Honor or Freedom

[loki09789]

Another question. Taking one of the situations that we have addressed before. Walking to your car late at night, and you're approached by someone. You are with your wife and you have no idea if this guy is armed or not. He pulls out a knife and demands your money and car. What would you do in this situation? Is talking an option or is this situation past that point?

Mike

Firstly, if he pulls a knife I know he is armed ....

Disclaimer: I really dislike this type of vague "What if" verbal scenarioing in this type of setting. For instructional purposes it is fun and enlightening though.

Here it goes though:

IF I have ID'd said Bad Guy (BG) as peculiar because of awareness before he has pulled the knife, I would keep an eye on him to track his path and where it will take him. IF he seems to be making a B line for me and mine, I would move to a blocking position between them and him simply by moving to the 'last man/first man' position in the group depending on his travel in relation to mine. Since I always try to have my keys in hand as I approach I would slide my thumb onto the unlock button on my remote starter and be prepped to open the doors quickly if necessary. IF we got to the car first, I would unlock the doors as usually and we would pile in and lock them behind us. DONE

IF he cuts us off before we get there, I stay between mine and BG and hit the 'sound alarm' button on the remote, back up and position cars, poles and such between him and us generally heading in the direction of lights and population. If he closes the distance and tries to attack. I run screaming like a girl dragging my family with after throwing the loose change in my pocket into his face.

IF he totally surprises us and and there is no way to safely retreat, I give him the money and the car and collect the insurance later and report the theft to credit card companies, banks and such sundries. IF he tries to kidnap us or my wife/child in some combination, NO WAY. I smash the window on my car, setting off the alarm and I make as solid a stand as possible. My family is versed on stranger danger/Self Defense (future wife is also a student in my program, my son regularly trains in 'stranger danger') stuff so one of us would be able to squirt out of there and report it to someone. He is only one guy and three of us, can't control all of us with a knife.

IF he totally ambushes us, same alarm sounding only with the remote this time and now physical technique comes into play. I would use the appropriate level of force to stop the attack - even to the level of lethal force if was necessary. If I am successful at stopping the threat, we retreat to a safe place (not specified in the scenario, but generally well lit and popullated place).

Once any of these possible situations is done, I make sure that everyone is healthy and, if necessary seek medical attention in the process of reporting it with 911 call. If I don't have to administer 1st Aid, I IMMEDIATELY begin memorizing and writing down as many details as possible to help the police responding to the call. Even if it is with stone on the pavement, it is better to have it down before you forget in the aftermath of emotional come down. I call my lawyer at the first opportunity if I had to use physical self defense techniques and respectfully cooperate as fully as he counsels to make sure that my ducks are in a row - I will defer to his expertise in the legal arena of self defense because he is the 'Black Belt' there.

Any questions? Or is that enough?

 

[MJS]

Firstly, if he pulls a knife I know he is armed ....

Clarification on that...upon first approach, you dont know. Sorry for confusion on my end.

Disclaimer: I really dislike this type of vague "What if" verbal scenarioing in this type of setting. For instructional purposes it is fun and enlightening though.

Just a 'what if' situation, nothing more/nothing less.

Here it goes though:

IF I have ID'd said Bad Guy (BG) as peculiar because of awareness before he has pulled the knife, I would keep an eye on him to track his path and where it will take him. IF he seems to be making a B line for me and mine, I would move to a blocking position between them and him simply by moving to the 'last man/first man' position in the group depending on his travel in relation to mine. Since I always try to have my keys in hand as I approach I would slide my thumb onto the unlock button on my remote starter and be prepped to open the doors quickly if necessary. IF we got to the car first, I would unlock the doors as usually and we would pile in and lock them behind us. DONE

Ok.

IF he cuts us off before we get there, I stay between mine and BG and hit the 'sound alarm' button on the remote, back up and position cars, poles and such between him and us generally heading in the direction of lights and population. If he closes the distance and tries to attack. I run screaming like a girl dragging my family with after throwing the loose change in my pocket into his face.

Sounds good, but I wouldnt rely on the alarm to save myself, due to the fact that everyone has them, they're always going off, and people have a habit of ignoring them.

IF he totally surprises us and and there is no way to safely retreat, I give him the money and the car and collect the insurance later and report the theft to credit card companies, banks and such sundries. IF he tries to kidnap us or my wife/child in some combination, NO WAY. I smash the window on my car, setting off the alarm and I make as solid a stand as possible. My family is versed on stranger danger/Self Defense (future wife is also a student in my program, my son regularly trains in 'stranger danger') stuff so one of us would be able to squirt out of there and report it to someone. He is only one guy and three of us, can't control all of us with a knife.

