SD vs. Mutually agreed combat 3

[gregimotis]

The link below is to a thread I started a while ago which is similar (i think) to what ahoym8 was getting around to before we got into politics. I think the topic he brought up is much more valuable than the thought that ended up going into it.

http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/showthread.php?t=10691

More to the immediate topic:

We think of fighting usually in terms of getting ourselves out of immediate trouble which somebody else started, but I can think of all sorts of times when people are victimized because they DON'T start trouble. What if you come home at night and hear a thief in your bedroom - lets say you have a gun in your pocket when this happens? Most sensible folks would say you should leave, find a phone and call the cops.
I suggest to the reader that the cops aren't going to be there until the guy has already left with everything valuable that you own, and they aren't going to be able to do a damn thing about it after the fact even if they wanted to. The person who is going to pay for his crime is you. You followed the rules by not confronting the thief, and the thief might just have well as left you a thank you note for doing so.


There was a case a few years ago now where a man broke into an estate and raped a woman there. Her security guard on the grounds heard her screaming for help and he - get this - called the cops and waited in his car for them to arrive. He sat there and listened to it happen. Legally, he did exactly what he was obligated to do. He followed the rules and was rewarded in the legal suit which followed.

What kind of man could do that? Would any of us sit there and wait for the cops while listening to a woman crying for help? I'm sure everyone reading this insists that he wouldn't, but it bears thinking about. At what point do we cease with the 'defend ourselves' talk and start doing something about the world around us? Maybe the police won't protect us? Maybe the safe course isn't always the right course?

[EmptyneSs]

bro, i am one of the most peaceloving people there is. im not down with violence at all. but the fact is, other people wont always see things this way. other people will want to hurt u and do bad things to u. u cant let people keep stepping over lines and getting away with shit. if u do, u are only giving them more reason to contintue what they do, cause if they do shit and suffer no consequenses it only motivates them to do more. i say u gotta put ur foot down somwere. how are the police gonna protect u and ur family when an intruder breaks into ur house? first u gotta get a phone, then wait for someone to pick up which may take a long time, then u gotta explain ur situation and whatnot, and then wait for a cop to show up. are u kidding dude...the cops cant protect us, we need to protect ourselves. if u get in trouble legally for rightfully defending urself, that isnt ur fault, its our assbackwards systems fault that always trys to nail innocent people who rightfully defend themselves.

i look up to alot of vigilantes, because the fact is the cops cant protect us, and justice is rarely served. its awesome to see someone have the ballls to finally put there foot down and say u know what, i wont tolerate this anymore. u gotta draw the line somwere, cause if u dont it will only get worse.

did u know that most people who are victims of crimes are usually victimized repeatedly? this is because thats what criminals and predators prey on. people who are weak and do not defend themselves. its like the school bully, if u let him bully u, it will only get worse, but if u stand up for urself u can put a stop to it.

[kengar]

We think of fighting usually in terms of getting ourselves out of immediate trouble which somebody else started, but I can think of all sorts of times when people are victimized because they DON'T start trouble. What if you come home at night and hear a thief in your bedroom - lets say you have a gun in your pocket when this happens? Most sensible folks would say you should leave, find a phone and call the cops.
I suggest to the reader that the cops aren't going to be there until the guy has already left with everything valuable that you own, and they aren't going to be able to do a damn thing about it after the fact even if they wanted to. The person who is going to pay for his crime is you. You followed the rules by not confronting the thief, and the thief might just have well as left you a thank you note for doing so.


There was a case a few years ago now where a man broke into an estate and raped a woman there. Her security guard on the grounds heard her screaming for help and he - get this - called the cops and waited in his car for them to arrive. He sat there and listened to it happen. Legally, he did exactly what he was obligated to do. He followed the rules and was rewarded in the legal suit which followed.

What kind of man could do that? Would any of us sit there and wait for the cops while listening to a woman crying for help? I'm sure everyone reading this insists that he wouldn't, but it bears thinking about. At what point do we cease with the 'defend ourselves' talk and start doing something about the world around us? Maybe the police won't protect us? Maybe the safe course isn't always the right course?

In just about every state you have the right to defend yourself, there may be a couple that are questionable. Most states you have every right to defend your home, in some you may not be allowed shot an unarmed person. I think you're getting self defense and starting a fight mixed up and I'm not sure where you're getting these rules for confronting a theif. If there is an intruder in your home you do not have to try and fly the scene, nor should your first action be finding a phone. The phone should be a priority, but not the first. Assuming that the intruder will just standby and watch you get out of bed, find the phone, dail 911 and walk out of the house could very well be a deadly assumtion.

Self defense does not only apply to protecting yourself, but anyone around you who is in grave danger. So, if you heard a person being attacked and you jumped to their aid and smashed the BG you acted in self defense of another person.

I couldn't imagine a security guard having orders to not give aid to a person who is being assulted. Unfortunately though, there are many of people who would just standby while another person was being raped and/or beaten to death.

