Is it okay to rupture someone’s liver or spleen? If you’re properly socialized then the answer is likely “no”. The average person usually doesn’t talk about self-defense and will even hesitate to use force due to social norms. According to my head instructor, 7/10 self-defense attendees have had violence done to them or someone they know and then sought out said training.
How about times when you need to use self-defense in order to save your life or someone else’s?
I’d like you to consider the following 3 scenarios ending with the same courtroom reply: “I knocked him down and I gouged his/her eyeball, Your Honour“. In which of these scenarios is violence justifiable?
Scenario 1: A man knocked over my drink at the bar, insulted me and so “I knocked him down and I gouged his eyeball, Your Honour“.
Violence justifiable? No.
Scenario 2: A woman took my parking spot, got out of the car to ‘flip me the bird’ and so “I knocked her down and I gouged her eyeball, Your Honour“.
Violence justifiable? No.
Scenario 3: An active shooter entered my office building, shot 4 co-workers, paused to re-load and so “I knocked him down and I gouged his eyeball, Your Honour“.
Violence justifiable? From the people I’ve spoken to, they said violence in the form of self-defense was entirely justifiable in this case.
Lethal Self-Defense As A Survival Tool
When we look at violence through a social lens then yes, it is absolutely horrible. But, let’s look at violence objectively. Like a hammer, you can use it to build a house or bash someone in the head.
Visualize the following: a dark alley, one person takes out a knife to stab another person. Who do see yourself as?
Wait for it….
Most of the people I’ve spoken to, see themself as the person about to get stabbed. Why can’t you be the one using the knife?!
This is a fallacy that has burrowed into our heads: that only bad people do violence and if you do it too, you are equally bad.
There is a difference between ATTACKER vs. DEFENDER and ATTACKER vs. FIGHTER. The best way to survive a violent situation is to be the one doing it. Choose to be the fighter when your life depends on it.
When else does self-defense make sense? A burglary, car-jacking, armed robbery, home invasion, sexual assault or rape. These are just a few instances that come to mind.
You must do everything in your power to avoid violence. It is a last resort. When it is imminent and un-avoidable, you must do everything to survive.
Violence Is About Destruction
Please note that I’m not talking about sports violence where there are a set of UFC-styled rules, a ring, a code of sportsmanship, a ref and where the goal is COMPETITION. If you tap out from an arm-bar, you get to go home.
Real-life violence doesn’t look like choreographed art. It doesn’t look like a martial arts movie. Real-life self-defense isn’t about give-and-take, it’s not a 15-minute brawl.
It’s often one-sided, quick, sometimes bloodless. Just watch prison or street footage and not The Matrix movies.
The goal of real-life violence is to cause debilitating injury. Not just black and blue bruises. If x-rayed, organs, bones, joints and/or nerves have been ruptured, broken or destroyed.
The (phoney) tough guys with puffy chests I come across, are usually the most squeamish when talking about maiming, crippling or even the death of an adversary.
“But if we just give them what they want, they’ll leave us alone!”
Documented case: a young urban professional was approached by 2 thugs at night in USA. He gave them his watch, wallet and phone and they left.
This is where society breathes a collective sigh of relief because the professional did everything society expected him to do.
However, the 2 thieves came back and stabbed the man to death. He was overheard by witnesses saying “But I gave you everything!” in a pool of his own blood.
We try to give his case meaning because we’re still looking at it through our default social lenses.
A criminal sociopath doesn’t have proper socialization. He doesn’t have your morals, your sense of right or wrong.
Violence is ASOCIAL– it has nothing to do with communication. Swear words, posturing, do not count (however, they may be indicators of oncoming violence).
When violence begins, all communication has gone out the window and you have 5 critical seconds to react, as above, when the 2 criminals returned.
Don’t Use Violence to Resolve Social Conflict
On the other hand, using violence to resolve social conflict is akin to using dynamite to open your car door.
A simple solution is to be nice to each other. It’s not worth killing a man because he said you looked fat in skinny jeans (not to mention the legal repercussions).
If you put your hands on a person, he or she may have medical conditions that you don’t know about. A big, muscular guy may have a heart murmur like someone I personally know. If you knock a guy to the ground, he may die impacting his head from a birth defect.
