First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Is vengeance self defense?
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Eh, I could never hold onto anger long enough for an act of vengeance anyway.



It ain't self defense though, at least in most instances.
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Self-defense, by its definition, is considered to be in the immediacy of the threat of the moment--
Ie., that it isn't best served cold.
16267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Norway, Oslo
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Vengeance isn't self defense, but the rules regarding self defense aren't set in stone. If your life is in danger you are allowed to take action, that's the philosophy we go by, but what if you maybe can get away? The way i see it is that as long as your life is in risk or facing severe damage you should be allowed to defend yourself until the danger is neutralized, which can then mean the attacker being unconscious or dead.
4504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

Vengeance is bad and unnecessary... Unless you're Batman.


Ah but Batman found that he could never really get vengeance.
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15
*cough* sadam *cough lol jk. Yeah.. its more about timing and careful planning were you probably want to get away with it. Sometimes its about disguising it as something its not so it can't be traced back to you. Self defence is more istantaneous imo.
19972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

During a lecture my business law professor said "vengeance isn't self defense". Revenge meaning a person attacks as a response to being attacked. According to law, a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate.

Shocking? Not really, this same idea has been taught since primary school. If someone hits you, report it to a teacher, don't ever hit them back. What do you think of this? It's unfair if you came out as the only injured party. Shouldn't you be able to hit them back?


wait, so you mean vengeance in the sense of " a dude hits me, so i punch back and we get in a fight"? yeah, if it's that self defense thats perfectly fine i think. i mean law enforcement even follows the guidelines that the guilty party is always who started it. now, if it's vengeance in the sense of "he shot me in the leg, so a few days later after I recovered I tracked him down and killed him" then that is wrong I believe.
26434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Future Gadget Lab...
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

During a lecture my business law professor said "vengeance isn't self defense". Revenge meaning a person attacks as a response to being attacked. According to law, a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate.

Shocking? Not really, this same idea has been taught since primary school. If someone hits you, report it to a teacher, don't ever hit them back. What do you think of this? It's unfair if you came out as the only injured party. Shouldn't you be able to hit them back?


I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

LightningChocobo wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

During a lecture my business law professor said "vengeance isn't self defense". Revenge meaning a person attacks as a response to being attacked. According to law, a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate.

Shocking? Not really, this same idea has been taught since primary school. If someone hits you, report it to a teacher, don't ever hit them back. What do you think of this? It's unfair if you came out as the only injured party. Shouldn't you be able to hit them back?


wait, so you mean vengeance in the sense of " a dude hits me, so i punch back and we get in a fight"? yeah, if it's that self defense thats perfectly fine i think. i mean law enforcement even follows the guidelines that the guilty party is always who started it. now, if it's vengeance in the sense of "he shot me in the leg, so a few days later after I recovered I tracked him down and killed him" then that is wrong I believe.
I explained the example with the scenario I gave. If someone hits you, and you hit them back as a response. This is completely different from if someone is constantly throwing punches at you, in which you would have to fight to defend yourself.
20911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15
No it is not.

however vengeance is sometimes ok for instance the woman who was raped in captivity by ISIS who killed some of there members.....that was kind of justified and understandable.
20911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:


LightningChocobo wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

During a lecture my business law professor said "vengeance isn't self defense". Revenge meaning a person attacks as a response to being attacked. According to law, a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate.

Shocking? Not really, this same idea has been taught since primary school. If someone hits you, report it to a teacher, don't ever hit them back. What do you think of this? It's unfair if you came out as the only injured party. Shouldn't you be able to hit them back?


wait, so you mean vengeance in the sense of " a dude hits me, so i punch back and we get in a fight"? yeah, if it's that self defense thats perfectly fine i think. i mean law enforcement even follows the guidelines that the guilty party is always who started it. now, if it's vengeance in the sense of "he shot me in the leg, so a few days later after I recovered I tracked him down and killed him" then that is wrong I believe.
I explained the example with the scenario I gave. If someone hits you, and you hit them back as a response. This is completely different from if someone is constantly throwing punches at you, in which you would have to fight to defend yourself.



If someone hits you there is no problem to hit back when i was in school i got hit in the face by a girl for no reason out of no where (king hit i guess) i turned around and kicked her in the face (without thinking) in self defense then ran.

To say just because it was one punch self defense isn't ok is not 100% true.
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.


20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
If someone hits you, shrug it off. Report the action to relevant authorities. You will have zero liability if you commit no violence. If someone repeatedly hits you, run away. If you're cornered, then fight back. It's only self defense when necessary. Don't run if they have a gun tho, that's stupid. Guns have range. Get in close and attempt to disarm them.
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

Ryulightorb wrote:

If someone hits you there is no problem to hit back when i was in school i got hit in the face by a girl for no reason out of no where (king hit i guess) i turned around and kicked her in the face (without thinking) in self defense then ran.

To say just because it was one punch self defense isn't ok is not 100% true.
I don't think people who have punched others deserve to be unscratched. I think those people should get hit back, but is it self defense? Namely was it necessary to preserve your safety? if you didn't hit back, would you have expected more injuries? Was it a constant threat?

26434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Future Gadget Lab...
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.





The problem is that you can't just redefine a term, especially if you want an argument to hold up (ie from a legal perspective). If you're going to make a topic trying to challenge what self defense is considered by society and qualify what should be considered self defense, then calling it revenge and furthermore using a personal definition of revenge would not only be confusing, but would also deliver an unwanted connotation of malevolence to how you are defining it. In this case, the topic really should be "what should be considered self-defense"; the word "vengeance" or "revenge" shouldn't have any place in this discussion or topic, really, unless you intend to use the actual definition of revenge.
36147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
There's a difference between defending and attacking.


If you are attacked, you can defend yourself and subdue your attacker (sometimes without causing major harm to the attacker.)

If you are attacked, you can also attack back, which in my opinion is different from surviving an attack, and retaliating back at the attack. Who knows.


All I know is, I believe in an eye for an eye regardless of any names or titles like vengeance.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.