The Consequences of Fighting

Agree
Especially with your signature, no indecision in that line.
Clemenza did not concern himself with such things.
G

Actually, when it comes to sorting things out in court it matters little that one believes they were acting reasonably since the salient point is convincing the judge/jury that one was acting reasonably.

Robert, you are correct. The final decision on reasonable conduct will certainly be made by a jury, if it gets that far. Reasonable force is somewhat like Goldilocks' three bowls of porridge - too little and you end up in the back of an ambulance. Too much and you ride in the backseat of a patrol car. Discounting all the silly scenarios we can construct, a good bottom line is to stop taking action when the fight is over or the aggressor is unable or unwilling to continue. That extra kick or punch will certainly cost you.

Michael Hackett wrote: Robert, you are correct. The final decision on reasonable conduct will certainly be made by a jury, if it gets that far. Reasonable force is somewhat like Goldilocks' three bowls of porridge - too little and you end up in the back of an ambulance. Too much and you ride in the backseat of a patrol car. Discounting all the silly scenarios we can construct, a good bottom line is to stop taking action when the fight is over or the aggressor is unable or unwilling to continue. That extra kick or punch will certainly cost you.

My response to the "jury factor" is that it is better to be tried by a jury of twelve than be carried out in a wooden box by six. Our obligation begins and ends with doing with whatever is necessary to insure that you come home alive if you are subject to an unprovoked attack. Defending one's self has nothing to do with testing our skills, machismo, releasing our fear, anger, etc.... If a person believes that they have the luxury of engaging in that level of decision making, then they are not likely to do well in a real encounter. I agree strongly with what Michael said. You do what is necessary to be safe. No more, no less. Recognize that the greater your practiced abilities are, the better nuanced your choices can become. The greater the lethality of your tools at your disposal, the more likely that your responses will be have more severe consequences to them.

Entering into a fight is to put your life at risk.

Marc Abrams

Marc Abrams wrote: My response to the "jury factor" is that it is better to be tried by a jury of twelve than be carried out in a wooden box by six. Our obligation begins and ends with doing with whatever is necessary to insure that you come home alive if you are subject to an unprovoked attack. Defending one's self has nothing to do with testing our skills, machismo, releasing our fear, anger, etc.... If a person believes that they have the luxury of engaging in that level of decision making, then they are not likely to do well in a real encounter. I agree strongly with what Michael said. You do what is necessary to be safe. No more, no less. Recognize that the greater your practiced abilities are, the better nuanced your choices can become. The greater the lethality of your tools at your disposal, the more likely that your responses will be have more severe consequences to them. Marc Abrams

I would argue that avoiding negative legal consequences is almost as important as protecting your physical well being. Taking one butt-kicking from one guy on one day beats fighting off prison gangs on a daily basis for years on end. Stricly looking at combat from a black and white perspective leaves out the many shades of gray. And most prisons are painted with shades of gray if you know what I mean.