Poll: When do you think you are justified in striking someone?

[The White Hunter]

To defend myself or another in need of defense. No first strike is necessary since here in the UK you can get away with a firm uppercut to dissolve a potentially dangerous situation.

Don't let the mugger pull his knife out, punch his face in beforehand. Saves time and medical expense.

 

[PatrickXD]

I have not been in many fights, mostly when I was a little younger, say 14 and under. Generally I would fight because someone would persistently bully me. That was a bad thing, and I used to be a bit less easygoing than I am these days. So as it stands, I still think if someone were pushing a bit too far in being just plain mean to me I'd probably start fighting them. That said, I can't be sure anymore and it might take me getting hit for me to get physical with the other guy.
Wink.

 

[Elvaril]

Provocation. It would have to be fairly serious though for me to do anything.

One of my favourite quotes from Robert E. Howard sums up my feelings on this perfectly.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

 

[Alcamonic]

Some people badly need a striking to fall in line and not be complete dicks in todays society.

Sadly, this is apparently "Not how we do things in a civilized society" well, fuck you. Moon/Mars base is coming in a decade, I'm patiently waiting.

As an answer to your question: When people are being stupid and needs to be corrected. Sadly vocal speech falls flat on their thick inbred ears, but fortunately every "evolved" (I use the term loosely in their case) organism can feel pain.

 

[SecondPrize]

Pro tip to many in this thread. Preemptive strikes are not self defense.

 

[Xanadu84]

When doing so will eliminate an amount of violence that is greater than the punch itself, once all is said and done and all individuals react to your action.

If you are elevating the level of violence with a strike, you are doing so because the sum of the violence you are permitting by not striking will exceed your strike: If a strike will eliminate harmful behavior that is less than a strike, but will continue for so long that the pain cause exceeds that of the strike, then it is justified. And of course, if you are in danger, it is justified because a world without retaliation in certain circumstances is a world that will incentivize violence.

Basically, to figure out if a strike is justified, you have to push out all thoughts of revenge, justice, temper, fairness, and heroism out of your brain. Take your action, consider the possible real life consequences of your action, and balance the good and the bad outcomes. Also, because of the severity of the action and its consequences, you must be realistic. Hitting is not the same as winning. If the person is fighting you in the first place, there is a very good chance that you hitting them will end in them breaking you. A fight may escalate things, and make the attacker feel obligated to do even more harm in retaliation. A potential fight may be diffused without violence, which is superior to violence. And in this situation, there are thousands of variables that you cannot perfectly predict. At the end of the day, whether hitting is right or wrong comes down to your capacity to make a choice based on what does the most good for the most people. Hotheadedness, a sense of honor, desire for heroics are all poor, potentially counterproductive substitutions for rational decision making.

Lastly, 3 bits of advice about fights that I learned from my dad. 1, Never start a fight, always be the one to end it. 2, fist and feet may be good, but elbows and knees are better. 3, the only fight that you should ever be in are ones where its completely fair to go for the balls. If a knee to the balls is not justified, then you shouldn't be in the fight in the first place. If it is justified, it will be effective.

 

[Xanadu84]

Pro tip to many in this thread. Preemptive strikes are not self defense.

May need to define, "Pre-emptive strike" Punching someone raising their voice is not justified. Punching someone who is pulling out a knife so they can stab you IS justified. One could argue that both are pre-emptive strikes.

 

[SecondPrize]

Pro tip to many in this thread. Preemptive strikes are not self defense.

May need to define, "Pre-emptive strike" Punching someone raising their voice is not justified. Punching someone who is pulling out a knife so they can stab you IS justified. One could argue that both are pre-emptive strikes.

Pulling a knife is an act of physical aggression. Shouting isn't.

 

[Aramis Night]

This is something i have wrestled with all my life. When i was a kid i had a very short temper. I was also usually the smallest boy in my class. The fact that i looked like a stereotypical nerd(thick plastic frame glasses, short blonde little boy hair cut, poor clothes)didn't help. I was the perfect bully bait. I quickly gained experience in taking punches. My dad was one of those "never start the fight, but be the one to finish it" types of dad's. If i ever struck first my dad would beat me up when i got home. Also i wasn't allowed to kick or bite if i didn't want to get beaten. as long as i followed those rules he didn't care what happened.

