# Self-defense



## MarieP (Nov 19, 2009)

Trying to form a Christian theology of self-defense. I'm not talking about police or soldiers but everyday folks. And I'm also looking at it from the perspective of a single- I know there is the particular duty of husbands to protect their wife and kids. I also know there is the OT passage about a raped woman not bearing blame if she screams. And certainly there are preventative measures (not walking alone after dark) and ways of escape (if only I can find a big enough basket...) But what about when the only way of escape is hurting the attacker (and it is a matter of your own safety and not fighting for another's safety?) How much is allowable to hurt him? Is it permissible to kill him? How does turning the other cheek fit in here?


----------



## Edward (Nov 19, 2009)

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

This verse appears to suggest that one should be prepared for self defense.


----------



## Honor (Nov 19, 2009)

I feel, as a woman, if a person tries to attack me, you beat the living snot out of them. I'm 5ft tall and have had some instances of it happening. plus if you see a man attacking a woman you go over and help her beat the living snot out of him. I have done this more than once.
learn how to punch, knee in the groin and jam a persons nose in thier skull and crush a windpipe. then use it if you have to. because if a man will assult you he'll assult someone else. it needs to stop with you if you can help it. you incompasitate the man until the police come and then you press as many charges as the law allows.


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 20, 2009)

Concealed Carry is always a good idea.


----------



## dyarashus (Nov 20, 2009)

I think you will find the site linked below, written by a friend of mine who is an elder at a PCA congregation in VA useful:

Biblical Self-Defense: What do the Scriptures say about using lethal force for self-protection?

I don't have time for a detailed reply tonight, but I'll mention that the WLC touches on this in questions 135 & 136.

Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

Answer: The *duties required* in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to *preserve the life of ourselves and others* by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by* just defense thereof against violence*, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, *and protecting and defending the innocent.*

Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

Answer: The *sins forbidden* in the sixth commandment *are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of* public justice, lawful war, or *necessary defense*; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.


----------



## charliejunfan (Nov 20, 2009)

Hmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 20, 2009)

While I think the thought here is uniformly in favor of self-defense, I would like to add to that with one additional thought: which is better, to have evil triumph, or good? If a person violently attacks an innocent person, would it not be better to have the evil defeated than to win? If the answer to that is yes, then it matters not who the innocent (within the context ... of course nobody is truly innocent) person is even if it be yourself. You are duty bound to defend the innocent.

I especially appreciated dyarashus reply in quoting the WLC and the section on what is required by the sixth commandment.


----------



## kalawine (Nov 20, 2009)

Two good sermons on self defense...

SermonAudio.com - Sermons by John Weaver


----------



## TimV (Nov 20, 2009)

Ex 22

2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Does this relate at all?



> (Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
> 
> (Mat 5:39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does this relate at all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think we are talking about someone smiting a cheek but seeking to do actual harm. Defending your life versus defending your honor.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 20, 2009)

Honor said:


> I feel, as a woman, if a person tries to attack me, you beat the living snot out of them. I'm 5ft tall and have had some instances of it happening. plus if you see a man attacking a woman you go over and help her beat the living snot out of him. I have done this more than once.
> learn how to punch, knee in the groin and jam a persons nose in thier skull and crush a windpipe. then use it if you have to. because if a man will assult you he'll assult someone else. it needs to stop with you if you can help it. you incompasitate the man until the police come and then you press as many charges as the law allows.



What a woman!


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does this relate at all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These are verses usually quoted by pacifists who argue against any self defense at all... however, I'm not sure they apply (I'd have to study the context more carefully and broadly, but I tend to think that this does not preclude self-preservation or protection of others). 

I do know that if I ever arrived home after work and someone was assaulting or otherwise attacking my wife or children, he would not leave my home alive. That attitude of mine, however, is probably more indicative of my lack of sanctification than anything else.


----------



## TimV (Nov 20, 2009)

> Ex 22
> 
> 2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.






> (Mat 5:38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
> 
> (Mat 5:39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.



A contradiction? Or do we assume both are valid for today? Is the allowing of shooting someone who kicks the door in in the middle of the night but forbidding vigilantism ceremonial? Or is a basic moral truth?

