Re: legal defination to assault -- Martial Arts Discussion Board

[ 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: 06:37:11 05/21/10 Fri
Author: James Pedro (myaword@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: legal defination to assault
In reply to: Goktimus Prime 's message, "Re: legal defination to assault" on 21:46:56 08/20/01 Mon

>>Goktimus, From now on Angel will be known as Seven of
>>Nine!
>>
>
>Nice Borg-babe!
>*Gggrrooowwwwrrr!!*
>
>(giggles)
>
>>From what you described, things would work fine in a
>>world where there's perfect information. That means,
>>you know how many intruders, you know if they do / not
>>carry weapons, you know their intention.
>>
>>It also assumes that you can obtain this information
>>without affecting the system. ie. you can find these
>>things (as mentioned above) without putting yourself
>>at a disadvantage.
>>
>>In reality, information is imperfect and the act of
>>observing the system could change the system.
>>
>>It comes down to the question: What is your objective?
>>If it is survival, it may be necessary to make some
>>assumptions about the system and act upon them if
>>doing otherwise may compromise the ability to
>survive.
>>
>>If however your objective is to survive AND not having
>>to face a potential court case (go to prison), then it
>>is reasonable that the solution to the problem could
>>be different. Given that survival / prison may be
>>competing objectives, satisfying one to some degree
>>may compromise the other.
>
>The whole legal concept of assault revolves around the
>creation of fear. If someone does something which
>gives you reasonable grounds to fear for your safety,
>then you are allowed to retaliate with equal (in
>reality, you're actually allowed to go one step above
>equal) force.
>
>If someone produces a knife, but had no intention of
>stabbing you, i.e.: he just wanted to scare you, you
>ARE legally entitled to break his arm and/or beat nine
>colours of shit out of him, because the very
>presence/production of that weapon is justifiable
>cause for you to believe that your life was in danger.
>
>The law does not require for you to ask the assailant
>something like, "'scuse me, but are you actually
>intending on using that knife on me?" or waiting to
>see if he's going to make the first move. Simply
>holding that knife in front of you (in an aggressive
>manner, obviously if someone is casually holding a
>kitchen knife, then you can't go and pummel 'em!) is
>enough for you to attack to preserve your own life.
>
>Basically, it all boils down to common sense. If
>someone does or says something that genuinely makes
>you fear for your safety (you'll know, 'cos you'll get
>that "oh shit, this is real" rush of adrenalin in
>nanoseconds) then you simply respond with appropriate
>force.
>
>If you see someone trying to steal your car, you're
>not allowed to hit them. This is because you're afraid
>that you might lose your car, but there is no real
>threat of being physically harmed. The assailant is
>currently a robber, not an attacker. This doesn't mean
>that you should nonchalantly stroll up and tell him to
>stop breaking into your car -- certainly you can still
>be WARY and CAUTIOUS... but *not* paranoid enough to
>simply beat the thief up first and ask questions
>later, because otherwise the burglar has legal grounds
>to countersue you for assault.
>
>Now *IF* that same burglar saw you and made some
>nasty, aggresive gesture or comment at you, THEN you
>are legally entitled to pummel him!
>
>Now don't forget, if you do manage to overcome your
>opponent in a fight and put him in some kind of
>hold/lock or even tie him up, you are NOT entitled to
>continue hitting into him unnecessarily. e.g.: if you
>have someone tied to a chair, you are not allowed to
>keep hitting him while he's tied up. It's considered
>to be a downright sadistic and vindictive move. Once
>your opponent is no longer physically capable of
>harming you, there is no longer reasonable grounds for
>you to fear for your safety/life, therefore, you no
>longer have legal grounds to continue hitting him.
>
>In terms of self defence, I find that the law is,
>overall, based on common sense.
>
>Yes, I know that once the adrenalin rush kicks in,
>your fighter instincts take over and you are on guard
>-- however, this does NOT excuse your brain to take a
>back seat. With proper training, you SHOULD be able
>to, within milliseconds, instinctively evaluate a
>situation as being a threat or not.
>
>If something potentially dangerous happens, you ought
>to be on immediate alert, tensing your body and
>heightening your senses to see what's going on -- but
>you should still retain enough self control not to
>become a paranoid beserker who'd spring into action at
>the drop of a coin.
>
>After all, the person doing an aggressive action may
>not really want to hurt you -- you need to ascertain
>whether or not an action against you is a true threat
>or not.
>For example, a person might be just plain stupid and
>give you a simple shove going, "c'mon mate, give us a
>dollar," sure, it's annoying, and yes, he shouldn't be
>touching you, but if you immediately snapped into a
>fighting pose or attack him, you may aggravate the
>attacker who was otherwise just being a dickhead and
>wasn't really intending on fighting you. In other
>words, you could have AVOIDED that fight by just
>keeping cool.
>
>It's a fine line, but it's something which your
>training should address.
>
>You don't want to be like one of those annoying little
>dogs who'll bark really loudly if the wind so much as
>changes direction. :p

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