Do you think little or a lot about self-defense? Either way, you’ll live a better life when you consider self-defense from two perspectives: the practical and the legal. The different schools of self-defense training agree on many things. Similarly, the laws of self-defense agree in many ways, across jurisdictions, cultures — even history. And though practical self-defense training and the law of self-defense have different perspectives; they share much in common. Consider dominance, escalation, and deception.
Hindsight bias
Whether people accept a legal defense of self-defense depends upon their reconstruction of the defendant’s situation at the time; a “totality of the circumstances.”
And inevitably, we compare what we believe that person did; with what we imagine we would have done in those hypothetical circumstances. We view ourselves as “the reasonable person standard,” at least as a starting point.
Better judged by twelve than carried by six
The aphorism: “better judged by twelve than carried by six,” captures the law’s uncertainty. The person using force in self-defense faces two threats:
- survival of the immediate, physical attack;
- surviving a later legal threat of a false accusation.
Escalation, Dominance and Deception
Some physical attacks are part of a robbery, a rape, a riot, or planned.
But let’s look at the other sort; attacks that spontaneously arise impulsively from anger, conflict or a sense of suffering disrespect. What are some strategies and tactics that you can be use to both good practical and legal effect?
The Social Reality
We humans are social animals. We have always lived in groups, each with our roles within the group. Like other social animals, we have orders of social dominance. And individuals compete for dominance ranking. We order social dominance with:
- coercion (such as laws and law enforcement) as well as
- actual use of force – lawful and unlawful.
Generally we are unaware of our social dominance orders and roles. But when it comes to self-defense, awareness is a powerful tool to help us avoid trouble. Awareness helps us avoid both physical attacks as well as legal attacks.
A person may present to you their subjective belief that you have treated them unjustly or wronged them.
Dominance, escalation & deception to avoid trouble
Escalation behavioral cues: When animals compete for social dominance, they display an escalation of threatening physical posturing. And sometimes they follow with an attack and fight.
They know what they are competing for – social dominance, a recognition by the other of their superior position. At some point one of the competitors may back down, defer and show surrender. And this submission will cause the winner to cease the attack. Then, the dominant animal will not normally attack the submitting one. One great story about this in literature is Jack London’s “The Call of the Wild.”
Your humility may not be as deep and sincere as you might like. But you can still use some tactical deception and adopt an attitude of humility. If backing down helps avoid a conflict, you win. You can’t stop someone from baiting you. But you can refuse to take the bait.
Though we can’t always trust humans to stop attacking a person no longer competing for dominance, the tactic sometimes works.
So if the conflict is about perception of honor or justice; conceding dominance, and de-escalation of conflict tactics may resolve it. Or at least enough so that you can leave the situation, and move on.
Asserting dominance, escalation, can be best
Predator with a goal: When a person or group threatens attack or attacks as part of a plan, like robbery, riot or rape; de-escalation tactics are likely to worsen your situation. After all, the aggressor is a predator with a goal; acting with rational purpose not just emotion.
Instead, asserting dominance authoritatively, escalation of threat displays, and the use of force may be necessary. Why? Predatory behavior seeks an easy target. To ward off predators, be a hard target. Show strength, confidence, and dominance. Lead the escalation of conflict. The predator’s level of commitment to their goal varies.
To the extent that the predator is primarily opportunistic, they may be deterred. Where not discouraged, the predator may be effectively disabled by force.
Calling 911: Sometimes our situational awareness is signaling “threat” with enough time to call 911. Calling 911 for help can be viewed as an escalation of threat towards a would-be attacker, and may deter them. Failing that, the 911 call is typically recorded, speeds a police response, and helps identify you as the good guy.
Evade, Escape, Engage
Where practical, it’s best to avoid a potential physical concentration. No one wins a fight; when everyone suffers injury. This could mean crossing the street, walking the other way, driving away. Or taking any way out of there, away from the threat.
But sometimes avoidance is not a reasonable option. For example, retreat is not an option when the threat is already close. The threat can simply attack you from behind if you turn and run.
