Use Of Force Continuum

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area. Its obvious that you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense but lets say a grown man roughly my size is coming at me with his bare hands. I fight back and I don't use any weapons and I stop him and I do not continue the use of force after I've stopped him. In that situation I shouldn't get in trouble since a grown man should be equal to another grown man of roughly the same size and bare hands should be equal to bare hands. Had I used a weapon that might be seen as excessive and taking it to the next level but if I don't use any weapons and I stop when he stops I don't see why there should be any problems with that.

Castle Doctrine enumerates an inherent lethal threat in the case of home invasion. Respond in kind.

SYG enumerates an inherent lethal threat in the commission of a forcible felony. Respond in kind.

DebateChallenge said:

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area. Its obvious that you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense but lets say a grown man roughly my size is coming at me with his bare hands. I fight back and I don't use any weapons and I stop him and I do not continue the use of force after I've stopped him. In that situation I shouldn't get in trouble since a grown man should be equal to another grown man of roughly the same size and bare hands should be equal to bare hands. Had I used a weapon that might be seen as excessive and taking it to the next level but if I don't use any weapons and I stop when he stops I don't see why there should be any problems with that.

Click to expand...

You’re right. It’s a grey area. The specific circumstances tell the tale. If the man coming at you is known to be an amateur or professional boxer or wrestler? You would be, IMO, justified in making him stay down if you ever got him there. Basically, again only my opinion, the guy who throws the first punch is guilty of assault... unless a cop, da or court of law rules it was mutual combat.

See, the thing is? You shouldn’t be living your life in such a way as to encounter situations like this. I’d venture to guess that at least 95% of us have, as adults, never landed a blow on another human being. And, absolutely no offense, but rehearsing and what-iffing these scenarios sounds just a bit junior highish to me.

MaggieD said:

You’re right. It’s a grey area. The specific circumstances tell the tale. If the man coming at you is known to be an amateur or professional boxer or wrestler? You would be, IMO, justified in making him stay down if you ever got him there. Basically, again only my opinion, the guy who throws the first punch is guilty of assault... unless a cop, da or court of law rules it was mutual combat.

See, the thing is? You shouldn’t be living your life in such a way as to encounter situations like this. I’d venture to guess that at least 95% of us have, as adults, never landed a blow on another human being. And, absolutely no offense, but rehearsing and what-iffing these scenarios sounds just a bit junior highish to me.

Click to expand...

Im talking about if a man roughly my size was coming at me who doesn't have any known background in boxing or wrestling but who is still a grown man about my size. It does make sense that the person who throws the first punch, shove, slap, ect. would be guilty but I've heard that if they end up being hurt worse than you that you could get in trouble, even if it is self defense.

As for me landing a blow as an adult, I have on more than one occasion landed a shove, punch, palm strike ect. in college but it was always in self defense, I never initiated it. As for living a lifestyle as to not encounter situations like this, it can happen to everybody. And yes, there are certain lifestyle choices that can lessen your chances of being in such a situation but going to college is not one of them. If you go to college you are increasing your chances of being in a situation that might result in the use of physical force. I speak from my own experience.

As for being junior highish, I suppose a good deal of junior high students do start thinking over scenarios like this so you could say its junior highish in that sense but as for being exclusive to junior high that is not the case. Just about any martial arts or self defense school will discuss such stuff.

DebateChallenge said:

Im talking about if a man roughly my size was coming at me who doesn't have any known background in boxing or wrestling but who is still a grown man about my size. It does make sense that the person who throws the first punch, shove, slap, ect. would be guilty but I've heard that if they end up being hurt worse than you that you could get in trouble, even if it is self defense.

As for me landing a blow as an adult, I have on more than one occasion landed a shove, punch, palm strike ect. in college but it was always in self defense, I never initiated it. As for living a lifestyle as to not encounter situations like this, it can happen to everybody. And yes, there are certain lifestyle choices that can lessen your chances of being in such a situation but going to college is not one of them. If you go to college you are increasing your chances of being in a situation that might result in the use of physical force. I speak from my own experience.

