A common phrase I see banded about in self defence areas is "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". What does it mean to you and what attitude do you think it instills?
all i can think of is twelve jurors and six pallbearers. so better to kill your attacker and suffer the consequences than die and put sorrow into the hearts of six of your loved ones and possible more. did i get it right?
It means its better to defend yourself to the point where you MAY end up in court and judged by the jury (the 12) than not defend enough and end up in a box carried by pallbearers (the 6) How does it affect MY attitude towards defending myself ?? I think I answered it already.....
I think it's just like the phrase " TWO HEADS ARE BETTER THAN ONE". Or I may be wrong because you guys talked about being in court, or something?
I totally agree with Richie. This quote, often associated with Ed Parker, needs to be internalized by anyone who claims to be teaching or studying self defense. For me this meant internalizing that if push came to shove, I know I would put someone down in order to get home to those I love. - Matt
Oh, I understand. Just like what I saw in the movie "Enough" starring JLO. I like it when she said " Self Defence is NOT Murder".
I'll take the 12! As far as what the saying instills: Well it is usually not explained correctly to the student so I think they can get the wrong impression and do the wrong thing and end up in jail. Well it means that if your life is on the line you do what ever it takes to stay alive or protect someone else’s life at that moment instead of fearing the retribution of the law. A pompous ass states attorney trying to buck for a promotion will try and hang you even if you did the right thing. So regardless if you purposely broke the law or unknowingly and/or accidentally broke the law because you were in a high stressed life and death situation matters not to them! So save the life and live to fight again in court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sincerely, Teacher: Eddie Ivester
Some great replies. Too often I get the impression the person believes it means you can do what you want to a person who attacks you. They think it gives you a moral and legal high ground. This is simply not the case. For me it means "If in doubt, take them out." If you are unsure whether the threat is lethal or not then err on the side of caution. Hence the phrase "its better to be judged...." The difference is I make a quick judgement on the level of threat and respond appropriately. It doesn't mean I react with lethal force because I couldn't be bothered to read the situation and make up my own mind. Budo.
Budo, The threat is ALWAYS LETHAL! A person who is attacking you has no idea of your physical health and therefore can't know how hard a strike your body can take or how much stress your heart can take! In America we have a word called "manslaughter" to cover certain types of killings. I will give the board an easy definition of this word. Manslaughter: Oopps I didn't mean to kill you BUT you are dead just the same! If we had to invent a word to cover this type of killing then it must have been needed and it was. Watch the news or read the paper and you will see this type of killing done everyday all over the world and the killer's response of I didn't mean to kill them!!!! So everyone needs to treat every threat as lethal! Sincerely, Teacher: Eddie Ivester
A very good point. On the flipside of this, is every LEO you know taught to draw their weapon on contact with a aggressive situation? Would you advise the average person on the street to do the same? I can understand, and would agree entirely, with the idea that you treat every situation as potentially lethal. I could not advise someone on first contact to go all guns blazing, unless the situation requires it. If attacked I would do what it takes to escape, not do everything I can to escape. Perhaps I'm playing with words too much. Take a simple chucking out time street fight. Guy throws a right haymaker. you block it or intercept it or avoid it, do you then: a) hit him in the throat then run? b) knife him in the throat then run? b) is a pretty good bet that he won't be coming at you again, but is certainly overkill for the situation. I understand that in reality there are too many variables to play "what if" and you will decide what force is necassary at the time. I guess I'm arguing that it is better to esculate if needed, rather than go at it full with nowhere else to go. Thoughts?
True. What looks to be a simple robbery or less than lethal assault can quickly escalate to a deadly situation. You always have to be aware of that fact. Though you can not just try to kill someone for smacking you in the mouth, calling you a name or anything on that level. Though, if you feel you are in grave danger then you can act accordingly. Just remember you have to justify your actions. Agreed, but a female may be able to get away with that one. All depending on the situation.
