What is your definition of self-defence?

[Mr. Thunderpussy]

Before I get into this...debate, I want people to understand my intentions. I'm not aiming at flaming gun-control laws, or the permission of concealed weaponry, I'm not looking to single out people or groups. What I want, is for you fine, intelligent people to, partake in the exchange of knowledge, memories or even training, in order to give us an insight into what your definition of self-defense is.
Now, these days, I'm deeply concerned. Hell, I'm only 16, but even I can see what is happening around me.
The Collins School Dictionary defines self-defense as
"The knowledge of and the Ability to use means to protect yourself if attacked."
'The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On Self-Defense Defense' states that self-defense is "a defense to certain criminal charges involving force."
Wikipedia has a definition as well,

Spoiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence

which is quite interesting.
In schools of all levels, it is taught that self-defense is essential, that protecting ones-self against assailants is fundamental to our survival. Self-defense can take the form of verbal defence, or physical defence. Usually, words alone can knock sense into anyone. Many cases, however, the opposite is true. Physical could require physical.
What concerns me is that those who have had to use self-defense are told that they did the INCORRECT thing, that fighting back was stupid and dangerous to the victim. Ok, what I'm going for is this:
Those that rely on outside help (police, military, security, etc) are usually killed, wounded or morally damaged. They become empty shells, stressed by the horrors which had been inflicted upon them while their tax-money pats them on the back for doing the right thing. They are crying in a corner while the PD applaud them for their bravery and tenacity.
Then we turn to the man or female who has broken their assailants nose, or cut their wrists, or revealed a sidearm and defended themselves. These brave citizens would've shown cool and control under stressful situations, maybe even deterred future assaults. They should be commended for their efforts at doing what we should all have at birth; survival, and use of instinct. They are arrested, tried, imprisoned, fined, sometimes even murdered for that which is considered, lawfully and morally, self-defense.

So what is self-defense? Is it to physically, verbally or mentally defend oneself from an assailant(s), or is it to call upon non-civilian forces to aid in times of need?
Here's something that may interest everybody; (remember that while wikipedia does have good information, it is sometimes, or many times, inaccurate in truth.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_s ... ontroversy
while not completely on topic, in the end, it is concluded that he did act in self-defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4CtHp6V ... 67&index=3
A fellow patriot.

What can happen if defense is left to the police.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fc8_1187887010

The controversies of self-defense in politics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747163/posts

In the end, I just want your opinions on the matter. Feel free to object, however, those comments that are like,
"This is so crappy, I can't be bothered tearing it apart" comments are technically flaming, opposing a topic without substantial reason is a biased opinion on, god knows what. Also, if you don't understand something, or are not to clear on a theme, just ask. Thanx for reading, for those of you who actually do read.

 

[Despain]

defense

 

[DaithioDell]

-ce in British (i.e. proper) English.

Self-defence is a bit black-and-white, I think. Verbally defending yourself? What is that, a shouting match in a bar?

The only time it becomes an issue (at least in the sense you seem to be getting at) is physically. And then, well, there isn't much argument. If someone clearly means you physical harm, you get to fight back. I suppose, legally and morally speaking, the degree of defence should not exceed the degree of intended offence, and that's where it gets grey, for the defending party at least.

 

[bedi nik bzez emak]

;D

 

[Danny]

Self defence. It could be argued into two areas. It can be easily justified when one person has already laid hands on you and initiated some sort of fight, therefore justifying you open up a can-o-woop in the name of self defence. However it could be said if you retaliate physically after being threatened verbally, that you are still just usuing self defence, afterall you have been egged on. I guess that it's to which extent you defend that becomes the real issue.

Put it this way if you smell trouble, bring trouble, yeah boi!

 

[Mr. Thunderpussy]

Spoiler

I guess I should also be asking another question, to get a better opinion from you guys.
What morally justifies self-defense in your books, and to what extent SHOULD self-defense be taken to, ie, do you consider Deadly-force justified, should it be legal to carry self-defense weaponry in holsters or pouches (from pistols to knives) and when should the self-defense forces be brought into the mix? There's no need to answer all the questions, though it'd be cool if you could.

Well, it's fine to out is so straight forward, :ninja: however the implications of self-defence (we kiwis spell defence this way normally) can sometimes- actually, generally lead to other things. Someone who verbally assaults you can put you up for aggravated assault if you retaliate physically. To verbally defend yourself is simple. Those with weak will can usually be persuaded out of attacking you by laying the guilt on them, ie,
"think about my family, think about yours, think about prison which you could spend time in, etc."
Guilt can be a powerful feeling if used correctly, however, it is not the most proficient tool in the shed.
Social conditioning has led many people to believe that physical defense is morally wrong. They're mostly more scared of defending themselves because of legal issues then staying alive. In most instances, they'd call police if, say, there was someone breaking into their house, then sit tight waiting for someone to come, while their house gets ransacked, or the alleged assaulter began to harass them. That video of the chick who got raped while on the phone to the police in my last post, while she had a sprained or snapped leg, was in the kitchen. What's in the typical kitchen of any household? Knives, ovens, forks, goddammit, spoons can even be good for fending off someone! And yet she stood there, yelling "please, who are you, help!", then she got it in the rear, literally, no pun intended. Now, I'm not suggesting that she deserves it or anything. Actually, I reckon that the guy who did it should've been shot, but that's not the point. That was a classic example of a socially-conditioned person; she didn't even attempt to fight back from the reports that were released.
Its nice to see that some people, for a change, don't say "call the police or security", run. Actually, I'm surprised that almost everyone here has said "my fist with their face" and stuff similar. When I've asked friends and even older adults what their definitions of self defense were, most would fit police in the same sentence. I'm glad to see that some people on this site have actual sense.
Thanx for answering back! :lol:

 

[Danny]

I guess I should also be asking another question, to get a better opinion from you guys.
What morally justifies self-defense in your books, and to what extent SHOULD self-defense be taken to, ie, do you consider Deadly-force justified, should it be legal to carry self-defense weaponry in holsters or pouches (from pistols to knives) and when should the self-defense forces be brought into the mix? There's no need to answer all the questions, though it'd be cool if you could.

I believe that simply when it come sto the extent in which you should go to with self defence, you should hit back equal to (or slightly more, so the offender gets the point) what was thrown at you (litterally). So if you were punched in the face, swing a few punches. If you were then punched and kicked a bit more, retaliate like you would in a typical fight. If your opponent uses his surroundings (objects, walls) then do the same.

When it comes to weapons if its a tricky one. I believe that if you whole heartedly believe your life or someone elses life is in immediate danger and the hands of someone with a knife or gun, then if its a realistic option, kill the bastard. People who carry guns and knifes for use in fights which they intend to start are practically asking to be killed, unfortunately there are so many people with such high arrogance out there that wouldn't think twice about stabbing you at the start of an argument, hell some do it for fun, so I guess self defence is many situations can be taken to the extreme. The sad fact is whent he law intervenes the situations can become awfully tricky, and all those fancy lawyers in the courts weren't around to see why you had to kill that drunken chav with the knife outside a club, were they?

 

[kaze950]

I believe that if someone directly threatens your life, you can use whatever means necessary to protect yourself and/or those around you. If somebody is holding up a person at gunpoint, I think it should be perfectly legal for someone to come up behind them with a shotgun and shoot them in the back.

Property is a different and more complicated matter. Take that one story about the texan who shut two robbers in the back with a shotgun and killed them. On one hand, stealing is not worthy of death. But on the other hand, I would feel bad if the shooter went to jail for trying to stop CRIMINALS. His life wasn't in immediate danger, but he was still stopping criminals. It would be legal for a police officer to shoot a running criminal, who continued to run even after saying "Stop, Police!", right? I think those same rights should be given to civilians, as long as it is reasonable to do so (Shooting someone after they drop their weapons and surrender would NOT be considered reasonable)

 

[DaithioDell]

Heh. Chavs. Bastards, all of them.

sys...wow I can't get the rest of your name. Mr. topic starter, then. Your example of the woman being raped is pretty solid: women are generally told to not fight back in a rape case (although the woman was basically immobile and it sounds like the guy was huge). Yell and scream bloody murder, but if no one comes, just stop. The more the woman struggles, generally, the greater the feeling of control when submission finally occurs, plus the greater chance of the rapist resorting to greater physical violence. While I'm not sure how much I agree with that sentiment, and I also believe that rape is a worse crime than murder, there is some truth in the notion that rape it is possible to recover from. Death, not so much.

