scenario-"When is it ok to strike?"

[noSpeak]

I was asked a question awhile back, and it’s kind of been in the back of my mind every since.

One of the dreaded Murphy’s Law scenarios: You and an aggressor are left at an escalated point of no return. Despite your best attempts at de-escalation and escape you are left facing your aggressor with no alternative other than violence, and no one around to witness. The kind of thing we all dread and pray never happens. You are unarmed; save maybe a folder, keys, etc…things with practical everyday purpose. The provoker has you within striking range of his balled fist, and begins to raise them in an offensive posture. The question that was asked of me was a tuff one. Would you strike the aggressor (with your fist) at this point? Or would you wait until he struck/attempted to strike you. Though you attempted to avoid and de-escalate there is no proof other than your word. His actions in your mind demonstrated harmful intentions. Furthermore, a lot of fights are dictated by the first strike, especially when dealing with people smart enough to throw in combinations.

Mostly, I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the legality of this situation. When exactly are you in the clear to strike? I’ve gotten a fairly wide range of answers and that is what has kept it in my mind. The question assumes at least 3 years of HTH training on the part of the non-aggressor.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If it's clear that he's gonna hurt you unless you do something, and the only thing you can do is hit him, then I think it would be legal. But you'd have to be able to prove that hitting him was the only way to avoid being injured by him.

That's the way the lethal force laws generally work. If there's a clear and imminent threat of serious injury to you, and you have no other way to avoid that injury, you're legally allowed to shoot. I don't hink it would be much different if you chose to throw a punch instead of taking a shot.

 

[Badbunny]

Letting the aggressor throw the first strike is dangerous. A fist in your face tends to screw up your defence big time. Taking the initiative is very important.

I don't know anything about your laws in the US, but in a situation like that, law shouldn't be the first thing in your mind. Do what you have to do to get out and deal with the consequences afterwards. Around here, the law is very vague about self-defence (it basically just says you are allowed to take necessary actions against an ongoing or imminent assault), so every case is judged individually, taking the situation as a whole into account.

That said, I think it's important and healthy to worry about the consequences, especially if you have to face that kind of situations frequently. I wouldn't (didn't, actually) feel too good about putting a teenage punk to hospital just because he had too much alcohol and testosterone and too little common sense and experience in his system. But if one doesn't run into that kind of stuff on a regular basis, the chances are that he can't read it accurately when it comes. Going home in one piece should be the priority.

I didn't really give any answers there , but I don't think it's possible.

 

[newman32]

If you beleive that you are in immediate risk of bodily harm, you have no requirement to wait for your block to get knocked off before acting. Action always beats reaction. If he is within range, verbalizes his intent or raises his fist, you can assume his intent is tp harm you.

If you let him hit you first, you are seriously behind the curve. What if his first shot is a K.O. and then when you are unconscious he decides to stomp your head into mush?

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, legally, it boils down to the "reasonable man" concept. Did you try to de-escelate? Did you try to remove yourself from the immediate area? Can you, or is he blocking your escape? Did he pursue you? If you make a reasonable effort to not fight, and he persists, you have the right to protect yourself.

 

[DragonFire]

I agree with what the others have said here, but look at it from another point of view.

What would giving him the first blow accomplish? Assuming you're not vastly superior to your opponent, you're going to end receiving some blows. So without witnesses who's going to say which bruise you got first. It's still your word against his.


Actually, without witnesses or some other evidence of your actions, it's going to come now to how well you can articulate what you did, what you were thinking and how resonable those thoughts and actions were. Even if you could prove he hit you first, your opponent may claim he hit you to stop your threat. (yeah, bad guys have been known to lie).

Bottom line is always protect yourself, and take as little injury as possible.

 

[AQUINAS]

I would advise you to read your state law concerning assault and battery and/or your AG opinion on self defense. Most laws are written concerning assault as follows: someone attempting to do bodily harm with the ability and intent to do so.

Battery laws usually refer to the actual doing of harm.

Once someone commits an assault i.e. attempts to cause you harm. you have the right to defend yourself at a reasonable level of force given the level of assault attempt on you.

 

[WEPS]

if it is a point of no return kind of thing then im going to strike first and hard. yeah sure, people are going to say "what about your state laws" i say "the hell with them" and ill worry about it when im safe.

