Proportional Response

[sensei8]

Do we meet our attacker(s) blow for blow until we gain our escape from intended bodily harm?

OR...

Do we cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war upon our attacker(s) so as to assure our point is well understood?

Therefore...What's the virtue of a proportional response?

[tallgeese]

Keeping you out of jail.

I'm not saying that you have to let yourself get hurt by an attacker before escalating to a more potent weapon. I'm just saying that you really need to maintain a reasonable level of force to defeat the said attack. That's the way lots of laws are worded. It's the "reasonalblness" of a response that keeps you out of trouble post fight.

So, if you're grabbed and drawn back on you, can you rip a dude's eye loose and crank his head into the pavement via his hair until it splats like a watermealon? Probibly not.

Now, can you do that if he's 7 ft of muscle, impervious to the first three things you tried and threatening to kill you? Or has a weapon? Now we're getting somewhere. It's probibly an appropriate response now.

You have to be able to articulate why you used the level of force you did- to the law. I'm not talking about philosophical principles or esoteric stuff here, it's about keeping me free with a clean record after I employ my training.

Now, does that mean that everything below lethal force should be lacadasical? Of course not, everything should be used with a "dogs of war" mentality. So if we go back to my first example, the grab and load move, you might elect to check the cocked arm and apply an underhooking shoulder lock to the other. Let's even say a inish with a takedown for control. You don't do this easy, you slam it as quick and as hard as you can.

That's my theory on why.

[bushido_man96]

I agree that articulation is a big key to helping clear yourself after an altercation. You have to be able to convince officers that the confrontation was not mutual, and your actions have to be directed as such.

Like tallgeese points out, it can be tricky, because not every situation is the same. The level of the threat has to assessed, and there are boundaries that you cannot cross. If a drunk gets mad at you because you spilled his drink, you may have trouble convincing a jury that you were in fear of your life, so you punched him in the throat.

[Grego]

Location is very important.

If your a victim of a home invasion, at least in Kentucky, you can get by with killing the guy.

However, you'd get in alot of trouble if you used the same force in a bar fight.

That said, I have no qualms about using max for to defend myself. About three weeks ago (my 23 birthday, actually), I went to a bar. I stepped outside to use the ATM from the bank next door.

While i was getting my money, a drug dealer came up and tried to sell me meth. When I told him no, he seemed like he was going to get violent. I'm not taking chances with a methed out drug dealer who is three times my size.

I pulled out my benchmade auto-opener.

The drug dealer ran away.

Anyways, my point is that you can't take any chances with some people. I'm not violent, but I'll defend myself according to the situation.

[Throwdown0850]

imo, a threat is a threat, if he is 4 feet tall and skinny or a bodybuilder. if a guy grabs me and draws back to punch me, the way I see it, its either me or him. he is going to get hurt.

[Throwdown0850]

Location is very important.

If your a victim of a home invasion, at least in Kentucky, you can get by with killing the guy.

However, you'd get in alot of trouble if you used the same force in a bar fight.

That said, I have no qualms about using max for to defend myself. About three weeks ago (my 23 birthday, actually), I went to a bar. I stepped outside to use the ATM from the bank next door.

While i was getting my money, a drug dealer came up and tried to sell me meth. When I told him no, he seemed like he was going to get violent. I'm not taking chances with a methed out drug dealer who is three times my size.

I pulled out my benchmade auto-opener.

The drug dealer ran away.

Anyways, my point is that you can't take any chances with some people. I'm not violent, but I'll defend myself according to the situation.

I agree more here.

[tallgeese]

Hurt, sure. The question is how much, that's the whole idea of a proportional response. What' s appropriate and defenseable.

[bushido_man96]

imo, a threat is a threat, if he is 4 feet tall and skinny or a bodybuilder. if a guy grabs me and draws back to punch me, the way I see it, its either me or him. he is going to get hurt.

I can see your point here, and I think that it is important to take every threat seriously.

But, at the same time, if you take this little 4 foot tall guy, and break his arm in 4 places, rendering it useless, then you might have trouble with a jury trial. I'm not saying that you would be wrong, but that if you can consider your actions to a degree, then you can save yourself a lot of trouble.

Hurt, sure. The question is how much, that's the whole idea of a proportional response. What' s appropriate and defenseable.

I agree, and this is the point that I am getting at. Now, if the guy has a knife, and refuses to give up, then you may be forced to break his arm in 4 places; it may be more justifiable in this case. But, if he doesn't have a weapon, then the way it looks, and what you have to say when you go to the stand, can make a difference.

[EmrldWepn]

Where I study, we have sort of a guideline as to the next level for your response. As with each case, the goal is always to stop the attack. If you simply block and they give up, great. If you have to hit them, so be it. If you really must incapacitate, while perhaps unfortunate, sometimes you just might have to to keep yourself safe. In any case, the evolution is:

Avoid before you check

Check before you block

Block before you strike

Strike before you Maim

Maim before you kill

As the above posters said, every situation and attacker can be different and its up to the students to determine what amount of force is needed to stop the attack to the point of becoming safe.

[tallgeese]

I agree in concept with you're levels of force, Emrld. However, and you've probibliy taken this into account, I don't like people to get to stuck into a pyrimid of action. If the situation warrants, they should be mentally prepared and have a good enough understanding of the continuum that they know that moving ahead to prevent injury is alright.