Self Defense: Right or Privilege?

[jgoose71 0]

Yes, it's a loaded question.

But with all of the debate about SYG, gun control, etc., I think it's time to stop circling the issue and get straight to the heart of the matter.

If a woman is being raped, if she get the chance to kill the attacker, is it OK? I mean the guy wasn't out to kill her, he was just needin' to get a peace of ass...

So if we kill the rapist, we'll never hear his side of the story in a court of law. For all we know, the woman was willing, kissing on him and playing with his fun parts and everything. Now that he is dead we'll never hear his side of the story. So should woman be made to just let it happen and call the cops afterwards?

After all, the general public can't be trusted on when it is an appropriate time to defend its self, especially if you are white. The rules of who you are allowed to defend yourself from and when you should actually consider yourself in danger seem to be getting more and more convoluted...

So Self Defense: Right or Privilege?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Lefty 0]

If defending yourself from harm isn't a right, what is?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[wmw999 2,169]

I think it's a right, but I also think there's a whole lot of gray area around it. And most of that gray area is situational, so trying to quantify it exactly wouldn't work, because each situation is different (and they are).

So the involvement of the judicial system is appropriate in all but the most clear-cut cases.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Arvoitus 1]

Well there is self defense and then there is 'self defense'. I don't think anyone will oppose persons right to get themselves out of harms way, even if it might mean that they would have to use some moderate violence to do so. But it seems that in US at least the only correct way to self defense is to kill anything that moves within 100 yard radius with the biggest gun available.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[jgoose71 0]

wmw999

So the involvement of the judicial system is appropriate in all but the most clear-cut cases.

Wendy P.

.....And this is where it starts to get convoluted. Who decides which cases are clear cut and when?

When most attacks occur, there usually isn't a judge and jury standing around to ask "is it ok to defend my self?"

In one particular case that has gotten a lot of fame recently, the attacker allegedly told the person "tonight you die!" at which point the attackee pulled a gun while he was getting his head bashed in and managed to get a round off. To bad no one else was around to here it, so now the victim is getting victimized twice...

But if he hadn't pulled the gun, he might be dead now.

Similar to my rape scenario above. If the person getting raped shoots the rapist, we are not able to get his side of the story. But if she doesn't act, what's to say he won't kill her to cover things up? There is no one else to say what's going on...

So now what? What's a "clear cut case?" Does there have to be witnesses?

In Saudi Arabia a man can't be convicted of rape unless their are 2 male witness...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[turtlespeed 212]

jgoose71

***
So the involvement of the judicial system is appropriate in all but the most clear-cut cases.

Wendy P.

.....And this is where it starts to get convoluted. Who decides which cases are clear cut and when?


That is an easy question.

The media.
You know, the ones that are supposed to give us news and be unbiased.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Gravitymaster 0]

Simple. Next time you are in a desperate situation, just ca your attorney to find out what you can and can't do.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

In Saudi Arabia a man can't be convicted of rape unless their are 2 male witness...

I'm surprised to see you advocating sharia law. Seems somewhat out of character, but what do I know?

Quote

.....And this is where it starts to get convoluted. Who decides which cases are clear cut and when?

The police investigate and decide if the evidence available fits the survivor's story. There might be witnesses, or surveillance video, or forensic evidence that supports the story. Or not. If there is ambiguity, the prosecutor's office, and beyond that the grand jury, decide if charges are warranted.

I don't think we would want a system where the police automatically take the word of the person alleging self defense, and don't even bother to investigate. That just opens the door to people being killed just because someone else "felt skeered" for no good reason. The operative criterion is, would a reasonable person have felt their life was endangered in that situation? The best way to answer that is to ask reasonable people, which in most circumstances means a grand jury or a jury in a trial.

