If you could use any level of force against an attacker

[Court Jester]

Not necessarily. In Canada and I am sure some jurisdictions in the United States you can only defend yourself with an equal amount of force and can only use lethal force if you legitimately fear for your life.

Using an "equal" amount of force is unwise if you are being attacked... or you believe reasonably you are being attacked. If someone is angry and shoves you and you can walk away that is the best thing you can do wouldn't you agree? In that case deescalate and no reason to use even that "equal force". However if you do have to defend yourself (not just your pride or your honor) then matching force will only prolong the struggle. Meet force which you must defend yourself from with MORE force in return in order to STOP the attack and/or provide a means to flee.

Someone coming at you with a knife, deadly force is perfectly acceptable but if some drunk starts throwing drunken punches at you, no. A drunk may be attacking you but you have no reason to fear for your life.

This is not true. A well placed blow to the head, or a bad fall and then your head hitting the ground could result in great bodily injury or even death. It all comes down to reasonable force not necessarily equal force. If a drunken Mike Tyson comes swinging at you then you may need to use a weapon to defend yourself.

Either you haven't been in many street fights, or you have never seen someone beaten unconscious and then seriously and permanently injured after being defenseless on the ground.

 

[Lursa]

If Im attacked in a public place I shouldn't have to run because I have as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

So go ahead and escalate the attack. Then you'll end up partially responsible. Financially perhaps, civilly if bystanders are injured, etc. And you'll have a ton of legal fees even if found innocent.

Or, you can choose to walk away (if possible). Why wouldnt you do that?

 

[Carjosse]

Using an "equal" amount of force is unwise if you are being attacked... or you believe reasonably you are being attacked. If someone is angry and shoves you and you can walk away that is the best thing you can do wouldn't you agree? In that case deescalate and no reason to use even that "equal force". However if you do have to defend yourself (not just your pride or your honor) then matching force will only prolong the struggle. Meet force which you must defend yourself from with MORE force in return in order to STOP the attack and/or provide a means to flee.




This is not true. A well placed blow to the head, or a bad fall and then your head hitting the ground could result in great bodily injury or even death. It all comes down to reasonable force not necessarily equal force. If a drunken Mike Tyson comes swinging at you then you may need to use a weapon to defend yourself.

Either you haven't been in many street fights, or you have never seen someone beaten unconscious and then seriously and permanently injured after being defenseless on the ground.

So some drunk guy comes up to you and throws a sloppy drunk punch or throws a can at you, you are pulling out a gun killing them and feel justified in doing so? Resonable force is equal force.

 

[Court Jester]

So some drunk guy comes up to you and throws a sloppy drunk punch or throws a can at you, you are pulling out a gun killing them and feel justified in doing so?

You must have me confused with someone else, I never said that. First off I don't make it a habit being at places where sloppy drunks congregate. And secondly if retreat is an option I am taking it. Because if I punch said sloppy drunk and he falls and hits his head and dies---- how did I win anything other than a civil suit?

Resonable force is equal force.

You are assuming that both users of force are morally equal then-- the aggressor and the defender. We aren't talking about a weight matched/classed Olympic wrestling match. When you are forced into a combat situation then you had better expect to prevail in order to STOP the aggressor, or delay the aggressor so that you can retreat. This isn't a difficult concept.

If we had attempted to meet the German on the beaches of France with "equal force" then England would be speaking German right now.

 

[Carjosse]

You must have me confused with someone else, I never said that. First off I don't make it a habit being at places where sloppy drunks congregate. And secondly if retreat is an option I am taking it. Because if I punch said sloppy drunk and he falls and hits his head and dies---- how did I win anything other than a civil suit?





You are assuming that both users of force are morally equal then-- the aggressor and the defender. We aren't talking about a weight matched/classed Olympic wrestling match. When you are forced into a combat situation then you had better expect to prevail in order to STOP the aggressor, or delay the aggressor so that you can retreat. This isn't a difficult concept.

If we had attempted to meet the German on the beaches of France with "equal force" then England would be speaking German right now.

I think this is where the lessons my high school self-defense teacher taught my class come in handy: it shouldn't matter how big the guy is if they are unarmed, just kneeing him in the crotch and running away will work in 99% of situations.

 

[d0gbreath]

Oh, pish-tosh.
If blindsided, one simply performs a triple somersault followed by a series of cartwheels while simultaneously shooting at your attacker(s).
Works for John Wick.....eat lead punks.

Being struck from behind in the ear with a lead-filled snowshoe makes somersaults and cartwheels impossible to perform due to a lack of consciousness. Unless you're John Wick, of course.

 

[DebateChallenge]

So go ahead and escalate the attack. Then you'll end up partially responsible. Financially perhaps, civilly if bystanders are injured, etc. And you'll have a ton of legal fees even if found innocent.

Or, you can choose to walk away (if possible). Why wouldnt you do that?

That depends on the situation. Sometimes I will walk away, but the fact remains that I have as much of a right to be in public places as anyone else so I shouldn't have to walk away if I choose not to.

The methods I would use to stop a troublemaker usually will not harm innocent bystanders.

As for facing civil suits and other financial hardships, I've got insurance to cover that.

 

[Lursa]

So go ahead and escalate the attack. Then you'll end up partially responsible. Financially perhaps, civilly if bystanders are injured, etc. And you'll have a ton of legal fees even if found innocent.

Or, you can choose to walk away (if possible). Why wouldnt you do that?

That depends on the situation. Sometimes I will walk away, but the fact remains that I have as much of a right to be in public places as anyone else so I shouldn't have to walk away if I choose not to.

The methods I would use to stop a troublemaker usually will not harm innocent bystanders.

As for facing civil suits and other financial hardships, I've got insurance to cover that.

And that changes my response not one bit.

And no, you dont have insurance to cover much or any of that. Many people have killed or harmed in self-defense and still found themselves in criminal and civil lawsuits...and were found innocent...and still lost their houses to legal fees. Insurance doesnt cover legal fees (there are some very specific policies for firearm carriers...costly, separate from other ins)

It's your risk, your decision. From the sound of it, you'd make it based on ego. Good for you. Doesnt change reality.

 

[jaeger19]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

No because attackers generally purposely target people that can't harm them back.

 

[DebateChallenge]

No because attackers generally purposely target people that can't harm them back.

Not necessarily.