Proportional Response

[algernon]

. . . A trained martial artist against a person with no real combat training is anything but fair.

What one may lack in formal training can be easily compensated for by size, strength, tenacity, and experience. Yes, I am quick, coordinated, and I have a proficient knowledge base, but that does not enable me to best anyone of a lower belt "rank." My training has made me a far more competent combatant than I would ever have been without, but it has not transformed me into a Jason Statham character.

Furthermore, I do not know who has had what sort of training, or how much. We would all like to think that martial artists are of a higher moral caliber (at least in respect to the use of their skills), but that is just self aggrandizing. How many martial arts schools or competitive fighting clubs require comprehensive background and psychological screening? Really, anyone who attacks you might have any amount of any sort of training, and unless you know them, there is no way to tell.

. . . I see very little reason to continue unless . . . they refuse to surrender. If they've surrendered, there is absolutely no reason to continue 'defending' yourself.

Of course there is no reason to continue if they surrender, but if you are running away, it is probably because they have not surrendered. If they have clearly stopped fighting, then there is no longer a fight and you should have stopped hitting them. Since their "surrender" should end the fight, the question of whether flight is an obligation no longer applies. They may, of course, change their mind and attack again, which is the risk taken in not running. The question is whether you must prevent harming them by running away as soon as you are able. Is the victim of an assault morally required to run, thereby removing the potential of having to continue to fight, or is it acceptable to hold ground and fight for as long as necessary to cause the criminal to stop? It was in answer to this question that I put forth my arguments.

[tallgeese]

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics were poor."- just a thought to add to the discussion.

[bushido_man96]

So it is the victim's duty to flee?

This is something that you may have to check your state statutes for; their may be a duty to flee kind of clause. Also, you can find it in so-called "castle laws," in which a victim does not have the duty to flee from their own home, if burglarized/attacked. Something to look into to be prepared for.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics were poor."- just a thought to add to the discussion.

I agree with this sentiment as well. I'm not going to try to gain any kind of honor points when I get into a fight. I'm looking to walk away. Hock Hockheim said it well in an article in Black Belt: "cheat first, cheat last, and cheat in the middle!"

But a trained martial artist against a person with no real combat training is anything but fair.

"Fair" isn't really going to be an issue for me when a fight comes calling. I'm not going to stop and assess my attacker's skill level via an interview, so I know what I can and can't use. But, as you state, there is a point when you have defended yourself, and then can become the attacker, and that is the point at which you must assess the situation, and then decide what comes next. There is lots of talk here about "running away" when you can, but it doesn't have to have that conotation of turning tale and motoring away. Observe your surroundings, back away cautiously, and find a route to take out of there. Also, shortly after the encounter, it should be in the fore of your mind to get in touch with the authorities, so that you can report your side of what happened.

What one may lack in formal training can be easily compensated for by size, strength, tenacity, and experience.

I agree here as well. Although they shouldn't be viewed as overwhelming factors against you, they should be noted and taken into consideration. You can see what the cover of the book looks like, but you aren't likely to get to "read" it until things start flying. Size and strength can make a difference.

[algernon]

So it is the victim's duty to flee?

This is something that you may have to check your state statutes for; their may be a duty to flee kind of clause. Also, you can find it in so-called "castle laws," in which a victim does not have the duty to flee from their own home, if burglarized/attacked. Something to look into to be prepared for.

I have read my state's (Wisconsin's) criminal code very thoroughly (self defense is covered in chapter 939.48, and “imperfect self defense” is also discussed in 940.01(2)(b), if any Wisconsinites are interested), and we have no such requirement. Regardless of the statutes, legal liability is a highly fickle matter that varies greatly between states, and it was therefore with ethical implications that I concerned myself.

So far as legal considerations are concerned, it may be of interest to note that Ruff v. State (1974) set a judicial precedent which allows just the sort of continued barrage that we have been discussing in the case of a robbery involving a firearm.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics were poor."- just a thought to add to the discussion.

I like that. Who are you quoting?

[sensei8]

Bottom line...my bottom line...my choice...

I will "flee" whenever the opportunity presents itself to me! This, fleeing, is my virtue to a proportional response. In that, it's my personal moral obligation to avoid/end the fight just as soon as the opportunity presents itself. After that, the rest, imho, is mute.

In my martial arts, I'm complete in my totality!

[tallgeese]

algernon, it's a quote from a chief range officer I worked under. He said it in regards to firearms training. I think it apply s across the board to combat.