Self Defense: How Far is to Far

Hi all, this is based for people mostly from the UK as i know the laws here better than i know the laws in other countries. However all opinions are welcome.

I've trained for years in self defense, full contact arts in realistic scenarios and have upon occasion had to call on my skills. I was always taught that if you're attacked you must make sure your attacker will not be able to get up again and hurt you so that you can make your escape. The best way of doing that was mechanically damaging their body so they couldn't physically do anything to you anymore.

So what if someone enters my home and i hear them? Should i stay upstairs as the government suggests, allowing them to take all of my goods whilst i cuddle with my pet cat and wait for the police? Or should i head downstairs with the tonfa i have on my wall? When i find such a person, should i merely restrain or give them a very good hiding and maybe teach them to rethink their life?

What if i'm in the street and someone pulls a knife on me? I won't give them my possessions, not because i value possessions just because it's against my principles to give in to someone, i'd rather risk death. So i defend myself and win, well you'll forgive me but i think this kind of person will just keep on pulling knives on people, in fact they may get a bigger knife next time. Ii'd make sure they spent several months in hospital from their injuries, dislocate the shoulder, break the elbow, detroy their knee etc. I think it would be a public service, maybe they'd learn that it's a risky business and you know what, i think it's my duty to do it.

However the government disagrees, if i defended myself and even just restrained them i'd probably be in trouble. The burglar would sue me and so would the mugger. I find it rediculous and i think it's part of the problem with society, the criminals know you won't be armed and you aren't allowed to defend yourself.

It's about time we stood up and told our government we have the right to beat the hell out of someone if they're in our home or trying to hurt us in a violent manner that makes us fear for our lives.

"Compassion is the way-brutality is the key"

"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

For dealing with arseholes we use the ARSE principle.

A=acceptable behavior-yes or no.
R=Reasonable demand-yes or no
S=safe-do we feel safe-yes or no
E=escape-can we flee run leave or not

4 NO'S=action required

A few of my sensei's ideas I've put up for you -the level of violence is whatever is necessary.

After having suffered two violent mugging attempts (I fought back and they ran off) there's an agreement in my home that should a burglar be caught in the act and we're able to restrain him, he'll end up in the reservoir behind our home weighed down with bricks.

reply to post by MajjicMouse


Well my thread was abot how far is to far, i think you just found it lol. I wouldn't kill a burglar, but i would break his legs so he couldn't burgal again.

If someone would harm you or your family, they would harm others.
If they determine your policy of passivity, will your home and family be safe in your absence? Even in your presence? Cowards escalate their actions based upon the lack of resistance.


It is quite simple, if someone is in your home as an agressor, they must be eliminated. Their threat potential must be neutralized.

Anything less is to gamble your family on a philosophical three card monty game.

reply to post by MajjicMouse


I've heard a lot of people in the country say, "I've got a .45 and a shovel, and 100 acres, and won't nobody miss you."


I honestly don't understand why that most everyone can't agree that, you # with the bull, you get the horns. In my opinion, couldn't you make a good argument against beating the hell out of a burglar with a table lamp, with..."the right to bear arms" and "all invaders foreign and domestic?"

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by MajjicMouse

 

Well my thread was abot how far is to far, i think you just found it lol. I wouldn't kill a burglar, but i would break his legs so he couldn't burgal again.

True, but then he'd sue you and you'd get done by the old bill for assault and ABH. Making him sleep with the fishes (in this case Pike, who would soon pick his bones) is the only option.

I didn't spend years reading war and mafia books to learn nothing ...

[edit on 9-7-2008 by MajjicMouse]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by MajjicMouse]

I'd draw the line at breaking things i.e; bones.

As tempting as it is, i wouldn't want to cause lasting damage.

You know what they say, there are a thousand excuses to do evil, but only one reason to do good.

And that reason is respect for human life, even if the person you've just disarmed violently plainly has no respect for it.

You don't have to head down stairs to confront the intruder. that would be not the right thing to do. However you could find yourself thirsty, being unsure of why you've awaken, head down stairs for a drink of what ever is in the fridge. As long as you stick to that story you can kill the person in self defense. Just be sure you say "I felt like my life was in danger and I had no place to go to." If the cop then asks, "well why didn't you go out the front door?" say "I must have still been in shock, I was afraid for my life and didn't process a way out".

And if the intruder trys telling another story, he won't because he'll be dead.

Dead men tell no tales.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Incarnated]

Originally posted by Incarnated

Dead men tell no tales.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Incarnated]

Actually, we've made some remarkable progress in the field of necromancy since people started touting off that little saying.

Nowadays we have fingerprints and dna sampling and composite readings - you'll find that the dead aren't really that quiet at all.

This thread brings the "flesh wound scene" from "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail" to mind.

Also, Neitzche on "slave vs master morality."

en.wikipedia.org...


Sri Oracle