VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:43:16 11/21/02 Thu
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: combat ethics
In reply to: Casual Observer 's message, "Re: It's funny when chicks think they're tough" on 06:15:00 11/21/02 Thu

This all falls into the question of combat ethics now.

The reason why the law states that you can only use lesser or equal force than your opponent is because using excessive force is considered, in the eyes of the law, to be sadistic.

It is presumed that any rational person should only need to use as much force as is required to protect themselves, and no more. If someone gropes a woman (which I agree is abhorrent behaviour), then the woman does not have the right to break a part of that person's body. She may grab, grapple or deliver a few strikes to the person -- but she must only use whatever force she feels is necessary.

Saying that your martial art doesn't provide you with the capacity of defending yourself in a moderate way is not good enough in a court of law, the attacker would still have legal grounds to press charges (countersue) against you of using excessive force in self defence.

If you are able to thwart the attack without needing to excessively damage the opponent's body, then why not do so?
This is certainly what any prosecutor would ask. In order to break a part of someone's body, such as a nose, you really need to demonstrate that you felt that it was necessary to use that amount of force -- in other words, you felt that the attacker was intending on causing grievious bodily harm to you.

A grope is not an act of grievious bodily harm. It is a form a sexual assault, but it is not assault and battery. Consequently, you are not entitled to batter them in self defence, because fundamentally speaking, you are not defending yourself against such an assault, you are committing it.

I admit that not all martial arts are equipped to handle a various range of attacks. In that case, you need to find a martial art that allows you to fend off an opponent with a varying range of force -- from mild to moderate to extreme, all depending on how threatened you feel. You would only use extreme force if you seriously felt that your physical well being and/or life was under direct threat. A grope on the bottom does not qualify as such a severe threat. It does allow you to hit them with moderate force -- after all, they have made hostile physical contact with your body -- but you really need to use your common sense to judge how much force is necessary to thwart the attack. If a guy pulls a weapon on you, then obviously that's when you can consider killing the attacker in self defence (that's where your neck snaps and spinal breaks and other lethal moves become necessary) since your life would be in danger.

Remember, although using excessive force in self defence may very well protect yourself from an assault, it also places you in danger of being countersued by the attacker. Do you really want to use excessive force to pummel your point of view into an attacker just to end up in court later on for it?

What's the point? Once you've stopped an attack, there is no need for you to continue the fight or to apply any more force than is necessary. Your goal is supposed to be self protection/preservation, NOT revenge.

And if nothing else, surely you don't want to end up being sued by a guy who started the fight in the first place... if you use lesser or equal force, the attacker would have no legal grounds to attack you from and the law would only see you as the victim and all prosecution would fall on the attacker.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.