I suppose it depends. The right to self defense is interpreted in law and society as a right to proportional defense. Now- individuals and states have their own interpretations as to wether a person is obligated to attempt in good faith an option to escape a dangerous situation if one exists before the use of force against force is warranted. We can take it to the “kindergarten” example of wether a person believes that children should be told that it os ok go hit a child if that child hits first or not. In most cases, when a child hits an other child and is hit back, were a teacher or daycare provider to witness it, both children would be told they were wrong to use violence. Of course, proportional force os debatable. It is a fact, and the crux a current case, that a simple “light strike” or “light shove” can kill a person. So any time a person uses or threatens violence against us, even if it os clear they do not intend to kill, there is a risk to our lives. Between men and women…
.. it is biological fact that males generally have an advantage in upper body strength. Regardless of gender, the concept of “proportional force” in response to being hit such as the use of fists of open hand strikes to the torso for example- does require some examination as we must define “proportional.” For example- if you punch Mike Tyson as hard as you can and Tyson punches back as hard as he can- not only are your odds of inflicting serious harm to him likely lower than him to you, but his hardest punch is not proportional to your hardest punch in terms of actual Kingston energy to the target. Is your hardest punch worth his half hardest punch? Many questions that basically can’t be answered- like if he says he punched “lightly,” by his standards- how do we prove his intent was to punch “lightly”? We can really only go off the injuries sustained after the fact to judge if the response was equivalent.
Probably. I mean- unless they are a trained or able fighter, a guy is probably stupid for it too- but being punched for being stupid and self defense aren’t the same thing.
never again would i let a girl hit me without repercussions. I'm so happy with my fiance that she isn't that type, but i've seen so many videos of when a guy defends himself, all the other white knights jump him to protect the girl they'll never have.
4
deleted
· 2 years ago
White knights usually have a pretty good instinct who to piss off and who better not, so they'll probably not interfere when someone is in real danger.
if a white knight had a go at me because i defended myself against a girl, you bet they wouldn't be standing for long
Reply
deleted
· 2 years ago
"hit someone because they hit you" is not self defense, it's revenge. So Molly missed the point here. In her scenario a guy has of course every right to protect himself, forcefully if needed, however, there's nuance. He should also ask himself why he is in this relationship in the first place. This applies to anyone suffering violence in a relation. "Equal rights .- equal fights" is just incel bullshit.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted- other than some people don’t like feeling like incels? It’s a simple fact that “self defense” doesn’t inherently mean returning force with force. This is a simple tactical fact that every military or skilled fighter knows and is pretty intuitive.
If one entered a fenced in field unarmed and were charged by a bull, it grazes them but causes no severe injury, but it starts to come around for another pass. What would be most peoples idea of the best way to defend themselves, to secure their safety? To “hit the bull back” in the hopes that it will see them as a threat or that repeated blows will incapacitate it, or to run for the fence and escape?
Most people who believe self defense involves meeting force with force only hold that stance when they feel they have advantage or equal footing in force to the person attacking them.
So where escaping the situation is a viable option and a person instead decides to respond with force, it isn’t that they would t run from danger (they’d likely try to escape from the bull or a bear etc. if unarmed…) it’s that people who meet force with force when there is an option to escape that sees to their safety and the safety of loved ones are people who like to fight fights they feel they can win and then justify it as necessary. It’s usually ego such as not wanting to rely on help from someone else or a need to prove to self or others that they are dominant, or as you say- simple revenge- which is usually ego. “How dare this person think they can subject me to this and get away with it..” it comes from a feeling of powerlessness and a desire to “reclaim” that power they feel they lost.
self defense is returning the favour, what's so acceptable that someone, a girl, can hit another and not receive anything back?
1
deleted
· 2 years ago
It depends on the very specific circumstances. If the guy and the girl would fight in the same weight class, why not. If a 200 lb guy "returns" the hit of his 90 lb girlfriend with both giving what they got he should be locked up.
@iccarus- you define self defense as “returning the favor,” but that really doesn’t work does it? Like- self defense against sexual assault is to sexually assault them back to “return the favor?”Much like punching back, that just places you in a position to receive more attacks or escalating attacks and looks kinda silly when we try and define self defense that way. Self defense is literally that- defending yourself from ongoing risk of harm. Where the option exists the best way to do this is generally to escape the situation, not “return the favor.” Returning the favor is called retaliation, that is an element of tactical defense (or just plain revenge), not general situational self defense. Most (smart) unarmed people would not attempt to punch Mike Tyson back- they would run if he attacked them.
If you’re hitting back because you think you can win in a situation where you’d run if you didn’t think you could win- you aren’t defending yourself, you’re just beating someone up.
@garlog- i say it somewhere in all this- people are welcome to their own interpretations and there’s a lot of room for nuance- the most effective self defense could be argued to be removing a potential threat before it has the chance to harm you, or any number of things. Individual jurisdictions world wide have their own legal definitions of self defense and what is permissible under what conditions, so regardless of personal belief one is left to decide what liability or consequences they wish to risk. In most of the world there is a concept of proportional force. I won’t condemn every man who strikes a woman because details matter in my mind, but I also won’t condone every man who strikes a woman on the grounds “she hit me first.”
@general_failure so if someone is defending themselves, they should go to jail as well? I disagree, you may want to be a punching bag, but never will i let anyone, male or female get away with a strike on me
@guest_ yes, if anyone hits me, I'll hit them back, that's returning the favour. Retaliation is waiting for a time to "get even", self defense is in the moment. No court would find anyone guilty of assault for striking back in self defense.
deleted
· 2 years ago
@iccarus I'm saying if the 200 lb guy puts all his strength into the "return"of the hit of his 45 lb girlfriend it's not legit self defense. I don't your specific local laws, here self-defense is legit when someone is presently attacking you or is obviously taking a swing at you right now and/or if this attack is continuing, but you're obliged to a nuanced reaction. If someone hits you, you're not automatically granted to return a hit, only as an immediate reaction. An overreaction will only be tolerated if you can credibly claim to be in a panic for your life.
@garlog - "Defending yourself to victory" - you sound like a gamer boy with no idea what a relationship is.
@iccarus- you are free to defend yourself or conduct yourself as you believe necessary- but your conclusion is patently false and less than 3 minutes on Google will tell you so.
People are commonly arrested, and less commonly but still often found guilty of a crime for returning a punch. This is especially true if the punch escalated into a fight, and even more true if serious injury or death occurs. If two people live together, returning a punch can become a domestic violence charge- regardless of who instigated or escalated to physical violence first. If it was truly self defense and you have a decent attorney or a lax prosecutor your odds of getting off on self defense for returning blows are decent- but the jurisdiction it occurs in with influence laws and attitudes, and the circumstances will matter.