So you had everything over, and then he still kills you. This has happened before to store clerks.

IF he totally ambushes us, same alarm sounding only with the remote this time and now physical technique comes into play. I would use the appropriate level of force to stop the attack - even to the level of lethal force if was necessary. If I am successful at stopping the threat, we retreat to a safe place (not specified in the scenario, but generally well lit and popullated place).

Glad to see that you mentioned lethal force here. Then again, this paragraph sounds very similar to what I've said, but have been peppered with questions from people on.

Once any of these possible situations is done, I make sure that everyone is healthy and, if necessary seek medical attention in the process of reporting it with 911 call. If I don't have to administer 1st Aid, I IMMEDIATELY begin memorizing and writing down as many details as possible to help the police responding to the call. Even if it is with stone on the pavement, it is better to have it down before you forget in the aftermath of emotional come down. I call my lawyer at the first opportunity if I had to use physical self defense techniques and respectfully cooperate as fully as he counsels to make sure that my ducks are in a row - I will defer to his expertise in the legal arena of self defense because he is the 'Black Belt' there.

Ok.

Any questions? Or is that enough?

Thats enough. No questions. Thank you. :asian:

Mike

 

[MJS]

I think that we have beat this issue like a dead horse. And yes, the topics have drifted, but thats all part of a forum I guess!

We are all human, and we will most likely all respond to a given situation in amny different ways. Are some better than others? Yup. Again, I would think that any MA, once they have started training, will automatically be a little more aware. As for the gen. public, let me just say that after 9/11, I feel that even the gen. public are more aware of things around them. I would wager a bet that if another hijacking happened, you'd see more people getting up and fighting back, rather than sit and submit. Either way, there is a good chance that they'll die anyway, but at least they didnt go down without a fight, right?

As for how much force is too much....I think that is common sense. I mean, throwing someone down compared to breaking their neck?? Hmm..doesnt take much thinking, IMO. I still look at it like this. If I'm minding my own business, and someone starts trouble, then they get what they deserve. I mean, if a wasp is just hanging around the nest, chances are, they'll just continue to hang. Now, if you go over and knock that nest down, you'll most likely get stung!!! I have a right to defend myself, and I'm not going to be intimidated by the court into thinking otherwise. I have said before and I'll say again, that as long as you use as much force that is being used against you, you should have no problem. If a drunk at a party, who can hardly walk, bumps into me, I'm not going to break his knee. But if that same drunk takes a swing at me, I see nothing wrong with doing the same to him. With each level of force that they use, you simply meet it with your own equal force.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Sounds good, but I wouldnt rely on the alarm to save myself, due to the fact that everyone has them, they're always going off, and people have a habit of ignoring them.

So you had everything over, and then he still kills you. This has happened before to store clerks.

Glad to see that you mentioned lethal force here. Then again, this paragraph sounds very similar to what I've said, but have been peppered with questions from people on.

I am not relying on the alarm to save my life, nor is it exclusively done to draw attention, it also scratches at the back of the BG's head, he starts to worry about the attention - it is more important that he is thrown off at that point than the attention goal.

You read on and saw that just because I agreed to cooperate isn't the same thing as letting my guard down or blindly assuming that it is over. Do you really think that, based on my answer, I was just assuming that the threat was over because he had stuff.

The difference between my mentioning of lethal force and yours is this: You are communicating verbally that your INTENTION with your lethal force is to match his lethal force. Intention is the key difference. In LEO ears this can equate to "he tried to kill me, I tried to kill him." which changes the perception of you, which leaves a trail of breadcrumbs for the attorneys to follow to tear apart justified use of force and insinuate that you 'wanted to kill him' that you were 'using your 17 years of training with the intention of doing lethal damage' to the BG.

I say that my intention CONSTANTLY is to use force, appropriate to the situation, with the INTENTION of stopping the threat I am facing and escaping safely.... If I speak as if I am REACTING with force on force, I am not accomplishing a goal, only fighting.

As far as the assumptions of Common sense and such, this thread and the constant mention of the number of good guys who end up in jail or the amount of commentary in Martial talk of how unaware the rest of the world is an indicator that common sense is not the same as educated sense and that the general public - including martial artists - need to seek more educated sense on law and penal code if they want to stay out of jail.

You can't keep your ducks in a row if you don't know what a duck is, or which row they belong in.

I think I am done now.

