Is defending yourself against aggression legal?

Is defending yourself against aggression legal?

One of the questions that often comes up during lectures or self-defense internships and that are asked about self-defense techniques that have been explained is, “is that legal?”

Some techniques with bare hands or improvised objects can create more or less serious wounds and injuries but fighting and stopping an attacker is not something simple and it is necessary when it is not possible to escape hurt, very badly!

This does not mean relentlessness but the idea that is passed off in many courses to strike just enough or to control you to throw a punch less are nonsense of those who do not know the aggressions but of the simple quarrels between two that do not fight but raise their voices.

At that moment you have to hit and hit to hurt until it is harmless also because it is not uncommon for someone to pretend to say ok enough, I apologize and then attack you as soon as you turn around or while apologizing takes from your pocket a knife,a bottle snzel, a knuckers or some other improvised weapon.

Ask bouncers in some big city how many times they’ve seen this fake surrender scene before shots or after shots just to “let your guard down.”

Now I intend to give you an answer to this question, but to tell you straight away that I am neither a lawyer nor a judge (law enforcement officer);

The vision of a personal defense trainer is very different from that of a judge!

Often a judge’s view does not take into account that you were returning home with groceries while calling your wife, or that you were sleeping when you heard footsteps in the kitchen, etc. and therefore it is not often considered the context, time and stress that is created in a short instant and that makes it impossible if you do not have an elite formation that hardly a civilian has managed this chaos and maintain the coldness to recognize if he’s armed, if he’s alone, if he wanted to run away, etc.

So I want to tell you right away that a judge won’t consider many aspects that are essential to your survival but that the judge will see very different both from the point of view of your personal and legal safety.

Basically the judge will initially think you wanted to do Rambo and then if you have a good lawyer and that’s fine with you the trial can go in your favor but not without collateral damage that varies according to local legislation.

I have a great sympathy for the police (apart from the controversies that arise for a few rotten apples that are in any workplace) because when it comes to protecting themselves from damage and danger because of the responsibilities and responsibilities that they have around it, it is often much more complicated than that enjoyed by an ordinary citizen because they always have to intervene is their job.

When you as a citizen find yourself threatened and in danger, your situation is very different from that of a police officer or security officer.

In most cases you have the opportunity to move away and carry out what in jargon is called disengagement, something that is instead in charge of enforcing the law or a set of rules and behaviors (in a bar or club etc.) does not have.

The security operator must intervene!

The option of leaving, which is very useful for setting the context of how you respond to a threat or an assault when it comes to discussing the rights or mistakes of your behaviour and your context of court action, is all from both a moral and legal point of view.

Moving away from a fight requires head and a clear concept of personal defense or better survival where you have to fight only if necessary, it is not not to have balls, but to have clear ideas as well as big balls.

It’s not the coward’s way to get away, but it’s easier to convince yourself and get you to fight than to leave.

Leaving sucks for your ego and for your pride really sucks but an undead fight is a great success.

Geoff Thompson in his book The Art of Fighting without Fighting – Techniques in Personal Threat Evasion explains this concept of fighting without a fight.

Thompson had been a martial arts student since he was a child and gained a high degree in Karate.

His fear of a violent confrontation despite being a top martial artist encouraged Geoff to become a nightclub bouncer to deal with his fear.

His experiences at the door of the night club, combined with the desire of a lifetime to be a writer, led him to write several books and educational videos about personal defense but not only.

Personally I am not the best example to tell others to leave but those times I did, those times when I had the opportunity to implement a physical solution and did not do so by leaving was always the best choice although I probably had reasons to justify myself and argue that I was morally and probably also legally authorized to do so.

In truth, the situations in which you cannot leave are few and rare, often even when you act there are the possibilities to free yourself and leave, certainly not when the escalation is now 300%.

In that moment and in that situation the violent response is a forced choice, you had to untie yourself before and when it becomes a choice induced to stay there instead of leaving, it is difficult after supporting and having the right(law)on your side.

When violence is inevitable and you are imposed you can not choose to leave, it is a whole other matter and you have to answer or rather you can only respond with extreme violence.

This is not easy especially in a society that from an early age has educated you not to be what you have to be at that moment but it is the way to survive, the rest are chatter of those who do not live the road, of those who have a romantic vision of the underworld, made up of ethical codes and loyalty, there is none of this , not by the way you mean it, they are codes between them not towards their prey.