As for being junior highish, I suppose a good deal of junior high students do start thinking over scenarios like this so you could say its junior highish in that sense but as for being exclusive to junior high that is not the case. Just about any martial arts or self defense school will discuss such stuff.

Click to expand...

Great post.

Your first paragraph. I still think it depends on specific circumstances. And I’m sure in your classes they discussed that your expert training could make YOU that boxer or wrestler I mention. Example... yeah, you could make a effective palm strike that would drive someone’s nose into their brain. My opinion? Depending on circumstances? You’d be in deep ****. The attorney fees alone would change your life forever.

Your second paragraph. I have a license to carry. I don’t. I’ll let the next guy who is much better trains than I save the world. In my entire life, I have never been in a situation that would have EVER EVER EVER required drawing a gun. I’ve been in uncomfortable situations with tough women, but, fortunately, they have never become physical. Well... at least since high school when I beat the crap out of a bully. But I was very young.

Your third paragraph. Perhaps that was unfair. In my carry classes, we often discussed different scenarios as learning opportunities.

Because I suspect you are relatively young, I will offer you what I think is wisdom and hope you take it in the spirit intended. There is no honor in a martial arts artist putting someone down. The REAL honor lies in not letting it get that far in the first place.

MaggieD said:

Great post.

Your first paragraph. I still think it depends on specific circumstances. And I’m sure in your classes they discussed that your expert training could make YOU that boxer or wrestler I mention. Example... yeah, you could make a effective palm strike that would drive someone’s nose into their brain. My opinion? Depending on circumstances? You’d be in deep ****. The attorney fees alone would change your life forever.

Your second paragraph. I have a license to carry. I don’t. I’ll let the next guy who is much better trains than I save the world. In my entire life, I have never been in a situation that would have EVER EVER EVER required drawing a gun. I’ve been in uncomfortable situations with tough women, but, fortunately, they have never become physical. Well... at least since high school when I beat the crap out of a bully. But I was very young.

Your third paragraph. Perhaps that was unfair. In my carry classes, we often discussed different scenarios as learning opportunities.

Because I suspect you are relatively young, I will offer you what I think is wisdom and hope you take it in the spirit intended. There is no honor in a martial arts artist putting someone down. The REAL honor lies in not letting it get that far in the first place.

Click to expand...

Provided that I do have expert training in the martial arts and assuming that would make me the boxer, wrestler, fighter, ect. that you mention first of all it would have to be proven in court that I do have such training. A background in martial arts is not something that can be looked up in legal records the way a carry permit for a gun can and most martial artists don't flaunt their backgrounds so the court would have to know about my training in the first place. As for that myth about the palm strike driving somebody's nose into their brain, its exactly that, a myth. Such a death blow rarely if ever happens.

As for a license to carry, although there is supposedly a movement to change this generally speaking you are not allowed to carry on college campuses. There was a case of a girl who was raped at college. Although she did have a license to carry and did carry a gun in places where she was allowed to, college was not one of those places. She claimed that had she been carrying she would've been able to stop the rapist. Now, would having a gun prevent her from being raped and should students be allowed to carry guns at college? That is a different debate and a different discussion. The fact remains that college can be a dangerous place, more dangerous than high school, and that somebody shouldn't get in trouble in college for using force to defend themselves, especially if they aren't using any weapons and if their attacker is a grown man, which is what most attackers on college campuses are.

Lets say a man about my size shoves me and I respond by punching him. My punch knocks him down and he is no longer coming at me so I cease my use of force. I should not get in trouble. He's a grown man and Im a grown man. He attacked with his bare hands and I fought back with my bare hands. I stopped when he stopped. In the USA you're allowed to defend yourself.

DebateChallenge said:

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area. Its obvious that you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense but lets say a grown man roughly my size is coming at me with his bare hands. I fight back and I don't use any weapons and I stop him and I do not continue the use of force after I've stopped him. In that situation I shouldn't get in trouble since a grown man should be equal to another grown man of roughly the same size and bare hands should be equal to bare hands. Had I used a weapon that might be seen as excessive and taking it to the next level but if I don't use any weapons and I stop when he stops I don't see why there should be any problems with that.