Also, something that is true in most societies is that while individuals may have their own opinions on hitting women back or at all, in the US for example, there are strong and wide spread cultural and legal biases against men when it comes to violence involving women. The bias tends to be that of a 6” 200lb man and a 5” 100lb woman go before a police officer or a judge over a punch out- the one generally most likely to go to jail is the man- and this tends to be even more true if the woman is injured or able to claim injury. Maybe in time your way of thinking may change that bias, but it won’t change it today if you went to court for hitting a woman. You could win- but you start behind the 8ball. Also note wether convicted or not, the charge for the arrest will show up on background checks for quite some time. If you happen to live with the woman and are arrested for domestic violence- innocent or not, any employer is going to see a domestic violence charge. So- to each their own.
Lastly, keep in mind that a charge of assault or battery can be levied as a civil case separate from a criminal case. If your are arrested the first time and found innocent, you still have to go through all the disruption and potential legal fees, missed work, possibly a stay in jail depending on the timing of things, etc. but you can then be sued in civil court even if the criminal case found you innocent. OJ Simpson and many others can tell you that being criminally innocent won’t necessarily shield you from being guilty in a civil case- and that civil case will again require your attendance and likely cost you money even if you win. Def defense is not legally as simple most places as: “they hit me so I hit them back.”
yeah true, cause people tend to believe the woman's side of the story. Yes, if a woman punches a man, and the man punches back, that's the start of a fight. You're believing I'd keep on throwing fists to win, it's only one punch.
If you think a man shouldn't defend themselves against a woman, so it's ok for a woman to be hitting a man, because she's a woman, and the guy, under no circumstance is allowed to defend himself because you'd say he's the one to be arrested? at what point should he stop the assault, or should a guy just give up?
I’ve never said I don’t think a man should defend himself against a woman- if a woman was shooting at me, I would most certainly return fire if it was the most practical option to ensure my safety. As for the “one punch” theory- sometimes people throw one punch- but that’s a bit uncommon outside of something like a “playful hit” or “punch between friends” scenario. But let’s say they throw one punch, and you return one punch- unless that one punch incapacitates or rocks them to the core- chances are upon being punched, a large number of people would apply a variation of your philosophy and feel the need to return another blow. So if for every punch they dish you return one and vice versa- it would seldom ever be one punch.
As to what a man is supposed to do- I might suggest, as I have, if able, remove yourself from the situation, contact the authorities, document the altercation and press civil and criminal charges. Do one or all of able.
That’s what I said earlier and what most laws and reasonable persons consider when looking at “self defense,” was there actually a reasonable perception of some serious material danger, or is the “danger” “ouch, it hurts..” or “my poor ego will be bruised if I don’t feel I stood up or got fair payback”?
If you can’t remove yourself and or you have credible reason to believe this person could and actually will cause material damage or death, most people will defend themselves regardless of the law because it’s better to be alive in jail than dead and free in most cases like this.
So I mean- if a girl is attacking you with a gun or knife, if she’s showing or speaking a serious intent to kill or cause lasting damage to you, in these sorts of common sense scenarios- of course you must do what must be done to protect yourself. Most of the time that probably won’t involve punching unless the two of you are in similar weight classes of there are specific extenuating circumstances. If you punch her the law becomes her weapon, if you defend yourself by using legal remedy and attempting to flee, perhaps blocking your vital areas, or perhaps restraining her in a sensible manner- your odds of the law acting in your self defense are much better. So what a man is supposed to do is much like self defense itself- it depends on the scenario. I don’t see many scenarios that legitimize a fist fight or punch out with a woman unless you are fairly evenly matched- and a single punch seems far more dubious and in some ways less defensible as it would have to be a decisive punch.
exgf attacked me with a knife, bent her wrist so far back that was a snap, not broken, but would definitely hurt. so i should be cut or killed, she was trying to slice my throat.
I will defend myself, doesn't matter what gender the other is, attack me, get punched or worse, not going to take getting hit, there's no excuse for anyone to attack and believing that they shouldn't get anything back is ridiculous.
Saw video recently, some guy recording his female friend hitting this guy, in the head, repeatedly. He got fed up, hit her once, hard, she went down, out cold. So you think he should be charged with assault because he defended himself? He reacted to a situation that ended her assault on him, and your jury would have him sitting in jail?
If you think women can't be hit back because they don't deserve it, then you are proving the equal rights will never exist.
I’m sorry you went through that with your ex girlfriend. It sounds like you used appropriate force based on the facts as described- though to the point the story doesn’t really relate as we aren’t talking about a returning a punch for punch- you were attacked with a knife and removed a threat to your life through a joint manipulation to disarm the attacker.
As for the story of the video you mention- I haven’t seen the video and don’t know the details. Based on what you describe, being hit in the head could reasonably be expected to cause serious lasting injury or death in principle overall-
However- it depends. I can’t see it, a “hit” is a wide range of possible strikes, and any strike has a wide range of effectiveness based on technique, luck, physical ability etc. Wasn’t there, didn’t see the video, so I lack critical information to help determine if it appears justified or not. Regardless of the minutia- if you’re being hit in the head, it is a very good idea to stop yourself from being hit in the head because even a child could kill or permanently harm someone with a “lucky shot” especially to the head/face.
But there are several concerning details to the event, and without seeing the video and having some knowledge of the scene and circumstances of the attack- I can’t say.
If they’re in an open space etc, running would probably be the better and more appropriate defense. Let’s examine:
1. If you return a punch in self defense, you have no reason to expect success. In this case he knocked her out, but you can also punch someone and miss, injure yourself worse than them (broken fingers/wrist etc) or land but not succeed in self defense (ineffective strike.) if you are capable of running, their ability to land hands becomes 0% out of their reach. That is a 100% chance of self defense if you stay out of reach vs. unknown for returning the attack.
Unless extremely aggressive they are unlikely to chase, and the longer you run or avoid, not only do your chances of them continuing pursuit generally decrease, but the chances of law enforcement being called (or hopefully the friend who was filming already called for help..), showing up, become greater.
2. Any time you use physical violence against a person there is some risk of injury or death, even a slap or light shove. This is the same for returning a blow as receiving one. If you run, there is effectively a 0% chance of you directly causing their injury or death, and any fish they may suffer injury or death is minimal- such as tripping, being hit by a car, having a heart attack… but you are removed from the decision making process that lead to that injury or death so long as you didn’t instigate (taunt. Etc.) so you have minimal legal or moral liability and have maximized the chances of all parties safety.
As I’ve said before- it’s more nuanced than “hit them back and it’s ok.” There aren’t really any other crimes that applies to- you can’t rob someone for robbing you- even if a mugger tries to take your wallet and in that moment you take theirs. The genera guideline is that the force must be proportional, but there is an ethical question and in many legal jurisdictions a legal question of wether the force is necessary or if there was an option requiring use of less or no force that would be available in the moment.
