Appropriateness of Response in Civilian Defense

I don't want to assume that folks at this forum have read the material at the "no nonsense self-defense" web site or the books written by notable experts Sgt. Rory Miller, Marc MacYoung, and others so I will give my opinions as I see it from those perspectives - as perceived by me.

First, the appropriateness of any response cannot be written down and practiced with any exactness. One's response to any given scenario is not something that can be put in a few words and is often chaotic in nature, etc.

Second, the appropriateness of any response is also dependent on local and state force laws. It also is dependent heavily on self-defense laws and how they are interpreted by the legal system. What one thinks is appropriate may actually end up violating the self-defense law and end up as conviction + jail time. An lets not even go to the civil side, i.e. lawsuits by the other person and/or their families, etc.

Third, it is a good thing to discuss such subjects as long as we don't get caught up in the minute particulars of one attack technique and one response technique because there are no specifics to cover violence be it a school yard scuffle to a full blown out attack by a large, mean and dangerous criminal hell bent on changing your life for the worse.

Splitting hairs between civil or civilian defense vs. the type of combative tactics of military is just not productive as they are both apples and oranges. One does not relate to the other in a strict sense although some of it may actually apply to both in a sense. Violence and fighting are very difficult to peg down into "one" thing that can be discussed intellectually. Take a look if you have not at the "no nonsense self defense site" by Marc MacYoung and you will be amazed and the volume of information which is not repeated and so thick and convoluted it speaks heavily to the difficulty and enormousness of violent encounters.

This is my perception and opinion.