Do I need to Google the exact meaning of self defense? And what are the boundaries and rules?

[Rosexøxø]

is it self defense if it causes harm to the other individual?

Well without a book on it or describing it. What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Self defense is using minimal force as possible to make a safe escape. But sometimes it could escalate into actually ending someone’s life if the person doesn’t give up no matter what. Your best bet is to use as little force as possible unless it warrants more force. If someone is coming at you w a knife then it may be necessary for someone to shoot that person. Now if someone broke into your house, then you branded a gun to which the person turned around to runaway, then you shot him in the back. Than that’s probably going to be looked at as murder. If you were to kick a man between the legs to which he went down, than that’s it, you get out of there. Now if you continued to kick him while he was down in pain, it may not count as self defense past the initial kicking to the groin. Famous case w something similar may be Jodi Arias. She stabbed her boyfriend like 30 times or something, slit his throat then shot him in the head. She claimed that was self defense. But your best bet is to ask local law. Rules vary by country, by state, maybe even by counties. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not telling you what to do or what not to do. These are just rules that I go by if something ever happens. But yes research is your best bet. No one here can tell you the exact laws.

[Rosexøxø]

I APPRECIATE THIS, and that’s an understatement.

Well constructed, thanks!

[RebelinSteel]

The law will change depending on country, for the UK it comes down to reasonable force. For example if someone attacked me and in the struggle I stabbed him with his own knife, there is a fair chance I would not get charged, sentenced. If however I punched him, he fell down, then I walked over got his knife and stabbed him, then I would very likely get charged, sentenced.

[Rosexøxø]

But this would need witnesses to determine, no?

And if there were witnesses why wouldn’t they help? And if not, how would the case be justified?

[RebelinSteel]

A witness can step in and if justified can use lethal force, all crimes are investigated.

www.cps.gov.uk/.../self-defence-and-prevention-crime

Further to that on the military side of thing.
If you see a person throwing a petrol bomb into a building that is not occupied for example an news agent on camp at 2am, then they cannot shoot the person, however if the building was occupied such as a on base house or other living accommodation then they can shoot.

For civilians, the Crown Prosecution Service provides the guidance in the link above.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I always saw it as any act which is intended to protect you or someone you care about from someone else who intends to initiate harm or has initiated harm.

So if we use the Kantian axe murderer type of scenario where the axe murderer asks you the whereabouts of the victim he's about to kill, lying to him as I see it is self-defense since it's done to protect someone else from the axe murderer who intends to initiate harm on them.

Self-defense can cause harm to the initiator as I see it but justified, provided it's not blatantly excessive, as long as it's done to prevent that individual from doing harm to someone else.

[Rosexøxø]

Right, and this makes sense but I began to question the violence as a response and defense maneuver because there’s ways to avoid/ de-escalate/ and potentially disarm/disable some aggressors/attackers, so I was wondering if people don’t do that first and they seriously injure the attacker or unintentionally or maybe even irrationally/reactively/but intentionally shoot/kill the attacker. Was that self defense gone wrong or murder? I think it’s murder, but even if it doesn’t go that terribly wrong, are the “victims” innocent?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

That's one of the toughest ones and often a tricky judgment call that might vary from individual to individual as far as the risk assessment, and therefore I think we often need to be quite lenient on the one applying self-defense provided the aggressor still initiated the violence.

For example, I think Judo (柔道: meaning "the gentle way") is among the most noble and ethical of the defensive martial arts since it's based entirely on submission of the opponent while delivering minimal harm to them, even if they are much bigger and stronger. Yet it might be one of the riskier defensive grappling martial arts to use in a real-world fight for that reason, especially if the opponent is armed, over martial arts that don't have a moral philosophy associated to minimize harm to the opponent in the process of incapacitating them. On top of that, very few people are Judo experts.

Same kind of idea with favoring pepper spray or tasers over firearms. It's a gentler and more ethical way but likely riskier than favoring something with much more stopping power.

