[quote]jj-dude wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I know this is how it sometimes goes down. It wasn’t the legal element I didn’t grasp, more the ethical element.
I was actually more referring to the statement that a frontal assault cannot be explained as self defense in a meaningful way. As I understand it, in many places you are expected to retreat in the face of aggression if it is at all possible, potentially placing yourself at an ever increasing tactical and psychological disadvantage until all your options are exhausted and then you may need to mount a response from a far less desirable position. Nothing in my own training presents this as a particularly sound approach for increased surviability in a violent encounter. That is what seems crazy to me.
I realize that this is just how it is in these areas and there’s no point in shoulding on yourself, it just strikes me as unjust for obvious reasons. Of course this is irrelevant.
Good suggestion about securing the weapon to bolster your story. Obviously more difficult if you elect to un ass the area post contact, but the principle is sound.
Thanks[/quote]
ETHICS??? This is law, not justice. Here is the short version of this.
Self-defense (in the US) is an affirmative defense: you make a full confession of what you did as part of it. The SD part of it is a petition to the court for exemption, and typically this has 4 parts:
-
Preclusion or the Retreat Requirement: You show you tried to avoid the conflict.
-
Timeliness: The threat must be immediate.
-
Conditionality: There is no condition (e.g. “give me your money or else”) by which you could avoid the encounter.
-
Reasonable person standard: A fellow citizen would also feel threatened in the same situation. This covers disparity of force, e.g. there were 4 of them, they were armed, etc.
There is no such thing as a “right” of self-defense(1). The position of the courts is clear: All such cases are two citizens in dispute and one is claiming they can invoke an exemption from prosecution on certain grounds (see above). Note that a self-defense claim, which has a full confession in it, does 80% of the prosecutor’s job in convicting you. All he has to do is sabotage your 4 points and that’s that. These go wrong so often and end up in assaults so frequently that many states (such as California) have statues about committing “attempted self-defense”.
That said, running to go pick up a 2x4 can count as your retreat requirement, if you do it right. If he chases you, he certainly can’t claim SD. This is why having a very good understanding of how this works is most of practical SD. Techniques are probably the least likely thing to keep you safe in the long term.
“Tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat” – Sun Tzu
Strategy = goal and overall plan. Tactics = tools to achieve the strategy, such as techniques found in most martial arts.
The near complete failure of most SD training I see is they focus on the techniques and get carried away with those (which is, I might add, a total blast and keeps folks training), rather than putting it all in a context so a coherent strategy can be formed. Oops… I’m starting to sound like one of those classical martial artists again. Sorry.
– jj
(1) A right is something which everyone can claim. E.g. freedom of speech. Only in certain cases (slander, e.g.) and after a lengthy deliberation in court will someone be told they cannot exercise it in that specific case. If SD were a right, you could run around “defending” yourself against bag ladies until one dragged you into court and got an injunction against you to stop thwacking her. This is why when internet warriors talk about their sacred right to defend themselves against everyone I just get the giggles. [/quote]
Thanks again for the excellent explanation. Like I said, it’s not that I don’t grasp the complete separation between law and justice, it’s just that it bothers me at times. As I said, how I or anyone else may “feel” about the issue is of course irrelevant.
It was more of an offhanded comment in any case and, as happens almost every time I open my mouth, it likely made me seem even more ignorant than I actually am which is pretty damn ignorant. I do, however, have a working knowledge of my powers to use force under the Criminal Code of Canada. I must say that I find them to be generally more “user friendly” than their American counterparts for the most part. Of course, even if you are justified under the law you can still screw yourself with poor articulation after the fact.
You make an excellent point about tactics vs. strategy in context and I absolutely agree that this is where most SD/MA training fails. Of course, as you mention tactics are way sexier than strategy and they keep the paying customers coming back, even if they are less likely to keep them safe when it counts.