 

[MJS]

I am not relying on the alarm to save my life, nor is it exclusively done to draw attention, it also scratches at the back of the BG's head, he starts to worry about the attention - it is more important that he is thrown off at that point than the attention goal.

Yup, you're right, it probably will put a little fear into his mind.

The difference between my mentioning of lethal force and yours is this: You are communicating verbally that your INTENTION with your lethal force is to match his lethal force. Intention is the key difference. In LEO ears this can equate to "he tried to kill me, I tried to kill him." which changes the perception of you, which leaves a trail of breadcrumbs for the attorneys to follow to tear apart justified use of force and insinuate that you 'wanted to kill him' that you were 'using your 17 years of training with the intention of doing lethal damage' to the BG.

You're still missing the point here. You and I are saying the same thing, just worded a little differently. As I've said many times, depending on how much force is used by the attacker, that will determine how much force I respond with. If he is using empty hands, I will also. If he picks up a knife, then I'm going to use my own equalizer. If I pick up a chair or a stick, and use it, its no different because I made the odds equal now. Why should I have to stay on a low level when this guy possibly could use a weapon? The cops are going to hear only 1 side of the story if this guy is dead, and that will be my side. Its up to them to base their opinion of what happened based on what I say as well as the evidence that they gather. You have even said the same thing regarding lethal force. Here is your quote.

IF he totally ambushes us, same alarm sounding only with the remote this time and now physical technique comes into play. I would use the appropriate level of force to stop the attack - even to the level of lethal force if was necessary. If I am successful at stopping the threat, we retreat to a safe place (not specified in the scenario, but generally well lit and popullated place).

So you see, its the same thing. We would both use the level of force necessary even if it was lethal. If you fail to see the difference then you must need glasses, because I've said the same thing. Again, after ALL OTHER POSSIBLE OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, then if lethal force is the option, then so be it. The same can be applied to LEO. Just cuz they are cops, does NOT give them the right to go out and kill someone. Everytime they fire their gun, they are put on admin. duty, and their actions are looked at. Any time they use any of their options, such as pepperspray, they have to fill out a report stating why they did this.

I say that my intention CONSTANTLY is to use force, appropriate to the situation, with the INTENTION of stopping the threat I am facing and escaping safely.... If I speak as if I am REACTING with force on force, I am not accomplishing a goal, only fighting.

And again, I say the same thing. Depending on what force he uses, I will have to match that. You seem to think that I'm going to drag the guy through the streets after I kill him and say, "Yeah, see I told you! F*** with me and look what happened!" Not the case at all. However, if faced with a weapon, I will do whats necessary to defend myself. As for accomplishing a goal...my goal is to save my life.

As far as the assumptions of Common sense and such, this thread and the constant mention of the number of good guys who end up in jail or the amount of commentary in Martial talk of how unaware the rest of the world is an indicator that common sense is not the same as educated sense and that the general public - including martial artists - need to seek more educated sense on law and penal code if they want to stay out of jail.

People are more aware than you think. My wife, who has no training at all, is very aware of her surroundings when she goes out alone. Even if shes with a friend, she is still aware. When I walk to my car, I look around, even durin the day, just to see whats going on. If you are taking the time to go that extra step to research things, thats great, but I think that you're under estimating the common sense of the public.

Again, you seem to think that there is a huge difference in what we're saying, when in reality its the same, just worded differently. Its hard, especially online, to get points across to people. I can see that is happening here.

Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

The first question asked will be 'at which point could you have turned and gotten away?'. That is the point where self-defense becomes assault.

I think the first question SHOULD be "Would a Resonable person have turned and run away" not "when could you"

Reasonably, if you were minding your own business and someone pulled a knife on you would you turn and walk away?

Granted, it is possible in some situations to walk away, but by the time a situation has escalated to a violent confrontation is it often resonable to do so? if someone has become violent with you would you turn around an walk away?

Take for example the situation where you are in a bar... Guy comes up and angrilly goes "Hey you were looking at my girlfriend!" Does a reasonable person get up and leave? I would say typicaly, at that point a resonable person tries to calm the situation by saying "Oh, no, I wasnt sorry," or somthing of the kind... THEN the guy gets pissed and swings... do you walk away as he is pummeling you? Or should you have walked away as soon as he said somthing to you? When was it "reasonable" to do so?

But this thread brings up a good point... It has been stated elsewhere on this board that it is NOT the responsibility of LEO to protect you, yet this suggests you have no right to protect yourself, so it seems to me the only "Honorable" course of action is to be killed or severly injured, and let the "system" punish the person afterwords. Therefore, doing the "dishonorable" thing is the only path to safety, and if you are going to be dishonorable by "breaking the law" to defend yourself or your loved ones, why then suddenly "be honorable" and accept your fate for doing what is obviously right, if not legal?