Ideally all who apply self-defense are extremely skilled diplomats, extremely strong physically, black belts in Judo, armed with non-lethal weapons, can sprint away as fast as Usain Bolt, and courageous and risk-taking enough to favor the least amount of force necessary to protect themselves or others. Yet many people are going to fall far short of such ideals, and I can't blame them for using what might seem like excessive force in some cases in response to a clear threat from an initiator and aggressor.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Something that I also had trouble ethically when I was a boy is that teachers in kindergarten and primary school often told us, "If someone tries to pick a fight with you, run away and tell the teacher." That struck me as so wrong that I got in trouble at school and with my parents arguing with the teachers saying that's so wrong and anyone who does this is a coward. I don't know where I got that; my parents didn't teach me this and I don't think any of my peers (as they agreed with the teachers) taught me this. It might have just been the result of being only half-Japanese and considered an outsider of sorts; I had a tendency to argue with my teachers in general about many things and didn't conform as well.

I used to think, in retrospect, that it was just pure male pride motivating me to think that way. Yet nowadays I think there might be something more to it. We are creatures of habit; if we get in the habit of running away any time we're threatened with force, that might be wise the majority of the time. Yet if there's a time when it's incredibly unwise like it's not ourselves that's under threat, but our friends, our children, or other loved ones, that habit to run away might tempt us to flee and abandon our loved ones. So that's why I think, for those of us who want to be protectors in these scenarios and not cowards, we must resist developing cowardly habits. We have to practice self-defense in these scenarios, not inviting needless trouble and still seeking to deescalate, but still stand our ground and fight if necessary.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

This habitual nature of ethics is something I think very often frequently overlooked by the most extreme rationalists as it's based on acknowledging the illogical and habit-forming nature of human beings.

Take the virtue of honesty, for example. Is it truly a virtue to always strive to be honest? Imagine the most intelligent and logical being who never forms any bad habits. There might be many ethical and benevolent reasons to lie in those cases to protect people from harm (including harm to their feelings). So it might be the case if such a being existed that they wouldn't be honest all the time, and frequently juggle truths and deceptions depending on the most complex of variables involved in a situation.

Yet the problem is that lying tends to be habitual. Even a person who frequently lies with noble and benevolent intent and even ethical consequences could still develop the habit of distorting the truth to the point where they begin to do it compulsively and habitually in cases that have malicious effects while plummeting the value of their words.

So this is a large part of why I think striving to 100% honest all the time is the ideal, not because it's the ideal for the most logical of creatures, but because it's the ideal for the illogical and habit-forming nature of human beings. It resists developing poor habits which can be extremely counter-productive.

[DJB72]

Protect your life. Simple as that.

I'm not a pacifist. I'll end any fight someone else starts. I'll use as much force as it takes. It's up to my assailant whether they survive. It doesn't matter what your job is. Do whatever it takes to not die.

[OfMiceandMen]

I would think self defense means you only harm the person to the extent that you stop them from harming you. If you take it further than what's necessary, then you change from self defense to being on the offense.

[Jerre]

It all depends on what you are defending yourself from. If he is trying to harm or rape you, you can use whatever means are necessary, including killing him if necessary.

[Rosexøxø]

But isn’t that legally murder? What about other non-rape situations/ scenarios? (Though I appreciate it

[Jerre]

If he is attempting to rape you, YOU can go to any extreme to stop him, killing him if necessary and would not be considered murder. If he is physically assaulting you, depending on the severity of the assault, you have to defend yourself. Sometimes that means killing the assaulter.

[Jerre]

@Rosexøxø Thank you for the Like

[andreasderjuengere]

Nowadays: to 'google' something will only get you to sites that want to sell you something.
And for the next days your inbox is cluttered with advertising.
"Self defense" is common sense. Why would one even want an outsider's definition for it.

[Danny_dan92]

Self defense: verb




The defense of one self.




Example: you are attacked or assaulted and you stop the perpetrator by any means necessary. Using lethal force if they are assaulting you with a deadly weapon and or are obviously attempting to kill you.

[shortster]

If you are in fear for your life or the life of a loved one it is considered self defense in most US jurisdictions. Legally it is called justifiable homicide.

[Cody2004]

To protect yourself against Great bodily harm or even death that is self-defense Jesus person keeps reposting the same shit