3 ms·

Just to clarify, a violent reaction (in self defence) might be justified. It's not automatic, and would have to be proportional. For example, it might be enough

Just to clarify, a violent reaction (in self defence) might be justified. It's not automatic, and would have to be proportional. For example, it might be enough to simply grab the person and hold them down on the ground until the police arrive unless it quickly became obvious that it was just a harmless prank. If they sprayed you with something harmful, or decide to resist being detained then yes, it may be necessary to use increasing physical force.

cm2187 9y ago
If someone threatens my life with a gun, there isn't much violence that wouldn't be appropriate.
BrandoElFollito 9y ago
I was attacked twice, with bare fists. I was surprised, terrified and did not act rationally. I also have 15+ years of offensive self-defense training (dojo training). The muscular memory kicked in and I responded to the attack ferociously. I hit him once, twice, three times (blood was splashing around), then finished him with a kick which sent a few of his teeth out. The guy was laying on the floor and yelling as if he was being skinned. I called the police, they came and I explained them that I was attacked and that this was the effect of my defense. They dutifully noted that I was afraid, shocked, terrified, etc. and beside a round to the police station to sign off a paper I never heard about the ceases again. I believe that that the response should be proportionate, but to the clear advantage of the victim. Being hit once and hitting 5 times back - OK. Being slapped and responding by a kick to the body and then another one to the head - OK. Someone attacks you with a knife and you shoot him back with a gun - OK. Being attacked by a 15 yo and hitting him back as if he was an adult - OK All these is defense against unknown and there is no reason to stop before you are safe (you do not know what that person is going to do next). Hitting someone, he is not lying on the floor unconscious and you keep on kicking his head - not OK, there was no more risk. Someone runs away with your bag and you shoot him in the head - not OK, you were not in direct danger. What I want to say is that the proportionality should have a 10x factor in favour of the victim.
- BrandoElFollito 9y ago
  EDIT: cannot edit anymore but I meant of course Hitting someone, he is lying (without the not)
roceasta 9y ago
I'm reminded of the Mike Tyson quote: "Everyone has a plan until..." So if I saw friend or family being sprayed with an unknown substance I hope I would err on the side of caution rather than exhibiting the learned helplessness that so many of my fellow Brits seem to have succumbed to. I also expect my judgment as to exactly where that line of caution is would be impaired.
johnchristopher 9y ago
> unless it quickly became obvious that it was just a harmless prank It's not a harmless prank if the normal reaction is to hold the prankster down. Plus, you are relaxing, taking some downtime and some know-it-all-i-am-funny-oh-you-are-not-you-are-the-downer comes and stages an agression for fun. « It's a prank, bro. »

cm2187 9y ago

If someone threatens my life with a gun, there isn't much violence that wouldn't be appropriate.

BrandoElFollito 9y ago

I was attacked twice, with bare fists. I was surprised, terrified and did not act rationally. I also have 15+ years of offensive self-defense training (dojo training). The muscular memory kicked in and I responded to the attack ferociously. I hit him once, twice, three times (blood was splashing around), then finished him with a kick which sent a few of his teeth out. The guy was laying on the floor and yelling as if he was being skinned. I called the police, they came and I explained them that I was attacked and that this was the effect of my defense. They dutifully noted that I was afraid, shocked, terrified, etc. and beside a round to the police station to sign off a paper I never heard about the ceases again. I believe that that the response should be proportionate, but to the clear advantage of the victim. Being hit once and hitting 5 times back - OK. Being slapped and responding by a kick to the body and then another one to the head - OK. Someone attacks you with a knife and you shoot him back with a gun - OK. Being attacked by a 15 yo and hitting him back as if he was an adult - OK All these is defense against unknown and there is no reason to stop before you are safe (you do not know what that person is going to do next). Hitting someone, he is not lying on the floor unconscious and you keep on kicking his head - not OK, there was no more risk. Someone runs away with your bag and you shoot him in the head - not OK, you were not in direct danger. What I want to say is that the proportionality should have a 10x factor in favour of the victim.

BrandoElFollito 9y ago
EDIT: cannot edit anymore but I meant of course Hitting someone, he is lying (without the not)

roceasta 9y ago

I'm reminded of the Mike Tyson quote: "Everyone has a plan until..." So if I saw friend or family being sprayed with an unknown substance I hope I would err on the side of caution rather than exhibiting the learned helplessness that so many of my fellow Brits seem to have succumbed to. I also expect my judgment as to exactly where that line of caution is would be impaired.

johnchristopher 9y ago

> unless it quickly became obvious that it was just a harmless prank It's not a harmless prank if the normal reaction is to hold the prankster down. Plus, you are relaxing, taking some downtime and some know-it-all-i-am-funny-oh-you-are-not-you-are-the-downer comes and stages an agression for fun. « It's a prank, bro. »