"Somtimes the only way to uphold justice is to break the law."

 

[MJS]

Technopunk- Hats off to another great post with good points!! :asian:

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Mike,

I am not missing your point, I am reading your words and recognizing what you are saying. There is a difference because you are always referring to 'force' as tool or technique, when the legal interp for force is directly linked to intent and goal. If you are focusing on "lethal force" then your intent is to kill him. You may be justified in the event, but you have to be careful about clarifying your intent and goal when you are dealing with legal issues - motive is a huge factor in the legal system. That is why I am constant in my goal of stopping the threat and escaping, regardless of the level of force application.


Your phrasing in the legal arena of self defense:

"What happened, sir?"

"He jumped me with a knife so I used deadly force on him to protect myself"

"Okay"

Later in the court room/interview with the attornies....

"Sir, you said that you had deadly intent when you spoke to the officer on the scene, am I correct?"

"No, I said I used deadly force to protect myself."

"So, you admit that you applied your martial arts training with the intent to kill? That is the meaning of deadly force after all isn't it?"

"No, I only matched the level of force that he was using to defend myself"

"So, you felt justified to try and kill him since he was trying to kill you?"

"No, that isn't what I mean."

"What do you mean, because it seems that with your 17 years of experience you could have demonstrated more control than you did. You gave him a broken arm, cracked ribs and left him with a concussion by slamming him on the ground. Now, if you were using deadly force did you fail because you didn't kill him?"

"No. I didn't want to kill him."

(Now the jury, judge and everyone is listening and hearing you say and quoted as using lethal force - it leaves a mark on your credibility when you are trying to argue justified use of said force. The decision makers - judges, juries... - are hearing this repeated by you and the lawyers along witht the rephrasing and lack of one consistent story, at least in their minds.)
My phrasing in the same arena:

"What happened, sir?"

"He came at me with a knife and I was in fear for my life and I tried to stop him from hurting me because I wanted to get away but I couldn't. If I ran, I was afraid he would just stab me from behind."

"Okay."

Later in the courtroom/interview with the attornies....

"Sir, you said to the police on the scene that you did bodily harm to my client in a state of fear and panic, is that correct?"

"No, I said that I was in fear of my life because he was attacking me with a knife."

"Yet, in your state of fear, you chose to stay and break my clients right arm, crack 4 of his ribs and leave him with a concussion."

"I was in fear for my life and wanted to escape."

"With your 20 years of martial arts experience and your 13 years of military experience, don't you think that you could have demonstrated more control of the amount of force you used?"

"I used the level of force appropriate to stopping his attack on my at the time. He had a knife and was showing intent to kill me. I just wanted to get away. I even reported the incident right away because I knew that he was hurt and just wanted him caught, not dead."

(I have taken every opportunity to restate the "in fear of my life statement". I have reitterated his demonstrative intent to hurt me. I have used consistent language to demonstrate consistency of my presentation. I have repeated my intention was to stop the attack and get away. NEVER once did I say that I intended to use lethal force. Blood in the water for attornies)

I hate to drag this out, but we are not saying the same thing, we are close but the difference, though small in language has huge ramifications in application.


We each have our takes on this. I guess the only way we will ever really know if we both went out, intentionally got jumped in exactly the same way by exactly the same type of attack in exactly the same place and went through exactly the same legal process with exactly the same teams of legal professionals invovled....

How's Next Tuesday for you

 

[loki09789]

I think even the title of this thread indicates a biased opinion about the system and how it works, so my point about working within it will be lost because of the view that it is scewed against the good guy.

Maybe some of the LEO could add some incite to this idea. Generally speaking of course, I wouldn't want to have someone say "Well, So and SO said this was okay...." when they get jumped.

 

[MJS]

Mike,

I am not missing your point, I am reading your words and recognizing what you are saying. There is a difference because you are always referring to 'force' as tool or technique, when the legal interp for force is directly linked to intent and goal. If you are focusing on "lethal force" then your intent is to kill him. You may be justified in the event, but you have to be careful about clarifying your intent and goal when you are dealing with legal issues - motive is a huge factor in the legal system. That is why I am constant in my goal of stopping the threat and escaping, regardless of the level of force application.