[Ahoym8e]

Thanks Gregimotis.... The other thread has taken on a life of its own.

I read the thread you linked to, and was quite disappoined byt the jailing of the purse-snatcher's arm breaker and conviction of the other fellow that dragged his attacker in an attempt to escape.

I do have a feeling that there is more to each of the stories. Otherwise there is a gross miscarriage of justice.

If, for example, the pursesnatchers arm was broken during the immedeate submission, then I think that's ok, but if it was deliberately broken subsequent to the submission then the person breaking the arm is cuplable on all levels.

If the guy dragging his attacker tangled in his seatbelt was genuinely scared of further assault, there should not have been any conviction. If, however, there is evidence that there was a certain amount of glee and revenge in the dragging ("haha, MF, who's the faggot now?" "feet sore yet, bitch?") then it is without a doubt vehicular assault.

I agree that it would be very hard, once having submitted a transgressor, to not give him an extra shot or five just for pissing you off and disrupting your day with whatever the transgression was. However, if you catch the purse snatcher, submit him and then methodically dislocate all his major joints, that's just plain wrong. Petty theft is not punishable by gross disfigurement. If you catch someone rape-murdering your wife, then _I_ think it might be appropriate, but we as americans have abdicated the execution of "justice" (even though its a real joke sometimes) to the courts system, so that's where the punishment "should" be awarded. (the merits of this are worth their own thread if anyone cares to start one)

Don't get me wrong: If I caught someone rape-murdering my wife, I would do what I could to make the perpetrator suffer physically, but I would be aware that I would be called to account for whatever occurred beyond the initial intervention/submission. I would probably be restrained by the knowledge that I can't go to jail because (with my wife now dead) I need to be around for my kids.

ANYWAY, I started to the other thread to explore the idea whether self defense extended beyond an actual physical attack. There's the saying "one person's right to swing his fist freely ends at the tip of the other person's nose." I think the first person's right ends about 2 feet away from the tip of my nose.

So my question: when does assault become assault? I hold that it occurrs before physical contact. Hermosa in the the very first thread holds that it occurs once you are grabbed.

Opinions?

[Hermosa]

So my question: when does assault become assault? I hold that it occurrs before physical contact. Hermosa in the the very first thread holds that it occurs once you are grabbed.

Ever since I put up that thread I have been trying to re-explain it. And I take responsibility for that. I don't think I worded it right to make my feelings clear.

...I am DEFINATELY all for preventive medicine in self-defense. Doing all the smart stuff. You know..not going into the dark alley, Parking under a streetlight, and really most importantly, just living a clean life and not making enemies.

My point on being grabbed I think could better be understood if we apply the visual imagery of a blade...

Many real knife experts will tell you that a "knifer" will NEVER pull out his knife so you can see it. He won't dance around brandishing his blade. The real "knifer" approaches non-chalantly with his blade hidden and when you least expect it..slams it home.

Now...what would you do if a guy DID pull out a knife and started dancing around and brandishing the blade?...Would you pull out your knife and duel?..Or would you get the **** outta there? When the guy just suddenly "shanks" you out of nowhere..there is not a whole lot you can do to get away.

So this is the point I was trying to make with emptyhands-- To me; the grab or sudden sucker punch or tackle, is like the sudden "shanking" with the knife.
It just happened and now you're dealing with it..Probably on the ground.
The moving around and boxing or kickboxing to me; is like a guy pulling out his knife and brandishing it for you to see. If you wouldn't stay around to duel with the knife...why stay around and engage in a boxing/kickboxing match?

Now..the point that everyone keeps making is.."well, what if you can't just get away, you are backed into a corner or something?!" Well, that's pretty weak. That go's back to that preventive medicine thing..where are the exits? Am I seated in the far back, most poorly lit corner of this smokey biker bar making me the most vulnerable target in here?? OH, why yes I am..perhaps I should relocate

You know?
Anyway..I hope maybe my intentions are becoming more clear.

[Ahoym8e]

You know?
Anyway..I hope maybe my intentions are becoming more clear.

Yes, more and more.

Good analogy with the knife...

Hmm..., maybe this takes us to levels of threat. If a screaming mad 6 year old wanted to hit me at the ice cream store, I think I would ward him off and continue my ice cream, how about you? would you take the chance to escape and run away?

Now how about a 10 year old, or a 16 year old, or a 23 year old? the choice becomes tougher and tougher, doesn't it?

So while I might choose to haul tail in the face of a knife wielding goon, I might not chose to do so in an empty hand confrontation (this is all very hypothetical; just an exploration of thought). The level of threat is simply different. I might choose to risk fist/elbow/shin damage to continue whatever I'm doing, but might be unwilling to risk knife damage.

Which may bring up my original question (way back several threads ago ): If I choose to engage in a conflict in order to freely pursue my life (or whatever I'm doing a the moment) is that not self defense? Can "Mutually agreed combat" not BE self defense, depending on the circumstances? Does self defense have to be defense specifically of life and/or limb?