Luke 11:21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

Isn't the assumption that the the armed man will do what is allowed under Biblical law? Is this ever criticised in the NT?


----------



## Andres (Nov 20, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> I do know that if I ever arrived home after work and someone was assaulting or otherwise attacking my wife or children, he would not leave my home alive. * That attitude of mine, however, is probably more indicative of my lack of sanctification than anything else*.



Then brother i suppose I am lacking the same sanctification as yourself because my sentiments in your scenario mirror your own.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Nov 20, 2009)

Andres said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > I do know that if I ever arrived home after work and someone was assaulting or otherwise attacking my wife or children, he would not leave my home alive. * That attitude of mine, however, is probably more indicative of my lack of sanctification than anything else*.
> ...



I would actually feel sorry for whomever tries to attack my wife if I'm not there to restrain her or protect them. She's a vicious little one and her fight side of the fight/flight response is very strong. I'm just sayin.


----------



## JM (Nov 20, 2009)

My wife does jujitsu...tap or snap.


----------



## Edward (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does this relate at all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Skip Ryan gave a very good sermon dealing with that passage some years ago. It doesn't exactly mean what some liberal pastors have taught it to mean. I can't do justice to his explanation, particularly at this late date, but it had to do with a willingness to reconcile with one who has harmed us and now seeks reconciliation. It does not mean to allow a person to harm you repeatedly.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Nov 20, 2009)

The blog of a personal friend of mine: WARSKYL: A Page For Christian Martialists / Christian Martial Arts / Christian Self Defense / Bible Self Defense / Christian Sheepdog

He discusses everything from formal martial arts to using everyday objects as weapons (wasp spray, for example).


----------



## Bern (Nov 20, 2009)

Is there a difference between just being attacked for your money or whatever, and being attacked because you are a Christian. I can't think of any examples where people put up a fight when they were persecuted for their faith...


----------



## Andres (Nov 20, 2009)

Bern said:


> Is there a difference between just being attacked for your money or whatever, and being attacked because you are a Christian. I can't think of any examples where people put up a fight when they were persecuted for their faith...



What kind of attack are you referencing? I believe we are warranted to defend ourselves from any physical attack, regardless of what spurns it.


----------



## Bern (Nov 20, 2009)

Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!

No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...

Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 20, 2009)

Bern said:


> Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!
> 
> No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...
> 
> Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?



The Bible seems to think so - and even sets limits. Blood guilt does not come on the one who, when surprised by an attacker in the night, kills him. After daybreak, though, the situation changes. See Exodus 22.

I need only point to a Scot, James Durham, who argued strongly (as did the Westminster divines) that protection of life was not only allowed, but a duty.


----------



## Andres (Nov 20, 2009)

Bern said:


> Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!
> 
> No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...
> 
> Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?



I think these examples from scripture are the exception and not the norm. These were specific incidents that were included in scripture because they were special. I do not believe we are to read the bible through the lense of "well this person acted this way, so we are to act the exact same way".


----------



## SemperEruditio (Nov 20, 2009)

Bern said:


> Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!
> 
> No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...
> 
> Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?



Huh? 

No offense but why is it American's aren't gun crazed loonies when we're needed to defend a country but we are when we use them to defend ourselves?

Do we really have the right to allow another to take our life? Under any circumstances?


----------



## Bern (Nov 21, 2009)

Talking of persecution for our faith, I don't know of anywhere in the bible where we are commanded to use lethal force to stop it happening. I'm not so sure the examples in scripture and in church history are exceptions to the rule. Surely you could say that about anything in the bible if you go down that road?

Don't get me wrong.. I'm by no means saying that if someone breaks into your home you shouldn't take action to prevent harm to you or your family, and do what you can to subdue the attacker... but killing them?


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 21, 2009)

If one breaks into your house, assaults you on the street, or otherwise intervenes in a negative manner with a weapon of lethal potential, the only way to effectively subdue him is often ( usually if he has any ability) to kill him. Please do not assume that a discussion about the willingness to use lethal force in self/family defense presumes a desire to do so.


----------



## MarieP (Nov 21, 2009)

Thanks for all the input...

