Keep something on you like a voice recorder on a neck chain and discreetly turn it on when you enter enemy territory. You'll have proof they attacked you. Then again, illegal immigrants won't go to court with it so don't be too harsh on them.

When justice fails (as it mostly does), you have to do shitty things to protect yourself. I have some relatives who did that and it was more efficient for their safety than calling the cops.

This:)

What is always taken into account first is how the situation happened.

WHO started the hole thing? Could be verbal accuses or similar, but that is always hard to proof/disprove. That´s why I said: bleeding wound, that is always easy to proof ;)

If you are trained and this is known, the court systems see it as YOUR duty to calm down, not the other guy!! Let´s says, you have been in the special forces and this is known, it is your duty to avoid fighting, otherwise you are faulty as you willingly escalated.

And the best way to defend is going for the lower parts of the body as this PROOFS, you never INTENDED to severly harm the opponent, which is far different from going for the throat, which by default is considered a LIFE THREATING measure.

By the way, real leather shoes with a nice leather sole make a NICE *cough* defensive tool, as it has a small surface on the tip, max like 15 sqmm but with the whole Nm behind, it makes a nice punch ;) and again not considered a weapon, you just carry them ;)

This way cou can avoid the hole hassle......

Sometimes you just can´t run away.....it happens......

But to avoid problems for SELF-defense, if you can proof you never intended to kill, that already makes your point..

Using any form of weapons, shifts the burden of proof......(and again Training IS seen as a weapon).

One thing you can always use is pepper spray, or cheaper: Just carry a bag of powdered chilly with you, costs only a few cents and works much better ;), throw a handful against your opponents and the will rethink ;)

And if it still continues, you have prooven, that you tried to avoid the fight by non-deadly means ;)

Catpower: YOu might want to reconsider what you posted, this can already bee seen as an invitation to incite violance and similar. In most countries a punishable crime ;) In the US by the way is a trial coming up, right about this issue ;)

Run away!

Nice movie scenario you have there. Drama for the next year's Academy Awards.

I sincerely wish you, kind sir, to never find yourself in a bad movie like this one. Not even as a spectator. And i wish your viewpoint to had been, or will be, true. This whole thing to remain a movie scenario.

Normally, the case of "invitations to violence" in Europe are only prosecuted when they're geared towards someone or a group (ex: "Let's kill the martians" ) so I think I can continue to enjoy my cup of tea mindlessly ^o^
BTW: if you have a link to the story of this US trial, I'll be glad to read it. Gotta love some US nonsense ;)

I'm confused. First the question was whether it is ok to maim and kill people you think might try to do something more or less nasty to you (even before they actually do so), later it became to a question whether you should let them harm you without defending yourself?

So which one is it? Just so that I didn't misunderstand the question.

Not necessarily: There is a trial going on in germany, similar to the US one, but I can´t find the link anymore.......

In Germany some public figures have been already convicted of incite to hate/violence, just by using certain words in public speeches (mainly right wing nuts). The whole situation is taken into account, if you get procecuted ;)

This is even used in the moment for the IS-guys (Islamic state idiots). As they stated in public, that they go abroad to fight, they are indicted, not only, on incite of hate/violence......

I do have a problem with this situation: Not because they got arrested, but in general: Most of them haven´t done anything (except the above) and they get thrown in jail, depreved of their rights and similar. They haven´t done anything yet, but are already labelled as convicted. This really disturbes me out of principle........

It the kind of similar with this stupid discussion about computer games and violence. Everytime something bad happens at schools, ego-shooters are being blamed for it......

I KNOW, you can not really compare this, but it goes in similar directions......

