Critiquing, anyone?

When I think about being inexplicably attacked, the rubric I believe I would use is as follows:

Beat: the attacker would stop after giving a beating (maybe for emotional or intimidation reasons)
Maim: the attacker wants to cause serious harm short of killing
Kill: the attacker has murderous intentions for me (for whatever reason)
Dangerous: the attacker is skilled, strong, or fierce or a mixture of the three that poses a serious risk

Alright, say I was attacked by a non-dangerous person with intent to beat. I would respond with intent to beat back. Whereas if the person had intent to maim/kill, I would respond likewise.

If a person whom I gauged to be dangerous attacked, I would probably step up a notch (one level of force higher, like the police do). I.E. they want to beat me, I maim them, they want to maim me, I kill them.

If there were multiple non-dangerous attackers, I would react the same as against a skilled attacker.

Is there anyone willing to constructively criticize this criteria? I'm also quite interested in the legal aspect. At what point is action illegal?

Disclaimer: Please don't insult my intelligence. I know that running is the best option, in fact I've stated before that track is the best art for self-defence. Also, I don't need to be told that it all depends on the situation. Of course it does. I'm just looking for some help with my ideas.

Foolsgold,
I don't really have a problem with your responses. Which ever response you choose, the correct answer to the police would be " I was afraid for my life, I tried to get away but I couldn't"
Be sure that you use only reasonable force to stop any attack. Do not allow yourself to be "called out" or agree to a fight.

oldman

Thanks oldman. That means a lot, coming from you.

Any other responses are welcome.

Too bad, I was hoping for some constructive feedback.

Bruce Lee once said, "If a man bruises your skin you break his bones, if he breaks your bones you take his life." Sounds reasonable to me.

Even though I have spent many years practicing striking based arts, I prefer to avoid using them except in the most dire circumstances, usually if weapons or multiple opponents are involved.
I think we both agree that running is the most legally defensible response, but the attacker will just look for another victim, so I would consider that a hollow victory. To match the attacker's intention and use force against force I believe lowers the defender's moral character and can be perceived as aggression by witnesses that did not see the beginning of the attack, especially if the defender is winning. One of my ambitions in life is to avoid prison so I would not consider force an ideal first response.
What I do against an unarmed attacker is to deal with his weapons. If they throw a punch or kick I will parry it and move to their back. I find that parries lead to joint locks which can be used to subdue an aggressor. I may have to use harder blocks on their attacking limbs to slow down an attacker enough to find the right lock that I can use to bring them to the ground, always being aware if there are any third persons trying to get involved. I feel that if you put someone on the ground often enough , they will lose their spirit to fight.
This is what I have done in the few encounters I have been involved in but I would not say that I was involved with seriously dangerous people ( except maybe in their own minds). I dread the day that I must decide that to save my life I must take another's, so I keep on practicing to be able to avoid that moment if possible or be ready for it when it does happen.

Train hard and be well.
Regards,
Al

Good point about putting people on the ground, that would be demoralizing. Thanks for the comments.

Hi all

I agree with Lo C'hi.....striking is not always viable....especially when you consider the legal ramifications now involved in street fighting....
Once upon a time, you may have been able to "get away" with assault because it was a "fair fight"......you may even have ended up back at the bar having a beer with the assailant.....I think those times have changed.
More and more people are aware of the concept of suing on another and pressing charges....claims and counter claims.....
In Australia there have been recent deaths at night clubs.....in ALL of the cases....some type of strike did the damage........these people are up on manslaughter charges.....there is no getting away theses days...we are in the age of closed circut security cameras.....

My first reaction these days is to restrain...not to strike.....I try to control the attacker......if in a multiple attacker situation I would try to evade and repeatedly shoot/dump opponents to the ground while remain standing (if the situation allows).....I would be constantly looking for a way out....
but if the situation wasn't going my way...... at the end of the day (as the saying goes) it is better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by six.....

The Wolf

foolsgold I generally agree with Your criteria ( yeah, not very constructive opinion I know, but what can I say?)
secondly I may give You one example as to legal side of actions, it is teaching given to my friend who was in security school ( dunno how it works in with law of different countrys) If anybody (esp. the police) asks You why You did what You did, all You need to do is say that You felt endangered and reacted accordingly to level of danger
HOWEVER
policemen will not propably understand that attacker was skillful and wanted to maim ( at least ) You, they will only see dead body and blood on Your hands
all in all I generally agree with You but be careful with law

Thanks for the pointers Wolf and gabriel.knight. I appreciate the replies.