Umm..Paul, I still think that you are missing it. I have stated, and I'll do it again. In a situation, I will defend myself using the proper force that is used against me. The attacker is using force right? Or would this sound better for you. I will react accordingly to his attack. Again, I say that if faced with the given situation, you respond in the proper fashion. If I'm faced with a knife attack, I will attempt to disarm the knife. Keep in mind that the attacker is trying to kill me!! You fail to see that?? He has NO regard for life, and that should be clear! If in the course of responding to his attack, I break his arm, then so be it. I'm matching his force with the proper force. Again, If I've tried ALL OTHER OPTIONS, then what else can I do??? My intent is to save my ***!!! PERIOD!! The thought of killing him is not on my mind, but if that is the only option I'm faced with, well..what would you recommend??? Again, I also say, that YOU have said the same thing.

Your phrasing in the legal arena of self defense:

"What happened, sir?"

"He jumped me with a knife so I used deadly force on him to protect myself"

Paul, you're still not getting it!! I said that I will meet his force or attack or whatever you want to call it, with an equal....and only after all other options have been exhausted. You still seem to fail to see this!

"Okay"

Later in the court room/interview with the attornies....

"Sir, you said that you had deadly intent when you spoke to the officer on the scene, am I correct?"

Typical legal twisting. Sounds kind of like what you're doing here!

"No, I said I used deadly force to protect myself."

"So, you admit that you applied your martial arts training with the intent to kill? That is the meaning of deadly force after all isn't it?"

"No, I only matched the level of force that he was using to defend myself"

"So, you felt justified to try and kill him since he was trying to kill you?"

If that was the only option the what other choice do I have???? Sorry Paul, it looks like you and I will never see eye to eye on this. The fact of the matter is, is that walking, talking or whatever will not always work!!

"No, that isn't what I mean."

"What do you mean, because it seems that with your 17 years of experience you could have demonstrated more control than you did. You gave him a broken arm, cracked ribs and left him with a concussion by slamming him on the ground. Now, if you were using deadly force did you fail because you didn't kill him?"

Again, more legal BS!! The lawyer will twist s**t around to make me look like the bad guy, when in reality, this punk attacked me!!! I'm guilty of defending myself??? Please!! Again, if breaking his arm was the last option, I'm gonna do it. I mean, why should this guy get away with trying to kill me, steal something from me, etc. and I should have to give in?? Sorry pal, it isnt gonna happen!!

"No. I didn't want to kill him."

(Now the jury, judge and everyone is listening and hearing you say and quoted as using lethal force - it leaves a mark on your credibility when you are trying to argue justified use of said force. The decision makers - judges, juries... - are hearing this repeated by you and the lawyers along witht the rephrasing and lack of one consistent story, at least in their minds.)
My phrasing in the same arena:

"What happened, sir?"

"He came at me with a knife and I was in fear for my life and I tried to stop him from hurting me because I wanted to get away but I couldn't. If I ran, I was afraid he would just stab me from behind."

Would you turn your back Paul???

"Okay."

Later in the courtroom/interview with the attornies....

"Sir, you said to the police on the scene that you did bodily harm to my client in a state of fear and panic, is that correct?"

"No, I said that I was in fear of my life because he was attacking me with a knife."

"Yet, in your state of fear, you chose to stay and break my clients right arm, crack 4 of his ribs and leave him with a concussion."

"I was in fear for my life and wanted to escape."

"With your 20 years of martial arts experience and your 13 years of military experience, don't you think that you could have demonstrated more control of the amount of force you used?"

"I used the level of force appropriate to stopping his attack on my at the time. He had a knife and was showing intent to kill me. I just wanted to get away. I even reported the incident right away because I knew that he was hurt and just wanted him caught, not dead."

Hello Paul...same thing as what I've said. Now you're saying that its ok for you to do that, but not me??

(I have taken every opportunity to restate the "in fear of my life statement". I have reitterated his demonstrative intent to hurt me. I have used consistent language to demonstrate consistency of my presentation. I have repeated my intention was to stop the attack and get away. NEVER once did I say that I intended to use lethal force. Blood in the water for attornies)

Paul...Hello!!!!!! I USED THE PROPER FORCE, TECH, OR WHATEVER TO END THE SITUATION AFTER ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED!!!!

I hate to drag this out, but we are not saying the same thing, we are close but the difference, though small in language has huge ramifications in application.

You are dragging this out because you're twisting things around. Go back to my first quote on the first page. You'll see that I said what I've been trying to tell you. I am not saying that my intention from the get go is murder.

We each have our takes on this. I guess the only way we will ever really know if we both went out, intentionally got jumped in exactly the same way by exactly the same type of attack in exactly the same place and went through exactly the same legal process with exactly the same teams of legal professionals invovled....

