This is a common sense thing. You don't need to continue "defending yourself" when you're not being attacked anymore. If the attacker is no longer being threatening, and you continue your assault, it can destroy your "I was defending myself" excuse.
I completely disagree. Violent people only listen to violence. If they realize you are just trying to "defend yourself" by your definition, they keep pushing, taking it as a sign of weakness. I agree that one shouldn't break someone's bones over a couple swings, but knock them over the head and show that you aren't someone to be knocked around.
Karate teaches that the threat is not over until it is destroyed. At least that was what my sensei taught. You may not start it but you need to finish it.
If a person touches you out of aggression, all bets are off. Meaning, you have no idea the length they are willing to go to in order to get what they want. If you yell at me, I can walk away, if you push me I can walk away, if you grab me that is a threat against my life and family. The attackers violence must be met with an equal wave of resistance and attack until they realize they made a mistake. Violence is never the solution until there is no other solution.
Your kind of "defense" can get you killed. It takes one good punch to knock you unconscious, at which point you can be brutalized or killed. If someone attacks you and you cannot easily retreat, disabling them to the point they cannot effectively attack you again is self-defense and the correct course of action.
Or understands that their definition of "defending yourself" is escalation. If someone pushes you and you grab their arms or throw them down, they're not going to brush themselves off and nod at you respectfully for not hurting them. They're going to step up their attack.
I would honestly consider lethal force as proportional. I'm yet to see a polite assault that doesn't have the potential to kill the victim. Even holding someone at gun/knife point should be answered with overwhelming violence
Violence is how you defend against violence. Sorry you dont understand that, but "holding up your arm or grabbing their wrist" doesn't work. Eliminating the threat does.
The voice of one who has never been in a fight. You fight until the person doesn't want to or can't hit you again. Hopefully, you never have to experience this, but I think everyone should get into a fight at least once in their life in order to see what you're made of.
Good way to get yourself self killed or severely injured.
If you are forced to defend yourself, respond with overwhelming force if you are able to do so. Eliminate the threat.
I took a self defense class in high school and they taught us how to gouge out an attacker's eyes. When you're defending yourself, it is literally a life or death situation. You shouldn't hold back if you want to survive.
Yeah I agree. I've studied a couple of different disciplines of self defense and it always hinges on incapacitate your attacker before you yourself are incapacitated.
Hence, if you are in danger (not a stupid fight with friends or whatever), go straight for the eyes, ears, groin, knees, elbows, throat, clavicle... any weak spot you need or can get at in order to end the situation in your favor as soon as possible.
No one is advocating that you should beat someone into a coma for pushing you in a dangerous part of town. But your attacker won't surrender just from getting their wrists grabbed, therefore sometimes you just have to apprehend them.
I CCW and work armed security/armed transports. Ill fight ya if thats what you want but im going home at the end of the night to my gf, cats, dogs, and chinchillas lol.
1. never start the fight but instead always prepare as well as avoid it if possible.
2. if the fight is inevitable you might as well Fight now instead of fighting tired. (exception being multiple individuals)
3. ever heard of never approach a cornered animal yes quickly and efficently is the way to go as well as do whatever it takes legal or illegal to get home.
just a curiosity here: why do attackers have rights while the victims suffer if they win or lose?
My ex-wife attacked me with a bladed weapon. I "defended myself' the way OP was suggesting, and guess what? I nearly was killed and I'm permanently disabled. It was my (at the time) wife, so I obviously didn't want to hurt her. Look where that got me. OP is wildly ignorant, best-case interpretation. Learn the lesson I didn't, everyone. No Half-measures when your life is at stake. You might not even live long enough to regret it.
AHAHAHAHA. Too true. She did less than a year for assault with a deadly weapon, and I have to pay my attacker $1,800/month. That's just how things are here in Portland, OR.
Fighting back discourages people from continuing to hurt you. If they realize that you're actually going to hurt them back, it sometimes motivates them to back off.
And if they don't back off, then neutralizing the threat (such as knocking them out) guarantees that the threat won't try to hurt you again. Since you didn't start the fight, you're entitled to that.
Also, I don't think you understand how aggressive some people can be. Even if you're what I call "passively defending yourself" (which is defending yourself without going on the offense), that person may not give up and keep trying.
