Drunken uncle self defense

[Spartacus Maximus]

Has anyone ever stopped to think about how self defense and use of force are most commonly taught in the martial arts? Perhaps it is more prevalent in classical martial arts.

In personal experience, most of what is taught for self defense is too extreme for dealing with what people are likely to face.

Here are some overlooked points in most situations in no specific order of importance:

1. It is incredibly easy to cause more damage than intended. Falling the wrong way from being struck or thrown can easily result in death and /or permanent injury regardless of any training.

2. Most of the violence one is likely to face will not be of predatory/criminal intent. 

3. Treating every aggressive or violent encounter as if it were trench combat is neither smart nor sane. 

4. The legal system, no matter where in the world will always assume everyone involved is at least partly at fault. Whatever the outcome, dealing with the law and trials are never a cheap or pleasant experience. 

[KarateKen]

Absolutely agree.  

[bushido_man96]

I have considered this.  I've written a few articles on the matter:

 

Overall, I agree with you.  I think there are some instructors out there that believe if they are attacked, they have carte blanche to retaliate to their heart's content, and that they can chalk all the damage up to "self-defense," and it is truly not the case.

[sensei8]

16 hours ago, bushido_man96 said:

I have considered this.  I've written a few articles on the matter:

 

Overall, I agree with you.  I think there are some instructors out there that believe if they are attacked, they have carte blanche to retaliate to their heart's content, and that they can chalk all the damage up to "self-defense," and it is truly not the case.

Great articles, Brian; thanks!!

Whenever it comes to allowable force in self-defense, you’d know better than many of us here seeing that you’re a LEO, Brian.

What I’ve been telling my students forever and a day, is this, please correct me, Brian if I’m wrong.

What I know is that one’s allowed “reasonable force” to end a threat…and no more.

What’s “reasonable force”?? Proportionally, imminent, duty to retreat, and excessive; knowing the difference between them is essentially the responsibility of anyone, and not just a MAist.

Proportionally means the amount of force must match the level of the threat.

Imminent means force can be only used when an imminent threat of harm.

Duty of retreat means I must be required to retreat before I can use force.

Excessive force means that if I use more force than necessary to defend myself can be considered a crime.

The law can seem quite ambiguous where force is involved. Hopefully Brian can help us to better understand from a LEO’s standpoint.

[bushido_man96]

You bring up some good points, @sensei8.  I'll try to address them as briefly and simply as I can.

On 2/26/2025 at 11:48 AM, sensei8 said:

What I know is that one’s allowed “reasonable force” to end a threat…and no more.

Whenever I see the word "reasonable," I tend to think about it as my line of work dictates.  It's basically asking, "what would a reasonable officer do in this situation?"  Likewise, for the general public, it's "what would a reasonable person likely do?"  Or, "what would be a reasonable response for a person in that situation?"

So, what has to be considered is what we also call "the totality of the circumstances."  We, as trained Martial Artists, can be held to a different (not necessarily higher) standard than the untrained public.  What is the threat?  Cornered by three people saying threatening things?  Drunk guy yelling at you in your yard?  We can go down all kinds of rabbit holes, as each of the two scenarios I've offered here present two very different threat levels.  In the first scenario, it might be reasonable to disable one person as soon as possible to decrease the number of threats; in such a case, use of a weapon as a force multiplier could be justified.  In the second scenario, it might just be wiser to shut and lock the doors and call the police, and let them deal with the drunk guy.  Spartan kicking that guy into the street into oncoming traffic could lead to a manslaughter charge no one wants.

So, circumstances are important to consider.

On 2/26/2025 at 11:48 AM, sensei8 said:

Proportionally means the amount of force must match the level of the threat.

I can get on board with this, but again, there are always caveats.  Someone poking you in the chest in the state of Kansas is defined as battery.  This person is also in your space.  I can count on one hand the number of people I want in that space.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THIS GUY TO TAKE A SWING AT YOU TO DEFEND YOUR SPACE.  A pre-emptive strike can very well be justified against someone like this.

Now, I'm assuming (and you know what happens when we assume....) that the two individuals are proportional in size.  What if the guy is 6'8" and 320 lbs, and little old 5'7" on-a-good-day me is the recipient of said finger pokes?  Even though I'm skilled, I can probably justify a higher use of force against Goliath here due to size, strength, and probably age disparity, especially if I can't walk away safely otherwise.  Clubbing this guy with a bottle or other hard object could very well be justified.

Now, let's change it up, and it's your drunk ex-girlfriend you ran into in the bar when you are out with your new date.  250 lb me against 140 lb her is another disparity issue altogether.  In this situation, I probably can't justify knocking her out if she gets into my space.

Again, circumstances.

On 2/26/2025 at 11:48 AM, sensei8 said:

Imminent means force can be only used when an imminent threat of harm.

I'd say this is pretty spot-on.  The key here is CYA - which means "Can You Articulate."  Can you explain to the law enforcement officers that show up what made you believe the threat was imminent?  Learning how to recognize things like pre-contact cues are great for helping with this.

On 2/26/2025 at 11:48 AM, sensei8 said:

Duty of retreat means I must be required to retreat before I can use force.

This is not the case in all states, and especially in your own home.  Some states refer to it as a "Castle Law."  If you sit down at a restaurant that has a bar and some daily drinkers that start getting lippy and yappy, and you ignore them, and that hacks them off and they get more so, and start coming over to your table to harass you, you don't necessarily have to get up and leave.  It may be wise to, but it doesn't mean you have to.  This doesn't mean you should knock them out, either.  But, if they start to get into your space, once again, this is an attack, and should be dealt with.

The other thing to consider is if you try to escape, does that compromise your safety even more?  If you turn your back on someone too soon, they may attack while you're not looking, which is not a good situation.  What if you only choice is to run?  I'm not fast, and if they chase, then I'll just end up having to fight tired.  I'd rather fight when I'm fresh.

On 2/26/2025 at 11:48 AM, sensei8 said:

Excessive force means that if I use more force than necessary to defend myself can be considered a crime.

This is true.  Let's say you successfully defend yourself, secure the thug in a lock or hold of some kind, and wait for authorities to show up and take them into custody.  Good deal, probably works out well.  Now, what if you secure the thug, and have them pinned, and decide it's time to "show them what happens when they mess with me!" and proceed to ground-and-pound, or break a wrist because you can, or something like that.  In the state of Kansas, that person could be looking at aggravated battery charges if those things were done in a punitive manner.

Now, with that said, I'm not saying breaking bones leads to you getting arrested.  If in the heat of the moment you defend a punch and break their arm, this can still be considered justifiable.  Again, CYA - Can You Articulate?

Articulating how you felt, what you saw, how scared you were, and all that stuff is just as important as the techniques you use to defend yourself.  I don't know if many instructors cover these things with their students.  Sure, they show the techniques, and how to break something if they need to, but being able to talk about these things with law enforcement post-event is just as important.

Hopefully, this answers more questions than it creates...

It's too bad @tallgeese isn't still around, he'd have some great points to offer on this as well.

Edited February 28 by bushido_man96

[sensei8]

Great information from the standpoint of a LEO; thanks, Brian!!