, and I don't think there should be a law/legal edict based on it because while I consider myself reasonable/clear-headed/just, I would not consider many others to be the same, and I'm sure people have a different opinion of me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I guess reasonable was the wrong word, as I was not referring to the 'reasonable person' standard.

Yup, not referring to the test/standard, I am referring to what I would personally find threatening. I consider myself to be reasonable, which is why I used that word, but did not realize this was a reference to a specific concept. However, and regardless of what should be morally or legally correct, if I am feeling threatened and there is a legitimate reason for it based on another's actions, I will respond. Now, if you include the law, my standard for what constitutes as a threat will likely rise so I don't get in legal trouble, but I see that as a problem rather than a benefit, since it's adding an extra fear that gets in the way of my judgment.

This is something specifically for me in response to absence of law, and I don't think there should be a law/legal edict based on it because while I consider myself reasonable/clear-headed/just, I would not consider many others to be the same, and I'm sure people have a different opinion of me.

Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand what you're saying.

All I can say is that in my former life in law enforcement, it seemed that everyone I ever apprehended for assault seemed to think they were exercising self-defense. For things like 'bad stares' and 'shooting off his mouth at me', and so on. "Dude dissed me so I defended myself by cracking him the face." Yeah, no.

Typically, when we've discussed this notion here on MT, people tend to jump to the opposite conclusion and assume that the law requires a person to get punched before they can legally defend themselves, which is also incorrect. If someone says they're going to punch me, and they ball up their fist and raise it and they're coming towards me, I have every reason to think they're going to do what they are threatening to do. In legal terms, I've already been assaulted, and I am free to defend myself on that basis.

Now, reflecting back to 'moral' justification, everyone is different. And people are free to come up with their own definitions. As you said, depending on circumstances, they may have to deal with the legal repercussions of that. "He had it coming" is not, despite popular theory, a legal defense.

 

[Buka]

When somebody is about to fight me or has already started, to help somebody else, or when someone has done me wrong.

Remember now, the OP had "YOU".

 

[drop bear]

For the last twenty years I was fighting people for $25 an hour. And that was mostly to make someone else rich.

 

[geezer]

A different perspective on fighting. Whitey Bulger's advice to his son:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?

If some attacks you, you can back up, run, and avoid the fight. When someone attacks your family member, you will need to beat up that attacker that

- even his own mother won't be able to recognize him.
- he will need to crawl on the ground to find his missing teeth.
- he will regret that his mother ever brought him into this world.
- he will feel the earth is too dangerous to live and he will need to move to Mars.
- he won't be able to control his body function for the rest of his life.
- he will need to have cosmetic surgery to reconstruct his new face.
- ...

Those are "how badly you can beat up someone" that I have learned through my online books reading.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Personally, I would only lay hands on someone if I felt I or another person was at imminent risk of harm. There could be other times when I feel it could be argued, but they seem so rare and unlikely that I do not really consider them.

 

[Transk53]

For the last twenty years I was fighting people for $25 an hour. And that was mostly to make someone else rich.

No offence intended, but like the backyard MMA scene with Brendan? Hopefully you have seen Warrior.

 

[drop bear]

Even the pope will punch you for insulting his mother.

 

[Tez3]

All I can say is that in my former life in law enforcement, it seemed that everyone I ever apprehended for assault seemed to think they were exercising self-defense. For things like 'bad stares' and 'shooting off his mouth at me', and so on. "Dude dissed me so I defended myself by cracking him the face." Yeah, no.

Here that's called getting your retaliation in first.