Even soldiers sent to war trying to kill each other don’t always return force for force. When there isn’t a tactical imperative to hold ground or engage, most with knowledge of survival in any situation will advocate that one not meet force with force but instead take any reasonable option to escape the situation.
So if we want to split hairs- I mentioned before- “self defense” can include removing a potential threat before it has the opportunity to use force. Perhaps you LOOK like you might be a problem- so I remove you preemptively. In practical terms that is self defense. In legal terms and in the minds of most people, a preemptive assumption strike in civilian life isn’t self defense, it’s an attack. So a universal idea of “a blow for a blow” could be called self defense,” but is it the most effective or wisest self defense? If there is the option to flee it probably isn’t.
defending with a punch for a punch is self defense, you really going to go white knight on a guy for defending himself? you're one of those that watch when the girl is hitting, but only intervene when the guy fights back, holding back the guy?
girl slaps me, i slap back, girl hits me, i hit back, girl punches me, I hit back, girl kicked me, i caught her foot and threw her against a wall, all of that is self defense. Anyone that intervenes and white knights because i defended myself will get the same treatment.
deleted
· 2 years ago
I'm afraid my hay fever doesn't tolerate your constant straw man bullshit so excuse my ignoring you from here on, I can only overdose my desloratadine so much.
It’s a complex subject fighting. I have nothing inherently against fighting. I’ve spent much of my life around violence. I don’t find it aspirational but it can be useful or necessary- practical.
If two people are fighting and reasonably one or both has the option to walk away, or call for help- but neither does- I have to assume that if it is two adults capable of consent, they want to fight and don’t want help. How is that my business? That’s before we get into the legal liability in most jurisdictions to using force to defend someone other than yourself or perhaps someone in your legal care. If I haven’t seen the start of the fight I probably don’t know who started it or anything else that wouid tell me who to help- unless a fight has become abuse or one party is rocking the other, stomping them on the ground after they have stopped moving or such obvious signs that someone isn’t capable or seeking a fight- so case by case I might help someone being hit, but generally I don’t…
.. insert myself into the business of other people unless it’s obvious that someone is being abused or incapable of equal terms and the other party is excessive.
That said- @icarrus- your statement shows the bias in your logic of self defense. If a person sees a fight between two others, they don’t have to join in with force- if a third party jumps in and separates both parties or verbally defuses the situation either, and, or calming words or warnings like “I have called the police, I am filming, you leave before they get here or keep going…” etc- no one has been “white knighted.” If the person who was attacking you stops attacking you because a third party jumps in and stops the attack non violently, you don’t NEED to hit back. The only reason to be upset instead of thankful for that is if you WANTED to hit back. Vs. you wanted to stop being hit. Which shows the original point that hitting someone to get “even” isn’t the same as hitting someone to defend yourself. Sometimes you can do both at once, but if you don’t actually need to strike to defend yourself but you still strike, you just want to hit them.
yes, they don't have to, but seen plenty that intervene, only when the male fights back, that's not biased, that's observation. Nothing "straw man" on anything when it's based on experience.
Hitting isn't getting even, it's the consequence of hitting someone in the first place. You may be a push over in life, I'm not, and as I said, i'm not going to let anyone just punch, hit or kick me without a retaliation.
And I have told a cop, one in the domestic violence division, exactly what I did, he asked the right questions, not just assumed i'm hitting back for "revenge". He also stated it was a shame i didn't get the knife incident on video, though i did use a hidden camera to get her to admit to lying about rape.
in regards to me throwing my ex against a wall. would i do things differently now? yes, instead of staying, i'd still throw her against the wall, but leave. leave her in not only a foreign city, but a foreign country, no money, no means to support herself, and no way home. That's what she deserved.
I can’t and won’t speak on you and your ex beyond you say I’m glad you’re out of the situation, and sorry you had to go through that. Since I only have your side of the story, that’s what I have- but I’m inclined to generally believe you, as I find you to be generally seeming trustworthy.
To the rest- some may thing I’m a push over. I don’t know. I’ve never been called a pushover before that I can recall. I get called stubborn quite a bit, and I have a tendency to seek, and get, my way- though I do try to consider others and don’t pursue every goal as though it were my life’s mission. I can afford to lose a few here and there, if I really want the last donut- I’ll have someone go get me my own donut and so forth.
At the end of the day, you aren’t a “pushover” when you don’t hit someone back in everyday society anymore than you’re a “pushover” if you don’t grope someone back who gropes you. Not hitting them back doesn’t mean that you aren’t going to do anything about it or that they won’t suffer consequences. We have entire systems dedicated to doing just that.
Like I said several times- sometimes the best self defense IS to use violence in return to violence. I’m not going to let someone kill me smugly knowing “they’ll go to jail for murder…” but if there is another option besides hitting them that will work as well or better to make sure you are safe- that’s self defense and the hit is extraneous. You’ve agreed with me yourself in several ways several times. You just said it again- you don’t want to be seen, or think of yourself as a “pushover.” When you feel victimized, the way you try to regain your feelings of power or self worth might be to hit back regardless of wether or actually…
….
Makes sense because otherwise you will think of yourself as a “pushover.” Which implies you may think of yourself as such in other areas or feel taken advantage of by society or perhaps by women. I don’t know your life story, and I’m not saying that’s the way it is 100%, but what you’re saying sounds an awful lot like that’s what you’re saying. I personally don’t need to punch just because I was punched. I will punch if it makes sense to punch. When I was younger I would punch if I was punched, or I’d punch of I thought someone needed a punch- like they mouthed off etc. at a certain age and certain level of achievement I realized that I do t need to swear every perceived strike. They punch me, it hurts, they go to jail and get sued, I go home to a beautiful woman and a nice house in a place that is sunny most of the year. I set life up so I can’t lose, and so far it works pretty well for me. I’m not 20 or 30 with nothing to lose anymore. I have too good a life to toss it away.
a person will only put up with so much crap, and then it's no patience for it. been there, done that, so no patience for being hit again. used to always refuse to fight back because i've had some training and have hurt others.
hope it never happens, but if you ever in a relationship where the other keeps on hitting you, you'll get to the point where you don't give a shit anymore and will strike back.
I’ll start by saying I’m not the one that gave you a DV, just so there is no misunderstandings.
Secondly, I’ll say that you’re presuming a lot. I’m not going to invalidate your perspective, but your experiences aren’t entirely unique. I have been hit, I have been abused, many have. As I said before, I’ve had quite a bit of experience in all sorts of violence. But you once again illustrate my point- yes, everyone has a breaking point, but that’s exactly it isn’t it? Being fed up or tired of being victimized by violence so resorting to violence in that frustration isn’t acting on an impulse of defending one’s self, it may or may not end up working in defense of self, but the act is carried out in frustration of reaching a breaking point.
There was never a question of wether one should “just take getting hit,” The question hinged more upon wether hitting back was self defense if there were more prudent options.