How's Next Tuesday for you

We are still saying the same things here. I talk about deadly force ONLY as a last resort. Definately, by all means, doing everything that you can to get out of the situation before using force is always the best option. Talking your way out, walking away, etc. unfortunately, that does not always work, so you're forced to used force. Using a controlling method, such as a lock or submission should be the next step. As the situation unfolds, bring your force level up if necessary. Even a cop has more options to use before he draws his gun. With the lawsuits, even they want to defuse a situation as quickly as they can and with the least amount of force.

Here is my first post! No mention of deadly force here.





Mike

 

[MJS]

Nope, and I never said that either. Let me explain again. If someone was attacking me with a knife, I never said that I'd grab a knife too. Of course, I'm going to grab something and use it. Now, if I pick up a stick and hit his hand causing him to drop the knife, then my goal was acheived. If I am able to do a disarm, and during the course of that his arm gets broken..oh well! Your force should move up at the same level. If you're dealing with a drunk at a club or party, taking his eye is NOT the best choice, compared to a lock. Now, if this guy still isnt getting the hint, then maybe taking him to the ground with that lock will get the point across. If he gets up and takes a swing at me and I hit him and break his nose, I'm still meeting his force with something equal.

Heres another. Again, no mention of deadly force.


Mike

 

[CanuckMA]

I think the first question SHOULD be "Would a Resonable person have turned and run away" not "when could you"

No, the legal question is 'when could you', there is an implied safely.

Reasonably, if you were minding your own business and someone pulled a knife on you would you turn and walk away?

If I felt I could do so safely, yes. If not, the law allows you to use the minimum amount of force necessary to disengage.

Granted, it is possible in some situations to walk away, but by the time a situation has escalated to a violent confrontation is it often resonable to do so? if someone has become violent with you would you turn around an walk away?

Take for example the situation where you are in a bar... Guy comes up and angrilly goes "Hey you were looking at my girlfriend!" Does a reasonable person get up and leave? I would say typicaly, at that point a resonable person tries to calm the situation by saying "Oh, no, I wasnt sorry," or somthing of the kind... THEN the guy gets pissed and swings... do you walk away as he is pummeling you? Or should you have walked away as soon as he said somthing to you? When was it "reasonable" to do so?

In this situation, you apply enough force to stop the confrontation.

But this thread brings up a good point... It has been stated elsewhere on this board that it is NOT the responsibility of LEO to protect you, yet this suggests you have no right to protect yourself, so it seems to me the only "Honorable" course of action is to be killed or severly injured, and let the "system" punish the person afterwords. Therefore, doing the "dishonorable" thing is the only path to safety, and if you are going to be dishonorable by "breaking the law" to defend yourself or your loved ones, why then suddenly "be honorable" and accept your fate for doing what is obviously right, if not legal?

"Somtimes the only way to uphold justice is to break the law."

No. You have a right to protect yourself. However, physical confrontation must be the last resort. And the greater the training, the smallest amount of leeway you have wrt the amount of force. An untrained individual can get away with pummelling somebody to death because he can argue panic and no knowledge of the force of his blows. A MAist can only claim panic. A combat veteran can claim neither.

 

[MJS]

Paul- I went back, looked through all my posts and found no mention on my part of deadly force. I found that I always said that I'd use the proper force as whats being used against me.

Now, I may have missed it, so if you'd care to go back and look, please feel free to do so, and post it here.

Mike

 

[MJS]

No, the legal question is 'when could you', there is an implied safely.

When could you? At any time really. So sure, turn your back, and get sucker punched?? After you dealt with the situation? Well, in that case the situation is already dealt with, so of course you're going to leave and get assistance.

If I felt I could do so safely, yes. If not, the law allows you to use the minimum amount of force necessary to disengage.

And what kind of fantasy island are you living on???? If a weapon is implied you should never turn your back.

In this situation, you apply enough force to stop the confrontation.

Yup, I think thats been established.

No. You have a right to protect yourself. However, physical confrontation must be the last resort. And the greater the training, the smallest amount of leeway you have wrt the amount of force. An untrained individual can get away with pummelling somebody to death because he can argue panic and no knowledge of the force of his blows. A MAist can only claim panic. A combat veteran can claim neither.

