When Would You Fight Back?

[MJS]

I know there are going to be endless situations, all different possibilities, but I'm sure, for the sake of discussion, we can come up with some examples.

What would be cases in which you would not fight back?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I will not fight back if I feel I have a means of escape from the immediate threat. That means I won't fight if I feel I can run away, comply with demands, or otherwise defuse the situation without violence.

I have no aversion to violence, I'm not against it on philosophical or any other grounds; I just believe that 'self-defense' means just that; defense of self. Violence means additional risk. I'll take that risk when my common sense tells me it is less risk that to not fight back.

I will not fight to support my ego, to prove a point, or on 'general principles'. My self-defense philosophy is simple; life means more than ego, emotions, or even honor. I will do whatever I believe necessary to survive, including giving up my wallet, watch, cell phone, or whatever. When I do not believe that I can avoid being assaulted, injured, or killed, I will engage in violence with all my ability and strength and I will not stop until I feel the threat is ended.

 

[pgsmith]

My self-defense philosophy is simple; life means more than ego, emotions, or even honor. I will do whatever I believe necessary to survive, including giving up my wallet, watch, cell phone, or whatever.

I am totally on-board with your philosophy except for the snippet I've quoted here. There are instances where defense of self means conciously increasing the immediate danger for the longer range good. I had a friend who unfortunately got himself in a situation where he was mugged. He gave the two fellows his wallet and shoes, and his wife's purse. He was then forced to watch as one of them raped his wife. They both survived, but their marriage didn't. Even with therapy, my friend couldn't live with the fact that he didn't do anything to stop it, and finally ended up taking his own life. In surviving the immediate threat, my friend was unable to survive the consequences. In my mind, it would have been preferable to have lost his life in trying to prevent the rape initially. However, this is something that everyone has to determine for themselves, preferably before hand. To be wondering what you feel you should do will only add confusion when faced with a genuine self-defense situation. To have determined before hand what you would and would not allow will help your reactions when adrenaline makes it more difficult to think clearly.

Just my opinions.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am totally on-board with your philosophy except for the snippet I've quoted here. There are instances where defense of self means conciously increasing the immediate danger for the longer range good. I had a friend who unfortunately got himself in a situation where he was mugged. He gave the two fellows his wallet and shoes, and his wife's purse. He was then forced to watch as one of them raped his wife. They both survived, but their marriage didn't. Even with therapy, my friend couldn't live with the fact that he didn't do anything to stop it, and finally ended up taking his own life. In surviving the immediate threat, my friend was unable to survive the consequences. In my mind, it would have been preferable to have lost his life in trying to prevent the rape initially. However, this is something that everyone has to determine for themselves, preferably before hand. To be wondering what you feel you should do will only add confusion when faced with a genuine self-defense situation. To have determined before hand what you would and would not allow will help your reactions when adrenaline makes it more difficult to think clearly.

Just my opinions.

Fair point. In defense of the life or safety of my loved ones, I am prepared to do more than I might if it was just me.

One must also note that if a person defending his wife's honor is killed, then he can longer defend her from anything, ever again. And having killed him, there is little to stop them from killing her as an unwanted witness, which might be less desirable than the rape; although that is not something I'd want to dwell upon much.

 

[pgsmith]

One must also note that if a person defending his wife's honor is killed, then he can longer defend her from anything, ever again. And having killed him, there is little to stop them from killing her as an unwanted witness, which might be less desirable than the rape; although that is not something I'd want to dwell upon much.

This is absolutely true, and the reason that I said everyone should think about these things before hand. In talking with my friend after the fact, he told me that this very argument playing out in his head kept him from actually trying to do anything. What caused him the most despair, as far as I was able to tell, was the fact that he was going back and forth in his head so much that he did not actually look for opportunities to do anything. He told me that he was frozen and couldn't accurately remember where the assailants were or where the weapon was throughout the event.

It was terribly sad, but it definitely made me carefully consider what I could and could not do if placed in the same situation.

 

[malteaser14]

Im sorry to hear about your friend and his wife. That couldn't have been easy to try and live with, however if he did fight back the outcome could have been alot worse

To get back to the OP, if my family or friends are being threatened I will do whatever it takes to protect them... Luckily for me tho I have been able to verbally defuse all situations envolving others. A situation where I didn't fit back though was when a women was trying to show off to her mates. She started attacking me. I hit her back once and noticed her friends closing in. I stopped hitting back and her friends continued to spectate. I know it's sounds lame but I would rather take it from one person than get jumped by 9! On the plus side, she couldn't fight...I came away with a noise bleed and a black eye! Im still convinced that if I fought back it would have been 100% worse!!