For me, we shall be able to *cough* tolerate those idiots.....ok, if they kill somebody abroad, get them back, convict them of the proper crime and extradict them for punishment to the state they fought against. Problem solved ;)

It is like with all kinds of those idiots (sorry can´t think of any other term): Think of those parents trying to dispute THEORY of evolution.....Hey if they want to become known as idiots, feel free to do so, but they shall have their kids taken away, as they already proofed they are idiots. Same goes like with idiots disclaiming the Holocaust never happend, if they want to make a fool of themselves, bee my guest. (did you know, in Germany it is forbidden by law to deny the holocaust, it is even to be punished by law!!!!) Happened to a foreign priest being in Germany and stating this in public......he was getting convicted ;)

here is the link for the US one:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/justices-weigh-limits-free-speech-over-internet-130911734--finance.html

And yes I use yahoo ;)

I like neither attention or the justice system so I would rather avoid both. In a situation like this I would most likely run as soon as I think it's wise to do so then try to hide. The idea of having to tackle the justice system in your own favour can be as much as a battle as fighting for your life. I don't like the idea of self defense either because the attackers likely have friends or family that would enjoy a little bit of revenge so you won't feel safe afterwards, it's merely a temporary solution.

That is nuts! Do you have experience with people like that? It's nice in theory but what if they ask for more money/work or threaten you back?

I can only speak for Finland: If you maim or kill someone that you thought might try to harm you (ie. the first scenario in the OP's message), you will be prosecuted regardless of whether you are a computer geek, a black belt judoka or a special forces veteran.

If, on the other hand, you are clearly in danger, then certain amount of action (just enough not to be in danger anymore, be it running away, or fighting back if running is not an option for some reason) will be considered acceptable, regardless of your background. If you kill someone, then you will probably be prosecuted anyway, but depending on the situation, you might go free anyway.

One such case: a rapist was threatening a woman with a knife. While getting on top of her, the rapist put the knife on the ground beside her. The woman grabbed the knife and stabbed the rapist to the side, lethally. The woman went free in the end

I have hard time believing that e.g. a professional boxer defending himself would automatically lose his license. Then again, if you are sentenced for aggravated assault, it sounds natural you might lose a license. I presume these UFC martial artists didn't lose their license?

http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/19/ufc-john-bones-jones-shogun-robber-subdue-figure-four-leg-lock-patterson-new-jersey/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/ufc-mixed-martial-artist-turns-tables-robber-beat-shot-leg-gun-report-article-1.987367

Chisora brawling against Haye:

In the moment I only found this link:

http://www.china.org.cn/sports/2012-03/16/content_24912187.htm

No, it is normally always distingushed between overexessive use of force or not. Lets be extreme the other ways round: A 6 kid is attacking you with a 3 cm knife. You kill him, self-defense? No. You had the possibilty to stop the kid without killing, hence overexessive use of force.

And no, once you ARE injured, your life has been dangered. That´s why the first blow, injury is MOST important.....Afterwards you DEFEND yourselve. But again, you have to stay within certain limits.

Example: You defended yourselve against an attacker, can you now finish him off? No, not anymore, as he doesn´t pose an imminent/direct threat to you anymore. Once this part is out of the combat, it is law-wise not longer seen as self-defense. As I mentioned, above with the kid....... and i used for purpose 3 cm, this is mostly not even enough to really harm a normal adult.

If the imminet threat situation is there, they can legally (normally) not indict you even. But quite often, exactly this point is up to discussion..........let´s stay with the rapists of your example: IIRC it already happened and she was aquitted as for self defence, the rapist finished his act and want away...a few days later she ran across him, I mean it like I say, he ran across him and ran across him with her car, she was aqquited of the charges, as she was acting in self-defence. According to statistics there is a fallback rate of like 80% IIRC, plus he had her address everything.....so it was thrown out by the judge, on top, this guy was already a known rapist.

No, can´t find a source in the moment.....don´t remember country name or what so ever.......

edit typos

I don't know exactly about what case you're talking about (I usually avoid any extreme stuff in any domain so I'm complete ignorant in anything from politics to common sports), but why exactly we should tolerate "nazi" speech again? Ok, maybe we don't put them in jail, but at least to some mental institutions they should be sent to stay there.

If you are actually trained in self-defense, you will first assess the situation and be certain that this is an actual attack, and not a casual encounter, after which you will defend yourself. This will not involve serious injury to other people. If you are a violent xenophobe who has confused combat training with civilian life, you are likely to do serious time for assault, and it will be time properly given.