I certainly agree with riverside and seigi that
more advanced studiers of the art need to be held to a
higher standard than their beginner counterparts. A
black belt should know and have greater control of
his/her technique, and should also be humble (unlike the
arrogance and insecurity of most brown belts - I think you
know what I'm talking about!).<br><br>However, that
brings up a question that I've been wanting to ask a
group of peers such as yourselves. If I have a
one-on-one confrontation, the above holds true, no doubt.
However, what if it is a three-on-one situation, and you
are also defending your wife and kids against the
three asailants. I feel that I would be justified to
"do what it takes" to get the odds back down to a
one-on-one situation, at which point the above would hold
true again. And this would be regardless of what the
law states, because we're talking about giving of my
life for my wife and children. With a three-on-one, I
believe it would only be safe for my family to do my best
to incapacitate (not necessarily kill, although it
might happen more readily in this situation) two of the
attackers, and hope the third one gets some
doubt.<br><br>What do you think?