 

[sfs982000]

Common sense will normally dictate when to fight back or flee. I had a situation when I was leaving the MEPS station before I went to basic and I walked to a convience store at the end of the blocked and got sucker punched by a kid and realized that he had 7 other guys with him. As bad as I wanted to rip that kid a new one, I thought better of it and called the cops from the convience store. I would most definitely fight back to protect my safety or the safety of my family, but anything else I would more than likely walk away if possible. I would never risk serious bodily harm or death to protect anything materialistic. I can always replace the t.v., car, wallet, and I can always cancel the credit cards, etc.....

 

[MA-Caver]

I am like minded with Bill M. concerning this but also with pgsmith that there are times when even if it can be avoided, violence for defensive sake is necessary. The police (rightly) say cooperate and give the mugger/robber whatever they want, yet this is becoming far less true as time goes on. Perhaps 20 years ago or even 10 years ago this was sage advice. It certainly was 30-40 years ago and times before that. Yet gang mentality requires sometimes a kill or at least an act of violence against someone to "prove their worth, and willingness to cause harm", asinine reasons to be sure but with the worse of the gangs that are out there this holds true.
You just have NO guarantee what your robber/mugger/attacker will do. That they'll threaten you to intimidate out of you what you have and leave, or they'll hurt/kill you regardless of how much you cooperate. Like sexual predators it's about power and control over their chosen victims, however fleeting, it's a strong stimulant.
Expect the unexpected and expect the worse and if possible do your worse before it's done unto you. Personally if I can get the attacker/robber/mugger down long enough to facilitate an escape of me and/or mine then I'll do so and fiercely. Even if it's just me, alone, I'll tear into them at the first opportunity. Better that I arrive home a little bloody, and be cared for by my loved ones than to have my loved ones answer a knock on the door by a uniformed officer or plain clothes detective telling them some "bad news" and they have to take a trip to the morgue to identify my body.
Screw that idea.
Yet if surrendering my wallet, phone, whatever is all that it'll take to let me get out of that alive, then fine. Still, if they want to hurt me, knock me on the head anyway, then we're going to have a little "chat".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just some data on armed robbery...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...me-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/robberymain

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines robbery as the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.
Overview

Nationwide in 2010, there were an estimated 367,832 robberies.
The estimated number of robberies decreased 10.0 percent from the 2009 estimate and 18.1 percent from the 2006 estimate.
The 2010 estimated robbery rate of 119.1 per 100,000 inhabitants reflected a decrease of 10.5 percent when compared with the 2009 rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
An estimated $456 million in losses were attributed to robberies in 2010.
The average dollar value of property stolen per reported robbery was $1,239. The highest average dollar loss was for banks, which lost $4,410 per offense. (See Table 23.)
Firearms were used in 41.4 percent of the robberies for which the UCR Program received additional information in 2010. In a nearly equal percentage of robberies (42.0 percent), strong-arm tactics were used, followed by knives and cutting instruments used in 7.9 percent of robberies, and other dangerous weapons used in 8.8 percent of robberies in 2010. (Based on Table 19.)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

An estimated 14,748 persons were murdered nationwide in 2010. This was a 4.2 percent decrease from the 2009 estimate, a 14.8 percent decrease from the 2006 figure, and an 8.0 percent decrease from the 2001 estimate.
In 2010, there were 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 4.8 percent decrease from the 2009 rate. Compared with the 2006 rate, the murder rate decreased 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2001 rate, the murder rate decreased 15.0 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Nearly 44 percent (43.8) of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, with 20.6 percent reported in the West, 19.9 percent reported in the Midwest, and 15.6 percent reported in the Northeast. (See Table 3.)

Now already, if we compare the number of robberies nationwide (367,832) to the number of murders nationwide (14,748) we would see a low incidence of murder compared to robbery. However, this is not the 'true' rate of murder as it relates to robbery. Fortunately, the FBI breaks it down for us:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl10.xls

Murder due to robbery?