From a civil point of view, I am not a great supporter of the ‘limited use of force’ when attacked because it is an unrealistic concept but a practical manual for people who legislate without being on the ground.

This doesn’t mean you’re on a helpless body, chasing an attacker, etc. but simply that you can’t get safe because you don’t know where your attacker’s limit is.

The law declares that you should do enough to undo the aggression you are facing without exceeding (the defense proportional to the offense) but actually measuring an answer when you are in front of a furious, adrenaline-laden man, maybe under exciting substances or alcohol is not easy.

The management of the aggressor is extremely difficult, already the word management itself is complicated because how do you manage a furious madman?

When you put a firecracker in the shit and turn on the gun, you can’t calculate where the shit’s going to go you don’t have the time and so you don’t have time to measure how far the shit (aggressor) goes or how much shit can hit you, or you get so far away or cover the shit by turning off the gun or you have to destroy it before it explodes.

That is why it is important to mentally set the context of the fight in advance.

If you can get out of it by walking away or if you present reasonable and alternative solutions (win to win) to an attacker and you do it in a non-threatening way but he can’t accept or listen and these alternative solutions and I repeat you can’t walk away and run away, then you have the moral authority (and in most cases the legal authority) to do everything you need to do to protect yourself.

If you tried to leave, apologizing, saying that you don’t want to fight, or just trying to get out or get away, so both figuratively and literally, and you’ve been prevented from doing so, you have the right to deal with the situation physically:

• is preemptively attacking first,
• than as a response to an attack.

You don’t have to think about it for a moment, don’t ask yourself questions, don’t look for other ways because they’re no longer there, remember that your attacker won’t ask himself these questions because he’s already made his choice and he’s attacking you.

You have to be honest with yourself, and you have to give up your ego, if you have a chance to leave you have to do it because the best choice, you have to fight to survive not to satisfy your pride and your ego.

The Ego in Aggressions

Most of the fights and fights I witnessed, concerning violence between two or more subjects, were simple ego problems for trivial reasons, in which both sides could not afford not to have the last word or make sure that the other person knew that they were not going back etc.

All the issues of ego that lead to violence are to be avoided.

When trying to judge what an adequate level of strength would be in such situations, it is difficult to argue, as both sides probably had countless opportunities during the meeting, simply to back down but they did not and for this reason they are now in the middle of a nice mess that they could avoid.

These situations will be difficult to explain to a judge.

Now that you’ve wanted to listen to your ego you still have to survive but you’ll definitely have legal consequences.

Now the situation is different if you get surrounded by bullies, if you’re inside a bar and they don’t let you out, with a kidnapping scenario where they want to load you into a car to explain to you that you’ve behaved badly, in a situation like that you really have a chance to leave?

I like to use theooda loop,which is a simple method of guiding decision-making.

An easy way to use when deciding whether to use force and how much it is:

• Can I leave? yes, Ok do it, don’t think about it quickly,
• I can’t fight (close son, other) or you can’t fight try to apologize and get away.
• There are too many of them, I can’t fight, you have to create a space for escape, run away.
• You can only fight. Do it with the utmost violence!

As for “strength” should you use?

How much is needed to finish the fight in the shortest possible time making the attacker harmless but without relentlessness.

If he’s on the ground unconscious, don’t keep hitting him and hitting him!

Be careful not to try to dissuade an attacker from continuing the fight, but rather try to finish them off and prevent them from continuing their assault.

Now, what are you doing is legal?

Now it’s no longer important, now you have to survive, you have to explain it later to your lawyer that you didn’t have a chance not to fight and prove it to a judge, now you just have to fight without risk or without considering your attacker: he made the choice you only have one chance to do anything to survive.

There’s only one way to deal with violence when you can’t escape and that’s to use extreme violence.

I know someone may not like to hear these things but it’s the harsh reality of combat, nature is metal, it’s man even though he lives in a civil society where security has been handed over to law enforcement and judgment to judges, it’s not always possible because I’m not your bodyguard and you may be forced to survive without their help or other citizens (witnesses) but you can only count on yourself at that moment and you have to do what is necessary to survive.

After that it may not be nice because you will face a process but being able to tell your version and not lying in a hole.

Stay Tuned!