The statement “Striking once hit, is itself self defense” is like saying that farting when you have to poop justifies pooping.
I can’t speak for you, personally, there are many times that even if I feel it is in my best interest to poop, even though one can die or suffer injury if one doesn’t poop- I wouldn’t choose to poop my pants in general if they option existed to run off and poop in the toilet. Most people in most situations would judge a person poorly for pooping where they stand. Of course, sometimes we’d understand. Sometimes going to bathroom isn’t a choice. Sometimes you have no choice but to crap your pants.
So striking once when hit CAN be self defense. 100% true and agreed upon.
Saying striking once when hit IS self defense is not true- at least in the sense of we use “self defense” to mean an effective and prudent strategy for defending oneself because simple logic- -you can hit once and not have it help your defense at all.
-if the other person hit you but did not continue hitting you, you no longer have anything to defend against. The attack is over. You cannot act in defense once a threat doesn’t exist.
Lastly, there is a Ven diagram of intent and effect in use of force. This isn’t just philosophical- this is a legal concept (in most of the USA for example…) which can determine wether you are up for criminal or civil penalties as having committed a crime.
To be self defense, outside any other criteria such as proportional force, one must have acted with reasonable intent of self defense. That is to say-
Someone hits you….
…. You are mad and want payback or “don’t want to look like a bitch”/“not going to just take it.”
You hit back.
That one hit COULD be called “self defense” perhaps, it may even actually have been effective as self defense. However, if it can be proven to the burden of the particular court system that you acted with INTENT other than self defense- it can be ruled as not self defense. In many crimes or determining if there is a crime intent is a critical factor.
I’m not your lawyer or giving legal advice- but if I were advising someone, depending on the jurisdiction I would advise them strongly against saying things like they “aren’t going to take getting hit,” as that VERY strongly can cast doubt on wether violence in a given case was motivated by self defense or motivated by something else.
Tl:dr- In simple and short terms, to be self defense, asides any others laws or conditions of a jurisdiction, the general tests are two fold:
1. Would the average person of sound mind and logic considering the situation, also conclude that the best or only defense obvious in the moment would be the option the “self defender” chose?
2. Did the person striking back act believing that they needed to strike back to defend themselves, or when they struck back was their intent motivated by something other than a desire to defend themselves?
Your life, your choice. Those who actually value their safety will choose the most prudent means to obtain relief from assault in the situation. That IS self defense. Striking when struck CAN be self defense.
1. I didn’t downvote you.
2. Your question is… difficult to parse. If they are found guilty of assault then they were found to either not be acting in self defense or to have been unreasonable in their actions. If it is the latter you are looking for, just Google “guy shoots someone for no reason…” or something like that. If you want the former…
Most you will find easily online will involve weapons since there generally isn’t a reason for media to carry stories that often don’t even make the local paper crime blotter like a domestic violence call resulting in an assault charge.
3. As a “gimme” I provide “State (of Maine) Vs. Thurston (2009, docket Han-08-205) in which after a domestic dispute occurred at his on again off again romantic partners (Harmon’s) home, a knife was pulled and Thurston restrained Harmon, in his words in self defense. This is the short version- but the Jury was not instructed in self defense due to the nature of the facts on review and found Thurston guilty…
.. of assault. Thurston appealed the conviction and the assault was upheld on appeal. There are countless other examples involving fists and knives and guns and even one involving a hibachi grill as a weapon… and many many more from strange to mundane because as I said earlier, and you can confirm for yourself if you want to read various jurisdictional laws concerning self defense- generally speaking, there are criteria which determine assault vs self defense. There are differences in concepts like “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground laws” as well as wether a jurisdiction allows either or both of these in self defense and what if any criteria are required to apply such clauses to self defense. The entire concept gets far more complex than “hit for a hit.”
If you want more cases involving fists on fists you’ll probably have to search local crime files as such cases tend to be minor news and rejection of the self defense plea is fairly common as much like the “insanity defense”…
.. overuse and misapplication of the defense by those who believe it is some sort of universal get out of jail free card have clouded information, not helped by the fact that laws differ place to place and of course, judges and juries don’t always vote the same even if the circumstances seem casually or directly similar in two cases.
didn't notice a downvote. But i'd like to find out on the Thurston case, seems a raw deal if he was charged with assault for restraining her, obviously didn't put his case forward on it. What's the other option, get killed, but at least that's legal?
The downvote was cancelled by an upvote. I just make it a principle not to downvote people over simple differences in opinion, but when I see a downvote I don’t want the misconception that it was myself. If I disagree I will use my words is all, and disagreement to me doesn’t necessarily warrant negative actions or feelings.
To the subject at hand:
They were also charged with unauthorized entry as it wasn’t Thurston home and he wasn’t invited in. That charge was dismissed due to factors like relationship between the parties and circumstances etc.
the self defense claim was made but rejected.
As previously said- many factors can cause something to be ruled not self defense.
- the danger one is defending against was created by the person claiming self defense.
Eg: a threat of violence is made or the other party has reasonable cause to fear for their safety; the person claiming self defense instigates conflict such as via goading or taunting, the person claiming self defense put themselves in a position by choice against the option not to in which an escalated situation wouldn't exist had they not entered the situation.
- the force used by the person claiming self defense is excessive to the “reasonable person.” Eg: Bob and Bill are perceived to be reasonably comparable in ability. Bob strikes Bill in the arm with a punch for which Bill receives light bruising or no discernible mark,, Bill punches Bob in the face and breaks Bob’s nose. This could go either way but could be seen as excessive; or Bob punches Bill and Bill hits Bon with a bottle etc.
- perhaps one of the most common ones, and the predominant factor in Thurston:
It cannot be determined who needed to defend themselves from whom. In Thurston- both parties allege the other pulled a knife on them first, or that they had a knife pulled on them but didn’t do so back. As is common in such scenarios- it can be difficult or impossible to determine who has the most accurate recollection or version of events.
Even when video footage exists, it is often the case that people do not begin filming until it is clear a situation will likely escalate or already has. This leaves the critical events leading up to the escalation or use of force undocumented. Since factors like motive of the party claiming self defense, or actions by the party claiming self defense before the force was used often factor in to the validity of the claim under law, if one cannot prove to the standard of the court that their actions meet the criteria of self defense, or if based on the available evidence prosecution can prove to the standard of the court it was not self defense- the self defense plea cannot be used. In US courts a jury will be instructed to ignore a self defense plea if under law the plea is not valid.
Invalidating the claim will generally occur at pre trial etc, disproving the claim generally occurs at trial of the claim is allowed.
A crucial aspect of many justice systems such as the American justice system is that anyone can bring charges against anyone in theory. So even in a 100% “open and shut” case of self defense- there is still the possibility that the attacker can request charges against the defender. The basic criteria of proving that you need the recipient of force is met when the other party admits “yes. I hit them, but it was self defense…” the second part is opinion, the first part is fact. The trial process is to sort out the things to be debated, but once you’ve admitted to use of force for whatever reason- there exists the possibility that force was unjustified, and thusly an investigation can be requested.
