Proportional Response

[bushido_man96]

This is not directed at you specifically Nobodysaidbella, but that brings up another point, when does a proportional/reasonable response turn into something like revenge? Is there a point when it stops being just self defense and you start punishing the person for trying to attack you?

This is a good question, and the answer is yes, there is. What it comes down to is what a "reasonable person" would do as far as reactions go. If the person is down and unconscious, and you continue, then you become the attacker at that point, and things can get ugly for you in court. You could even have charges levied against you then and there, leading to a trip to the local jail and posting a bond. So yes, it is something to consider, but for most of us, there comes a point where we realize that self-defense is over, and its time to stop/escape. Then, notify the authorities.

[sensei8]

This is not directed at you specifically Nobodysaidbella, but that brings up another point, when does a proportional/reasonable response turn into something like revenge? Is there a point when it stops being just self defense and you start punishing the person for trying to attack you?

Imho...when your very first opportunity to escape isn't taken, and you offensively continue! That's when!

Edited September 27, 2009 by sensei8

[tallgeese]

Typically, I agree. However, as with all things there are exceptions. For instance, if another might be left in harms way by your exit, then perhaps this changes the situation. Additionally, one might determine t hat an effort to escape might sacrifice a tacticcal advantage that one cannont afford to let go of. This case might also alter things.

Still, that's not a bad guideline. It's just a matter of recognizing and being able to articulate the fluid nature of conflict.

[Nobodysaidbella]

I agree. Assuming you're capable, you shouldn't leave if someone could get hurt. Though I'm sure a few quick arm-breaks could prevent the attacker from hurting someone else before the authorities get there.

[sensei8]

tallgeese posted:

Typically, I agree. However, as with all things there are exceptions. For instance, if another might be left in harms way by your exit, then perhaps this changes the situation. Additionally, one might determine t hat an effort to escape might sacrifice a tacticcal advantage that one cannont afford to let go of. This case might also alter things.

Still, that's not a bad guideline. It's just a matter of recognizing and being able to articulate the fluid nature of conflict.

Absoulutely! I agree!

When...whenever that might be...and when that is sufficient to do so, and only then, that's when one decides that it's time to ESCAPE/FLEE the situation. Only you can determine when that time is at hand, and that's usually based on your preception(s) of the threat, because preception is reality.

We, martial artists, will do anything and everything within our abilities to disfuse/end the situation at hand!

RECOGNITION is sometimes not that easy, but, it [recognition] must be understood and accepted.

[algernon]

Imho...when your very first opportunity to escape isn't taken, and you offensively continue! That's when!

So it is the victim's duty to flee? What if I am attacked in a place at which I have every right to be, and I do not want to leave? Flight may be an option, and it may be the best option, but to suggest that it is an obligation is to forget who started the fight in the first place. You initially asked about the virtue of a proportioned response, and that virtue is in self-control; however, I would still be far from my Nicomachean mean if I were to run when I believed that I could stand. There is vice in excessive violence, but there is also virtue in a just fight.

[bushido_man96]

Imho...when your very first opportunity to escape isn't taken, and you offensively continue! That's when!

So it is the victim's duty to flee? What if I am attacked in a place at which I have every right to be, and I do not want to leave? Flight may be an option, and it may be the best option, but to suggest that it is an obligation is to forget who started the fight in the first place. You initially asked about the virtue of a proportioned response, and that virtue is in self-control; however, I would still be far from my Nicomachean mean if I were to run when I believed that I could stand. There is vice in excessive violence, but there is also virtue in a just fight.

What one views as virtue and what the law view as battery might be the same, so be careful.

Now, with that said, you don't necessarily have to run away. But, if you have neutralized the threat, then you need to desist. You don't have to leave, but you need to stop pressing the attack. If you want to stay, and risk being attacked again, then its a risk you have to consider. Something to think about, too.

[sensei8]

So it is the victim's duty to flee?

