Edi wrote:Here the default assumption for that defense is that the authorities are responsible for it.
Ah.
Well, that might work in US urban areas (and most people would prefer the professionals take care of these situations) but the US still has extensive territory where official protections are spread thin. In such areas people have historically, and still presently, may need to be their own "first responders".
One reason US law on self-defense is such a patchwork is because Montanna or Alaska are so very different than, say, New York City or Los Angeles.
The laws we have regarding self-defense stipulate that people have a duty to avoid confrontation, i.e. if you can, you are obligated to run away. If you can't get away, you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself, with reasonable being defined as proportionate to the threat and the minimum necessary to stop the unlawful attack.
I'm not sure about the "duty to run", but here in the US, despite charicatures, no one has
carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please. If, for example, a person defends themself with an illegal weapon - say, a true automatic rifle - and it's legitimate self-defense they most likely wouldn't be tried for murder, but they
could be prosecuted of possession of an illegal weapon. There is a "proportionate force" standard - overkill is not permitted, as much as possible you need to use just enough but not excessive force to prevent a crime (of course, there is wide latitiude on this - an unarmed person against an armed attacker may have no choice but to hit or kick with potentially lethal force). If the person is down/unconcious/helpless you must stop your use of force. Shooting/stabbing people in the back is illegal everywhere. If the criminal retreats/runs away you are obligated to cease your use of force. Failure to do so can result in murder charges.
These are all basic concepts covered in most self-defense courses, whether of martial arts derivation or focusing mostly on avoidance strategies.
The thing is that the self-defense law (iirc it's a section of the Crime Act, the part that lists exceptions), with its definitions, trumps any city ordinance vs. knives.
Here, the Constitution trumps all other law, and the Second Ammendment (as even many non-Americans know) gives our citizens the right to bear arms. "Arms" is not restricted to guns. Obviously, the Supreme Court has upheld that this is not an
unlimited right, and subject to Federal, State, and local regulation, but it is clear that there is a right to self-defense in the basic framework of our government.
All of this said, if someone was coming at me with a knife or other weapon and I couldn't get away, fuck them, I'm not holding anything back just because the law says what it does. My definition of "sufficient force" is as much as I can apply as ruthlessly as I can, and with what I know, that's an automatic serious injury if I get a retaliatory attack through. I'm also not overly burdened with pangs of conscience about attacking another human being if that person attacked me first.
I frequently express this as "The bad guy is dead, I'm not, I win."
No, I don't want to go to jail, but you can get out of jail. Dead is forever.
I will re-emphasize that I would be quite happy to go the rest of my life without being obligated to use force against another human being. I am quite happy to let the police do their job. When, however, those two circumstances do not apply I do reserve the right to defend myself by whatever means necessary.