Locally, we had a case where a couple claimed that they had killed a man who had broken into their house, and claimed self defense. The police were skeptical, though, as the deceased had been stabbed and the body was in the front hallway, but there wasn't much blood. Also the guy had been dead a while before police were called. An investigation revealed a large bloodstain on the sidewalk in front of the house, which someone had tried to wash away with a hose. It turned out the guy came to the house to buy drugs, but when he didn't have enough money he grabbed the drugs and tried to run away. The wife caught up to the guy out front and stabbed him, then she and her husband dragged the body into the house and staged the "home invasion". Both the husband and the wife were on probation after serving time for drug dealing.

So, should the police have just taken their word that they were defending themselves? Are you outraged that the police actually checked out their story, and found that it did not hold up?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

I saw a movie where gun ownership was a privilege. It was called "Schindler's List."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

I saw a movie where gun ownership was a privilege. It was called "Schindler's List."

The movie that goes with this discussion isn't Schindler's List, but Basic Instinct.

While not precisely the same case as proposed in the original post of this thread, the question really is, could a woman get away with murdering a sex partner by claiming rape as a defense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydiver30960 0]

For me, the solution is to ask myself this:

"Is stopping the act I am about to stop with deadly force worth me spending the next twenty years of my life in jail?"

Right off the top, assume the worst. Assume that you will go to jail on a technicality. Assume that your lawyer will be a brain dead vegetable, that your judge will have a vendetta against you, and the jury will be deaf and blind.

Don't worry about what the law says, worry about what your heart says.

Stopping a murder? Makes sense. Twenty of my years in exchange for a lifetime of someone else's.

Stopping someone from taking my TV? Well, maybe not such a good deal.


Elvisio "think then act decisively" Rodriguez

[christelsabine 1]

lawrocket

I saw a movie where gun ownership was a privilege. It was called "Schindler's List."

You're sure you ever saw that movie?? I have my doubts. your post is BS - like usual.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[jakee 1,279]

lawrocket

I saw a movie where gun ownership was a privilege. It was called "Schindler's List."

I saw a movie where gun ownership was a privilege too! It was called "Love Actually."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Zep 0]

I was born in a country where gun ownership is a privilege, when they came for my guns I left.

Gone fishing

[yoink 321]

jgoose71

Yes, it's a loaded question.

Black and white huh?

[tkhayes 146]

it's a right. The amount of force that you are given to defend yourself/family/property is dynamic and is a privilege.

And my argument is that most of us are not qualified in any way to make some of those decisions. Most of the time the qualification does not make any difference. We evade, we escape, we call 911, we confront, we do whatever. But when it comes to the use of deadly force, I think most people are not qualified to make a life or death decision.

[turtlespeed 212]

tkhayes

it's a right. The amount of force that you are given to defend yourself/family/property is dynamic and is a privilege.

And my argument is that most of us are not qualified in any way to make some of those decisions. Most of the time the qualification does not make any difference. We evade, we escape, we call 911, we confront, we do whatever. But when it comes to the use of deadly force, I think most people are not qualified to make a life or death decision.

Let me see you say that in the middle of a car jacking with a gun to your head. You see his finger tightening on the trigger and you have a gun in your hand . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[OHCHUTE 0]

In the US you have the right to self defense. State law vary regarding the type of force used.

[yoink 321]

turtlespeed

***it's a right. The amount of force that you are given to defend yourself/family/property is dynamic and is a privilege.

And my argument is that most of us are not qualified in any way to make some of those decisions. Most of the time the qualification does not make any difference. We evade, we escape, we call 911, we confront, we do whatever. But when it comes to the use of deadly force, I think most people are not qualified to make a life or death decision.

Let me see you say that in the middle of a car jacking with a gun to your head. You see his finger tightening on the trigger and you have a gun in your hand . . .

You prove the point.

In that case - yes. Defending yourself is your right - in that particular case it's your privilege to shoot the carjacker - punching him in the face probably wouldn't help the situation.

I pinch your nipple because you irritated me - what are you going to do? Shoot me? Then you've abused your privilege...


As tk says - you absolutely have the right to defend yourself. The level of defense needs to commensurate with with how you're being attacked.

[masterrig 1]

turtlespeed

***it's a right. The amount of force that you are given to defend yourself/family/property is dynamic and is a privilege.