So it just goes to show that the good guy gets the shaft!!! Sorry, but I cant buy that one. I can only speak for myself here, but I will not be a victim. An untrained person can get away with anything?? Thats Bull!!! So youre telling me that an untrained person can pick up a concrete block and pummle someone over and over and get away with it cuz he didnt know that by doing that it would kill the person?? Again, BULL!!! "Gee Mr. Officer, I didnt realize I'd kill someone by stabbing them with a knife. I dont train in the Filipino arts, where knife work is taught, so I never would have known" PLEASE!!!!!

If someone is gonna lock me up for defending my life, the life of my family, loved ones, etc, then this world is truly screwed up!!!

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Mike,

I agree that this stuff can look like BS, but that is why I include it as one of the three arenas of self defense that you (we) need to be versed in.

It isn't 'my stuff' but the legal system. Very specific, very technical and yeah, it can be BS when you meant well and seemed to do the right thing, but the system says that you didn't have your ducks in a row and you get sentenced or sued... but that makes it our responsibility to know how the system works to be just as skilled in surviving the legal arena as we are at surviving the 'street' arena.

Remember that the legal system isn't about what you 'meant' but what you can support. language is the weapon of the legal system. Gotta know how it works.

 

[MJS]

The Five Levels of Force

Sergeant Jim Wagner



There is a proverb that declares, “You do as you are trained.” If you are trained to always defend yourself with feet and fist a blazing, then be prepared to possibly go to jail, face criminal charges, or lose everything you own in a civil suit.

The vast majority of civilian-based martial arts programs have a “cookie cutter” approach to self-defense. They use the exact same amount of force, delivering a variety of defensive and offensive techniques, regardless of the opponent or the circumstances.

Whether it’s one point sparring or freestyle sparring, most practitioners visualize their training partner as “the generic attacker.” The generic attacker is someone who comes at you, but they have no specific reason for attacking you, there is no history leading up to the attack, and there are no special circumstances surrounding the impending event. It’s just an attack. Of course, in order to effectively deal with a generic attacker you must deal with them generically; be it with a kick, punch, take down, or any combination thereof.

Unfortunately, in real life the generic attacker does not exist. Every individual is unique, and every situation will not only be itself unique, but radically different from the next. For example, what will you do when your unarmed attacker is a drunken old man trying to hit you with his fist? Do you punch him like you would a 20 year old? What action do you take when the attacker is a sixth grader trying to stab you in the leg with a pair of scissors? Do you strike her in throat with the knife-edge of your hand because she is using a weapon? Would you use lethal force on someone who purposely threw bleach into your eyes? The possible scenarios are endless. Do you train for such unconventional attacks?



Law enforcement training vs. civilian training


One area where I believe that law enforcement training is light years past civilian martial arts training is in the area of the appropriate use of force in conflict situations. Every law enforcement agency across North America has a Use-of-Force Policy (a written document) found in a Manual of Rules and Regulations. The policy sets forth broad guidelines, which recommends that officers use physical force, which is both reasonable and necessary to overcome resistance, and to protect lives and property. The articles are generally loosely worded since any incident would be evaluated in its “totality of circumstances.” We’ll get back to this term later.

In addition to the Use-of-Force Policy, law enforcement officers are taught early on in their careers, starting at the academy, the Control Continuum. This is a fancy terms which means that there are various levels of threats, and therefore require the appropriate level of response to control each one. The five levels of threat (the threat being from our would be attacker) are: 1. Intimidating demeanor 2. Passive resistance 3. Active resistance 4. Assault 5. Aggravated Assault. The five corresponding responses to these threats are: 1. Command Presence 2. Verbal commands 3. Controlling Force 4. Impact force 5. Deadly force Now, if you’re not a cop you’re probably wondering how this all applies to you. Here’s how. Although law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard than civilians, guess what? If you use force on someone you will be held to similar standards. In fact, who do you think is going to make the first judgment call concerning your actions? That’s right, a law enforcement officer who, by the way, has all of these terms deeply ingrained in their head. Then, when you get to court, the lawyers and the Judge, will also be swinging these terms around. Therefore, as I go through the list, these terms will also apply to you should you ever find yourself “post self-defense.”



Command presence

This is a very popular term in “cop speak.” It basically means, appearing confident and in control. The mere presence of such a person demands respect, or at least instills a healthy dose of “the fear of God.” Likewise, you can use command presence to avoid a fight just by coming across bold to those you come into contact with. Advice typically given to women in rape prevention courses is, “Walk like you have a purpose, so as not to look afraid and vulnerable.”
In addition looking squared away, you should always look people directly into their eyes, and keep your face emotionless when dealing with people who are trying to intimidate you.