Guilt is a dangerous tool to use, I'd say. Many who commit such acts such as rape or assault are mired in a lack of self-worth, personal guilt, or other emotional instablities already. Causing someone more guilt could either work and cause a breakdown, or, more likely, increase their anger and capablity for causing harm. To put it bluntly, as well, how many people have the mental wherewithal to talk reasonably in such a situation? Normally people just freak out.

Really, the greatest deterrant is witnesses.

 

[Anonymous]

Right, heres my 2p: If somebody is insulting me verbally, I'll either defend myself with words and tear them apart verbally, or ignore them. Insults rarely call for physical decimation, and will just get me into trouble. It's aggrovated assault, so I don't bother with it. However, if somebody physically attacks me, I can, and will hit them back. But I'd only hit them once. If they've got a weapon on them, such as a knife which they pulled on me, I'd hit them first, before they could stab me. I'd rather they were in hospital with a broken jaw than me being in hospital with stab wounds. It's only fine if it's reasonable, tbh. I mean, if somebody started a fight with me, I'd make sure they knew they'd been in a fight.
But if it was somebody attacking somebody else, I'd stop them if it was clear whoever was being attacked couldn't defend themself, and that the attacker wasn't going to stop, even if it meant I'd get into trouble for Affray.

I have actually found out that self-defence is fine over here usually, because a few months ago, I got attacked without warning, and I couldn't defend myself. I ended up asking one of the police the law about self-defence in Britain: If they hit you, hit them back harder, basically. So that's my definition and philosophy on it.

 

[Crystalgate]

Let's start with the definition of self defense. The one provided in Wikipedia works fine for me. The question is to how much force is justified when defending yourself. If you're in immediate danger of getting killed, raped or maimed I'll definitely consider the use of deadly force justified. If someone managed to pickpocket you and is running away with your wallet, I would not consider the use of deadly force justified. A gray area will sooner or later appear and I will not even try to cover every case.

What concerns me is that those who have had to use self-defense are told that they did the INCORRECT thing, that fighting back was stupid and dangerous to the victim.

I can see two general cases here.

One is that the one who claims self defense did not use self defense at all. It happens that someone upon encountering a rowdy type hopes that the rowdy one will attack so that he will have an excuse to beat him up and therefore purposefully acts towards increasing the likelihood of getting attacked. However, if you purposefully try to make someone attack you, your self defense claim will go out of the window. In this you did something wrong.

The other case is that the one defending himself then encounters people who think diplomacy can solve every problem (including immediate ones) or that violence is wrong even when used to ward of violence against yourself. If you encounter that sort of person, I don't think you will be able to convince him or her otherwise. Concentrate on those who don't have too strong opinions on this matter.

Those that rely on outside help (police, military, security, etc) are usually killed, wounded or morally damaged. They become empty shells, stressed by the horrors which had been inflicted upon them while their tax-money pats them on the back for doing the right thing. They are crying in a corner while the PD applaud them for their bravery and tenacity.

Usually they are not. Unless you live in a very bad neighborhood, the chance you being assaulted by someone who'd inflict such a wound is way below 50%. Further, the police does decrease the odds of this happening to you. Some are so obsessed by killing someone they won't care if they gets arrested afterwards, but most criminals do want to evade jail. This means they have to limit their activities to when they think they are likely to get away with it. Also, a lot of criminals do get thrown in jail and while they are there, they can't harm someone outside. Mafia bosses with a load of goons outside who are still willing to do their boss's bidding belongs to the minority. In any case, the likelihood of you getting assaulted by a homicidal person would be far higher without the work of the police.