Click to expand...

No.......weapon or no weapon.

You beat the asshole into a greasy spot on the side walk to the point where he will never want to attack another person.

Reasonable my ass.

If you show intent to hurt me, I have zero regard for your future.

DebateChallenge said:

Provided that I do have expert training in the martial arts and assuming that would make me the boxer, wrestler, fighter, ect. that you mention first of all it would have to be proven in court that I do have such training. A background in martial arts is not something that can be looked up in legal records the way a carry permit for a gun can and most martial artists don't flaunt their backgrounds so the court would have to know about my training in the first place. As for that myth about the palm strike driving somebody's nose into their brain, its exactly that, a myth. Such a death blow rarely if ever happens.

As for a license to carry, although there is supposedly a movement to change this generally speaking you are not allowed to carry on college campuses. There was a case of a girl who was raped at college. Although she did have a license to carry and did carry a gun in places where she was allowed to, college was not one of those places. She claimed that had she been carrying she would've been able to stop the rapist. Now, would having a gun prevent her from being raped and should students be allowed to carry guns at college? That is a different debate and a different discussion. The fact remains that college can be a dangerous place, more dangerous than high school, and that somebody shouldn't get in trouble in college for using force to defend themselves, especially if they aren't using any weapons and if their attacker is a grown man, which is what most attackers on college campuses are.

Lets say a man about my size shoves me and I respond by punching him. My punch knocks him down and he is no longer coming at me so I cease my use of force. I should not get in trouble. He's a grown man and Im a grown man. He attacked with his bare hands and I fought back with my bare hands. I stopped when he stopped. In the USA you're allowed to defend yourself.

Click to expand...

Your last paragraph, I completely agree. The rest? I’m not understanding where you think we disagree...?? As to the palm strike rarely happening? Same is true about the one-punch homicide.

DebateChallenge said:

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area. Its obvious that you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense but lets say a grown man roughly my size is coming at me with his bare hands. I fight back and I don't use any weapons and I stop him and I do not continue the use of force after I've stopped him. In that situation I shouldn't get in trouble since a grown man should be equal to another grown man of roughly the same size and bare hands should be equal to bare hands. Had I used a weapon that might be seen as excessive and taking it to the next level but if I don't use any weapons and I stop when he stops I don't see why there should be any problems with that.

Click to expand...

Let me just say that violence is extremely unpredictable unless you are in a ring with rules and a referee. You could find yourself stomped into brain damage, organ damage, or worse. The bottom line is to avoid it at all costs. You don't know the capabilities of the person you face, whether he is a street fighter or armed with a gun or a knife, mace, numchucks, or car keys with a short chain and a lead ball on the end.

And if he attacks you, call for help and try to hold him off until the police get there. That may be enough for him to take a swing and hit the road. Besides, most non athletic adults burn out in the first 20 - 30 seconds of a brawl, so marshal your energy until you can get behind him and choke him out.

And don't be shy. Get witness's names just in case he says you attacked him.

BTW, is this a mental role play for Thanksgiving dinner with all the in laws and outlaws?

DebateChallenge said:

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area.

Click to expand...

When it comes to law enforcement agencies, unfortunately, this gray area is often filled in by the imaginations of untrained civilian politicians who think they can mete out punishment based on their subjective opinion and who often write these gutter-quality policies to begin with.

What that does in part is cause high turnover and high levels of distrust among sworn personnel who then increasingly do not pursue offenders with the level of zeal they once did. It becomes an is-it-worth-it issue with officers rather than did-he-break-the-law or whatever until the officer reaches retirement age and leaves.

RetiredUSN said:

No.......weapon or no weapon.

You beat the asshole into a greasy spot on the side walk to the point where he will never want to attack another person.

Reasonable my ass.

If you show intent to hurt me, I have zero regard for your future.

Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from but such an attitude can get you thrown in prison on criminal charges, sued out if every last penny on civil charges, and you will have a record for the rest of your life. Proceeding too beat somebody into a greasy spot after you've stopped them is not self defense and it will get you in big trouble with the law. Its not about what you or me consider reasonable its about what the law considers reasonable. You cannot keep beating on somebody once you stopped them. And you can't use more force than what's necessary to stop an attacker. As a grown man you cannot shoot or slug a little 5 year old child who takes a slap at you.

DebateChallenge said:

I see where you're coming from but such an attitude can get you thrown in prison on criminal charges, sued out if every last penny on civil charges, and you will have a record for the rest of your life. Proceeding too beat somebody into a greasy spot after you've stopped them is not self defense and it will get you in big trouble with the law. Its not about what you or me consider reasonable its about what the law considers reasonable. You cannot keep beating on somebody once you stopped them. And you can't use more force than what's necessary to stop an attacker. As a grown man you cannot shoot or slug a little 5 year old child who takes a slap at you.

Click to expand...

I'd rather be judged by 12 than going down because of some thug. And of course, I seriously doubt that I will ever be mugged by a 5 year old. :roll:

MaggieD said:

Your last paragraph, I completely agree. The rest? I’m not understanding where you think we disagree...?? As to the palm strike rarely happening? Same is true about the one-punch homicide.

Click to expand...

Lets say I've got a background in the martial arts and I get into a fight and hurt somebody. In order for my background in the martial arts to be used against me in court the court would have to know about my background in the first place. A martial arts background is much less obvious than using a weapon such as a gun. If you use a gun there's evidence, people hear you use it, people see you use it, and there's physical evidence. The bullet wound, the bullet, the gun itself, ect. Having a background in the martial arts does not leave such evidence.

And yes, with a punch to the head there is the occasion that your stars just might line up correctly, or incorrectly depending on how you want to look at it, and your punch ends up killing the person you land it on. You will have a very bad day in court and will no doubt be charged with manslaughter at the least, but such occurrences are very rare. Otherwise in boxing matches, where head shots are taken all the time, there would be lots of deaths. Especially in the old days when boxing gloves weren't worn.

RetiredUSN said:

I'd rather be judged by 12 than going down because of some thug. And of course, I seriously doubt that I will ever be mugged by a 5 year old. :roll:

Click to expand...

I agree, but you shouldn't be judged by 12 just for refusing to go down because of some thug.

chuckiechan said:

Let me just say that violence is extremely unpredictable unless you are in a ring with rules and a referee. You could find yourself stomped into brain damage, organ damage, or worse. The bottom line is to avoid it at all costs. You don't know the capabilities of the person you face, whether he is a street fighter or armed with a gun or a knife, mace, numchucks, or car keys with a short chain and a lead ball on the end.

And if he attacks you, call for help and try to hold him off until the police get there. That may be enough for him to take a swing and hit the road. Besides, most non athletic adults burn out in the first 20 - 30 seconds of a brawl, so marshal your energy until you can get behind him and choke him out.

And don't be shy. Get witness's names just in case he says you attacked him.

BTW, is this a mental role play for Thanksgiving dinner with all the in laws and outlaws?

Click to expand...

A street confrontation should be approached with the kind of mindset that its a fight to the death. This doesn't mean that if you've stopped your attacker and that they're still alive but no longer a threat that you should proceed to kill them, once you've stopped them you've stopped them and to go beyond that would be going beyond self defense and would not hold up in court. But if I were in a street confrontation I would use the kind of mindset that its over when my attacker is no longer a threat, or Im dead. A street confrontation is not the same thing as a fight in a ring or sport fighting or a high school fisticuffs. It should be considered a death match.

https://hkroninblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/6a00e54f05d43088340120a70e5184970b-500wi.jpg

DebateChallenge said:

Lets say I've got a background in the martial arts and I get into a fight and hurt somebody. In order for my background in the martial arts to be used against me in court the court would have to know about my background in the first place. A martial arts background is much less obvious than using a weapon such as a gun. If you use a gun there's evidence, people hear you use it, people see you use it, and there's physical evidence. The bullet wound, the bullet, the gun itself, ect. Having a background in the martial arts does not leave such evidence.