Be prepared to go all the way if you place your hands on someone and for good reason.
Instances where you feel the need to act superior or teach the other person a lesson can all be avoided.
The next time someone insults you or your girlfriend, spills your drink at the bar, cuts you off in traffic or you have an argument with a co-worker or a cheating spouse, remember you have the option of walking away.
Choose to walk away.
“Violence is rarely the answer…but when it is, it’s the only answer.” – 5 seconds, above scenarios, case from Tim Larkin
In the next infographic/article, I’ll give you a detailed roadmap on how to destroy any attacker regardless of size, speed or strength.
And here Target Strike List (Back).
Enjoy this post? Share it with your friends.
Update: Some of you have asked about liability issues. From those who I have learned from :
“Overview of Violence and the Law
Intentional Use of Violence All criminal violence, and uses of violence in self-defense, are inherently intentional. In criminal violence, the person using force to injure another is doing so intentionally in a context in which the law prohibits such actions and in the absence of necessity. In cases of legal self defense, the person using force to injure another is doing so intentionally in a context in which the failure to do so would result in bodily injury or death to themselves. The term “intent,” as used during TFT seminars, is the same as “intent” used under any legal definition. In fact, to establish a claim of legal self-defense, a person must first agree that they have intentionally injured someone. This is due to the fact that any use of violence is first considered criminal and then later determined to be justified. A person pursuing a claim of selfdefense must consciously admit, “Yes, I did injure this person, but had I not done so, I would have been the one being injured or killed.”
Fear of Serious Bodily Injury or Death or a Fight
The police, prosecution, judge and jury will not be deciding whether you intended to use violence, but rather, whether your intentional use of violence was appropriate in the context in which it was used. This context must be devoid of choice. One must “honestly and reasonably be in fear of imminent bodily injury.” If deadly force is employed, that threat must rise to the level of “serious bodily injury and/or death” before any reviewing party will consider the use of force justified. Further, if you agree to engage someone in a “fight,” you will be considered a mutual combatant and your self-defense claim will fail. This is because entering into a “fight” is a choice, not a necessity. If you use force such that the original threat has been quelled and continue to do so after either the threat has diminished or the person attempting to injure you backs down or tries to disengage, you will have exceeded the permissible use of force and continued past self-defense into the realm of criminal violence. This is because the law is designed to relegate uses of violence to times when it is absolutely necessary, and if the threat ends, so should the responding use of force.
Immediately Ask for an Attorney
When involved in a violent encounter, you are under no obligation to tell the police anything and should not attempt to justify your position. Just ask for an attorney. The right against self-incrimination exists from the minute you interact with the authorities and “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Even if you feel you were authorized to respond in the manner you did, anything you say to authorities will be picked apart, investigated, and weighed against anything they can find to counter your statements. Your right to remain silent, and wait for an attorney to speak for you, cannot be used against you.
Knowledge of Injury to the Body
Having an understanding of how the body can be injured by another person can be useful before, during, and after a violent encounter. Before a violent encounter, this understanding of human injury will inform you as to possible threats, or lack thereof, to your physical safety and help you to respond only when reasonably necessary. During a violent encounter, this knowledge of human injury can help you not only achieve the necessary injuries to survive the initiating threat, but also to understand when the threat has diminished such that no more force is necessary or help you decide that more force is necessary to survive. After the encounter, knowledge of human injury can be used to convey (through an attorney) the imminence of the threat in the first place and the reasonableness of the force used in response to that threat.
No Guarantees Under Legal System
While this understanding of human injury can assist you before, during and after a criminally violent encounter, and can greatly increase your ability to successfully pursue a claim self-defense, there are no guarantees under the legal system. Interaction with the legal system is an uphill battle even if you felt you needed to do what was done. For that reason, your best bet is to avoid interactions with the legal system altogether and only use injury when absolutely necessary. If you have time to ask yourself whether or not you should be using violence, chances are great that you should not. Finally, this article does not constitute “legal advice” but is meant as a guide to understand how the law views humans injuring humans. Legal advice is what you will receive from an attorney who represents you after a violent encounter, who has full knowledge of the factual situation and the context in which it occurred.”