Robbery 780

Now this is just a rough estimate; I do not claim precision here. But the numbers are clearly convincing to me, even in a worst-case scenario. Your changes (in 2010 in the USA) of being killed in a robbery? Aproximately 2 one thousandths of a single percentage point. 0.002123131.

That's no consolation to the 780 people who died as a result of robbery last year (and I am only including those numbers here, not murder during rape, domestic disturbance, etc). But it does mean that even if you are unlucky enough to be robbed (4.8 people out of 100,000 or 1 one-thousandth of a percent), then your chances of being murdered during that encounter are a further 1 one-thousandth of a percent.

In other words, with 313,303,851 people in the USA, 780 died during a robbery last year. Chances are pretty good you won't be one of them.

Just sayin'. Playing against the odds is for gamblers. Self-defense tactics call for playing *with* the odds.

That doesn't mean not to use common sense; nothing is cut and dried and there are no promises that you won't be hurt if you comply. I am just looking at the numbers.

 

[pgsmith]

Just sayin'. Playing against the odds is for gamblers. Self-defense tactics call for playing *with* the odds.

I agree completely. Being aware of your surroundings will even further decrease your odds. It's those very odds that make me wonder about all of the martial artists that are so tied up with arguing "self defense tactics". They argue incessantly about what tactics would work for self defense and what wouldn't, when their odds of actually ever getting to use any of those tactics is infinitisemally small. (I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence!) Of course, if you happen to become one of that very small number, sound techniques and tactics would be a great help, but hardly worth all of the effort that people put into arguing about them in my opinion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree completely. Being aware of your surroundings will even further decrease your odds. It's those very odds that make me wonder about all of the martial artists that are so tied up with arguing "self defense tactics". They argue incessantly about what tactics would work for self defense and what wouldn't, when their odds of actually ever getting to use any of those tactics is infinitisemally small. (I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence!) Of course, if you happen to become one of that very small number, sound techniques and tactics would be a great help, but hardly worth all of the effort that people put into arguing about them in my opinion.

I think we're on the same page. Train for the worst, hope for the best, and keep your head in an emergency. Use caution and common sense about where you go, what you do, and with whom you associate. Pay attention to your surroundings, don't become incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs, and leave if things start going sideways if you can. Be informed about the self-defense laws where you live and what they mean in practical terms. But if you are the person who whom something bad happens, and the situation is about to get worse, open that can of whoopass and don't stop until the threat has ended, or you have.

 

[K-man]

Murder due to robbery?

Robbery 780

Now this is just a rough estimate; I do not claim precision here. But the numbers are clearly convincing to me, even in a worst-case scenario. Your changes (in 2010 in the USA) of being killed in a robbery? Aproximately 2 one thousandths of a single percentage point. 0.002123131.

That's no consolation to the 780 people who died as a result of robbery last year (and I am only including those numbers here, not murder during rape, domestic disturbance, etc). But it does mean that even if you are unlucky enough to be robbed (4.8 people out of 100,000 or 1 one-thousandth of a percent), then your chances of being murdered during that encounter are a further 1 one-thousandth of a percent.

Don't know if you have any details of the 780 killed but it would be interesting to know the break up of how many complied with the assailants' demands and how many resisted.

 

[Big Don]

If they have a gun, and I don't and are more than 5 or 6 feet away, I will comply. If they have a knife, someone, maybe me, but, definitely someone is getting cut.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Don't know if you have any details of the 780 killed but it would be interesting to know the break up of how many complied with the assailants' demands and how many resisted.

I wish they had that kind of information, but as far as I can tell, it just doesn't exist. It sure would be good information to have, though eh?

 

[simplewc101]