Now, in a “100% open and shut” case of self defense- speaking on criminal charges (as civil charges can essentially be brought up by just about anyone..) those charges likely won’t go anywhere. The initial investigation will not turn up a crime, and that will more or less be the end of it unless one of two things happens.
1. The other person makes a huge stink and presses the right buttons to force the issue. Eg: media attention, political pressure etc.
2. A prosecutor takes interest in the case. Perhaps as part of a bid for re election or promotion, to “pad” numbers due to policy pressure, or the previously mentioned political/media pressure and/or connections and favors.
Now, in our 100% open ad shut example- it is generally unlikely a prosecutor will want to touch the case. It’s a loser.
End.
So what happens if it isn’t 100% open and shut- such as “he said she said” without sufficient hard evidence or circumstantial evidence etc. to make the case an obvious loser or…
… waste of time? Well… then it likely goes to the point where courts get involved. A pre trial is among other things, a place where cases can end before they start. Attorneys can bring motions to dismiss, key pieces of evidence or entire strategies can be denied, bargains can be made ahead of time and put before the judge to avoid the fuss of a trial and for the accused, potentially land them a lighter sentence or better odds at reduced sentencing or charges on the principle that the deal is concrete of accepted, a trial has potential to end in a “worst case.” Etc.
And we skip some stuff and go to the end of the road and your other question: “what are they supposed to do?” Well- generally speaking, I don’t personally recommend “get killed,” it’s an option- but not one I’d opt for. Even jail is generally preferable. So what to do?
1. Avoid the situation if at all possible. Going to the real life version of the bar in road house- good odds you will get in a fight. Best not to go there if you want to avoid trouble. Fighting with an unstable friend or lover- especially one with a history of violence etc? Maybe don’t press the argument, perhaps not the best time to “go over and give them a piece of your mind” or “demand your money in person” etc. bring friends if you must or call the police and request they escort you to get belongings etc. or just don’t go in person. Call. Text. Send certified letter. Have an attorney send a letter. Communicate through a mutual intermediary like…
.. a shared friend etc.
practice de escalation in conflicts and certainly don’t escalate.
2. If you can’t avoid the set up, try to avoid the fight. If things start to heat up, walk away. Run away. Leave. If they jump straight to violence and any of those things are an option- use them. Get away. Call the police, report the act.
If you’ve already been struck, if possible and feasible- do one of those things.
Lunging 2 feet to grab a knife or strike/restrain the holder of said knife brings you that much closer to the threat, and now you’ve used force and created potential liability. If it’s possible to move 2 feet away, that’s probably better, especially if you can KEEP moving 2 feet away until you are far out of reach and safe. Congrats- you’ve defended yourself and made it almost impossible to catch a charge for use of force. This “self defense” example defends us not just against the threat- but against the legal potentials for harm that can come after the physical threat..
.. is gone.
3. If you can’t avoid it, can’t escape it or de escalate without force- now you’re in a place where the ONLY option is force. If you do not seriously fear for you life or safety- you may strike back, however you may face legal issues later if it can be demonstrated you had no serious threat. In this situation if you choose force, using the absolute minimum should generally be the strategy.
If you DO seriously fear your life or safety- like you said, do you want to die? Deal with the situation. If you are in danger and have no other viable options, you have to use force or just resign yourself to whatever fate the other party decides. Most of us will choose to use force if it’s that bad. One should still likely attempt the least amount of force practical if one has the presence of mind to consider the future in the moment- but if you feel your life is in danger, you’re going to do whatever you think or reflexively act on in that moment.
And if that happens, you might go to jail or lose a law suit later. That would suck, but… it would still be better most likely than being dead. Even if we aren’t talking death- I’d rather lose a $10,000 civil suit than have an eye gouged out. My eyes are worth more than $10,000 to me or a year in jail.
That’s called- in old school parlance- “being an adult.” The entire concept of self defense is shrouded in allusions of accountability and self determination. The “big boy/big girl” pants we put on when we say: “I’m not taking peoples shit, I am in charge of my life and am not someone who just goes along with whatever comes my way..”
That philosophy goes both ways. The “big boy/big girl” doesn’t cry. They pay their money and take their chances.
Life isn’t fair. You do everything right and make only “smart moves” and you can still end up losing all your money when your investments cave. If we are living in the wild on our own abilities and determination- one bad break and we are dead. That’s how it is. How it’s always been. The bear attacks and even if you kill it- you may still die. That’s a bit unfair to go through the struggle to kill ahead and then you die- but… that’s how it is. So when we take our lives in our own hands- things can go any which way even if we do it all “perfectly.” Actions have consequences.
You didn’t choose to be attacked necessarily. You may have no culpability at all- payed it safe, didn’t instigate, etc etc. but.. you were attacked. Now we have choices. Life is like that. It isn’t always “choose a shit sandwich or a delicious banquet”- that choice is far less common than “what type of shit do you want to eat in your shit sandwich?”
At the point you’re facing violence you are most likely about to eat a shit sandwich. Your choices in life to that point will factor in- it’s hard to learn and master Aikido in the 5 seconds before someone starts hitting you. It’s probably too late to go back and find red flags and stay away from this person etc.
but the choices we make in the moment will also factor in, and those we can change in the moment.
So it behooves most people to have a solid understanding ding of self defense laws before you need them. It behooves most people to have some sort of training before it is needed. In the moment though- the best you can do is make the best choices available, the consequences of those choices will reveal themselves over time. When life decides only shit sandwiches are on the menu, you just have to try to do whatever you think is going to make swallowing that shit sandwich easier.
There’s no great answer. When violence starts, everyone tends to lose something. That’s why most people who know violence we’ll tend not to glamorize it. Violence is a necessary part of reality at times. When it isn’t necessary we can try to limit our losses by avoiding it or being tactical.
deleted
· 2 years ago
As to the Thurston case, it's the fucking worst example ever to argue how men are disadvantaged in court when it comes to domestic violence cases.
.
"Thurston admitted to shooting the victim in self-defense, failing to call authorities for a one-day period, wrapping the body in a sleeping bag and a blue tarp, and ultimately dumping the body near some railroad tracks. The jury acquitted Thurston of murder but convicted him of tampering with evidence." - motherfucker appealed even that. Jury took his word and accepted his claim of self defense. After he fucking hid her body in the wilderrness. Yee-haw.
http://texastechlawreview.org/court-of-criminal-appeals-update-thurston-v-state/
@general_failure- that is not the case we are discussing. That IS “Thurston v state” but wrong Thurston, wrong state (Texas vs. Maryland,) the docket number and details are provided above.
Though you do bring an interesting case, and I thank you.