In the 3rd grade my parents had me put on medication. Unfortunately it was a form of meth(ritalin) that they put me on for depression(suicidal) and hyperactivity(being a boy). It was an experiment they let some doctor do to me with different doses and monthly blood tests they kept me institutionalized for a few months. Then put me back in public school. I went from having a short fuse, to no fuse. I was savagely beating up kids for doing the most minor of things that even hinted at annoying me or disrespect. I got a rush out of fighting. I became a bully, just not the type that looks for weak innocent prey. I would actively hunt down other larger bullies because i wanted a longer lasting rush. In the 3rd grade i was taking on 5th graders because i wanted bigger fights(i got along well with the 6th graders). In retrospect though the bigger kids were not as satisfying as fighting kids closer to my own size. It seems bigger kids don't need to really get into fights as much since there size is intimidating enough to discourage challengers which leaves them with less experience on average.

Towards the end of 6th grade i told my parents i didn't want to be on the pills anymore. The next summer i woke up one morning and suddenly felt horrible about what i had done. It was like i had spontaneously developed a conscience. I suddenly felt regret about what i had done and what i let myself become. I decided to become a pacifist. Not because i believed in non-violence. I did it to assert some level of self-mastery and discipline.

Of course attempting it during middle school wasn't easy. I quickly became a target for other kids to vent their hate on when i wouldn't fight back. It was a new school so almost no one knew what i was like before or what i was capable of. I liked that. I learned a lot about human nature when even the kids who normally weren't bullies would attack or disrespect me. But i stuck with it. I took some punches, but never allowed myself to hit back. It wasn't at all easy. There were a couple points that i was so frustrated with it that i cried. But self-mastery isn't supposed to be easy.

After i was thrown out onto the streets at 17, i had to abandon non-violence to a degree for practical reasons. I found myself in the company of other homeless kids and violence often found us. I felt responsible for them. So i made myself a promise that i wouldn't use violence for my own benefit. Only to protect them. But before long i was using it less for protection and more for retaliation. I was constantly carrying around illegal weapons on me and eventually i was busted for one. I spent a little bit of time locked up. When i was released i was lucky enough to get a job and off the streets. I was 19 by that time. I got my own place and allowed my homeless friends to stay over. Even managed to get a couple of them jobs where i worked.

I also found a hobby that helped me alot. It taught me control as well as gave me a rush. I took up practice sword fighting. I had made some friends who were into swordfighting and convinced me to try it. I loved it. Regrettably our friendships went south, but i'm at the the point in my life where i have little reason to want to fight anymore.

I would advocate a position of self-defense only under direct attack and to defend those you care about from direct attack. Anything else runs the risk of getting to messy.

 

[Xanadu84]

Pro tip to many in this thread. Preemptive strikes are not self defense.

May need to define, "Pre-emptive strike" Punching someone raising their voice is not justified. Punching someone who is pulling out a knife so they can stab you IS justified. One could argue that both are pre-emptive strikes.

Pulling a knife is an act of physical aggression. Shouting isn't.

And both could be considered a pre-emptive strike. I ABSOLUTELY understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it. But the semantics here are important, and need to be clarified. It's completely possible that a person may be taking out a knife for intimidation purposes only, and hitting someone doing so could be called a pre-emptive strike. Someone yelling could be 100% dedicated to hitting you, and so hitting them could be argued to be less a pre-emptive strike, and more an example of being faster than your opponent. I would argue that even then, hitting a person with a knife is defense, and hitting the person yelling is preemptive, but I think that the point could be reasonably argued. And without that reasonable argument being made, someone might make the wrong choice in the heat of the moment. In order for your point to be practical, I think more effort needs to be put into exactly what preemptive means

 

[SecondPrize]

Pro tip to many in this thread. Preemptive strikes are not self defense.

May need to define, "Pre-emptive strike" Punching someone raising their voice is not justified. Punching someone who is pulling out a knife so they can stab you IS justified. One could argue that both are pre-emptive strikes.

Pulling a knife is an act of physical aggression. Shouting isn't.