Then we turn to the man or female who has broken their assailants nose, or cut their wrists, or revealed a sidearm and defended themselves. These brave citizens would've shown cool and control under stressful situations, maybe even deterred future assaults. They should be commended for their efforts at doing what we should all have at birth; survival, and use of instinct. They are arrested, tried, imprisoned, fined, sometimes even murdered for that which is considered, lawfully and morally, self-defense.

How often does that happen? More than zero for sure, but you make is sound as if it's an everyday occurrence. How many are imprisoned for performing what would be considered self defense by the law? Far from every claim of self defense really is self defense.

 

[Mr. Thunderpussy]

People having to defend themselves IS an everyday activity. SEXUAL assault, a sub-group of assault, happens every 66 seconds across the united states. Now imagine what that would be like over the whole entire world. I have been assaulted once, I was 14 and the male was 17, HOWEVER, this was within school grounds. Due to the extent and intent which he attacked me with, he was LIABLE for assault charges. What happened was that I retaliated by punching him in the nose, breaking his nose, and I also cracked one of his lower left ribs. My form teacher scolded me severely for doing the 'incorrect thing' as she put it, even though numerous witnesses stated that he was the one who initiated it. I suppose that if I had lain charges against him, I myself could've been implicated for aggravated assault, so I didn't. The kid wasn't suspended or anything.
I know, in-school fighting CAN be different. But where I was at the time was full of racist chavs (I'm part maori, while most kids there are all, while white), and that kid had really lain into me.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that people USUALLY are falsely accused of misusing self-defense. I must admit, being arrested and imprisoned on such grounds does happen less than I stated (sorry), but being implicated by the law and order DOES happen all the time. New Zealand and Australia (if memory serves) and I think even America has a remarkably poor accuracy for morale support of victims.

I ended up asking one of the police the law about self-defence in Britain: If they hit you, hit them back harder, basically. So that's my definition and philosophy on it.

Sounds as if this was more of an opinion than a lawful lesson, but I do respect your philosophy.

However, if somebody physically attacks me, I can, and will hit them back. But I'd only hit them once. If they've got a weapon on them, such as a knife which they pulled on me, I'd hit them first, before they could stab me. I'd rather they were in hospital with a broken jaw than me being in hospital with stab wounds. It's only fine if it's reasonable, tbh. I mean, if somebody started a fight with me, I'd make sure they knew they'd been in a fight.
But if it was somebody attacking somebody else, I'd stop them if it was clear whoever was being attacked couldn't defend themself, and that the attacker wasn't going to stop, even if it meant I'd get into trouble for Affray.

These situations can get tricky. For one, there are hardly many instances where a single crack could deter an attacker (unless it knocked them out), however, it is true that it does happen (speaking from experience here, I could be wrong, I admit it now).
As for the defense of another person, that can get very difficult. Your intentions could be misread, at the same time, it would be hard to distinguish if your help is wanted. A wounded victim could just as well pin you down as an accomplice, even if you do save them.

@Kaze: In NZ, a police officer may NOT use deadly force unless he is assaulted, or the assailant himself has resorted to deadly force. There are other factors as well, but my uncle who has been a police officer for 14 years and has been assaulted many times before, told me this foremost. Don't know how it works everywhere else.

I guess I should also be asking another question, to get a better opinion from you guys.
What morally justifies self-defense in your books, and to what extent SHOULD self-defense be taken to, ie, do you consider Deadly-force justified, should it be legal to carry self-defense weaponry in holsters or pouches (from pistols to knives) and when should the self-defense forces be brought into the mix? There's no need to answer all the questions, though it'd be cool if you could.

I believe that simply when it come sto the extent in which you should go to with self defence, you should hit back equal to (or slightly more, so the offender gets the point) what was thrown at you (litterally). So if you were punched in the face, swing a few punches. If you were then punched and kicked a bit more, retaliate like you would in a typical fight. If your opponent uses his surroundings (objects, walls) then do the same.

