sound advice, it is not a literal requirement to stand there and let someone beat you down without offering even token resistance. Evil must be resisted—evil impulses in yourself as well as evil actions from others.
Whoever is attacking you has almost certainly assaulted someone before. The more times he gets away with it, the more dangerous he is likely to become. If you successfully defend yourself against an assailant, you not only save your own life or well-being but likely that of the bad guy’s next victim as well.
While there truly is no first strike in karate (or any other martial art for that matter), there should be proactive defense in situations that warrant it. Good and moral people ignore insults and avoid seeking revenge, yet that does not mean that they should be passive and allow themselves or others to be slaughtered. If confronted with unavoidable danger, it is perfectly all right to offer a vigorous response. Your intent, however, must be to escape to safety, not to kill your attacker, humiliate him, or otherwise teach him a lesson. Throwing the first blow not only means that you’ve lost the argument, but also that you’re the bad guy as well… unless it’s preemptive initiative in your defense.
You’ve Got a “Stay Out of Jail Free” Card if You Use It Wisely
Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear.
There is the spirit of winning without a sword.
Countervailing force, or physical self-defense, is violence applied against an aggressor to keep him from hurting you. In the process, you may intentionally or unintentionally injure, maim, cripple, or even kill your adversary. Even if you give the other guy a bloody nose or a minor bruise, it can still have serious repercussions, such as a night in jail or nice fat, juicy lawsuit. Imagine what would happen if you killed him… As the old saying goes, “The bigger the crime, the bigger the time.” Because of this possibility, it is important to understand how your actions might be scrutinized under the law.
A legitimate case of self-defense and a good lawyer can get you off the hook most, but not all, of the time. Consequently, it is really important to know when you’re on solid legal ground. We’re martial artists, not attorneys, so nothing in this book constitutes a legal opinion nor should any of its contents be treated as such. While we have done our due diligence and believe these guidelines are true and correct, it is prudent to check with an attorney in your local jurisdiction to understand how the laws work where you live and frequently travel. The law is very nuanced, so such things are never universal.
The Doctrine of Competing Harms. The doctrine of competing harms, or doctrine of necessity, as it is often called, is a very important point of law when it comes to self-defense. This concept has been around a very long time. It stems from English Common Law. Here’s an example of that language from Maine’s Criminal Code:[20]
§103. Competing harms:
1. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid imminent physical harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute.
2. When the actor was reckless or criminally negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of his conduct, the justification provided in subsection 1 does not apply in a prosecution for any crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability.
In plain terms, this means that, under the right circumstances, you have a legitimate excuse for breaking the law and will not be held criminally liable for your actions. For example, while murder is clearly illegal, killing someone in self-defense is acceptable in certain conditions. In essence, you are not held accountable for your actions because your conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm to yourself and/or your loved ones.
You’ve probably never had to kill someone in self-defense so it’s most likely a bit hard to wrap your head around what that truly entails. Sure, you’ve seen it on TV, but we’ve already pointed out the fallacy of relying on Hollywood when it comes to real violence. For the moment, let’s use a different example that most people can relate to since there is a good chance that you’ve either done something just like this or can easily imagine doing so yourself:
Clearly, the law states that you cannot cross the center line, even to pass another vehicle. That’s why it’s marked with the double-yellow line. Most of the time it is prudent to follow that law, driving in your own lane for everyone’s safety. What happens, however, if as you round a corner the rain-soaked ground gives way and a tree suddenly falls into your path or a rockslide covers your lane?
You have microseconds to make a decision. There is a potentially lethal barrier looming right in front of you, so close that you know you would crash into it even if you slammed on your brakes the moment you saw it. The law, on the other hand, says you’ve got to stay in your lane. So, what would you do? Why, you’d temporarily break the law to cross the centerline and move out of harm’s way, right? Not a hard choice to make in this example. It’s perfectly acceptable to avoid the greater harm that a crash would cause by illegally changing lanes until you get around the obstacle.
The doctrine of competing harms is why police officers break the speed limit when racing to a crime scene too. If they were to travel at the posted speed, someone could very well die before they got there. More importantly, this same reasoning is why you can apply potentially lethal countervailing force to defend yourself from harm when you are attacked by a predator on the street.
Most jurisdictions recognize the doctrine of competing harms only under limited circumstances, however. It is usually considered an “affirmative” defense. That means that it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant since you are admitting that you broke the law but arguing that you should not be held liable for doing so. Normally, it’s the prosecutor who has to prove his case, not the defendant. Consequently, you need a really good attorney on your side if you’re going to use this approach, someone who’s skilled at defending innocent parties in self-defense situations.[21] Generally, to prove your case successfully, you must show evidence that
1. The harm you sought to avoid outweighed the danger of the prohibited conduct you were charged with.
2. You had no reasonable alternative but to engage in the prohibited conduct in order to avoid that harm.
3. You stopped doing the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed.
4. You did not create the danger you sought to avoid.
Whenever you tee off on another person, you run the risk injuring, maiming, or potentially even killing him, even when you were not actively trying to do so. If you are seen as the aggressor in the eyes of the law, you will be faced with the very real possibility of spending time in jail and/or losing a ton of money in a civil lawsuit. Consequently, you need a way of knowing when it’s prudent to strike. If the four criteria—ability, opportunity,