If someone attacked me, you bet your ass I'm gonna attack them back.
Defending yourself is neutralizing the threat. The law provides for this, so what makes this so hard for you to accept? The best defense is a strong offense, people are not Bruce Lee.
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. I'm guessing you've never been in a position where you've truly had to defend yourself from a physical attack where you were afraid for your well being or for the well being of those around you. I'm swinging for the fence every time and you don't get to judge me on the playback. If someone is putting their hands on me, they've already ‘escalated the situation' so anything that I do after that to get them tf off me is fair game.
Semantics. Is your argument that excessive physical violence shouldn't be described using this language? In a court of law, it isn't. After passing a threshold, self defense is no longer arguable.
"I get that sometimes more force is required for some people, but the force should never become offensive during self-defense."
🤦🏾♂️You can't pick and choose when/how force is needed when someone is beating on you........nor can you ever "assume" your "health/life" is not in jeopardy. You clearly have never been attacked or if you have been, you probably just ran away - not everyone can run away.
Your viewpoint sounds like it comes from a place of never (or rarely) having to defend yourself in a physical altercation or deal with a bully that wants to physically dominate you.
In high school there were plenty of times that I had to show bullies that friendly =/= docile, and when those types of fights break out it's important to settle it there, settle it once, and be done. If you were to simply "grab someone's wrists" or something like that to restrain them until the moment passes, you've just made yourself a target in the future (and most likely future violence will come in the form of much more aggressive ambushes).
I think you're trying to argue that if you were not the aggressor in an interaction that you shouldn't go to the lengths of like beating someone senseless and yeah, once you've won you should back off and accept victory with grace and allow them to accept defeat in the same manner - but "force should never become offensive during self-defense" horrendously underestimates the malicious intent of people.
This is a common sense thing. You don't need to continue "defending yourself" when you're not being attacked anymore. If the attacker is no longer being threatening, and you continue your assault, it can destroy your "I was defending myself" excuse.
It an unpopular opinion because it's not based in reality.
You've never been in a fight before have you?
I congratulate you on a truly unpopular opinion
I completely disagree. Violent people only listen to violence. If they realize you are just trying to "defend yourself" by your definition, they keep pushing, taking it as a sign of weakness. I agree that one shouldn't break someone's bones over a couple swings, but knock them over the head and show that you aren't someone to be knocked around.
This unpopular opinion can get people killed if they listen to it
Nope. If Ender taught me anything it's that you must make them unable to come back to hurt you ever again
Yeah, sure, defending yourself is not the same as fighting back, but sometimes fighting back is defending yourself. It do be as it do be.
Karate teaches that the threat is not over until it is destroyed. At least that was what my sensei taught. You may not start it but you need to finish it.
If a person touches you out of aggression, all bets are off. Meaning, you have no idea the length they are willing to go to in order to get what they want. If you yell at me, I can walk away, if you push me I can walk away, if you grab me that is a threat against my life and family. The attackers violence must be met with an equal wave of resistance and attack until they realize they made a mistake. Violence is never the solution until there is no other solution.
Well this is an incredibly naive take. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in that situation, because it is not going to go how you would expect.
Your kind of "defense" can get you killed. It takes one good punch to knock you unconscious, at which point you can be brutalized or killed. If someone attacks you and you cannot easily retreat, disabling them to the point they cannot effectively attack you again is self-defense and the correct course of action.
Go for the knees . Then run
This. OP honestly sounds like someone that's never been beat up.
Or understands that their definition of "defending yourself" is escalation. If someone pushes you and you grab their arms or throw them down, they're not going to brush themselves off and nod at you respectfully for not hurting them. They're going to step up their attack.
Where're jumping him at? /s
Or ever been in any kind of physical altercation.
Sometimes, you may only get a chance to fight back once, so you have to be damn sure the threat is no longer a threat
Otherwise, yeah, use proportional force
I would honestly consider lethal force as proportional. I'm yet to see a polite assault that doesn't have the potential to kill the victim. Even holding someone at gun/knife point should be answered with overwhelming violence
Depends on if you are expecting them to come back for more. You might have to defend yourself again if you don't put them down hard enough.