Not quite. Men lie on women too, and the guilty often lie about guilt regardless of gender. As for the video camera- it’s usually better than nothing- but generally people don’t switch on cameras until things have already escalated- so even video evidence may either miss crucial moments of evidence before filming started, or the missing moments can leave critical doubt which then puts us back to testimony and very possibly conflicting accounts. A home camera that’s always filming can be a good general precaution and would be running for the entire incident- but it is limited to the rooms and angles covered, so you still carry risk; and if you are attacked outside your own home you can’t really control wether there is a camera with audio constantly covering you.
A body can constantly filming 24/7 is slightly less limiting but still has potential limitations and there are additional legal liabilities, social consequences likely, and of course that’s a tad extreme for most people.
So what is “best” best as I’ve said all along is to avoid a fight. If you fail to or cannot mitigate risks of confrontation occurring, running away or escaping is “best” generally if it is a prudent option. By the time we get to the point where we are hitting back we are basically at or towards the far end of the “bad” option side of scale liability wise. So “best” is avoiding use of force as much as possible so that you effectively remove all personal liability and risk. As the old wisdom goes- the “best” case in war is to win without fighting. If your goal is to not get hurt and you can do that without fighting- that is a “win.”
without a hidden camera, i'd probably be in jail for rape, so they are worth having. In the end, I still will never let a girl hit me just because they think they can, a strike for a strike is self defense, and there's no instance where it is not.
I mean… I just spent like… 10,000 words outlining how and where that statement isn’t true, including real world examples with legal cases.
I will accept that in your personal opinion “a strike for a strike is self defense, and there’s no….” But as far as making it as a statement of fact, we’ve demonstrated it is not a factual statement nor an objective truth. Much the same that one can believe that eating lb of butter a day will cure heart disease- it is their prerogative what they believe, but it is not fact, can it be demonstrated or supported by body of evidence, and if they act in that belief, their beliefs and reality might conflict in a way which reality will generally win, and when it comes to hitting- reality hits hard.
So as I said before- your beliefs are your choice, but belief is not fact.
YOU do whatever you want to do, because YOU are the one who deals with whatever consequences your choices have.
Were I to offer someone advice on defending themselves, from a woman or anyone else, I would advise they apply their best judgment to the situation, and to not forget that often, the best way to protect one’s self or mitigate harm to self when threatened or attacked is to flea the situation if that option exists and is prudent, which also happens to be generally the method which is least likely to result in legal trouble as well. If one cannot run, one should apply best judgment to respond with the minimum proportional method and magnitude of force the situation and threat level calls for, to the extent required to no longer be in danger or be able to escape.
thanks for the advice, but if i'm struck, i strike back, and it's not a decision, it's a reflex. they can flea the situation when they realise i'm not taking their shit. as for proportional, "sorry officer, she hit me, i hit back, not my fault i hit harder"
That’s your prerogative. You know the risks and consequences, so do what suits you, and should there be consequences, take them like an adult. Reflexes, natural and conditioned, vary person to person and aren’t a catch all excuse to get out of trouble. One persons natural or conditioned reflex, like someone who’s spent enough time in prison for example, might be to attack a person who surprises them from behind.
“Self defense” or “it was reflex” probably aren’t going to cut it if their coworker or a police officer comes up behind them and taps them on the shoulder while they are distracted and they sock them.
As I’ve said before- people are entitled to their opinions and own way of doing things, but where the risks and potential consequences of an action are known, when those people get upset if they end up suffering consequences. Choice, reflex- whatever we call it it is an action. Generally speaking we are responsible for our actions and the consequences regardless.
If one entered a fenced in field unarmed and were charged by a bull, it grazes them but causes no severe injury, but it starts to come around for another pass. What would be most peoples idea of the best way to defend themselves, to secure their safety? To “hit the bull back” in the hopes that it will see them as a threat or that repeated blows will incapacitate it, or to run for the fence and escape?
Most people who believe self defense involves meeting force with force only hold that stance when they feel they have advantage or equal footing in force to the person attacking them.
If you’re hitting back because you think you can win in a situation where you’d run if you didn’t think you could win- you aren’t defending yourself, you’re just beating someone up.
Hard disagree, he should live free.
@guest
Also disagree for the most part, I'm a supporter of defending yourself to victory.
@garlog - "Defending yourself to victory" - you sound like a gamer boy with no idea what a relationship is.
People are commonly arrested, and less commonly but still often found guilty of a crime for returning a punch. This is especially true if the punch escalated into a fight, and even more true if serious injury or death occurs. If two people live together, returning a punch can become a domestic violence charge- regardless of who instigated or escalated to physical violence first. If it was truly self defense and you have a decent attorney or a lax prosecutor your odds of getting off on self defense for returning blows are decent- but the jurisdiction it occurs in with influence laws and attitudes, and the circumstances will matter.
I don't tolerate violence in my relationships either way, but that concept does extend past domestic violence.
If you think a man shouldn't defend themselves against a woman, so it's ok for a woman to be hitting a man, because she's a woman, and the guy, under no circumstance is allowed to defend himself because you'd say he's the one to be arrested? at what point should he stop the assault, or should a guy just give up?
That’s what I said earlier and what most laws and reasonable persons consider when looking at “self defense,” was there actually a reasonable perception of some serious material danger, or is the “danger” “ouch, it hurts..” or “my poor ego will be bruised if I don’t feel I stood up or got fair payback”?
If you can’t remove yourself and or you have credible reason to believe this person could and actually will cause material damage or death, most people will defend themselves regardless of the law because it’s better to be alive in jail than dead and free in most cases like this.
I will defend myself, doesn't matter what gender the other is, attack me, get punched or worse, not going to take getting hit, there's no excuse for anyone to attack and believing that they shouldn't get anything back is ridiculous.
Saw video recently, some guy recording his female friend hitting this guy, in the head, repeatedly. He got fed up, hit her once, hard, she went down, out cold. So you think he should be charged with assault because he defended himself? He reacted to a situation that ended her assault on him, and your jury would have him sitting in jail?
If you think women can't be hit back because they don't deserve it, then you are proving the equal rights will never exist.
As for the story of the video you mention- I haven’t seen the video and don’t know the details. Based on what you describe, being hit in the head could reasonably be expected to cause serious lasting injury or death in principle overall-
But there are several concerning details to the event, and without seeing the video and having some knowledge of the scene and circumstances of the attack- I can’t say.
1. If you return a punch in self defense, you have no reason to expect success. In this case he knocked her out, but you can also punch someone and miss, injure yourself worse than them (broken fingers/wrist etc) or land but not succeed in self defense (ineffective strike.) if you are capable of running, their ability to land hands becomes 0% out of their reach. That is a 100% chance of self defense if you stay out of reach vs. unknown for returning the attack.
Unless extremely aggressive they are unlikely to chase, and the longer you run or avoid, not only do your chances of them continuing pursuit generally decrease, but the chances of law enforcement being called (or hopefully the friend who was filming already called for help..), showing up, become greater.