OK, I see that in Matthew 5, Jesus is correcting misunderstandings about what "eye for eye" meant and the slapping on the right cheek was an insult and not someone attacking you. The "go one mile" is a quote from Roman law. The point is against zealotry and vigilantism. In the other paragraphs of Matthew 5, Jesus is expanding upon moral law and says that not one jot or tittle will pass way from it. So why would this section be any different.

So the OT laws about self-defense are not civil law but moral law (right now, I'm honestly shaking my head at my own confusion). That being said, we do what is sufficient and don't do more than is necessary. Like LawrenceU said, it is something we don't desire to do (the preservation of our families (or ourselves) and not the hatred of the attacker is the motive- well, after glorifying God in obedience to His Scripture, of course).


----------



## Edward (Nov 21, 2009)

Bern said:


> Do we really have the right to take another mans life?



Yes.



> Under any circumstances?



You need to clarify what you mean by 'any'. Do you mean it to be fully inclusive, or do you mean it to be limited? In other words, are you asking 'No matter what the circumstances?' the answer would be 'no'. Are you asking 'Is it ever permissible?' the answer would be 'yes'.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 21, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does this relate at all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This may be a little wild, but how does a "normal" person hit you on the right cheek? If a right handed person hits you in the face to attack you, what cheek does he hit? Your left cheek. So how could someone hit your left cheek? If he give you the back of his hand ... a backhand strike is not an attack, it is an insult.

-----Added 11/21/2009 at 12:04:50 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Does this relate at all?
> ...



While I would undoubtedly not waste time attempting to make sure the attacker was not going to die, my objective would not be to kill. My objective would be to stop the attacker. If that meant that I hit the person in the back of the head with a steel pipe, shot them with a 12 gauge, took careful aim with a .30-06, or if the weapon at hand was so non-lethal as a can Fox 5.3, that would be the first thing I would use. If it stopped the attack, and they were so incapacitated that they were not able to continue the attack, I would remove the victims from the scene and call the police.

My intent would be to save lives of innocent. If a guilty man dies in the process of my saving my family, so be it; my goal is always to save lives, and I let God be the one to avenge.


----------



## Honor (Nov 21, 2009)

if but in the situation where I had to shoot an attacker I would remember the saying "aim small miss small, aim big miss big" and I wouldn't aim for the heart or the head... I would aim for the crotch. it's more than likly not going to kill the guy (but then a gun shot wound anywhere has the potential of killing the person) but it would stop him in his tracks and he wouldn't be chasing after me and the kids after that. 
I don't think you should be concerned about if you are going to kill the attacker but you should be more concered about him getting to you or your children. it says in the Bible if a man fails to provide for his family he's worse than an unbeliever.... I think that goes for providing protection not just food, clothing, and shelter.
I don't think that a person should wake up in the moring and going "man I hope somebody breaks in so I can kill them" but I think that a person should be comfortable with some level of violence where he wouldn't shriek at the duty to pull the trigger or throw the punch. does that make sense?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 21, 2009)

Bern said:


> Well for example... Polycarp (I know there's lots of others). They came to execute him for his faith, and he gave his persecutors a meal before he left for the stake!
> 
> No offence, but you guys across the pond seem quite keen on your guns...
> 
> Do we really have the right to take another mans life? Under any circumstances?



It isn't a right to take a man's life, it is a duty to defend the innocent regardless of the consequences to the guilty. If the most effective means of defense is a sword, you use that; if the most effective means is a baseball bat, use that; if it is a gun, use it. The duty of a Christian to defend the innocent is just as right as the duty of a police officer to uphold the law, if not more so, for our duty is moral ... the duty implicit in the 6th commandment, while a police officer's duty is just professional.

Now as to Christian persecution, it might be duty to undergo persecution if it is by the authority, but Paul when accused appealed to Caesar rather than submit to persecution when he did not have to. Paul used his status as a Roman citizen several times to his defense. We need to be willing to submit to persecution, but we also need to be able to defend ourselves when we are able.