when would I not fight back?
situation (actually happened): random guy at 130 am in a bad part (my part) of the city flags me down while im waiting at a stoplight. No traffic, so I wait until my light turns green to roll down window (dude looks kinda sketchy and I've never seen him before in my area, but he's in PJ's and I help humankind when I can) Wants two quarters in exchange for a dollar so he can make a pay phone call. He says everyone he been trying to flag down gives him weird looks and he just moved here. I told him it's not the best area to be hanging out in the middle of the night. I say hold on, but knowing I have to look down into my cup holder to see if I have quarters, as he steps off the sidewalk to approach my car I tell him to remain on the sidewalk. I gave him directions to the nearest payphone, and threw him two quarters out tha window. Although he had the best intentions, I don't trust no one near that part of the city. If he had bad intentions and someone approached my vehicle in a threatening manner with or without weapons, I would have murked off as I had a green light and the right of way to get the F out of there.
So, situational awareness plays a part into when I will or will not stand my ground. Sometimes I have no choice and I'm in the middle of a fight before I even know it; fights can be thrust upon you with no warning.
I think the better question is the title of this thread, which is 'When WOULD you fight back".
I would fight back when the people I'm with are less able to defend their selves than me- drunk, female, child, elderly, or whatever.
I would fight back when the attacker is just 100% out of pocket, just comin off the hook for no reason and I'm in a place where I feel I have the right to remain there without being harassed. To accompany this, let's say a friend brought me along to a party or a gathering at one of his friend's place and someone who lived there or a close friend to someone who lived there wanted to start some shiz with me, I wouldn't want to stand my ground and fight there, it would be way easier to diffuse the situation by apologizing (even if i was right, or whatever) and talking the situation down and just leave.
I would also probably fight back if i think the attackers have done this before to other people. Example, two of my good buddies were walking downtown late at night, and both were drunk (one more than the other). They notice a guy on the other side of the street on a cellphone kinda following them. The little voice inside their heads said "we're about to get jumped" and sure enough, as they passed the next alley a dude jumped out and the fight was on, 2v2. It seemed planned and their attack left my friends in a position where trying to run away from 2 sober people wouldn't have ended well. Coupled with the fact that the attackers could have been strapped, I commend my friends for hitting the attackers first as one popped out from the alley and the other came up from behind. That's a situation where you just gotta take whats been given to you and fight it out.
Additionally, I would stand and fight if I have diffused the situation multiple times with the same person, but for some reason they always want to harass me or bully me or pick on me for whatever reason. Sometimes when you show you will stand up and go toe to toe and fight back, then they realize they really don't want to try you. And if they do decide to try you and they stand and fight, that's when you give 'em hell and they'll think twice before they do harass you or anyone else again.
Summary: there are lots of times when it is necessary to stand and fight. Some people subscribe to the Tai Chi and Buddhist ways of trying to do no harm to the attacker or anyone at all, but I find that there are many times where it is absolutely necessary to stand up against those who wish to do harm to people and as the Bruce Lee philosophy goes, you may attack me, but I'm going to make it hard as hell for you to accomplish your goal to attack (in any way), hurt , or steal from me.

 

[SuperFLY]

im an odd sort. often im more worried about the damage i could do to someone else than worried about myself. its gotten me a few black eyes and a few regrets (for not pounding the guy) in the past but generally i am happy i am the non-violent sort. i can also say, of the few street fights i've had i've never actually 'lost' any. although thats a kind of immature view of things.

i do have my limits though. one fight i was in, kinda got surrounded and one guy attacked me. he didnt know how to punch so it wasnt hard but after a few he had given me a black eye. i spent most of the time during this just holding him, blocking punches and asking him 'whats the point?' 'why attack me?'. after a few punches had connected, albeit not hard as said, but irritating i reached the end of my tether, pushed him back and threw one of my own which connected, spun him round and down like a sack of potatoes. after he got back up on wobbly legs he said 'thats it' and ran out of the circle into the crowd.

what scares me is i was on the edge of snapping at that stage, he'd annoyed me to the point of losing my temper and as he was getting back up i was standing there, full fighting stance shouting at him to attack me.. one more attack and i would have lost it. it scares me to think what i would have done if he hadnt gotten scared and ran off.

this ended in me spending a couple of hours that night beating the crap out of my punch bag trying to get my frustrations out.

this has left me with a worrying prospect. if someone attacked me that had a weapon or was tougher than this whelp would i wait too long to attack? would i end up beaten before i decided to retaliate? i hope not, i hope i'll realise the threat and react before its too late but until it happens you never know.

even when one of my friends was attacked/mugged when i was with her. 5 chavvy girls (well, female at least.. maybe). there were 4 of them blocking my way to get to her and 1 holding her down telling her to give up her handbag.. i pushed out out of the way, blocked another that tried to bottle me and disarmed her (basically blocked and knocked the bottle out of their hand, dodged a punch and grabbed the one that was holding her down and threw her into the road. by then people had reacted and come to help and they ran off. the point to make is at no time did i throw a punch, kick or hurt any of them. thinking back on it, yeh i got em off her but what if no one had come to help? id just waded through 5 people without incapacitating any of them. oh how much do i wish i could go back and instead of pulling the last one off her just kicking them square in the head whilst they were bent over.