Even soldiers sent to war trying to kill each other don’t always return force for force. When there isn’t a tactical imperative to hold ground or engage, most with knowledge of survival in any situation will advocate that one not meet force with force but instead take any reasonable option to escape the situation.
girl slaps me, i slap back, girl hits me, i hit back, girl punches me, I hit back, girl kicked me, i caught her foot and threw her against a wall, all of that is self defense. Anyone that intervenes and white knights because i defended myself will get the same treatment.
If two people are fighting and reasonably one or both has the option to walk away, or call for help- but neither does- I have to assume that if it is two adults capable of consent, they want to fight and don’t want help. How is that my business? That’s before we get into the legal liability in most jurisdictions to using force to defend someone other than yourself or perhaps someone in your legal care. If I haven’t seen the start of the fight I probably don’t know who started it or anything else that wouid tell me who to help- unless a fight has become abuse or one party is rocking the other, stomping them on the ground after they have stopped moving or such obvious signs that someone isn’t capable or seeking a fight- so case by case I might help someone being hit, but generally I don’t…
Hitting isn't getting even, it's the consequence of hitting someone in the first place. You may be a push over in life, I'm not, and as I said, i'm not going to let anyone just punch, hit or kick me without a retaliation.
And I have told a cop, one in the domestic violence division, exactly what I did, he asked the right questions, not just assumed i'm hitting back for "revenge". He also stated it was a shame i didn't get the knife incident on video, though i did use a hidden camera to get her to admit to lying about rape.
To the rest- some may thing I’m a push over. I don’t know. I’ve never been called a pushover before that I can recall. I get called stubborn quite a bit, and I have a tendency to seek, and get, my way- though I do try to consider others and don’t pursue every goal as though it were my life’s mission. I can afford to lose a few here and there, if I really want the last donut- I’ll have someone go get me my own donut and so forth.
Like I said several times- sometimes the best self defense IS to use violence in return to violence. I’m not going to let someone kill me smugly knowing “they’ll go to jail for murder…” but if there is another option besides hitting them that will work as well or better to make sure you are safe- that’s self defense and the hit is extraneous. You’ve agreed with me yourself in several ways several times. You just said it again- you don’t want to be seen, or think of yourself as a “pushover.” When you feel victimized, the way you try to regain your feelings of power or self worth might be to hit back regardless of wether or actually…
Makes sense because otherwise you will think of yourself as a “pushover.” Which implies you may think of yourself as such in other areas or feel taken advantage of by society or perhaps by women. I don’t know your life story, and I’m not saying that’s the way it is 100%, but what you’re saying sounds an awful lot like that’s what you’re saying. I personally don’t need to punch just because I was punched. I will punch if it makes sense to punch. When I was younger I would punch if I was punched, or I’d punch of I thought someone needed a punch- like they mouthed off etc. at a certain age and certain level of achievement I realized that I do t need to swear every perceived strike. They punch me, it hurts, they go to jail and get sued, I go home to a beautiful woman and a nice house in a place that is sunny most of the year. I set life up so I can’t lose, and so far it works pretty well for me. I’m not 20 or 30 with nothing to lose anymore. I have too good a life to toss it away.
hope it never happens, but if you ever in a relationship where the other keeps on hitting you, you'll get to the point where you don't give a shit anymore and will strike back.
Secondly, I’ll say that you’re presuming a lot. I’m not going to invalidate your perspective, but your experiences aren’t entirely unique. I have been hit, I have been abused, many have. As I said before, I’ve had quite a bit of experience in all sorts of violence. But you once again illustrate my point- yes, everyone has a breaking point, but that’s exactly it isn’t it? Being fed up or tired of being victimized by violence so resorting to violence in that frustration isn’t acting on an impulse of defending one’s self, it may or may not end up working in defense of self, but the act is carried out in frustration of reaching a breaking point.
The statement “Striking once hit, is itself self defense” is like saying that farting when you have to poop justifies pooping.
I can’t speak for you, personally, there are many times that even if I feel it is in my best interest to poop, even though one can die or suffer injury if one doesn’t poop- I wouldn’t choose to poop my pants in general if they option existed to run off and poop in the toilet. Most people in most situations would judge a person poorly for pooping where they stand. Of course, sometimes we’d understand. Sometimes going to bathroom isn’t a choice. Sometimes you have no choice but to crap your pants.
Saying striking once when hit IS self defense is not true- at least in the sense of we use “self defense” to mean an effective and prudent strategy for defending oneself because simple logic- -you can hit once and not have it help your defense at all.
-if the other person hit you but did not continue hitting you, you no longer have anything to defend against. The attack is over. You cannot act in defense once a threat doesn’t exist.
Lastly, there is a Ven diagram of intent and effect in use of force. This isn’t just philosophical- this is a legal concept (in most of the USA for example…) which can determine wether you are up for criminal or civil penalties as having committed a crime.
To be self defense, outside any other criteria such as proportional force, one must have acted with reasonable intent of self defense. That is to say-
Someone hits you….
You hit back.
That one hit COULD be called “self defense” perhaps, it may even actually have been effective as self defense. However, if it can be proven to the burden of the particular court system that you acted with INTENT other than self defense- it can be ruled as not self defense. In many crimes or determining if there is a crime intent is a critical factor.
I’m not your lawyer or giving legal advice- but if I were advising someone, depending on the jurisdiction I would advise them strongly against saying things like they “aren’t going to take getting hit,” as that VERY strongly can cast doubt on wether violence in a given case was motivated by self defense or motivated by something else.
1. Would the average person of sound mind and logic considering the situation, also conclude that the best or only defense obvious in the moment would be the option the “self defender” chose?
2. Did the person striking back act believing that they needed to strike back to defend themselves, or when they struck back was their intent motivated by something other than a desire to defend themselves?
Your life, your choice. Those who actually value their safety will choose the most prudent means to obtain relief from assault in the situation. That IS self defense. Striking when struck CAN be self defense.
2. Your question is… difficult to parse. If they are found guilty of assault then they were found to either not be acting in self defense or to have been unreasonable in their actions. If it is the latter you are looking for, just Google “guy shoots someone for no reason…” or something like that. If you want the former…
Most you will find easily online will involve weapons since there generally isn’t a reason for media to carry stories that often don’t even make the local paper crime blotter like a domestic violence call resulting in an assault charge.
3. As a “gimme” I provide “State (of Maine) Vs. Thurston (2009, docket Han-08-205) in which after a domestic dispute occurred at his on again off again romantic partners (Harmon’s) home, a knife was pulled and Thurston restrained Harmon, in his words in self defense. This is the short version- but the Jury was not instructed in self defense due to the nature of the facts on review and found Thurston guilty…
If you want more cases involving fists on fists you’ll probably have to search local crime files as such cases tend to be minor news and rejection of the self defense plea is fairly common as much like the “insanity defense”…
To the subject at hand:
the self defense claim was made but rejected.