 

[goon]

I have struck first and I would again.
Anyone who has ever been in a fight will tell you that you know when it is comimg. You can tell when someone is going to attack you. You just feel it.
When I get to that point, I know that I am going to get hit whether I try to talk my way out or not.
When I know that a fight is imminent, I start it.
At least then you can start with the upper hand and hopefully put the other guy down before he even knows what hit him.

 

[cracked butt]

I've been caught twice in the past with my pants down, a bigger dude with his fist back and a handful of my shirt in the other. Being at a pretty big disadvantage, I bluffed my way out both times. Both times I got a big smile on my face, looked them straight in the eyes with a crazy look and yelled at them "go ahead hit me mother effer, I dare you, f'ng hit me!" Both times the aggressor backed down. Afterwards, I had to sit down because I was shaking so badly I couldn't stand and had to go do an underwear check.

I don't know why it worked, maybe its similar to the tactic of trying to make yourself look big and mean to animal predators like bears and cougars when the chips are down.

Maybe pushing the escalation of violence in some circumstances will get the aggressor to back down, especially if he sees you as something other than easy pickings.

 

[carpboy]

Get real creative.Do what Groucho or Moe would do.Shoot em in the face with a Seltzer bottle.Lacking a Seltzer grab a fire extingusher and spray the BG in the eyes.If there is a a failure to stop beat em over the head 1 time with the FE then give em a shove with the cannister to the solar plexus while they are still blind.If the initial attack does not blind the opponent do what Moe(and Mel Gibson)did;Give em 2 fingers to the eyes.If you get the chance,pull the rug out from under them so they fall right on their ass.If this doesnt give you the chance to run like hell or take control of the BG then consider what Darwin would think of you......

 

[Oleg Volk]

That is a concern I have in regard to friends who carry only knives. They have to attack more vigorously than if they had guns. With a gun, one has an option of ordering that the opponent come no closer and shooting if that order is ignored. With a knife, a counter-attack may be needed if the defender can't survive even a single strong blow (i.e. small woman vs. large man).

 

[Super Trucker]

With a gun, one has an option of ordering that the opponent come no closer

In Michigan doing this = go directly to jail do not pass go. (unless you are a LEO) :banghead:
As to original question kick them in the knee or nuts, since no witness' are there (your average mugger won't contact a lawyer) get on your way and be done with it.

 

[WT]

As soon as he makes a fist ..........

 

[Oleg Volk]

In Michigan doing this = go directly to jail do not pass go.

Wouldn't that depend on the details? If I threaten you and then advance against your aimed pistol, you can assume I plan to hurt you with your own gun or in some other way...and stop that threat.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

You just said no one else is around.. Therefore, when he raises his fist, kick him in the Nuts, knee to the face and then get the heck out of dodge. Waiting for him to hit you is like playing in the street.

You don't know how hard he can hit, or how fast, and getting hit does not help you one iota. And by the way don't wait around for the cops, this could also = waiting around for his friends.

Get him down quick, and get out.. A lawyer costs less than a headstone any day of the week (IMHO).

 

[Super Trucker]

oleg volk

Wouldn't that depend on the details?

I guess different states have different laws, In MI if the gun is presented you better shot and have a real good reason for doing so. This is what the ADA said in my CPL course. no brandishing, no holding at gun point until cops show up etc. so I wasn't trying to argue with you just show different laws are out there

 

[Rotty]

The deal is if you have experiance and or training it is easier for you to tell when your in imminant danger, therefore strike first, but how do you prove it in a court if need be?

better judged by 12 than carried by 6

 

[G21dude]

If there's just the two of you, the legal issues aren't as pressing -- it's your lawyer against his/hers.

From a tactical standpoint (and folks who have BTDT will smile upon reading this), it's quite often (not always) best to allow your attacker to commit to a particular attack, then launch a counterattack. As in, forget "blocking."

For example, Bad Dude balls up his fist whilst his mouth is spewing garbage. He pulls it back. You get ready with your hands in front of you in some kind of natural looking "warding off" position, and he throws a haymaker. Step to the outside of the punch, and punch his punching arm as hard as you possibly can, then continue to that side and behind him, and stomp on the side of his knee while you grab his head by the back of his hair and his chin.

You make up the rest. That's not a "magic technique," just an example of an effective counterattack -- you're not trying to prevent the attack, stop it, or block it; you just want to get off the line of attack and disable your attacker.