half the problem was, they were girls. years of being told 'its wrong to hit a girl' running through my head. but still, end of the day if someone attacks you man or woman you need to respond. cursed that 'mental conditioning' for a long time after that.

but hey.. you end up over thinking it and winding yourself up over it.

that said this was a fair few years ago and my attitude has somewhat changed so perhaps i would react sooner/in a more forceful way.. but who knows.

 

[MJS]

Great posts so far!

Of course, the obvious is..or should be, that you do all you can to avoid or prevent a potential bad siuation in the first place. Sometimes, the little things that set off that 'tingly little spidey sense feeling' can be avoided. I've noticed in alot of the robberies that seem to take place in the larger cities, involve an immediate assault by the badguy(s). They'll hit you, knock you down, etc, and then demand your cash, keys, etc. They're not even giving you a chance to comply before they hit you.

Assess each situation accordingly. IMO, if you're going to fight back, you have to wait for the right time. Someone pulls a knife and asks for your wallet. Going right for the knife may not be a good idea, however, as you're reaching for it, the BG is obviously expecting movement, so it could be then, that you make your move.

I would say that a physical threat would be enough. Making an attempt to grab, punch, pull a weapon....yes, those are all situations, in which I'd most likely do something. Of course, the risk of injury or death is high. I know that in the tragic situation told earlier, in which the guys wife was raped, it was said the guy felt like he should've done something. It was said that had he, they both may've wound up dead. However, and I know this probably won't be the popular thing, but I'm sorry, I just couldnt stand by, watch and do nothing. Sure, that could be the last thing that I ever do, yes I know that. But doing nothing is akin to a woman allowing a rape to happen. Isn't it usually said that they should fight back as hard as possible? Haven't numerous attacks been thwarted by them doing just that? Therefore, I'd rather fight back and accept the fact that I may get badly hurt or worse. I'd rather go down fighting, knowing that I at least tried, rather than sit back and wish that I had later on.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Therefore, I'd rather fight back and accept the fact that I may get badly hurt or worse. I'd rather go down fighting, knowing that I at least tried, rather than sit back and wish that I had later on.

With one caveat. A person who is dead or unable to continue to fight cannot defend anyone from anything. There are no easy answers, I'd not fault a person for making one decision or another in the tragic situation described earlier in the thread. I get it, I identify.

But I also keep in mind that the old saying "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" is a great bumper sticker, but it's very poor self-defense advice. A person who is 'living on their knees' can at least hope to one day rise again. A dead person can do nothing. A person who submits to even terrible physical degradation and personal violation may still be alive and may one day feel better; a person who willingly chooses death over that situation will never feel anything again.

I have always had trouble with that notion of "well, at least I'll know I went down swinging." No you won't, actually. You won't know anything, including what happens to the people you were trying to protect when you're dead. Dead heroes save no one. Only live ones do.

I accept that there is a distinct difference between what a person believes is the important thing to do and what is the smartest choice to make related purely to self-defense. But when considering self-defense, life is all that matters; all other considerations are secondary. If one has other values that are more important, that's cool; but it's not self-defense, strictly speaking.

 

[Kenlee25]

im an odd sort. often im more worried about the damage i could do to someone else than worried about myself. its gotten me a few black eyes and a few regrets (for not pounding the guy) in the past but generally i am happy i am the non-violent sort. i can also say, of the few street fights i've had i've never actually 'lost' any. although thats a kind of immature view of things.

i do have my limits though. one fight i was in, kinda got surrounded and one guy attacked me. he didnt know how to punch so it wasnt hard but after a few he had given me a black eye. i spent most of the time during this just holding him, blocking punches and asking him 'whats the point?' 'why attack me?'. after a few punches had connected, albeit not hard as said, but irritating i reached the end of my tether, pushed him back and threw one of my own which connected, spun him round and down like a sack of potatoes. after he got back up on wobbly legs he said 'thats it' and ran out of the circle into the crowd.