And yes, with a punch to the head there is the occasion that your stars just might line up correctly, or incorrectly depending on how you want to look at it, and your punch ends up killing the person you land it on. You will have a very bad day in court and will no doubt be charged with manslaughter at the least, but such occurrences are very rare. Otherwise in boxing matches, where head shots are taken all the time, there would be lots of deaths. Especially in the old days when boxing gloves weren't worn.

Click to expand...

Warning, TLDR comin’ up... but fun to write.

You’re right about it not being as apparent with martial arts. And likely a martial artist, unless caught up inexorably in the moment, wouldn’t go to extremes to lessen a threat anyhow. And the reality of an ordinary brawl is, unlike what we see on TV and in the movies, is probably going to be over as soon as someone has serious blood flowing from their nose.

I find the arts to be fascinating. Years ago I took a series of lessons in what was called “Dirty Street Fighting,” Sixteen lessons for women designed to make them empowered if ever assaulted. It was an absolute blast. Learned things like how to escape a from-the-front choke hold and inflict significant damage in the process, a rear chokehold, a side kick at someone’s knee, which, if done correctly, can break someone’s kneecap, a palm strike or punch to the nose that starts at one’s waist which, if landed correctly, will call great pain and some serious bleeding. It was the first time I heard someone say, “If you’re fighting fair, you’re doing it wrong.” Also remember hearing, just recently, “Everybody’s got a great plan until they get punched in the face.” Both make me grin.

I never lost sight of the fact that it was likely that, if I WAS ever attacked, I’d most likely forget everything I’d ever learned AND that most attacks on women are blitz attacks that put their lights out before they have a chance to even recognize an attack is imminent. But it was great fun, nonetheless. And it was empowering.

The only time I saw a physical confrontation between two men, it was a pretty ugly buildup as it was fairly obvious it was going to escalate to physicality. Finally, one of the men wound up and punched the other guy in the face. These were two rough dudes. The guy who got punched went straight down and didn’t get up for several minutes. He’d been knocked unconscious. One punch. As I grabbed my cellphone to call 911 in a panic, a guy slowly walked up, not threatening, He was shirt-tail family, and said, “Whatcha doing, Maggie?” “OMG!! I’m calling the cops! An ambulance!” “Nah, he said, as I hesitated. “Those guys do that every once in a while. He’ll be okay, and that’s my drunk brother who hit him.” He’ll be fine and, see? My brother’s leaving. If you call the cops, you’ll get my brother arrested, and his friend on the pavement will be taken to the hospital and end up with a $3,000 bill.” I was speechless. Didn’t make the call. Sure enough, the guy slowly got up, friends helping him, laughing their asses off. Strangest encounter I ever witnessed.

One last memory in a TLDR post. A short, stocky older black man named Henry. We got to talking, and he said he’d been in many short fights in “the neighborhood.” “Why short?” “Oh, easy. When I saw things escalating, I always punched first. Right to the nose. When blood starts gushing, it’s almost always game over.” I found that fascinating, even knowing it was an exaggeration.

Great respect for those who make it their business to become extremely proficient.

Sorry. Over-shared here. Probably won’t get read. But it brought back a fun trip down memory lane.

So RetiredUSN as far as beating a troublemaker into a greasy spot on the sidewalk, you say you would rather be judged by 12 than be a victim to the troublemaker. I applaud you for that but here's the thing, after reducing said troublemaker to a greasy spot on the sidewalk just what are you going to say in court?

DebateChallenge said:

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area. Its obvious that you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense but lets say a grown man roughly my size is coming at me with his bare hands. I fight back and I don't use any weapons and I stop him and I do not continue the use of force after I've stopped him. In that situation I shouldn't get in trouble since a grown man should be equal to another grown man of roughly the same size and bare hands should be equal to bare hands. Had I used a weapon that might be seen as excessive and taking it to the next level but if I don't use any weapons and I stop when he stops I don't see why there should be any problems with that.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

You’re right. It’s a grey area. The specific circumstances tell the tale. If the man coming at you is known to be an amateur or professional boxer or wrestler? You would be, IMO, justified in making him stay down if you ever got him there. Basically, again only my opinion, the guy who throws the first punch is guilty of assault... unless a cop, da or court of law rules it was mutual combat.