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 21, 2009)

Honor said:


> if but in the situation where I had to shoot an attacker I would remember the saying "aim small miss small, aim big miss big" and I wouldn't aim for the heart or the head... I would aim for the crotch. it's more than likly not going to kill the guy (but then a gun shot wound anywhere has the potential of killing the person) but it would stop him in his tracks and he wouldn't be chasing after me and the kids after that.
> I don't think you should be concerned about if you are going to kill the attacker but you should be more concered about him getting to you or your children. it says in the Bible if a man fails to provide for his family he's worse than an unbeliever.... I think that goes for providing protection not just food, clothing, and shelter.
> I don't think that a person should wake up in the moring and going "man I hope somebody breaks in so I can kill them" but I think that a person should be comfortable with some level of violence where he wouldn't shriek at the duty to pull the trigger or throw the punch. does that make sense?




Jessica, I understand your thinking, but it is flawed. If you hit a man in the groin with a round it may or may not stop him. Especially if he is on drugs. If you are going to defend yourself with a firearm you must train to put rounds consistently, under pressure into instantly lethal areas: cranial (And not everywhere, I can fill you in in a PM if you like.) and thoracic hits only. I know this may sound macabre, but it is reality in using a fire arm.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 21, 2009)

Honor said:


> if but in the situation where I had to shoot an attacker I would remember the saying "aim small miss small, aim big miss big" and I wouldn't aim for the heart or the head... I would aim for the crotch. it's more than likly not going to kill the guy (but then a gun shot wound anywhere has the potential of killing the person) but it would stop him in his tracks and he wouldn't be chasing after me and the kids after that.
> I don't think you should be concerned about if you are going to kill the attacker but you should be more concered about him getting to you or your children. it says in the Bible if a man fails to provide for his family he's worse than an unbeliever.... I think that goes for providing protection not just food, clothing, and shelter.
> I don't think that a person should wake up in the moring and going "man I hope somebody breaks in so I can kill them" but I think that a person should be comfortable with some level of violence where he wouldn't shriek at the duty to pull the trigger or throw the punch. does that make sense?



I might offer some small advice on where to aim ... if you have a man that you are holding at gunpoint, the crotch is a perfect place to aim. Someone running at you will stop running if you break their pelvis (they will literally not be able to stand) and it has a psychological effect on a male that is just undeniable. If you are trying to stop someone, who is at enough distance (21 feet) then 2 to the body (chest) and one to the head is a better way to aim for an initial plan to stop. If two to the body does not seem to slow them, they might be wearing body armor, and the one to the head (if you can fire accurately) will. Of course if they are still distant enough, then two to the chest, two to the groin (or the hip at the joint with the thigh) would be useful.

That of course is a single attacker, not multiple attackers. I personally would do "everybody gets shot once before anybody gets shot twice" as a tactical decision if there is no cover from which to fire.


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 21, 2009)

Brian, I agree with the groin shot, but only if you are firing a large calibre handgun or a shotgun; and only if you can place it where it will strike the pelvis squarely. Many women, and some men, carry small calibre handguns. A pelvis shot with one of these can be very much a gamble. A centre thoracic shot or a shot into the "T" is always the best shot to take if it is possible. 

Also, perp defense attorneys love non-lethal shootings. They often successfully argue that because the person being attacked did not have to kill their client the shooting was unjustified. This happens more often than you would think. The results are disastrous for the real victim.


----------



## Honor (Nov 21, 2009)

thanks for the advice Lawrence, I see your point. FTR I don't carry a concealed wepons permit. so.... idk.. but I am def. open to suggestions and advice


----------



## Edward (Nov 21, 2009)

Honor said:


> I would aim for the crotch.



In most states you should never shoot to wound.


----------



## TimV (Nov 21, 2009)

It's a 5 foot tall lady who's never shot a mammal, gents, let alone a person!!!

Aim center mass. Chest. Pull trigger until nothing else comes out.


----------



## Bern (Nov 21, 2009)

In a situation where you witness someone being attacked in the street, how do you know the one being assaulted is really the innocent party? Do you assume they are just because you only saw the other guy attack first? What if the "victim" had stolen the other guys wallet? Do you step in?


