When to cross the line into violence

[brokenelbow]

So what goes into the decision to step up a non-physical confrontation to physical?

[Tom Yum]

That's a tough one.

If you have real circumstantial evidence that your life or another's is threatened, then you'll probably have the law on your side if you decide to engage in a physical confrontation.

Did you read the "Kickboxer prevents rape" thread on the kickboxing message board? I'd say that situation justified going physical fast.

I've heard women tell guys not to be the hero, but if they were being assaulted would they rather have the bystander sit by and wait for the act to take place, then file the police report or have the by stander come in fighting like a pissed bull maybe take out a guy or two and buy time for the woman to yell or call for help. Its not about being the hero; its about common decency.

[brokenelbow]

I had one that happened last week and right before the SHTF, I noticed that there were several young kids that were close by. I had to stall the guy longer than I felt was safe for me, but there were the kids. It worked out when some others stepped in and moved him away. I'm just thinking back on this incident thinking about all the things that ruined my game plan. I wonder what Sammy would do?

[tai-gip]

to prevent loss of life or serious injury .. thought you neednt hurt them totaly

[Tom Yum]

If you've got good instinct and judgement, you'll probably know on the spot. You get that something aint right feeling and then you know.

Darrianation said it right, when you notice out of place characters or situations. De-esecalate if you can, but if you're gonna fight, give it your all and don't stop until its done.

[Studiobuddy]

Don't fight and don't even go watch fights.

A good fighter only fights when he needs too... I learned the hard way.
Remember if you fight for the right reasons, you should be more victorious and stable then your attacker with a buttload of adrenaline. A fight without a winner is better than fight with one. Basically try to stick to verbal before physical ( dont attack emotionally, thats not good). Now if your still in school I wouldn't recc. the tattle-tail 2 the teacher or principal. If the persons to attack you with weapon(unless gun), and your in open space, your the only to people in the conflict, then runaway and call the police. Its better than risking the chance to get stabbed. Basically just defend and eliminate the target if he attacks first.
- Thank you, Cheers

[brokenelbow]

Remember if you fight for the right reasons, you should be more victorious and stable then your attacker with a buttload of adrenaline. A fight without a winner is better than fight with one.

Wow, I really need to shoot myself in the head to clear that from my memory .

[Studiobuddy]

i meant than a fight with a winner

[eXcessiveForce]

legally you must follow the force continuem.

You must start in the verbal range and match range for range.

You are only allowed to use the same amount of force as you are faced with in the U.S.

So if they are unarmed you have to be unarmed, unless you are at a severe disadvantage. you are a female at 100lbs and the guy is Mike Tyson, then you can escalate to an equalizer.


retreat
verbal
control
disable
kill

[Studiobuddy]

i would use a weapon if their were 2or more unarmed guys attacking me, the weapon can fight for itself

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by eXcessiveForce

legally you must follow the force continuem.

You must start in the verbal range and match range for range.

You are only allowed to use the same amount of force as you are faced with in the U.S.

So if they are unarmed you have to be unarmed, unless you are at a severe disadvantage. you are a female at 100lbs and the guy is Mike Tyson, then you can escalate to an equalizer.


retreat
verbal
control
disable
kill

I disagree. The "force continuem" is in place to protect police from civil liability. Civilians are not required to know it or use it. (and most don't) The simple fact is the verbal part of the attack might be a distraction so you don't see or suspect the impending physical attack that includes in most cases, a deadly weapon. You are justified to use physical force including deadly force if you reasonably believe you are in immediate danger serious bodily harm or death.

[eXcessiveForce]

what you say is true, however it is much easier to stay on the good side of the law if you follow it.

When you break the chain you can end up being prosecuted if you aren't careful.

For civilians is still follows that you are only allowed to use as much force as is necessary to maintain your safety. So if your attacker is unarmed, it is harder to explain your use of a weapon.

