Forced to use Lethal Force

[Johnlogic121]

When swordsmen fought historically, a common outcome was a "double kill," in which one died immediately and the other was mortally wounded. This outcome can even happen in unarmed combat, although it is more rare. When a swordsman parries a slashing cut, he often finds himself in a postion where his only recourse is to slay the opponent at once before the second stroke of the attacker mortally wounds him. In unarmed combat, you could be forced by the vigor of your opponent's attack to have to use lethal techniques, since normal self-defense moves wouldn't be strong enough to respond to his aggression. Fortunately, most encounters do not call for this type of response. My question is simple, however. How many encounters out of 100 escalate to the point where you have to rely on lethal counterattacks for your defense? One would suspect that the better you get at self-defense, the more rarely would you have to rely on the most potent of techniques, as your regular techniques would be strong enough for the job. Is it 10%? Or is it more like 30%?

[yingampyang]

I would say 20%

[bushido_man96]

I don't have "deadly" techniuqes and "regular" techniques. I have techniques with which I can alter the targets of. The goal of self-defense is to take care of the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the attacker is weilding a knife or some other weapon, then this will force you to think about neutralizing the knife, and then striking a target that will diminish the fighter. I would think that weapon attacks happen around 15% of the time. However, I don't know the stats, and may be wrong.

[Throwdown0850]

I don't have "deadly" techniuqes and "regular" techniques. I have techniques with which I can alter the targets of. The goal of self-defense is to take care of the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the attacker is weilding a knife or some other weapon, then this will force you to think about neutralizing the knife, and then striking a target that will diminish the fighter. I would think that weapon attacks happen around 15% of the time. However, I don't know the stats, and may be wrong.

I have been trained differently?? I have been taught that you don't go after the knife, cause even if you get the knife away the attacker, he can still hurt you, I have been taught to hit the eyes, throat etc.... cause that neutralizes everything at once..

[bushido_man96]

That is true, but you need to keep the knife from cutting you first. If you can debilitate the attacker, then you may accomplish that goal. However, you want to keep that knife from moving too much, I think.

[Throwdown0850]

That is true, but you need to keep the knife from cutting you first. If you can debilitate the attacker, then you may accomplish that goal. However, you want to keep that knife from moving too much, I think.

that is true too..

[Bushido-Ruach]

I have been taught this philosophy....If someone is attacking you, they are doing so because they want to hurt you...so you hurt them first (that doesn't mean attack them first, necessarily, I would think you would legally have to wait for them to "attempt" to strike you ).

This escalates to the point where, if someone wants to do you great bodily harm, even kill you (in the case of a knife or other weapon), then you want to cause him great bodily harm first.

We were taught that before you reach lethal force, there is crippling force. Break the arm holding the weapon, or break a leg so that he can't fight you anymore......this goes in spades when fighting multiple opponents. The longer you "mess" around with someone (especially if it is more than one) the greater chance you have of ending up in the hospital or in the ground.

[TraditionalDan]

If you feel that you are in danger and there is no way out whatsoever (but only if there is no other way out), then defend with a non lethal effective attack with 100% force.

The law should be understanding of this (I live in the UK). Think out what your 'main artillery' will be, and train it until you can do it in your sleep.

[Jay]

Personally I think if someone comes at you with the intent to kill you, you should kill him first end of story.

The problem with that most courts may not see it that way.

Personally I think it would be very hard to kill someone with one strike so im not worried I will use full force to defend myself. Plus you dont have to use lethal attacks at all you can use useful 'dirty' fighting. Eye jabs, groin shots etc

[bushido_man96]

I have been taught this philosophy....If someone is attacking you, they are doing so because they want to hurt you...so you hurt them first (that doesn't mean attack them first, necessarily, I would think you would legally have to wait for them to "attempt" to strike you ).

This escalates to the point where, if someone wants to do you great bodily harm, even kill you (in the case of a knife or other weapon), then you want to cause him great bodily harm first.

This is the case; however, you don't have to wait for them to make an attack in order to defend yourself with a pre-emptive strike.

We were taught that before you reach lethal force, there is crippling force. Break the arm holding the weapon, or break a leg so that he can't fight you anymore......this goes in spades when fighting multiple opponents. The longer you "mess" around with someone (especially if it is more than one) the greater chance you have of ending up in the hospital or in the ground.

Crippling force may be one of the steps on the ladder, but if the attacker has pulled a knife or other weapon, then the use of force ladder will most likely jump to the deadly force level. You just have to be able to articulate that you were afraid for you life or great bodily harm, so you acted the way that you did.