Violence is how you defend against violence. Sorry you dont understand that, but "holding up your arm or grabbing their wrist" doesn't work. Eliminating the threat does.
Exactly, doesn't hurt to be a little extra thorough as well just to make sure they learn a lesson.
unpopular ≠ brain dead
if you decide to fight back, make sure you win. Otherwise, just run.
The goal of defending yourself is total elimination of threat, not doing the bare minimum and hoping they get bored and give up.
You're absolutely right and totally wrong at the same time and that's not an easy feat to accomplish
The voice of one who has never been in a fight. You fight until the person doesn't want to or can't hit you again. Hopefully, you never have to experience this, but I think everyone should get into a fight at least once in their life in order to see what you're made of.
Depends. If you slap someone and they slap you back more forcibly, i think that counts as self defense.
If you slap someone and they beat you up, thats fighting back.
Also your definition of defense will probably get you hurt. A lot.
This is one of the dumbest ones I've seen so far. I'll deescalate the situation by disabling my attacker
Good way to get yourself self killed or severely injured.
If you are forced to defend yourself, respond with overwhelming force if you are able to do so. Eliminate the threat.
I took a self defense class in high school and they taught us how to gouge out an attacker's eyes. When you're defending yourself, it is literally a life or death situation. You shouldn't hold back if you want to survive.
The gouging someone's eye out technique is arguably one of the worst things anyone can teach someone wanting to learn self defense.
If your attackers in a dominant position, you're simply not gonna be able to do it.
If you're in a dominant position and you do it, you just blinded someone and will likely go to jail. Hard2Hurt and Sensei Seth did a video on this.
But eye pokes and scratches can work but full blown eye gouges not so much, but yeah you should go all out
Yeah I agree. I've studied a couple of different disciplines of self defense and it always hinges on incapacitate your attacker before you yourself are incapacitated.
Hence, if you are in danger (not a stupid fight with friends or whatever), go straight for the eyes, ears, groin, knees, elbows, throat, clavicle... any weak spot you need or can get at in order to end the situation in your favor as soon as possible.
S.I.N.G. !!!!!
Fighting back is self defense.
No one is advocating that you should beat someone into a coma for pushing you in a dangerous part of town. But your attacker won't surrender just from getting their wrists grabbed, therefore sometimes you just have to apprehend them.
👍🏻
Being a punching bag is not defending yourself either.
I CCW and work armed security/armed transports. Ill fight ya if thats what you want but im going home at the end of the night to my gf, cats, dogs, and chinchillas lol.
Here's the flowchart
1. Are you about to escalate the situation and start a fight? ——> don't
2. Is the fight inevitable? ——> use your flight
3. Flight doesn't work ——> use your fight, and do it quickly and efficiently
1. never start the fight but instead always prepare as well as avoid it if possible.
2. if the fight is inevitable you might as well Fight now instead of fighting tired. (exception being multiple individuals)
3. ever heard of never approach a cornered animal yes quickly and efficently is the way to go as well as do whatever it takes legal or illegal to get home.
just a curiosity here: why do attackers have rights while the victims suffer if they win or lose?
4. Did you punch them hard and they still kept fighting ——-> punch harder
Never throw the first punch, and if you have to throw the second make sure they don't get up for the third.
That's not entirely true…. sometimes that first punch will disable you.
Now, that doesn't mean you get to kill someone over the words they said, but you don't have to wait for a punch in all instances.
This is terrible advice. On the level of "Why didn't you just shoot him in the leg?".
Just use V.A.T.S bro 😂😂😂💀💀💀
Just pop some Jet and dodge bro
My ex-wife attacked me with a bladed weapon. I "defended myself' the way OP was suggesting, and guess what? I nearly was killed and I'm permanently disabled. It was my (at the time) wife, so I obviously didn't want to hurt her. Look where that got me. OP is wildly ignorant, best-case interpretation. Learn the lesson I didn't, everyone. No Half-measures when your life is at stake. You might not even live long enough to regret it.
Is she in jail?
Yeah right he's probably paying alimony out of his disability benefits.
AHAHAHAHA. Too true. She did less than a year for assault with a deadly weapon, and I have to pay my attacker $1,800/month. That's just how things are here in Portland, OR.