And my argument is that most of us are not qualified in any way to make some of those decisions. Most of the time the qualification does not make any difference. We evade, we escape, we call 911, we confront, we do whatever. But when it comes to the use of deadly force, I think most people are not qualified to make a life or death decision.

Let me see you say that in the middle of a car jacking with a gun to your head. You see his finger tightening on the trigger and you have a gun in your hand . . .[/quote

There was an incident of road rage in Dallas a few years ago. One guy got out of his car and started yelling and punching a guy who was sitting in his car and stuck in traffic and not involved in the 'road rage'. The guy who was being beat upon told the guy to back-off. The guy just continued punching and yelling. the guy in the car, being beaten, pulled his pistol and killed the guy beating him. The driver with the gun had a CHL and was no-billed by a grand jury. Ya' never know how it will go.


Chuck

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

I'm surprised to see you advocating sharia law. Seems somewhat out of character, but what do I know?

I wasn't advocating it, I was using it as an example, just to clarify. You may want to re-read my post.

Quote

Locally, we had a case where a couple claimed that they had killed a man who had broken into their house, and claimed self defense. The police were skeptical, though, as the deceased had been stabbed and the body was in the front hallway, but there wasn't much blood. Also the guy had been dead a while before police were called. An investigation revealed a large bloodstain on the sidewalk in front of the house, which someone had tried to wash away with a hose. It turned out the guy came to the house to buy drugs, but when he didn't have enough money he grabbed the drugs and tried to run away. The wife caught up to the guy out front and stabbed him, then she and her husband dragged the body into the house and staged the "home invasion". Both the husband and the wife were on probation after serving time for drug dealing.

So, should the police have just taken their word that they were defending themselves? Are you outraged that the police actually checked out their story, and found that it did not hold up?

And in TM/GZ case, the police investigated, their investigation thrown out in the court of public opinion. A trial was set up, and when all the evidence that the police had was shown to the jury an acquittal followed. But apparently that still isn't enough. Now their are calls for civil cases, death threats and bounties have been given, etc., etc., etc.,...

Apparently in some cases it doesn't matter if the police do their job. It's part of the reason why I'm asking the question.

Here is one for you:
In your neck of the woods a home invasion was caught on a nanny cam of a burglar beating the holy fuck out of a woman in front of a kid (knocked her unconscious twice) and then threw her down a flight of stairs into a basement.

If she had a gun, would she been justified in shooting her assailant?

And if yes, at what time during the attack would she have been justified in using it?

And if no, how would you suggest she defend herself, assuming that you believe that she has the right?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[lawrocket 3]

christelsabine

***I saw a movie where gun ownership was a privilege. It was called "Schindler's List."

You're sure you ever saw that movie?? I have my doubts. your post is BS - like usual.

I'm an American, and I learned about such things as the Kristallnacht. And the events preceeding it, i.e. the laws that were passed to make sure that self-defense was unavailable.

I understand that nationalism requires defense of heritage and national history. Plenty of Americans defend what we did to the slaves, the native Americans, etc. So I understand that Europeans will say that the Jews were never disarmed in Germany while others were allowed to have weapons so they could kinda help kill the Jews.

Or is my history different from the stuff you learned?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

I'm an American, and I learned about such things as the Kristallnacht. And the events preceeding it, i.e. the laws that were passed to make sure that self-defense was unavailable.

You make a ridiculous false equivalency argument comparing gun ownership of that time and country to this.

Even without additional gun restrictions, the Jews were fucked. It's not like they were big gun owners anyway.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jgoose71 0]

quade

***I'm an American, and I learned about such things as the Kristallnacht. And the events preceeding it, i.e. the laws that were passed to make sure that self-defense was unavailable.

You make a ridiculous false equivalency argument comparing gun ownership of that time and country to this.

Even without additional gun restrictions, the Jews were fucked. It's not like they were big gun owners anyway.

And you are making a completely and totally false claim about the 2nd amendment. Law Rocket's example is exactly what our founding fathers wanted to prevent from ever happening in this country when they passed it.