And both could be considered a pre-emptive strike. I ABSOLUTELY understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it. But the semantics here are important, and need to be clarified. It's completely possible that a person may be taking out a knife for intimidation purposes only, and hitting someone doing so could be called a pre-emptive strike. Someone yelling could be 100% dedicated to hitting you, and so hitting them could be argued to be less a pre-emptive strike, and more an example of being faster than your opponent. I would argue that even then, hitting a person with a knife is defense, and hitting the person yelling is preemptive, but I think that the point could be reasonably argued. And without that reasonable argument being made, someone might make the wrong choice in the heat of the moment. In order for your point to be practical, I think more effort needs to be put into exactly what preemptive means

Dude, if you hit some one first in either case it is preemptive. Don't get hung up on preemptive. The question is whether a preemptive strike in both cases is self-defense. I'd say yes for the knife, no for yelling.

 

[ChocoROID]

I voted other, although you could call it self defence, I would feel justified if I was under threat of being struck myself.

If big hank is going to hit me, I want to get him first!
If he isn't going to hit me, there's no need for the violence.

 

[Xanadu84]

Pro tip to many in this thread. Preemptive strikes are not self defense.

Dude, if you hit some one first in either case it is preemptive. Don't get hung up on preemptive. The question is whether a preemptive strike in both cases is self-defense. I'd say yes for the knife, no for yelling.

Pre-emptive strikes are not self-defense. Hitting someone who is pulling a knife on you is preemptive. But it is still self defense. A Pre-emptive strike can be fine if its self defense, but pre-emptive strikes are not self defense.

See what my issue here is? You need to have a better definition of what Preemptive MEANS if you want your point to make sense.

 

[babinro]

Never.

I can't foresee a realistic situation in which I'd ever strike someone.
I'm strictly opposed to violence.

I doubt I could even hit someone in self defense.
I'd be far more likely to flee or take a defensive position and get beaten down/killed.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

what about someone who is verbally bullied? We always tell people to stand up for themselves, isnt giving a bully a black eye a good way to cut him down to size?

A verbally abusive bully is still a non-violent one, getting physical will just needlessly escalate the situation. Don't give them the responses they're looking for and only use reasonable force to de-escalate a problem. As someone who works in retail security I would have lost my license long ago if I got physical with every douchy skater guy who tried to rile me up, the key is understanding body language and how people try to exert dominance. Convey through the same means that you have nothing but contempt for their antics and they back down pretty quick.

 

[Headsprouter]

Only when the person is not a friend to me and knows what they're doing, and doing it deliberately to provoke, on seperate occasions. I need to mentally prepare unless they've physically attacked me first, then I don't need to think about it. I'm in trouble, time to run or fight. I'm not aggressive at all, really. Who says video games make you violent?
Yeah..I'm slow, though. It usually takes a while before I realise I'm offended. One guy cast doubt over a bowel issue I have, which I take medication for, daily. It wasn't till later that by insisting "I don't get enough fibre" that he was saying I was full of crap, and placed doubt on several trained doctors. I eat more fruit and veg than most people (literally large dinner plates twice every week, including the odd fruit or veg snack between meals or alongside a different meal, I'm a fan of celery, in particular, and grapes) and yet if I stop taking this stuff, I get badly constipated. I was stupid a couple months ago and stopped for a good while. I ended up off School for a week, having to take absurd doses (6-8 sachets) of this stuff in order to recover.

That was quite a tangent. Pent-up feelings, you see. Not like I would have hit the guy for that, if I had said the Doctor-thing in the moment he probably would have got off his high horse.

 

[SecondPrize]

Pro tip to many in this thread. Preemptive strikes are not self defense.

Dude, if you hit some one first in either case it is preemptive. Don't get hung up on preemptive. The question is whether a preemptive strike in both cases is self-defense. I'd say yes for the knife, no for yelling.

Pre-emptive strikes are not self-defense. Hitting someone who is pulling a knife on you is preemptive. But it is still self defense. A Pre-emptive strike can be fine if its self defense, but pre-emptive strikes are not self defense.

See what my issue here is? You need to have a better definition of what Preemptive MEANS if you want your point to make sense.

Fine, pulling the knife was the first aggressive action so hitting that person before he can stab you is not a preemptive strike.
edit to add edit where I edited
That didn't even make sense when I wrote it. Yes, there are situations where a preemptive strike can be made in self defense. However, the situations listed earlier in the thread with people saying that if someone were up in their face they would hit them preemptively in self defense are not those situations. I should amend my first post to Preemptive strikes are not always in self defense.

 

[The Lugz]

to specifically damage them? self defense or prevention of harm

to illustrate a point? I clip people on the back of the head for sheer incompetence
i've yet to see someone that objects to this beyond 'hey' so, whatever.

anything else is a grey area in my opinion