No! Yes! Do what feels right! Imho, it's up to the victim to defend themselves, and, if fleeing is ones choice, then it's an honorable duty.

What if I am attacked in a place at which I have every right to be, and I do not want to leave?

If one doesn't want to leave, this is ones choice, and in that, it's ones right. Stay, leave, do what one must. But, if one doesn't leave when one had a chance to and something happens, well, then one will have to explain it to the police and then possibly to a judge.

Flight may be an option, and it may be the best option, but to suggest that it is an obligation is to forget who started the fight in the first place.

Who cares who started it. That's NOT the martial arts! Two wrongs don't make a right. Defend oneself, YES! Assault/Battery someone, NO! If someone starts it...I'm suppose to finish it? To suggest that directly or indirectly is to forget that we're martial artists. Martial artists that are trained to not use our knowledge inappropriately and without cause.

You initially asked about the virtue of a proportioned response, and that virtue is in self-control; however, I would still be far from my Nicomachean mean if I were to run when I believed that I could stand.

If the virtue of a proportional response is self-control, then there's no "However". It either is or it isn't! Isn't there a saying that says..."He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!" Yes, I know that it's just an opinion and just a saying, but, there's nothing wrong with it. Besides, you'd not be far from your ethics and/or your morals at all for doing what's right or what's honorable or what's legal.

There is vice in excessive violence, but there is also virtue in a just fight.

It's possible! For a vice to exist, I have to really like it and then I have to really depend on it. I really don't like to fight and I really don't depend on it [fighting]. I don't see any noble virtue in fighting, especially when the opportunity to flee/run presents itself and I don't. There's nothing virtue in a just fight because, imho, it's just a fight and it takes two to fight. I'll fight, but, when the opportunity presents itself, I'm fleeing.

What's wrong with fleeing? Is that unmartial art? Is that against some martial art code? Aren't most, if not all, martial artists taught to not fight unless one has no choice? If I have an opportunity to flee and fleeing is wrong, then let me just be wrong!

[Nobodysaidbella]

So it is the victim's duty to flee? What if I am attacked in a place at which I have every right to be, and I do not want to leave? Flight may be an option, and it may be the best option, but to suggest that it is an obligation is to forget who started the fight in the first place. You initially asked about the virtue of a proportioned response, and that virtue is in self-control; however, I would still be far from my Nicomachean mean if I were to run when I believed that I could stand. There is vice in excessive violence, but there is also virtue in a just fight.

Yes, but that isn't a just fight! If you're attacked, fine, fight back. But a trained martial artist against a person with no real combat training is anything but fair. If you've sufficiently incapacitated them enough to get away, I see very little reason to continue unless defending someone else, or they refuse to surrender. If they've surrendered, there is absolutely no reason to continue 'defending' yourself.

[algernon]

sensei8,

I have no problem with fleeing, and I have done my share of it. If you choose to take your fist opportunity to escape, I will think no less of you for it. If you choose to remain in harm's way, and risk having to continue to fight, I will think no less of you for that, either.

I do not see any dishonor in running; I take issue only with the claim that the victim of an attack is under a moral obligation to avoid the fight.

If someone starts it...I'm suppose to finish it?

That is quite the opposite of my point! If someone else "starts it," it is up to them to finish. They brought violence to you, and you retaliated as you needed. They decide when they stop fighting. If they can still stand when your blows stop, it is upon them to desist. If you stun them, you may take that opportunity to escape, but you do not have to. Of course you must stop hitting them when they give up, but before they do, if and when you run is your decision. If you flee before they have quit their aggression, they decide whether they chase. If you beat the aggression out of them, it was still their decision to stop the fight. If you beat them unconscious, and you appropriately stop, you have still only stoped in response to your opponent's cessation of violence. Provided you do not harm them when they no longer pose a threat, the fight will only end when your attacker quits fighting.

The instigator assumed the risk of injury, and did so for the sake of harming another. The burden of his safety is not his victim's to bear.

Edited October 9, 2009 by algernon