Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,604

    Default THE WINDOW OF JUSTIFICATION

    THE WINDOW OF JUSTIFICATION

    Monday, March 25, 2019




    Your claim of justified self defense...or defense of others, must fit inside the justification window. Your actions must be contemporaneous to the event...to the assault, attack, etc. Contemporaneous means "close to" in terms of timing. So using our framework of decision-making, you can't legally justify shooting a prospective and potential attacker because you thought, one day, he might seek to harm you. Similarly, you can't justify seeking a subsequent contact with a past aggressor and claim retro-active self defense.

    This is a point that is so internalized for many of us who've lead a violent lifestyle that we take it for granted, but it bears repeating since so many questions have been raised recently in this theme. The case was a thread on a sexual assault suspect in a bar. At first sight I would question the judgement of going to a loud and boisterous bar where this sort of thing might happen. Having been in a couple of bar fights in my younger years, I'd rather not get into another one. But in truth, this event could happen anywhere, so we continue with this example.

    In short -

    "According to the complaint, the suspect initially approached the first victim, a waitress at Cheddar's, and asked for a lighter. Upon receiving it, the waitress said the suspect grabbed her breast.

    After the first victim pulled away, the complaint said Rhodes approached another waitress who was working at the bar. Again, he asked for a cigarette. After saying that she did not smoke, the victim stated that she tried to leave the bar area and the man blocked the exit. She asked him to move, but instead he grabbed her by the neck with both hands and started to choke her. The suspect then began to kiss her neck and face repeatedly. During this time, she began crying and begging the suspect to get off her.

    When a co-worker saw the man put his fists up to her, the complaint said another waitress ran over and stepped between the suspect and the victim. The suspect then ran out across the parking lot
    ."

    Some points -

    1). To the "my own defense is the only thing I care about people", I will ask you this simply - if the second waitress was your mother, wife or daughter, and you could whisper something in my ear - being the dude on scene and you not there - would you say, "channel male snowflake...its none of your business...run away"? Or would you say, "Sir, please save my daughter from that POS"? I suspect most men would ask and do the latter.

    2). There are shooting events and non-shooting events. This is a non-shooting event that calls for some physicality. Something all men should have. Perhaps it doesn't need to be said...but this is the age of Homo-Pacificus.

    3). Let's discuss timing - "The suspect grabbed her breast and she pulled away". Are you justified in intervening? In my perspective, the event is over at that point. Granted, if it was a family member of mine, the suspect would be asleep and I would not be overly concerned over the gymnastics of justification. A price would be exacted. Just as if a man touched your wife on the street. A price would be extracted and the price would be painful. But that not being the case...the waitress a stranger, I think the event is over at that point and any contact with the suspect may be seen as punitive.

    4). Let's discuss timing - "...the victim tried to leave the bar area and the man blocked the exit. She asked him to move, but instead he grabbed her by the neck with both hands and started to choke her." Timing. In this case, the event did not conclude, it is happening now. It is easy to articulate the damage a physical assault could create. The window of justification is open the moment he puts his hands on her and continues until he disengages and leaves the bar. Once he disengages and leaves, that incident is over. 5). There are situations where his disengaging will not end your justification of action. Those situations involve deadly force. The reasoning is that he has killed and is likely to go down the street and do so again. Picture the active shooter that drops three people and then starts to leave. You are quite justified in shooting him in the back to prevent him from continuing his string of murders.

    6). The greater the potential for injury or death, the sooner that window opens and the longer it stays open. In the story, the man is using physical force. Add a knife or the presence of a pistol in his hand and that window tends to open much sooner and stay open for much longer.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    McKinney
    Posts
    1,694
    Great write up.
    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    452
    I have heard countless men over the years stating that they would not help a women if they saw her being assaulted by a man.

    Either having gotten into trouble themselves or knew of somebody who had, especially in domestic violence situations. When the women turned around and accused her rescuer of beating up her husband or boyfriend when the police arrive.

    What none of these men understood and something that never gets discussed or explained is that once the man is no longer assaulting the women the attack is over. And that this can happen at any point after you confront the attacker. Even the act of simply arriving on scene can cause him to cease his attack.

    An Example Driving past in his car the driver saw a man kicking a pregnant women in her stomach and head. Clearly the woman`s life and that of her baby was in danger and he had the right to stop his car and confront the attacker to save their lives. Once he reached the man he was able to pull him away from the woman without any resistance and march him over to one side.Bystanders then placed the women in somebody`s car and called for medical assistance.

    It was at this point that the rescuer decided that it was time that somebody taught the man a lesson not to hit a women ever again by giving him the beating of his life.-His words. The exact words I often hear uttered as justification in these cases.

    When the police arrive they only saw a man hitting another man repeatedly assaulting him. The abuser was also well beaten up by this time thus clearly the 'victim' and they have no choice but to arrest the good Samaritan.

    He was found guilty by the court of assault later. I can`t remember if he had to spend time in jail or if he received an suspended sentence.

    Sadly stories like these have caused most men to hesitate before intervening or even deciding that it is better to not get involved at all. Not because it is the wrong thing to do but simply due to a lack of knowledge.

    FOOTNOTE South African law values all life, that of the attacker or victim/defender.

    OSSU
    Elfie
    HALFMAN HALFCAR

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,354
    Quote Originally Posted by wheel View Post
    I have heard countless men over the years stating that they would not help a women if they saw her being assaulted by a man.