what scares me is i was on the edge of snapping at that stage, he'd annoyed me to the point of losing my temper and as he was getting back up i was standing there, full fighting stance shouting at him to attack me.. one more attack and i would have lost it. it scares me to think what i would have done if he hadnt gotten scared and ran off.

this ended in me spending a couple of hours that night beating the crap out of my punch bag trying to get my frustrations out.

this has left me with a worrying prospect. if someone attacked me that had a weapon or was tougher than this whelp would i wait too long to attack? would i end up beaten before i decided to retaliate? i hope not, i hope i'll realise the threat and react before its too late but until it happens you never know.

even when one of my friends was attacked/mugged when i was with her. 5 chavvy girls (well, female at least.. maybe). there were 4 of them blocking my way to get to her and 1 holding her down telling her to give up her handbag.. i pushed out out of the way, blocked another that tried to bottle me and disarmed her (basically blocked and knocked the bottle out of their hand, dodged a punch and grabbed the one that was holding her down and threw her into the road. by then people had reacted and come to help and they ran off. the point to make is at no time did i throw a punch, kick or hurt any of them. thinking back on it, yeh i got em off her but what if no one had come to help? id just waded through 5 people without incapacitating any of them. oh how much do i wish i could go back and instead of pulling the last one off her just kicking them square in the head whilst they were bent over.

half the problem was, they were girls. years of being told 'its wrong to hit a girl' running through my head. but still, end of the day if someone attacks you man or woman you need to respond. cursed that 'mental conditioning' for a long time after that.

but hey.. you end up over thinking it and winding yourself up over it.

that said this was a fair few years ago and my attitude has somewhat changed so perhaps i would react sooner/in a more forceful way.. but who knows.

Double standards and what not suck. But honestly I know what you mean. This girl once got all up in my face, holding her fist up as if she were going to hit me. I don't know why she even snapped. I had only done something that everyone else ( and yes I did ask everyone else ) deemed playful. Well out of no where I reacted and put her in a headlock. I didn't squeeze or anything, but it was basically a warning saying "please don't overstep your boundaries, I CAN hurt you".

I then felt bad for it afterwards. And I didn't even hurt her, in fact we are friends now. It's just the fact that I roughly handled a woman ( even though I caused her no pain ) to defend myself. Societal norms and brainwashing can really get to you.

Anyway, I would chose not to fight as long as I calmly walk away from a fight. I'm not going to run from someone. I'll try to talk it down and descalate and walk away, but I won't run. However, if things will not descalate and he is still all in my face despite me trying to calmly walk away, then well...i don't know at that point. honestly, at that point i'd be hoping he would go ahead and swing at me so we can get it over with. I blame this thought process on the fact that i'm young and still to prideful, I digress. However if in an unsafe environment and I'm going to be attacked ( note: not a fight, attacked ) sure I'll run. Because then I'm gambling with my life rather than just a few bruises or broken bones.

I'm still a young guy about to go to college, so for me, I still have to worry about getting into regular old fist fights that I may unintentionally bring onto myself rather than just focusing on self defense. Luckily for me in most cases, I'm a shorter guy, 5'6 5'7 ish so I think Claiming self defense will always be a bit easier for me because I can always say "look at the size difference, why would I pick a fight with him?"

 

[MJS]

With one caveat. A person who is dead or unable to continue to fight cannot defend anyone from anything. There are no easy answers, I'd not fault a person for making one decision or another in the tragic situation described earlier in the thread. I get it, I identify.

But I also keep in mind that the old saying "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" is a great bumper sticker, but it's very poor self-defense advice. A person who is 'living on their knees' can at least hope to one day rise again. A dead person can do nothing. A person who submits to even terrible physical degradation and personal violation may still be alive and may one day feel better; a person who willingly chooses death over that situation will never feel anything again.

I have always had trouble with that notion of "well, at least I'll know I went down swinging." No you won't, actually. You won't know anything, including what happens to the people you were trying to protect when you're dead. Dead heroes save no one. Only live ones do.

I accept that there is a distinct difference between what a person believes is the important thing to do and what is the smartest choice to make related purely to self-defense. But when considering self-defense, life is all that matters; all other considerations are secondary. If one has other values that are more important, that's cool; but it's not self-defense, strictly speaking.

Points taken Bill. Let me ask you this. If you were in that situation, you're telling me that you wouldn't defend your wife is she was in the situation I described?