Re: how do we define martial?
I am not even remotely interested in 'improving an attacker's well-being.' I would prefer to not permanently damage him too much in the process of bringing the situation under my control, but if there's a choice between my health and his, it was made when he chose to attack me.
To take a similar situation, a patient who is out of their own control in the ER: in that case, I feel responsible for the patient's well-being and the goal is to improve their physical and mental health, ideally to the point that they're not a danger to themselves or others. Still, though, there's a situation where we can put two people on each limb and another one or two for the torso, so there's not a lot of danger for staff involved baring a really unusual situation. Most of these folks don't strike out so much as they just try to escape.
I suppose the overlap would be an attacker who was clearly mentally deranged (ie, hallucinating); I'd feel worse about hurting them than I would feel about hurting random Joe Schmuck trying to take out his frustration for his miserable life in my blood, the same way he would vandalize a public bathroom or uproot a sapling tree in a park. Still, though, his well-being would come second to mine. I don't have some deep-seated sense that putting other lives before one's own life is intrinsically a morally superior position.