[brokenelbow]

X, what you described is not the Use of Force Continuum and Tant01 is correct in that it is intended for use by Peace Officers and not civilians. A Deputy Sheriff friend of mine when I talked with him about this said that as a civilian I'd be crazy to use UoFC as a guide to how to react in a situation.

The Use of Force Continuum is usually something like:

a. Officer presence, uniform
b. Verbal Commands
c. Soft hand techniques.
d. OC - pepper spray
e. Physical Force and Defensive tactics.
f. Deadly force

Here are some important things that you have to keep in mind, UoFC is not always a ladder type structure and a PO doesn't have to go through each level in turn, situation helps dictate what can be used, UoFC is always a USE OF FORCE. Note the terms Officer presence, uniform, Verbal Commands imply a position of authority.

From CPOA website
Finally, it is important to note that an officer need not attempt to gain control over an individual by use of the lowest level of force on the continuum when reason dictates and the officer can articulate that a higher level of force is reasonable. Likewise the skipping of steps may be appropriate given the resistance encountered.

Simply put, this continuum should be viewed as an elevator, not a ladder-an officer may go directly to any level of the continuum provided that the force selected is reasonable. Note that the category descriptions below are non-exclusive and are intended to serve as illustrations of actions which fall within the various levels.

Also from CPOA

Another organization of UoFC

For security guards

You must start in the verbal range and match range for range.

You are only allowed to use the same amount of force as you are faced with in the U.S.

What are you basing this on? Which laws? "Reasonable force" against an attacker is allowed. What is reasonable force may differ from place to place and from jury to jury if it goes that far, but it can include more force than that initially used against you. If you attack me with a club or a knife and I use a large caliber handgun agaisnt you I may still fall under reasonable force as long as I felt I was in danger. At least here. In some places and under certain circumstances if you verbally threaten me I can use reasonable force if I feel I'm in impending danger. Also once again if I remember how it was explained to me, where people run into trouble is where their actions performed as self defense move into assault and battery. It's not the 25 hits or kicks used to drive the attacker away it's the one after he's not able to defend himself that get's you in trouble. Note:This is just a broad ficticious example from a LEO friend to illustrate a point.

[eXcessiveForce]

I was just trying to simplify the force continuum and keep it relevent to the civilian. Since presence is not a deterant in this case it does not apply, Also the range of weapons is most likely limited as a civilain does not generally carry both lethal and non lethal weapons on a regular basis. Since I am certified to train police officers I am well aware of the steps.

Do not take legal advice from police officers.
Basic law is you can only use as much force as is required to remove the threat. And you are not allowed to use more force than that of the attacker, unless of course you can PROVE you were in fear for your life. Not actually were or were not, but what you can prove.

Remember law is about perception and what you can prove and what cannot be proven.

That is why if you are going to start a fight it is best to start yelling something like, "hey why the hell did you hit me!" because eye witness testimony is terribly unreliable and many people will then claim that the person did in fact hit you and you were defending yourself when it actuality you were the attacker.

[brokenelbow]

It wasn't legal advice but that a civilian doesn't need to follow UoFC and shouldn't try to. Different objectives. What the county cop told me was just a broad ficticious example to illustrate a point. The point being use as many hits as needed to repel the assaulter, but no more and then get out of there.

Basic law is you can only use as much force as is required to remove the threat.

We're close. Reasonable force to repel the assault is a bit more open ended and can relate to the harm threatened not just received.

"[T]he amount of force used [always] must be reasonable in relation to the harm threatened." Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 417, 421, 382 S.E.2d 24, 26 (1989).

"a person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault." Diffendal, 8 Va. App. at 421, 382 S.E.2d at 25 (citations omitted). However, such force "'shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm.'" Id. at 421, 382 S.E.2d at 26 (quoting Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 840, 843, 36 S.E. 371, 372 (1900)).

Setting up the witness' is always a wise thing when justifying why you used the force that you did. I haven't had to start a fight in a long time.