You do that next time you're under attack and let us know how it went.
Fighting back discourages people from continuing to hurt you. If they realize that you're actually going to hurt them back, it sometimes motivates them to back off.
And if they don't back off, then neutralizing the threat (such as knocking them out) guarantees that the threat won't try to hurt you again. Since you didn't start the fight, you're entitled to that.
Also, I don't think you understand how aggressive some people can be. Even if you're what I call "passively defending yourself" (which is defending yourself without going on the offense), that person may not give up and keep trying.
If someone attacked me, you bet your ass I'm gonna attack them back.
Defending yourself is neutralizing the threat. The law provides for this, so what makes this so hard for you to accept? The best defense is a strong offense, people are not Bruce Lee.
Good luck if you ever encounter a real asshole.
Not unpopular and seems to align with the majority of legal definitions of self defence...
In some cases, it is. If someone keeps coming at you, and nothing you do works, then fighting back till they give up is defending yourself
OP sounds like a high school bully who got snitched on lmao
You have never been in or seen a fight before
Found the elementary school principal
Sorry, but if someone is threatening my person they've lost all right to their own safety. Period.
Op have you ever been in a real fight?
Obviously not. I just had surgery for an injury from a fight 15 years ago. Perhaps i should have just grabbed his arm instead of fighting back....
Lmao yeah "why don't you just shoot the gun out of the bad guys hands???"
No I'll just come on with a sweet round house kick
!gif
And then save the world! And the whole parking garage clapped!
Roadhouse.
That was what i was thinking.
Spoken like someone who's never been in a fight.
Spoken like someone who's never been in a fight their entire life.
This isn't just unpopular, it's also really dumb
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. I'm guessing you've never been in a position where you've truly had to defend yourself from a physical attack where you were afraid for your well being or for the well being of those around you. I'm swinging for the fence every time and you don't get to judge me on the playback. If someone is putting their hands on me, they've already ‘escalated the situation' so anything that I do after that to get them tf off me is fair game.
Semantics. Is your argument that excessive physical violence shouldn't be described using this language? In a court of law, it isn't. After passing a threshold, self defense is no longer arguable.
Getting away from the situation is the best defense
Unfortunately that isn't always an option.
Don't start none won't be none
This actually fits here because this opinion is terrible.
Wow. A truly unpopular opinion.
OP is a person that is tired of being hit by people defending themselves from him.
"I get that sometimes more force is required for some people, but the force should never become offensive during self-defense."
🤦🏾♂️You can't pick and choose when/how force is needed when someone is beating on you........nor can you ever "assume" your "health/life" is not in jeopardy. You clearly have never been attacked or if you have been, you probably just ran away - not everyone can run away.
nope. defending yourself IS fighting back until they are unable to continue their assaults'.
This is not how it works. Ever.
Definitely an unpopular opinion.
Your viewpoint sounds like it comes from a place of never (or rarely) having to defend yourself in a physical altercation or deal with a bully that wants to physically dominate you.
In high school there were plenty of times that I had to show bullies that friendly =/= docile, and when those types of fights break out it's important to settle it there, settle it once, and be done. If you were to simply "grab someone's wrists" or something like that to restrain them until the moment passes, you've just made yourself a target in the future (and most likely future violence will come in the form of much more aggressive ambushes).
I think you're trying to argue that if you were not the aggressor in an interaction that you shouldn't go to the lengths of like beating someone senseless and yeah, once you've won you should back off and accept victory with grace and allow them to accept defeat in the same manner - but "force should never become offensive during self-defense" horrendously underestimates the malicious intent of people.
Once your opponent has the upper hand, you better be fast to take them out. If you don't do it quickly, they'll finish you off before you can react.
Yeup. MMA rules apply. If you don't finish your opponent, they can recover and inflict on you.
If someone attacks me it means they forfeited their right to walk away on their own two feet. What happens next is their fault.
This is the kind of idea you have if you've never been in a physical confrontation in your life
Spoken like somebody who's never been in a fight.
To me it sounds more like someone who picked a fight and had his ass handed to him because his victim "used too much force" to defend themselves.
My definition of defence is to cripple or traumatize the attacker into not trying again. Why ever delay a problem when you can solve it.