I've never been in "mutual combat". It always has been someone didn't like the look of me or whatever. Said something, I replied to the effect of "whatever leave me alone" with a look saying leave me alone. They didn't like that either and after physical contact it was time to get at it. I guess people hate people who don't cower when confronted. I don't know. BUT, after they are out or unable to keep fighting that doesn't mean I'm going to stomp their temple in for fighting me.
This is an example of what I meant when I suggested that some people on this thread were possibley projecting. Most of the people here who are advocating the use of lethal force in SD, have also suggested that they would avoid the situation described above. I would disagree that such a situation is not an example of "mutual combat", as it most certainly sounds like one. Quite simply, a challenge was given (someone "saying something"), and the challenge being met with an affirmation (that look that said "leave me alone", while projecting that you won't “cower”). However, it does depend upon the circumstances. While there are times when it is best to meet such aggression in a manner that doesn't demonstrate weakness, most of the time it is avoidable. One just has to swallow some pride, and leave their ego at home. If you don't wish to do that, then fine. That is your choice. Just stop projecting that mentality on those who don't wish to live their life that way. Here’s a question: If you thought “cowering” would have gotten you out of that situation without any physical violence, would you have cowered? While I don’t necessarily believe (or advocate) that cowering in the face of oppression makes one safer, I do believe that most people who view physical, unarmed assault as life threatening, would answer “yes” to that question. Their main goal is to avoid conflict at any cost short of physical injury or loss of life.
There actually are people who would calmly and cautiously move on and away from just such a situation in an effort to avoid confrontation. Saying "Whatever, leave me alone." is not necessarily a way to deescalate a confrontational situation, unless you need to control that situation (an example of where control might be needed would be a bouncer in a bar). If anything, it could easily be construed as "I'm not interested, but I'm game if you are". Of course this is greatly oversimplifying things, as there are so many other variables that come into play in such a situation, but coupled with the attitude of "I don't cower", it's easy to see how it could easily be "mutual combat". That is of course with the implication that you could have easily just left the situation.
In the situation you described (not trying to single you out. It's just a good example), it does sound like you were a willing participant in the fray. While it is your choice to live the way you want, and I'm not criticizing your choices in such matters (nor do I think others are), it appears that people who are of this mindset have a tendency to project that mindset on others who are more prone to avoid such situations, and are more willing to "swallow their pride".
Please understand, there are lots of people who when thrust into a situation would have done their best to remove themselves from that situation without any confrontation, and many would have succeeded (again this doesn't take into account all the variables). That could mean just leaving without even responding, or maybe a simple "look, I don't want any trouble" and then cautiously walk away.
One way, to look at our point of view is this: How do you remove yourself from the situation without any physical confrontation? Is it impossible to not get in a fight? If so, how do you avoid getting into the situation that brought about those circumstances? One of the best ways to avoid fights is to not go into bars. People who seek a peaceful existence avoid such places because they understand that its too easy for a simple misunderstanding to get blown out of proportion when close proximity, and alcohol are factors. Those of us who view any physical violence as a threat that must be treated seriously would try to find a way to not be in such a situation, and work toward that end.
Here’s another mental exercise: Mentally place yourself in such a situation when you are armed.
Is it smart to engage in a fistfight when you are actually walking around with lethal force on your hip?
What if the fight turns deadly and you use it? Do you think the PA is going to accept that you engaged in combat, not “SD in which you feared for your life” (because if you had, you would have used the weapon from the start), and then decided to use lethal force (if you could actually manage to make that escalation of force)? How will the jury see it?
What if, during the fight, your opponent manages to take possession of your weapon? What if a bystander manages to take possession of your weapon while you are distracted (or it just falls out)?
Wouldn’t it be easier to just avoid the “fight” altogether? Believe it or not, a lot of people manage to live their lives without such troubles, and they don’t do it by just staying at home. They do it by maintaining control over their environment, their attitude towards others, and their tongue.
BUT, after they are out or unable to keep fighting that doesn't mean I'm going to stomp their temple in for fighting me.
I don’t recall a single person on this thread who has advocated such behavior. People have merely said that they will defend themselves if they have the reasonable belief that they are at risk of being killed, or seriously injured. The above suggestion is either an example of projecting, or a straw argument.
Again, this isn’t to criticize your way of living, but just to demonstrate that not everyone is going to behave in the same manner that you seem to. Most of the people advocating lethal force for an unarmed attack are also saying that they would avoid such a situation altogether. Comparing what you described, to what they are advocating is "apples to oranges".