See, the thing is? You shouldn’t be living your life in such a way as to encounter situations like this. I’d venture to guess that at least 95% of us have, as adults, never landed a blow on another human being. And, absolutely no offense, but rehearsing and what-iffing these scenarios sounds just a bit junior highish to me.

Click to expand...

I suppose this is something of a general response to both posts rather than a particular argument.



To the extent of my experience, you are not likely to get convicted because a jury concluded that you used excessive force in self defense* unless you went off the rails, and you are also not likely to get convicted of assault & battery (or with a deadly weapon, etc) unless you went beyond what the common man accepts as reasonably necessary.

Depending on the state/charge, you're looking at 6 or 12 jurors generally. And contrary to the common opinion, if either prosecutor or defense attorney attempts a "lawyer trick" in argument, the jury will laugh it off. The kind of case we're talking about is pretty straight-forward. There was a fight, someone lost, maybe lived or maybe died.

So, although I'm not entirely sure what the overall point is here, I think my basic point is simply that there usually aren't extreme outliers. The courtroom fight is usually about what actually happened in the brawl, not about exactly how much force was necessary to end the brawl. The defense and prosecution are generally going to argue for a different set of inferences. They almost never agree "oh, yeah, that happened, but we disagree as to whether it was illegal". (I'd say never but there are always surprises). Unlike a white collar crime, this is the kind of thing that is usually within the general knowledge of the population, even if they haven't gotten into fights.

So .....if you are attacked, cannot retreat, and are capable of defending yourself.... stop when you're ahead. A potential jury will agree. Beat the piss out of them simply because you're mad and you can and you might just find yourself in jail.






*ie, you beat someone to death with a baseball bat, but the jury concluded that that was not necessary to stop the threat. Colloquially, that means they thought you could validly defend yourself but went far beyond the necessary, so you get manslaughter instead of murder.

Mr Person said:

So .....if you are attacked, cannot retreat, and are capable of defending yourself.... stop when you're ahead. A potential jury will agree. Beat the piss out of them simply because you're mad and you can and you might just find yourself in jail.

Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying all along, stop once you've stopped your attacker. What concerns me is the level of force you use to stop your attacker. I know a case of somebody fracturing the front of his attacker's skull with a punch and putting him in critical condition. Also, its very unlikely but its possible for head punches to kill. But if I was to punch an attacker my intent is not to put them in critical condition or to kill them, its to stop them.

There is a legal convention called Disparity of Force which comes into play.

So lets say a grown man roughly my size starts a fight with me and he somehow gets physical with me. I fight back, I punch him once and knock him out and since he's lying there incapacitated he's no longer coming at me and so I stop. Self defense should be valid in this case, I stopped when he stopped and I did not use excessive force. He's a grown man, Im a grown man. He used his bare hands, I used my bare hands. Had he been a woman or a small child or if I had used a weapon than there might be problems but a grown man = a grown man and bare hands = bare hands so I shouldn't get in trouble in a situation such as this.

DebateChallenge said:

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area. Its obvious that you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense but lets say a grown man roughly my size is coming at me with his bare hands. I fight back and I don't use any weapons and I stop him and I do not continue the use of force after I've stopped him. In that situation I shouldn't get in trouble since a grown man should be equal to another grown man of roughly the same size and bare hands should be equal to bare hands. Had I used a weapon that might be seen as excessive and taking it to the next level but if I don't use any weapons and I stop when he stops I don't see why there should be any problems with that.

Click to expand...

Ok. I have a concealed carry license. My training was given to me by a Local Deputy ( Now deceased ) - whom lived in the county east of me, himself a former Marine. He was a National Rifle Association certified Concealed Carry Instructor.


1) The bad guy, or threat - does not have to have a gun.....OR WEAPON to get shot.

