Ok, I just heard a myth on the "law" that in order to rule a royal ass wooping in self defence you must be hit three times. So I looked it up to see the truthfulness of the myth and it is just that, A MYTH! It CAN be self defence if you throw the first strike, as long as you are trying to prevent being hit or have reason to believe you will be hit. After hearing this I am now an innocent victim of frustrated people. ( Just thought I'd share this with you all)
in order to rule a royal ass wooping in self defence you must be hit three times lmao, if I want to be laying on the ground cold. I'll take the pre-emptive strike that Geoff Thompson describes, I've used it once without even knowing it (not quite so premptive, I attacked without warning 'cause I was angry).... very successfully
I got this from http://www.legal-database.com/ "self-defense definition – self defense is the use of force to protect oneself or one’s family from harm; self defense is generally justified if it is proportional to the danger posed" For you to be able to cry self-defense, you will have to prove the force you used was sufficient (just enough) to stop the attacker. There is a thin line between self-defense and assault; from being the defender to becoming the attacker. This whole "self-defense" thing can turn around against you in a second if you let your anger or emotions get the best of you. :woo: The situation normally dictates how you react. So, at the end of the day, after all the dusts settled, it is up to the law (or lawyers )to sort things out. Self-defense or use of excessive force?