When it comes to weapons if its a tricky one. I believe that if you whole heartedly believe your life or someone elses life is in immediate danger and the hands of someone with a knife or gun, then if its a realistic option, kill the bastard. People who carry guns and knifes for use in fights which they intend to start are practically asking to be killed, unfortunately there are so many people with such high arrogance out there that wouldn't think twice about stabbing you at the start of an argument, hell some do it for fun, so I guess self defence is many situations can be taken to the extreme. The sad fact is whent he law intervenes the situations can become awfully tricky, and all those fancy lawyers in the courts weren't around to see why you had to kill that drunken chav with the knife outside a club, were they?

I love your input, it was well place together, and I value it greatly. It is reasons like, arrogance, naiveness and the intentions of people out there that I believe wholeheartedly that hidden weapons (Civilian-class pistols, melee objects, etc) should be allowed, though only after the obtaining of various permits at comfortable prices, and a mandatory psych evaluation.
I am really enjoying what I'm reading at the moment, glad that people are really putting an effort into answering, (no matter if I agree or disagree, I still value your opinions) and await further comments.
{Damn, that was long! I don't know where I'd put spoilers!}

 

[Nachos]

kick 'n run.

 

[Dissonance]

This isn't much of an issue for me, mainly because I believe that it's occasionally right to attack somebody offensively, so defending yourself is kind of a no-brainer.  If somebody's attacking you, you have the right to use as much force as you need to until they stop attacking you.

 

[Crystalgate]

People having to defend themselves IS an everyday activity. SEXUAL assault, a sub-group of assault, happens every 66 seconds across the united states. Now imagine what that would be like over the whole entire world. I have been assaulted once, I was 14 and the male was 17, HOWEVER, this was within school grounds. Due to the extent and intent which he attacked me with, he was LIABLE for assault charges. What happened was that I retaliated by punching him in the nose, breaking his nose, and I also cracked one of his lower left ribs. My form teacher scolded me severely for doing the 'incorrect thing' as she put it, even though numerous witnesses stated that he was the one who initiated it. I suppose that if I had lain charges against him, I myself could've been implicated for aggravated assault, so I didn't. The kid wasn't suspended or anything.
I know, in-school fighting CAN be different. But where I was at the time was full of racist chavs (I'm part maori, while most kids there are all, while white), and that kid had really lain into me.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that people USUALLY are falsely accused of misusing self-defense. I must admit, being arrested and imprisoned on such grounds does happen less than I stated (sorry), but being implicated by the law and order DOES happen all the time. New Zealand and Australia (if memory serves) and I think even America has a remarkably poor accuracy for morale support of victims.

I was asking only about how often people are punished for legally defending themselves, not how often people have to defend themselves period. However, it seems I asked the question twice so I can see how you could have misunderstood me. Sorry for that.

Anyway, when you say that people usually are falsely accused of misusing self-defense, which are you counting? People that legally apply self defense, people over the whole world or people who apply what you think should count as self defense?

About people being implicated by the law for defending yourself, if you kill someone in self defense, you must be tried in court. If it was self defense, you should then be freed from any criminal charges. However, the ones handling the case first have to determine whether or not it really was self defense. For you it may be obvious, but for the them it won't be until they have gone through the available evidence.

As for your own experience, school have it's own troubles here. I don't think I have been in fight where I can be considered to have acted in self defense, but I have seen my share of teachers having wonky ideas of how to resolve conflicts. There is a good chance the school in more interested in covering it's own ass than anything else. Had you had lain charges against your attacker, you would probably have won the case if your father had a lawyer on retainer that can keep the school in line. If not, then laying charges would have been risky.

You form teacher was probably acting on his/her own though.

 

[Mars]

Wow... The rules in Britain are extremely different then the rules here.
I'm in high school, and all the teachers are like, "Fighting is wrong!"

I remember one of my teachers once saying that you can even get suspended for pushing an attacker.

Although these apply on school grounds, so I guess it's a different case.

 

[FlippyD]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/od_ ... an_robbery

 

[Mr. Thunderpussy]

Wow... The rules in Britain are extremely different then the rules here.
I'm in high school, and all the teachers are like, "Fighting is wrong!"

I remember one of my teachers once saying that you can even get suspended for pushing an attacker.

Although these apply on school grounds, so I guess it's a different case.