2) This is very important === Laws involving self defense / fighting / shootings....... vary from state to state. Prosecutors , District Attorneys .....also vary from personality to personality. One Prosecutors justifiable homicide ( Where I'm From = "The killing of a person in order to prevent a felony" ) ......is another Prosecutors Grand Jury case. Simple solution......"Act stupid". Brave in the parking lot at your local convenience store...where you got into a fight --- But dumber than hell and ignorant in front of the Prosecutor. Let the Prosecutor / District Attorney believe that you are dumber than dirt ' compliment them quietly -- by acting like you have a eighth grade education.....and they are all smart. Camouflage yourself personality and attitude wise.



3) If it looks like a bad area you are going to or are visiting , it probably is. Turn around and leave. Avoidance is the best procedure. If you have a right to be where you are, a need to be where you are and
someone starts a physical confrontation ---- Kick their *ss.


4) If you carry concealed ---- have a good defense lawyer in mind, in case you need them.

5) Think ahead and plan ahead.





Major Lambda

Major Lambda said:

Ok. I have a concealed carry license. My training was given to me by a Local Deputy ( Now deceased ) - whom lived in the county east of me, himself a former Marine. He was a National Rifle Association certified Concealed Carry Instructor.


1) The bad guy, or threat - does not have to have a gun.....OR WEAPON to get shot.

2) This is very important === Laws involving self defense / fighting / shootings....... vary from state to state. Prosecutors , District Attorneys .....also vary from personality to personality. One Prosecutors justifiable homicide ( Where I'm From = "The killing of a person in order to prevent a felony" ) ......is another Prosecutors Grand Jury case. Simple solution......"Act stupid". Brave in the parking lot at your local convenience store...where you got into a fight --- But dumber than hell and ignorant in front of the Prosecutor. Let the Prosecutor / District Attorney believe that you are dumber than dirt ' compliment them quietly -- by acting like you have a eighth grade education.....and they are all smart. Camouflage yourself personality and attitude wise.



3) If it looks like a bad area you are going to or are visiting , it probably is. Turn around and leave. Avoidance is the best procedure. If you have a right to be where you are, a need to be where you are and
someone starts a physical confrontation ---- Kick their *ss.


4) If you carry concealed ---- have a good defense lawyer in mind, in case you need them.

5) Think ahead and plan ahead.





Major Lambda

Click to expand...

Dude Im not talking about carrying or using weapons. Im talking about a situation where nobody has any weapons and where nobody uses any weapons other than their hands, or feet or whatever. I will give you an example. Lets say Im a guy in college. Now lets say some other guy in college, say in the dormitory hallway gets physical with me. I fight back and I stop him and I stop when he stops. I shouldn't get in trouble because I was defending myself and I stopped when he stopped. If I was to continue to beat on him after I stopped him that would not be self defense since after stopping him there is no reason to keep beating on him but in this situation I stop once I stop him. We're both guys in college and we both aren't using any weapons so I am on the same force continuum he is on so I shouldn't get in trouble as I did not use excessive force. This would be self defense which as I understand is a legal right. So this is the kind of situation Im talking about.

DebateChallenge said:

When dealing with a threat or an assailant, you can use reasonable force in self defense. Once you've neutralized the threat you can't keep beating your assailant as that would no longer be a case of self defense. But aside from that from what I know there is also the continuum of force where you can't use more force than what is necessary to stop the threat, of course that is a very gray area. Its obvious that you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense but lets say a grown man roughly my size is coming at me with his bare hands. I fight back and I don't use any weapons and I stop him and I do not continue the use of force after I've stopped him. In that situation I shouldn't get in trouble since a grown man should be equal to another grown man of roughly the same size and bare hands should be equal to bare hands. Had I used a weapon that might be seen as excessive and taking it to the next level but if I don't use any weapons and I stop when he stops I don't see why there should be any problems with that.

Click to expand...

This IN NO WAY applies to LE, as we have seen LE pump 'excessive' amounts of rounds into both armed & unarmed citizens, and they walk free.

When a non LE citizen does this they typically face murder charges because DA's determine 'excessive' force is used within the parameters of the claimed 'self defense' claim.