    Either having gotten into trouble themselves or knew of somebody who had, especially in domestic violence situations. When the women turned around and accused her rescuer of beating up her husband or boyfriend when the police arrive. Seen it

    What none of these men understood and something that never gets discussed or explained is that once the man is no longer assaulting the women the attack is over. And that this can happen at any point after you confront the attacker. Even the act of simply arriving on scene can cause him to cease his attack. Yep, the window closes quickly so don't hesitate. Take care of it and be about your business

    An Example Driving past in his car the driver saw a man kicking a pregnant women in her stomach and head. Clearly the woman`s life and that of her baby was in danger and he had the right to stop his car and confront the attacker to save their lives. Once he reached the man he was able to pull him away from the woman without any resistance and march him over to one side.Bystanders then placed the women in somebody`s car and called for medical assistance. This exemplifies "shocks the consciousness" and meets the flowcharts requirements for clear understanding
    I've said this before in another threads and often use the phrase "not my circus, not my monkeys". One of my failings is when I comment I tend to shorthand my comments in a way I don't when writing a detailed article and I've had to go back and clarify myself because sometimes I forget that not everyone thinks like me.

    When I've made this statement it is in the context of the Flowchart, in specific "Do you have a clear articulable perception of the events - (you may be mistaken but still justified in your actions)".

    I am always carrying a gun and knife when in public, so I'm aware that if I can't shut down the action with my hands immediately it may escalate to deadly force purely because I'm armed. Based on this, if I the event doesn't shock the senses (dude putting boots to the elderly or someone clearly without the ability to defend themselves), or I didn't see the events unfold before me, or there aren't clear indicators (i.e. Cop being pummeled) of who the victim is or if who is defending themselves from attack, I'm not getting involved. I'll call the police and be a good witness. Now I'm not saying I'm skipping a free scuffle but if there isn't a clear disparity of force and I'm not sure what's going on I'm not going to try to break it up. I come to this conclusion from a lens experience and understanding that there is a clear distinction between a shoving match and someone attempting to cause another serious injury.
    Last edited by Greg Nichols; 03-27-2019 at 09:42 AM.
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    452
    Greg I agree with your above statement. If I don`t have a clear picture of what is going on I am staying out of it.

    What I mend to say was that most South African males have made the decision not to get involved because they have heard stories about people getting into legal trouble in these cases instead of receiving a pat on the back.

    Coming to a decision based on the fact that they don`t understand the law instead of it being a moral question for them or making a sound tactical decision at the moment using the facts at their disposal.

    Simply because they don`t understand the fact that you don`t get a free pass to beat the attacker up, getting to teach him a lesson once the victim is safe and the attack is over. That once you start to hit him at this point you are now the perpetrator and are guilty of assault. The attacker now suddenly turned from the bad guy into the victim of a violent crime.

    OSSU
    Elfie
    HALFMAN HALFCAR

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,604
    The issue we often run into is that most of us are in the USA, and the laws here are quite empowering contrary to what some think. So when someone comments about something that applies to a different country, it gives the impression that it is a global comment, when its not. Regardless, I suspect that in civilized nations, the flowchart still works.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    452
    Cabe you are correct I am still able the use the concept of the Flowchart. By changing some of the wording and adding to questions.

    To the question of-Are You the Emminant Focus of the Violence-I had to add-Is He Armed and Threatening to Kill/Seriously Harm You.

    Because if the attacker is just standing there holding a weapon, not pointing it at you or threatening you with it using your own weapon could be judged to be a disproportionate use of force.

    Examples-If you wake up in the middle of the night and use your weapon immediately you are in trouble. Especially if the attacker is not armed.

    Or if the attacker is not aware of you, you could be in trouble.

    Pre-emptive Strikes are not applicable in Self Defence cases.

    This point does not concern me personally because I cannot move first. I have to wait for the attacker to move into range of my Blades. i can never ' chase' the attacker.

    Underneath the Emminant Box and the Attack is Underway Box I had to add a Use of Force is Justified Box. Because if the attacker is not armed and you go for your weapon you have just chosen to escalate the situation to a Lethal Force encounter. And instead of being found not guilty, having being justified defending yourself by just using your hands you now face a manslaughter charge, having picked up a weapon.

    Again this is not something that worries me. I am concerned about a home-invasion and in these cases the intruders are always armed with knives or impact weapons. Or on the rare occasions that I do venture into town I am concerned with an attempted robbery at knive point.

    In both cases the attacker uses a weapon first and I am justified in using my Blades.

    Underneath the Use of Force is Justified Box I had to add-Is He Using an Instrument Box.

    So the South African Flowchart looks like this.

    Is This an Unlawful Attack. Yes

    Are You the Emminant Focus of the Violence-Is He Armed and Threatening to Kill/Harm You. The Attack is Already on the Way. Yes

    Use of Force Justified. Yes

    Is the Attacker using an Instrument. Yes

    Lethal Force is Justified.

    The Mind Dojo has being invaluable in helping to shape my thinking into a Warrior Mind Set.

    Asking me the important and relevant questions now before the fight. So that I won`t hesitate when my time comes and I can act confidently.

    None of which I was taught in the Dojo.

    FOOTNOTE Being fit and strong as well as having Empty Hand Skills becomes as important as your shooting skills in the context of the South African Flowchart. Only able to transition to your weapon once the attacker brings a weapon into the fight.

    And this can maybe explain why so many gun owners get into trouble only possessing one tool in the toolbox.

    OSSU
    Elfie
    HALFMAN HALFCAR

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •