Huh? It worries you that the cops have to adhere to a “probable cause” standard before they arrest someone? That sounds outrageous to me, Shouldn’t “probable casue” be a universal benchmark to be met before any arrest is made?
Combative forms 
Actually I’ve taken several years of Judo, Karate, and more recently Historical European Martial arts.
I don’t disagree with this. Obviously if you can get away, you should attempt to do so. I’m not talking about those situations.
This is fantasy. Specially when discussing fighting with deadly weapons, such as knifes. Your premises that it would be easier to disable someone applies, but only to purely unarmed combat, and then only to someone who is not looking to kill you (i.e the school bully, the drunk trouble maker).
However, when it comes to using instruments that could easily kill you, the proper way to respond is to move to kill your opponent quickly.
This isn’t the movies, where the wise old monk disarms the 8 guy with knifes and knocks them all out with expert taps on the back of their heads.
In a knife fight ANY move that is not aimed to remove the imminent threat is likely to get you killed.
IF the oportunity arises somewhere in the melee to disarm your opponent and grapple with him so as to disable him, the more the better!
But if you begin with that goal in mind while your opponent retains the intent of gutting you like a fish, you are playign fast and loose with your very life.
Again, true, when speaking of purely unarmed encounters. Wether knifes or guns, the realistic way to handle the situation (again, as long as you cannot reasonably remove yourself from that situation) is to use deadly force.
If you have a thug with a gun shooting at you, are you going to try and aim for his foot? Maybe try and shoot the gun out of his hand? Hells no! You’re going to aim for center of mass, that’s what he’s going to be doing.
I agree. This is why you must be sure to end the fight quickly. When unarmed, this usually means hit first, hit hard, hit fast. When dealing with armed people it’s kill or be killed, and do it quickly.
Unarmed combat, yes, you’re right.
Of course not! When did I say this?
Cops are not always there. In fact, I’ll wager that most times they will NOT be there to help you.
Again, I agree with this, I’m not discussing these type of situations.
Nothing I’ve said contradicts what you’ve said. Obviously that would be the correct thing to do IN THAT SITUATION.
Actually, it occurs to me now that I may be confusing “arresting” with “taking into custody”, and drawing a distinction between “charge” and “arrest” that doesn’t exist anyway. So upon further reflection, I’ll withdraw the last paragraph from my previous post. However, since you replied:
“Probable cause” that deadly force has been used, or “probable cause” that deadly force has been used and that the person who used it didn’t have a reasonable belief that their life was in imminent danger? It’s the latter that struck me as being too high of a standard to meet before taking someone into custody.
However, as I said I think I was confusing “taking into custody” with “arrest”. Upon reflection, I don’t see how the new law will stop police from taking a suspect into custody for questioning while they investigate the matter, so that particular objection of mine was misplaced. Sorry for the confusion.
Kinthalis, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but look back at your earlier post and I think you can see that you did not add all of these qualifiers back there. You just said a situation where your life is in danger, not such a situation that you could not escape from. As the question of whether or not an attempt at escape is required is central to the current topic I did not realize you had dismissed it.
Not really, I think you misunderstand. My point is that you try to incapacitate the person as quickly as possible with no real regard to their wellbeing. Even with a knife though, it is far more likely that they will be reduced to a point where they can not fight back, or even better can no longer chase you, before you actually kill them. Most people are damn surprised the first time knife hits flesh even if it is not a serious wound it can provide an ideal chance to leave the scene quickly.
My point is not that you should try some movie heroics to disarm them and subdue them, but that the act of agressively defending yourself, when unarmed or armed with a non-firearm, will very likely afford you an opportunity of escape long before it results in someone’s death. You should then follow the current law and take this opportunity rather than the new law which may allow you to beat the guy down more.
As I said, any time you are firing a gun at someone you are firing to kill. I am not arguing that with you. In fact I think we agree on most points. I just differ in how you are saying that your goal is to kill as quickly as possible. Your goal is to make the other person incapable of continuing to fight/chase you as quickly as possible. The same techniques may be implemented but what I am saying is that you do not continue the fight until the guy is dead. In most cases you should reach a point where flight is an option before that.
Here.
Looking back I see that your focus is on the absolutely, but even still I agree that you should get in trouble. If you kill someone in self defense and it wasn’t absolutely no doubt that it was in self defense then a jury should decide the issue. This is right and proper.
My point was, again, that your object should not be to handle the situation or to kill your attacker, but to turn it into a situation where flight is possible. The way you first phrased it (which I see now is not how you meant it) looked a lot like vigilateism.
Indeed, looking back at my original post, I wasn’t being very clear. My apologies for that.
I agree with everythign you are sayign except:
“My point was, again, that your object should not be to handle the situation or to kill your attacker, but to turn it into a situation where flight is possible.”
This should be a lucky happenstance. If it becomes possible, then certainly. But your main objective is to dispath your opponent, because that’s what he’s trying to do to you. If in attmepting to dispatch him you manage to create an opening for yourself to escape the situation, you should take it.
I’m not saying have the guy down then finish him off. I’m saying, to survive your purpose should be to kill. If you end up maiming or making him relent, great!
And the courts will then evaluate the situation on its merits. Sometimes, they’ll get it wrong (treating a valid case of self-defense as a stupid overreaction, or treating a stupid overreaction as a valid case of self-defense).
That is not a sufficient reason to reject the general principle that people have a right to defend themselves.
The new Florida law sounds like a political ploy that will have very little real world impact, except that it might save a few people from being prosecuted for defending themselves, and might absolve a few from being held responsible for reckless use of force, though I think that is less likely.
Blaring warnings about legalized dueling or a “Wild West” atmosphere is political bunkum as well. The case cited in Florida does not seem directly applicable, and I haven’t seen any cases cited from the other states having this law already, which would indicate a problem.
We have had a concealed carry law in Ohio for a year now. Before it was passed, there were all sorts of warnings about Wild West shootouts and the horrific dangers of encouraging armed citizenry. The net effect, even with a gunslinging Uncle Beer roaming the streets* has been virtually nil. A small percentage of people feels safer. I’m unaware of any significant drop in the crime rate, which proponents of the law were predicting.
I’m picking up this Yosemite Sam imagery…
Y’all remember those girls that were fined in Florida for scaring the woman by leaving a cake, I think it was a cake, on her doorstep? They were punished for what they did so it seems the courts accepted the womans fear claim.
So it seems to me, under this law, she could have shot them.
But my point was not about the two doing the fighting, but about innocent bystanders.
From what I read many years ago he was given multiple warnings before being shot. Is that incorrect?
I’m sure it’s not outside the realm of possibility but I don’t think it’s likely.
Do you really think this law will turn Florida into Dodge City?
Would you rather individuals wait until they’ve got a knife sticking out of their bellies before making those kinds of decisions?
Marc