As previously said- many factors can cause something to be ruled not self defense.
- the danger one is defending against was created by the person claiming self defense.
Eg: a threat of violence is made or the other party has reasonable cause to fear for their safety; the person claiming self defense instigates conflict such as via goading or taunting, the person claiming self defense put themselves in a position by choice against the option not to in which an escalated situation wouldn't exist had they not entered the situation.
- perhaps one of the most common ones, and the predominant factor in Thurston:
It cannot be determined who needed to defend themselves from whom. In Thurston- both parties allege the other pulled a knife on them first, or that they had a knife pulled on them but didn’t do so back. As is common in such scenarios- it can be difficult or impossible to determine who has the most accurate recollection or version of events.
Invalidating the claim will generally occur at pre trial etc, disproving the claim generally occurs at trial of the claim is allowed.
1. The other person makes a huge stink and presses the right buttons to force the issue. Eg: media attention, political pressure etc.
2. A prosecutor takes interest in the case. Perhaps as part of a bid for re election or promotion, to “pad” numbers due to policy pressure, or the previously mentioned political/media pressure and/or connections and favors.
Now, in our 100% open ad shut example- it is generally unlikely a prosecutor will want to touch the case. It’s a loser.
End.
So what happens if it isn’t 100% open and shut- such as “he said she said” without sufficient hard evidence or circumstantial evidence etc. to make the case an obvious loser or…
1. Avoid the situation if at all possible. Going to the real life version of the bar in road house- good odds you will get in a fight. Best not to go there if you want to avoid trouble. Fighting with an unstable friend or lover- especially one with a history of violence etc? Maybe don’t press the argument, perhaps not the best time to “go over and give them a piece of your mind” or “demand your money in person” etc. bring friends if you must or call the police and request they escort you to get belongings etc. or just don’t go in person. Call. Text. Send certified letter. Have an attorney send a letter. Communicate through a mutual intermediary like…
practice de escalation in conflicts and certainly don’t escalate.
2. If you can’t avoid the set up, try to avoid the fight. If things start to heat up, walk away. Run away. Leave. If they jump straight to violence and any of those things are an option- use them. Get away. Call the police, report the act.
If you’ve already been struck, if possible and feasible- do one of those things.
Lunging 2 feet to grab a knife or strike/restrain the holder of said knife brings you that much closer to the threat, and now you’ve used force and created potential liability. If it’s possible to move 2 feet away, that’s probably better, especially if you can KEEP moving 2 feet away until you are far out of reach and safe. Congrats- you’ve defended yourself and made it almost impossible to catch a charge for use of force. This “self defense” example defends us not just against the threat- but against the legal potentials for harm that can come after the physical threat..
3. If you can’t avoid it, can’t escape it or de escalate without force- now you’re in a place where the ONLY option is force. If you do not seriously fear for you life or safety- you may strike back, however you may face legal issues later if it can be demonstrated you had no serious threat. In this situation if you choose force, using the absolute minimum should generally be the strategy.
If you DO seriously fear your life or safety- like you said, do you want to die? Deal with the situation. If you are in danger and have no other viable options, you have to use force or just resign yourself to whatever fate the other party decides. Most of us will choose to use force if it’s that bad. One should still likely attempt the least amount of force practical if one has the presence of mind to consider the future in the moment- but if you feel your life is in danger, you’re going to do whatever you think or reflexively act on in that moment.
That’s called- in old school parlance- “being an adult.” The entire concept of self defense is shrouded in allusions of accountability and self determination. The “big boy/big girl” pants we put on when we say: “I’m not taking peoples shit, I am in charge of my life and am not someone who just goes along with whatever comes my way..”
That philosophy goes both ways. The “big boy/big girl” doesn’t cry. They pay their money and take their chances.
At the point you’re facing violence you are most likely about to eat a shit sandwich. Your choices in life to that point will factor in- it’s hard to learn and master Aikido in the 5 seconds before someone starts hitting you. It’s probably too late to go back and find red flags and stay away from this person etc.
but the choices we make in the moment will also factor in, and those we can change in the moment.
There’s no great answer. When violence starts, everyone tends to lose something. That’s why most people who know violence we’ll tend not to glamorize it. Violence is a necessary part of reality at times. When it isn’t necessary we can try to limit our losses by avoiding it or being tactical.
.
"Thurston admitted to shooting the victim in self-defense, failing to call authorities for a one-day period, wrapping the body in a sleeping bag and a blue tarp, and ultimately dumping the body near some railroad tracks. The jury acquitted Thurston of murder but convicted him of tampering with evidence." - motherfucker appealed even that. Jury took his word and accepted his claim of self defense. After he fucking hid her body in the wilderrness. Yee-haw.
http://texastechlawreview.org/court-of-criminal-appeals-update-thurston-v-state/
Though you do bring an interesting case, and I thank you.
So what is “best” best as I’ve said all along is to avoid a fight. If you fail to or cannot mitigate risks of confrontation occurring, running away or escaping is “best” generally if it is a prudent option. By the time we get to the point where we are hitting back we are basically at or towards the far end of the “bad” option side of scale liability wise. So “best” is avoiding use of force as much as possible so that you effectively remove all personal liability and risk. As the old wisdom goes- the “best” case in war is to win without fighting. If your goal is to not get hurt and you can do that without fighting- that is a “win.”
I will accept that in your personal opinion “a strike for a strike is self defense, and there’s no….” But as far as making it as a statement of fact, we’ve demonstrated it is not a factual statement nor an objective truth. Much the same that one can believe that eating lb of butter a day will cure heart disease- it is their prerogative what they believe, but it is not fact, can it be demonstrated or supported by body of evidence, and if they act in that belief, their beliefs and reality might conflict in a way which reality will generally win, and when it comes to hitting- reality hits hard.
So as I said before- your beliefs are your choice, but belief is not fact.
Were I to offer someone advice on defending themselves, from a woman or anyone else, I would advise they apply their best judgment to the situation, and to not forget that often, the best way to protect one’s self or mitigate harm to self when threatened or attacked is to flea the situation if that option exists and is prudent, which also happens to be generally the method which is least likely to result in legal trouble as well. If one cannot run, one should apply best judgment to respond with the minimum proportional method and magnitude of force the situation and threat level calls for, to the extent required to no longer be in danger or be able to escape.
“Self defense” or “it was reflex” probably aren’t going to cut it if their coworker or a police officer comes up behind them and taps them on the shoulder while they are distracted and they sock them.
As I’ve said before- people are entitled to their opinions and own way of doing things, but where the risks and potential consequences of an action are known, when those people get upset if they end up suffering consequences. Choice, reflex- whatever we call it it is an action. Generally speaking we are responsible for our actions and the consequences regardless.