If the Jews that were armed were able to ban together, organize, and form a few resistance cells (Militias), maybe a few more would have made it out alive. I'm sure a few tried, but it may have been more effective if a few more were armed...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[RonD1120 58]

Here’s Master Instructor, Chris Ranck-Buhr’s latest. . .

----------

Reality Check, Please: The Awful Truth About Self-Defense

Violence is hideously simple.

The winners win because they break something important inside of their victims, dramatically tipping the balance of ability and function in their favor—after all, how hard is it to knock out a man with a broken leg? You just kick him in the head as he writhes uselessly on the ground.

(I would say it ain't pretty, but everything that works in violence will be, by the very definition, ugly in the extreme.)

If violence is so mechanically simple and straightforward, why does it seem so difficult to us, the sane and socialized?

It's our reaction to that abject ugliness, our desire to make it into something palatable, the piling of useless social junk to hide the ’un’ in unthinkable.

It's our need to be the Good Guy, the hero, the underdog and yes, the victim.

What else is there? In every successful violent act we have at least one victim and one victimizer. Someone injures someone else in a way that obliterates their humanity.

When we are confronted with a choice so stark the sane will choose to be the victim. Not obviously, not consciously, but by way of language-lawyering, the shaving and shading of words to try and eke out a win—against all odds—that is morally and legally acceptable. In essence, to lie to ourselves so we can feel good about hurting someone.

The truth is, it's never okay.

You might walk out the door with a superior moral imperative—"I will only hurt someone if they give me no choice; I will only use violence in self-defense,"—and after the fact the legal system may find in your favor—"Your use of violence was justified as necessary self-defense,"—but the thing that had to happen somewhere in the middle there was you hurting another person.

And there's no feeling good about that. In life-or-death violence there is only survival, and then learning how to live with what you've done afterwards. There's no romance to it and "heroics" will exist only in the minds of those who weren't there.

Strip away the semantics, right and wrong, the convoluted reasoning applied like bubble wrap to the sharp, sharp edges of the thing and all we're left with is a hard reality:

The attacker wins. Period.

So many of the questions we receive here at TFT revolve around what to do about an attacker who does this or that, sometimes pointing to videos of the incident in question, seeking clarification on just what the victim could have done in the face of such brutality.

Nobody wants to hear what I really have to say: That the victim should have done the exact opposite of what they did, that they should have done all the things the attacker got right. It's not about defense or fighting back, it's about being the one doing the injuring. It's about being the attacker.

"Defender" is sheep-speak, the socially acceptable term for the role of a rational person in the irrational realm of violence. The expectation is that you will be attacked, forced to defend yourself and then underdog your way out of it. A laudable position.

"Attacker" is wolf-speak, and what we really mean is "criminal" and "bad guy." It has a distinct negative connotation, so much so that while everyone can agree that "self-defense training" is a Good Thing far fewer people would want to study "attack mechanics" where all we practice is putting people down so they can't get back up again.

And yet... the worst people out there, the ones who use violence as an everyday tool to get what they want, never ever see themselves in the role of the defender or the victim.

This is telling. This is everything. This is the hard light that boils away the labyrinthine logical constructs we try to use to distance ourselves from the endpoint of all violence: You, hurting another person.

Get rid of the attacker/defender dichotomy. Burn it out of your head. Refuse to train it. If there must be an attacker and a defender, be the attacker. Hurt him so he can't fight back.

The better perspective, the winning perspective, is to see things as the sociopath does—assume everyone's on equal footing and act accordingly. Everyone's an attacker, everyone is going for the win, everyone is willing to inflict horrible, body-breaking injury to get it.

He might start it but you're going to finish it by attacking him. Not by defending yourself. Defender and victim are almost always synonymous; but then so is attacker and winner.

--Chris Ranck-Buhr
TFT Master Instructor

----------

We’re working on a new blog page format and should have that ready in a few days. We’ll let you know once this one is posted. I'll look for your comments then.

To you and your family's continued personal safety,

Tim Larkin
Creator & Founder,
Target Focus Training

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.