How do you know what it will take to escape????? No, I will do everything I can to escape that way I have more of a chance for survival!!!!!! Just depends on the situation: A) Where are you when an attack happens? Dark alley or lighted restaurant. B) who's around? More bad guys or more of your friends. C) What's the person’s size & demeanor? I do agree with taking the situation as it is needed and no I don't pull my pistol for every situation but Law Enforcement and Personal Self Protection are 2 different things. It’s my JOB to get this person arrested as safely & easily as I can. I have been trained and advised on how to do this and I have a use of force matrix as a guide for escalation & de-escalation. I carry a pistol, pepper spray, an asp & I have a radio for back up. Self Protection is my Constitutional right and not my job therefore I have to use my fear of death and/or great bodily harm as my force matrix and I don't have all the help of the items mentioned above. So the average person is not expected to handle a life-threatening situation as a Police officer would and therefore can do more damage to the attacker as long as it is lawfully done. Now you say a simple fight with just a punch thrown Heh. Well that goes back to there is no such thing as SIMPLE. Manslaughter is for those so-called accidental killings. Remember this attacker has no idea of your physical condition, disabilities or mental state but Let's just say there is nothing physically wrong with you and you are healthy as can be. He hit's you, you fall, hit your head on the corner of a table and DIE! Is it worth it to you to DIE because you didn't think it was NECESSARY to do what ever it took to stop this attacker. Yes there is always going to be the Law to contend with but do you want to be the one defending your actions in a court of law or being buried? Hey, I guess if we are suppose to be a good Christian then we don't fear death because we go to a better place when we die so why not let someone kill us for no reason! Sincerely, Teacher: Eddie Ivester
Eddie, I think I understand where you are coming from. To answer your questions. I have very little idea what it would take to escape from a situation, however my training and experience will help me out a great deal, but at the end of the day it is a judgement call. My confusion in your statements is derived primarily from what you posted on the Law thread, your earlier posts concerning every attack being lethal and this post: I have highlighted the word lawfully to make my point. On the one hand you say treat every attack as lethal (for which you make a good arguement and to an extent I agree with), it is easy to assume that I should therefore respond to every attack with lethal force ("everything I can"). Unfortunately this could very well take me way outside the realms of the law. Enter in the initial quote "It is better to be judged...". You have to admit that there is a serious difference between ending up on a charge for manslaughter and murder. I have come across very similar cases in which the original antagonist died from knife wounds. However the way in which the persons involved in the cases defended themselves were slightly different. One ended up doing Life with a recommended term of 10 years, the other 4.5 years. Both were determined that it was self defence. Just an opinion. Budo.
The "12 Vs 6" thing is something I've heard a lot on various forums. It often seems like the poster is basically caught up in a "macho" frame of mind and they are trying to sound like a badass. The crux of the statement seems to be that the person is willing to break the law in order to defend himself. While I agree that you should ultimately do whatever it takes, I see a danger here. I think that a concern for ramifications and aftermath actually should be apart of one's overall self-defense strategy. Only a fool would blithely and casually scoff at the notion of having to spend a part of his life in prison. To me, the way to approach self-defense strategy is to work towards two different goals simultaneously: 1. successful defense of self or others 2. obeying the law Yes, if I have to I will put the first goal ahead of the second. But, I won't just assume that I can't achieve both goals. And, I certainly won't treat the notion of going to prison as if it should have no bearing on the matter. Freedom is too precious.
Budo, Let me try to clarify when I say lawful & every attack lethal. Lawfully: If you stop the person from harming you by whatever means then your self-defense is done unless they attack again. If someone comes up to you and manages to slap you in the face you cannot beat them to a bloody pulp for it. Now, face to face with your attacker, you have warned them you will defend yourself, they attack, you put them down by whatever means necessary and then you STOP! Lethal Attack: What I mean is go with the most lethal first , why play with this person, why cloud your mind with I can just block, parry or evade their attack, Maybe not and then you die! NO those should be instinctive moves that your body automatically reacts to when attacked. The only thing you should be thinking about is when he comes at me I'm going to kill this Mother F'er. Now every self-defense situation is different and all have their own mitigating circumstances that will play a big part in how the law looks at what took place. And yes it is possible to do everything correct & lawful but still end up in prison or sued by the attacker. The bottom line is this, do you defend yourself and risk breaking the law or do you become a pacifist and let some scumbag kill you. Sincerely, Teacher: Eddie Ivester
Again both of your points make sense. Perhaps there is a danger of waterring down the urgency of a situation by saying "This is potentially lethal" rather than "This is lethal". I guess as a defender you would defend yourself more vigourously if you truely believed that you were going to die, rather than you were going to get hurt. Perhaps the responsible this to say is, as I believe you hint at in your last paragraph, ultimately you are responsible for your actions. Sometimes I wonder if some people really understand what that means. Budo.
