There are a lot of "What if's" in self defense. Many people consider (In my opinion) that self defense is protecting yourself using as little force necessary to get out of a dangerous situation. Others say if you're in danger "Let loose and kick their ***." Is self defense something that you shouldn't abuse or is it something that you should "let loose" with?
I am of the opinion that one has every right to defend themselves in whatever means is necessary given the situation. If a person is willing to threaten another with bodily harm then I think that we should recognize the potential victim's rights to respond however they see fit.
Certainly some cases can seem 'excessive', however let's realize that when you are in a self defense scenario the mental awareness to determine what is 'only enough' force is rarely present, especially to the untrained person. If person A presents a knife with the expressed intent of harming person B (who has a firearm) it is unlikely, and unreasonable to demand, that person B will only respond with 'equal' force. Person B will, and has every right to, defend themselves in whatever means they deem necessary, even if it means shooting person A in the head.
These types of instances do not lend themselves well to dissection, particularly the type that occurs in a court of law, because each person responds with varying levels of emotion, instinct, and speed. We cannot set a standard of conduct upon a situation which has no standard manner in which it occurs.
I think that if you attack the person who attacked you there shouldn't be a law against it. I heard once there was a burglar who broke into a house and the guy inside shot him with an air rifle and they both call ed the police. I don't know what happened in court but the fact that the burglar called the police is wrong. I think that in self defense you should be allowed to hurt your attack enough for them to stay there until you get help but to just attack them because they attacked you isn't right morally but it is an understandable reaction.
In this discussion, without checking, I have the impression that most of the contributors are from North America.
As far as self defense is concerned, it needs to be remembered that the laws concerning it can and do vary from country to country.
In New Zealand there have been a number of incidents where people who defended themselves in turn faced prosecution for excessive use of force. Check out this Editorial: Self-defence is a right, not a wrong.
These types of instances do not lend themselves well to dissection, particularly the type that occurs in a court of law, because each person responds with varying levels of emotion, instinct, and speed. We cannot set a standard of conduct upon a situation which has no standard manner in which it occurs.
I don't think there even needs to be. If someone you don't know (or not well enough) attempts to attack you for an out-of-the-blue reason, then as far as I'm concerned you have the permission to kill them if you so want to. Let me get this straight though - not in "this world". If it was a great society where a homeless person could be trusted to live with a stranger till he gets back on his feet then the killing of someone that is clearly nowhere near up to the average standard and is instead a negative effect on the culture is a good thing, to say the least.
I may not have explained it right, but I hope you understand.
In New Zealand there have been a number of incidents where people who defended themselves in turn faced prosecution for excessive use of force.
Indeed, many laws are stupid - I think a lot of us know that already.
but to just attack them because they attacked you isn't right morally but it is an understandable reaction.
Right, so I can stab you and you think it's morally incorrect to not go as far as kill me? Or even disable me long enough to get help?
Right, so I can stab you and you think it's morally incorrect to not go as far as kill me? Or even disable me long enough to get help?
No, what I meant was disabling them until you can get help or something is defending yourself but just trying to cause them pain isn't right but I don't think it should be illegal. And killing someone even if they tried to kill you isn't right. Unless it's you or them and you can't knock them out or anything. There's a difference between sensible and the morally right thing to do.
It depends in what case, if the person is "letting it loose" than so will i, regaurdless of the law but if hees also using "little force" that i will to
No, what I meant was disabling them until you can get help or something is defending yourself but just trying to cause them pain isn't right but I don't think it should be illegal. And killing someone even if they tried to kill you isn't right. Unless it's you or them and you can't knock them out or anything. There's a difference between sensible and the morally right thing to do.
I can see your point - personally I think I'm better than killing him, but I also can understand anyones point of view if they feel like killing the guy who tried doing the same.
I don't think we're in the place to judge whether they should or shouldn't, the other guy? Attempted murder, the only thing worse than that is actual murder, not a bad thing if you ask me. Unless you want them to rot in a prison, which would be great to see them draining our resources and time... in a way, the more punishment makes everyone lose.
I think self defence means doing what is necessary to protect yourself. It doesn't have to result in killing, or even major injuries to the other person, so long as it gets you out of danger.
Self defense should not be marked as using force, for it is really throwing the force back. Also, it can't be use of excessive force if the person tried to kill you.
I believe self defense is something that is adjusted based on the situation. I consider self defense to be sufficient when you no longer fear any actions the person may try to utilize against the person.
You can subdue a person until they are down, and they can just get right back up. The person may or may not have a gun, knife, taser, etc that you didn't have time to account for. So i believe the appropriate amount of self defense is when you feel you are no longer in danger.
Biggest thing to remember is there is no one size fits all for self defense, it can, and should, be custom fit to every situation.
If you don't that also might be considered being the offender.
By the law. Anyone who judges you when they see you in a fight is probably crazy. If you continue to lay the beatdown then restraining both of them would help, but honestly they don't know what had happened and that's why restraint is the best chance to go for anyone not particularly involved.
Why? Because fighting is quite pathetic, if I'm honest, half the fights are based on "your mum", and even then you make her spend £200 to bail you out. Fighting is great as a sport, but intentionally fighting someone as the offender? Terribad.
Oh and yes, I agree with regenouis. The first time a guy with very few posts has said something decent (or in this case, bloody well done), imo
However if they are the offender and they tried to kill you, self-defense is the minimal I believe you do. I didn't say should because you don't have to lay more than what's necessary, though it can easily be justified.