This is the same mentality I'm referring to CG, although, saying "fighting is wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "Defending yourself is wrong".
@ixis: classic find, that's something new for me, good find man!
Crystalgate, you present solid case. Being imprisoned rarely happens, but what I'm trying to get at is the mentality against it. I mean, anyone who has experienced a few fights in their lives would be able to say,
"A lot of people didn't believe my actions were justified."

PS. I have had more than an experience by the way, but I only stated what I thought was the experience which was more relevant.

 

[Crystalgate]

Crystalgate, you present solid case. Being imprisoned rarely happens, but what I'm trying to get at is the mentality against it. I mean, anyone who has experienced a few fights in their lives would be able to say,
"A lot of people didn't believe my actions were justified."

PS. I have had more than an experience by the way, but I only stated what I thought was the experience which was more relevant.

Ok, then I will focus on this issue now.

Some people believe that violence is wrong no matter what or have an extremely high requirement for when they'd consider violence justified. They are entitled to their opinion, but keep you eye open if they seem to concerned with expressing their disapproval. You certainly have heard the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me", but you probably know that words however are very capable of inflicting tremendous harm. Since the reason against violence would be because it can hurt people, anyone who says that violence is wrong, but consider it A-ok to badmouthing others is a hypocrite. Voicing to much disapproval can also inflict pain. If a teacher scolds someone for using violence, she probably think she is helping that person towards better behavior and often she is right, but beware when a scold or statement of disapproval seems to do little but harming the recipient. Doing so rhymes poorly with the idea of non-violence.

I will also note that truly nice and peaceful people are not known for raising their voice or trying to force anything on anyone else. If someone is very forceful about the idea that violence is wrong, you're not dealing with a peaceful person. What you're dealing with is someone who dislikes physical violence, but is comfortable with using psychological violence.

There are also people who believes there are always other solutions than violence. That seem a bit detached from reality. Pretty much any school have encountered a child they just cannot convince to behave no matter what they try. Provided the school have made a genuine attempt, those children are usually poorly raised by their parents. This should be a good sign that diplomacy cannot solve everything. Further, most stable people surround themselves with other stable people and haven't been face to face with a violent and unstable person. If you have only seen people that can be persuaded with diplomacy, it's easy to erroneously assume that extends to all people.

On a side note, usually when violence is used, it's not justified. Often the victim of an assault don't even have the option to defend itself. The mugger will not draw his knife unless he has you where he wants you and he is within striking range. In general criminals will attack when the deck is stacked to their favor and you therefore can't mouth an effective resistance. They are certainly not interested in a fair fight. That severely limits the cases where a victim may use legal self defense. Naturally, most cases of violence is when either the assailant uses violence against the victim or it's a fight.

 

[Mr. Thunderpussy]

I agree with you up until this part, Crystalgate.

On a side note, usually when violence is used, it's not justified. Often the victim of an assault don't even have the option to defend itself. The mugger will not draw his knife unless he has you where he wants you and he is within striking range. In general criminals will attack when the deck is stacked to their favor and you therefore can't mouth an effective resistance. They are certainly not interested in a fair fight. That severely limits the cases where a victim may use legal self defense. Naturally, most cases of violence is when either the assailant uses violence against the victim or it's a fight.

When a person is assaulted, it can take place ANYWHERE, in private homes, or public areas. Depending on the level of rage of the hostile group or individual, the said group is capable of disregarding on-looking eyes and proceed with the assault without remorse. Examples would be found in 1992 Los Angeles riots time-line, where citizens were caught in the onslaught and were forced to protect themselves or flee. A riot usually stems from a singular conflict between a few people, then proceeds to gain strength with the more people who get involved.
But furthermore, assaults can take place in schools. During the times of the Los Angeles riots, gang members would at times invade schools and cause chaos among the students for various reasons. More often than not, the students would defend themselves, and would be arrested along with the gang members, due to their involvement in the conflicts. This was standard procedure, but some of the said students were sometimes imprisoned, even when evidence was stacked in their favour. See what I'm getting at. Assaults can happen anywhere, at anytime. There can be time to mount an adequate defense if one stays sharp.
Mind you, this is what I learned in history class, so it might not be fully true.