It's the whole Wellington/Napolean thing -- force your opponent to make a mistake, and them hammer him.

One situation where staging a counterattack might not be best is with multiple attackers -- many folks will say that in that scenario, you should go with the "violence of action" theory that says to overwhelm your opponent by being incredibly violent very quickly and taking control of the dynamics of the situation.

 

[goon]

I have never been attacked by a group, but if I were, I would attack with all I have. I really do just about anything I can to avoid a fight, and I will only do it if under the circumstances, I would be justified in killing my enemy. I figure that if I am going to fight, I have to fight to win, and if that means putting them down, putting them in the hospital, or even putting them in the ground, so be it.
In other words, I treat it like I am using a gun (although in the past, I wasn't as bright). No, I don't consider myself to be a super-warrior in hand to hand combat, but the potential still exists. I am fairly strong, 5'10" and about 215. It is concievable that a man my size could kill another man in a fistfight, and whether you use your fist or a gun, the guy is just as dead.
At any rate, if I am attacked by three guys, they could very well kill me, so I would be justified in fighting to win. To me, that means I do whatever I have to to escape. If I have to kill bad guy #1 to survive, too bad for him. He should have picked someone else.

At any rate, look at it like you are armed, because you really sort of are. If a guy points a 9mm at you, you are justified in shooting him, and you should shoot him before he can shoot you.
If a guy is coming at you and you know he is gonna hurt you, you are justified in putting him down, and you should drop him first.

 

[Paul Gomez]

Preemption is preferred, but you must be able to articulate why you felt it necessary to do so.

If the badguy "has you within striking range of his balled fist, and begins to raise them in an offensive posture", you should be in what Geoff Thompson calls a "Fence", which is his terminology for a palms out, fingertips up position similar to the 'boundary setting posture' from Model Mugging. From this position, your hands serve multiple purposes. They are cutting off your centerline, which makes dealing with incoming strikes easier, they are closer to your head, so they are better able to shield your skull and they are available for striking, as well. As he begins to raise them, he gets hit. Most likely, either by an offhand palm heel or a primary hand chinjab.

If you are caught unawares and he initiates the attack, you'd better have a solid default solution hardwired in place or you will find it exceedingly difficult to regain the initiative. Default positions, such as taught in many solid, realistic unarmed programs [such as Insights, ISR Matrix, SouthNarc, Tony Blauer, Scott Sonnon &, of course, OPS] are the key to being able to minimize damage to you and serve as a 'staging area' to allow you to reenter the fray and regain initiative.

Either way, once the fight is over. Contact the PD and be the complantant.

You attempted disengagement, you attempted deescalation. The law does not require you to get hit prior to defending yourself anymore than it requires you to get shot before you can use force against someone with a gun.

 

[Mannlicher]

'course, as a responsible adult, I just don't get into fist fights anymore..............but
Every fight I won in the past was one that I hit the other guy first. Lost a bunch too, and in every case, some other guy busted me first. Just my 'sperience of course, but.............

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Attempt to extract yourself from the situation. If you are unable to leave, attempt to de-escalate the situation. Once you feel the "pubic tingle", it's GO time.

 

[atek3]

When management is stalling during contract negotiations or engaging in unfair labor practices.



(just kidding, I hate unions)

atek3

 

[Soap]

I would stand there in a fence position. Once the guy's hands moved in a striking manner, such as puttin' up da dukes, I'd chin jab him and try to walk through him at the same time. I used to get into a few scraps back in the day and the only one I ever "lost" (I was the one the bled so I lost ) was a fight where I didn't want to fight and I was trying to be ultra-defensive. That doesn't work.

 

[Ivy Mike]

The attacker has already shown his/her intent by pushing a confrontation that far. Your only choice is strike and flee.

A roundhouse to the knee (my Krav Maga instruction talking there) is an excellent sollution to this situation. The roundhouse lands and straightens/locks the opponents knee. Your leg will still be bent at this point, so you simply turn that roundhouse into a front kick. Your foot is still on the opponents knee (which is locked) you thrust your kick forward and REALLY damage the joint. Opponent goes to the ground and you run away.

This strike gives you the greatest distance possible and helps you avoid a toe to toe fight with a possibly larger aggressor.