But in unarmed combat especially, creating distance can increase safety. And even when the attacker has a weapon, creating distance can help reduce risk of harm. See my article: Dangerous Weapon Charges.
Make Attacker Consider the Price
In many traditional martial arts disciplines, for example Wing Tzun, we do not initiate an attack as a general rule. This idea, dating back hundreds – perhaps thousands of years, is not based on legal considerations. It’s a fighting tactic to either avoid a fight by not initiating; or forcing the opponent to physically commit to an action that can then be exploited with various combative counter-techniques.
This forces a choice for the opponent. Will the opponent pay the price for escalation of the conflict to physical attack? If so, we want to be ready — very ready.
But one type of readiness is continuous attempts at de-escalation. And if the opponent attacks, we take advantage. This practice of not initiating a fight will also help in the event of legal trouble. And it helps the legal defense of self-defense.
Before, and once an attack is underway, we assess the threat. And we seek to bring a proportionate, reasonable response. We don’t want to respond disproportionately. But “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Too little force for an effective defense could result in serious injury or death for ourselves or loved ones. Too much could lead to legal trouble.
And those who judge us from outside the situation have the stress-free benefit of hindsight, from a position of easy comfort. They have hindsight bias. The arm-chair quarterbacks often imagine they could’ve done better; even though they weren’t there, at the time.
Stop the Threat
After conflict escalation to force, when should it stop? Self-defense systems generally teach that you should use necessary force until the threat is no longer a threat.
Most people have zero training in self-defense. Their information comes from entertaining, but incorrect, films and television shows. Unlike those stories, the lawful self-defender does not seek to hurt or to kill. But rather she seeks to disable the attackers – to stop the threat.
Our goal is to stop the threat. That is our sole intent. So harm or death is an unwelcome, collateral consequence. If we hurt an attacker; that is an unintended consequence of the only goal, of self-defense. The goal of self-defense is simply to stop the threat.
Once you fully disable the attacker from continuing the attack; the use of force against them should also stop. But, we must be aware of the risk of multiple attackers.
After defensive use of force
Once you stopped or disabled the threat, if safe to do so (beware of third parties and weapons); consider rendering First Aid or other assistance to the now disabled attacker. And contact the police if possible.
How to handle police contacts is a big topic for another article. But what you do, and knowing what to do; before police contact stemming from the use of force in self-defense is important. Prepare yourself by learning and training in self-defense, including the law of self-defense. Learn and train not only for your sake; but for the sake of your family, co-workers, and those around you.
Minnesota Self-Defense Law
We can simplify and summarize the current state of self-defense law in Minnesota:
Duty to retreat, when:
- Not inside your home (place where you reside); or
- Not defending another.
The Minnesota “duty to retreat” was created by judges, not the legislature. But the Minnesota legislature can repeal it by passing a new statute eliminating it. Currently, “duty to retreat” allows judges to gatekeep your right to a trial by a jury on the fundamental issue of the reasonable use of force in self-defense. See, State v. Blevins, 10 NW 2d 29 (Minn. Supreme Court 2024).
It requires you to first clear the legal hurdle of showing no reasonable opportunity to retreat existed, before you then have to show that you used force reasonably in self-defense. This is hostile to the rights of peaceable people, inviting second-guessing a person put under stress and adrenaline by a criminal act. And the “duty to retreat” creates a danger to public safety. To help get this legislative change, see this page by the Minnesota Gun Owner’s Caucus: Pass Stand Your Ground in Minnesota.
For more on Minnesota self-defense law, including “duty to retreat,” see our page: Self-defense and Defense of Others Law in Minnesota.
Question? Call Attorney Thomas Gallagher, 612 333-1500
Thomas Gallagher is a Minnesota Criminal Lawyer.
His practice includes asserting the defense of self-defense and defense of others on behalf of clients. You are welcome to give him a call.
More: escalation
Disparity of Force and Self-Defense
Point-of-View and Self-Defense
The Necessity Defense
The Trial of Jesus: A Criminal Law Perspective
The reasonable person, in criminal law
Obstruction & Resisting Arrest