OK, it's not really that simple, but this is an interesting thought-experiment
California self-defense laws allow people to use reasonable force (and even violence) to protect themselves against an attacker. The threat must be immediate and a person must use no more force than is reasonably necessary to thwart the attack. But what if someone starts a fight? Can he claim self-defense as a legal defense against criminal charges?
California self-defense laws allow people to use reasonable force (and even violence) to protect themselves against an attacker. The threat must be immediate and a person must use no more force than is reasonably necessary to thwart the attack.
But what if someone starts a fight? Can he claim self-defense as a legal defense against criminal charges?
Basically, the point is that if Person X starts the fight and Person Y starts to beat the ever loving shit out of them, at what point can Person X claim he's being assaulted and that his actions are defensible.
The article is based on California law, but I'd like to think about it from a purely logical standpoint that would apply to all persons.
Let's say Patrick Fitzgerald whacks Gerald Fitzpatrick in the face. Reason unimportant, but Patrick's attack is unwarranted / unprovoked. Gerald happens to be a 5 Weapons Combat Master with ISO 9000 certification as well as having slept at a Holiday Inn the night before. Within seconds, Patrick is having his ass handed to him on a shiny platform.
Ironically, as a moral, upstanding citizen, if Patrick says uncle (No, that that Says Uncle) and it is clear that he poses no immediate threat, Gerald must disengage from the facial rearrangement already in progress. The problem is that it is difficult to be clear on Patrick's ability or even intent. He initiated force without cause once, can you really trust him to stop his attack.
Personally, you continue to beat the guy until he's down for the count. If he can get up, he could attack again. If he's actively trying to run away, well you have to decide if you think he's running to get help or simply trying to GTFO.
While it looks nice and neat on paper and makes great discussion fodder in Women's Studies classes, 'proportionate response' doesn't translate into the real world easily. In fact, I'd say disproportionate responses have the added benefit of reminding your aggressor that there are penalties for their actions.
What say you?
Hat Tip InSights