Do people seriously contiue to confuse self-defense for retaliation?

I keep noticing this. Those two terms aren't the same at all.

For instance if you were in a self-defense position, you wouldn't be saying ''I gave it one good hook'', you would be scared for your life and trying to get away from the situation at first.

Retaliation is when you got to escalate it further and you excuse it with ''I lost my cool'' or ''next thing I know I was raging''. That doesn't look like you were seriously scared.

Self-defense isn't beating up someone (multiple never stopping hits) to the point they're nearly unconscious because they you hit you once. Self-defense isn't upper cutting someone as hard as possible and knocking them out because they spit on you or slap you. Self-defense isn't getting back at someone because they started.

Self-defense is knocking out someone that's coming charing towards you with a weapon and has intention on killing you.


Most Helpful Guy

  • Self-defense is also killing someone because they might kill you/harm you/endanger you

    • Yes, that too. If someone is coming after me with a knife and with my gun (which I do have), I shoot him/her then it's self-defense.

    • Show All
    • @asker and @James0:
      No, that's actually not self-defense. Self-defense doesn't mean killing somebody because they come after you with a knife or a gun. Self-defense, in a nutshell, means "diarming someone or eliminating an imminent threat". This is for example why police officers in most developed countries (America might be an exception here, since it's so much into guns and violence) would be charged with manslaughter if they shot an attacker. The job of trained police officers is not to shoot people but to eliminate the threat. This means it's enough to shoot them in the kneecap, or in their thigh etc. Only a situation where multiple harmless shots do not eliminate the threat justifies you to shoot them in the chest or in the head. This is another reason why freely available guns like in America are a big problem. Amateurs who have never received a formal training are capable of reacting appropriately in a dangerous situation and kill people for unnecessary reasons.

    • Sorry, I meant *are not capable

Have an opinion?

What Guys Said 3

  • I've noticed a lot of people claim self defense when they were the aggressor

  • If you come to a bulky biker spit in his face and say his mother was a whore and he proceeds to punch your teeth out and gives you a concussion he sure did not "retaliate" with an appropriate force but nobody is going to argue that you were the retarded one.

    • Yes, that would be stupid. However, that's not to say that biker is exempted from assault charges and paying for medical bill for the damages since it wasn't self-defense and it was excessive force.

  • Self defense is any action I see fit to eliminate a threat to my wellbeing. Fear is not even a factor. If someone violently acts upon you (with the exception of law enforcement) and you fight back, it is still self defense. The aggressor does not get to decide how I respond to their violent behavior.

    • No, the aggressor doesn't get to decide that but law and morality do. The problem in the US is that many people are so much in this gun-and-violence culture (also because of the media etc.) that they have sort of forgotten what is appropriate (and real) self-defense and what isn't. For example in most countries here in Europe there is actually a law that clearly states that self-defense is only accepted as a reason in a court trial if I repel an aggressor with a weapon that is equal or inferior to his weapon. For example if somebody attacks me with a knife, I am allowed to repel him with my fists, or by throwing a stone at him or by fighting back with a knife - but I am NOT allowed to shoot him with a handgun. If I do that, I will also be punished. If I accidentally kill him, I will be charged with accidental manslaughter. Of course I will get some shortening of my legal punishment because of the extraordinariness of the situation but it would still be considered a serious crime.

    • Show All
    • and you all of the sudden get exempted from the way you reacted and all of the sudden aren't held responsible too?

    • I am aware of the levels of retaliation laws, but much of those can be stretched and are decided by the descretion of the individual officer. The laws you talk about apply in some states in America as well but as I said they can be bent easily. As for the asker, rights have nothing to do with it. I have the right to do anything I can get away with limited by only my own morals. It doesn't give me the right to knock them out, but it will probably happen anyway, especially if I can get away without legal reprocussions (which if I am in a group I probably will. What is lawfully correct and what is the correct course of action do not always coincide.

What Girls Said 0

Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 1 more Xper point!