----------



## Susanna (Nov 21, 2009)

Maria, 

Interesting question. There's lots to consider with the specifics of what to do when. 
Does he have a weapon? What type? Does he already have a grip on you? Is he drunk? Etc. I've studied Uechi-ryu karate do, Aikido, various kobudo in the martial arts for YEARS. I've taken SEVERAL women's self-defense classes and can tell you, 

whatever he dishes out, 
you turn it around and use it right back on him in order to stop him. 

If he says he's going to kill me or I think he's going to
(and I'm level headed under attack), 

I'd allow him to die. 

It was his choice. 

However, with that said, there's so many ways to stop an attack that RARELY would extreme for be required. 

Sue

-----Added 11/21/2009 at 05:59:35 EST-----

I meant "extreme force" would be required ...

-----Added 11/21/2009 at 06:00:14 EST-----

aaaah "would NOT" ... I'm new. Will I get booted for that, Randy?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 21, 2009)

Susanna said:


> Maria,
> 
> Interesting question. There's lots to consider with the specifics of what to do when.
> Does he have a weapon? What type? Does he already have a grip on you? Is he drunk? Etc. I've studied Uechi-ryu karate do, Aikido, various kobudo in the martial arts for YEARS. I've taken SEVERAL women's self-defense classes and can tell you,
> ...



Grammatical errors from a school teacher are prohibited. LOL Better not spell anything incorrectly either.


----------



## TimV (Nov 21, 2009)

That's how we roll.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 21, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Brian, I agree with the groin shot, but only if you are firing a large calibre handgun or a shotgun; and only if you can place it where it will strike the pelvis squarely. Many women, and some men, carry small calibre handguns. A pelvis shot with one of these can be very much a gamble. A centre thoracic shot or a shot into the "T" is always the best shot to take if it is possible.
> 
> Also, perp defense attorneys love non-lethal shootings. They often successfully argue that because the person being attacked did not have to kill their client the shooting was unjustified. This happens more often than you would think. The results are disastrous for the real victim.



Understood. If I ever wind up in court, the company I take training from will be there to testify (it is part of the contract) and they are the ones that have given me the instruction on how to stop someone. They also recommend no smaller than 9mm or .38 special as a power floor. The other thing they state is don't stop until the attacker is stopped. Two to the chest, two to the groin, then head shot is a standard I was drilled on (and we practiced). The idea is to stop the attacker with the chest shots, if that doesn't slow them down, groin shots tend to work well (at the hip even better if you are really good) and head shot if that does not work.

The legal aspect of being sued, or worse yet being criminally charged, because you used something other than a fatal shot to stop the attack is somewhat short-circuited if you follow a course of fire that you were trained in and carried out. It is especially useful if you have the trainer as an expert witness in court (the trainer I used has often been) and he states you followed the course of fire he taught you to take. Pulls the rug out from under the prosecuting attorney if you have had the training and followed it.

Which is another *really good reason to get professional training*. If you ever are in a fire-fight, the chances are you are going to be in a court room fight afterward. Having the ability to state, and have it clearly documented, that you did as you were trained, is really taking the justification for questioning why you used the course of fire you used out of "you were reckless" into "you were well trained and followed your training." Just having the guy be there to analyze the evidence can be invaluable. A good 8 hour first course is usually just a couple of hundred dollars, getting a follow-up is about the same, and going to a 3 day advanced course can be just a couple of hundred a day. For about a $1000 dollars, you can get training that is near invaluable in terms of being able to defend yourself and your family, get a document trail that shows you are not a loose cannon that just shoots at anything that moves, and get someone that can be a witness in the unlikely event that you ever have to use that training. Given that you probably need to be putting 50 rounds down-range several times a month to keep training sharp, it is a cheap cost of being prepared.

-----Added 11/21/2009 at 08:28:45 EST-----



TimV said:


> It's a 5 foot tall lady who's never shot a mammal, gents, let alone a person!!!
> 
> Aim center mass. Chest. Pull trigger until nothing else comes out.



The lady ought get herself to a range and practice with silhouettes on a regular basis. There is no excuse for not preparing for war before the battle begins. Both my wife and I have put thousands of rounds down range, and while we have not done as much as we might, we do so every chance we get.


----------