Verbal commands


When I was off duty one day with my wife at a hot dog stand a transient approach us to pan handle. I politely told him to move on, but he insisted on getting some money from me. I then jumped into the next level of my command presence and told him that if he didn’t get out of my face that I’d call the cops. He was shaken by the tone of my voice, muttered some profanities, and then scurried off. Oh sure, he could have just as easily have pulled a knife and lunged at me, in which case I was also ready for that, but he didn’t. My “tactical talking” had worked. Not just at that incident, but good strong verbal commands have worked for me hundreds of times when in uniform.
The key is to look like your going to back up your words with the proper body language. Thus, verbal commands go hand in hand with command presence.

Controlling force


Controlling force means lying hands on someone, but it is less than fighting. For example, if an obnoxious drunkard gets into your face and won’t step to the side when politely asked, then you may have to push them out of the way. Or you may find yourself holding down a child who is throwing a tantrum and being violent. When the kid accuses you of abuse, you’ll simply state that you were controlling them by holding them down in order to prevent them from injuring them self and others. Teachers run into these kinds of problems all of the time. It may not be high risk, but it is conflict.

Of course, anytime you touch someone who is agitated may suddenly lash out at you. Therefore, never drop your guard when you are using controlling force. Be prepared for a rapid escalation of force.



Impact force


If somebody attempts to punch or kick me, as a law enforcement officer I have the right to use impact weapons. My impact weapon is a police baton. Or, if I have the time, and the opportunity, I may select to use my pepper spray (such chemical agents fall into the category of controlling force by some agencies). The law is designed so that the officer is always on a higher level of force than the subject. Impact force can cause pain or blunt trauma injuries, thus it is reserved for assault situations.

As a civilian you have the legal right to defend yourself or others against assault. Although you may not be able to take a baton to someone (that is a felony in most states), you may be permitted to use chemical agents (which is legal in my state of California) and most definitely be able to use your martial arts skills; those which are reasonable and necessary to end the attack. What constitutes “reasonable and necessary” you’re probably wondering. The standard is this: what would the average person do in exact same situation? If the average person would react like you, then you’ll have no problem. But, if the average person (the jury) feels you went over board in using physical force, you’re going to have a difficult time convincing them that it was justified..



Deadly Force


If somebody is trying to inflict great bodily harm against you, or someone in your immediate presence, you have a legal right to defend yourself. In some situations this may require deadly force. The law does not state that you need feel that your death, or someone else’s, is a prerequisite to using deadly force. The law states that great bodily harm has, or will, occur.

If you use a weapon for self-defense, you will be question about such a weapon. Before you carry any weapon you should consult with your local law enforcement agency as to what is legal to carry and what is not (provided that you are concerned about local, state, and federal laws – the bad guys are certainly not).



Totality of circumstances


We’ve returned to this term. Should you ever have to appear in court in a use-of-force case, you will be judged based upon the totality of circumstances. In other words, all of the factors will be evaluated to determine if your actions were reasonable and necessary. Factors that the court system will take into account are: your skill level, the suspect’s skill level, physical condition, weapons involved, influence of alcohol or drugs, fatigue or injuries, the environment, and of course your actions and that of the suspect’s. It’s not merely enough to say, “I was afraid for my life” as many instructors will advise their students to say, although that would definitely be a factor if it were true.

The following example is a situation of unreasonable and unnecessary force. Let’s say that you chase a thief down the street for stealing your watch. You catch up with him and jump him. You beat him senseless, and you get your watch back. No member of the jury is going to buy it that you were “afraid” for your safety. Seriously injuring somebody just over property (petty theft), who was in the act of fleeing, does not justify the use-of-force.

Approximately 10 years ago officers were told that they had to follow the Control Continuum in the exact order as they appear. First you started with verbal commands, and then if things got bad you went into controlling force, then impact force, and right up the line. However, this idea was abandoned because administrations realized that actual situations don’t always go in sequence. You could end up talking with someone one moment, then using deadly force against that person the next because they pulled a knife on you. It would be suicide to use controlling force on somebody with a knife, and impact force won’t stop him or her in time either. Therefore, the system is merely a guideline, which must be flexible.

By committing the levels of force mentioned to memory, you will be prepared to effectively defend your actions should the need ever arise.

Thought that this was an interesting article. Jim Wagner also has a cloumn in BB magazine. One thing that I'd like to point out, especially to Paul is the section under Totality of circumstances, where its talking about saying that you feared for your life.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Thought that this was an interesting article. Jim Wagner also has a cloumn in BB magazine. One thing that I'd like to point out, especially to Paul is the section under Totality of circumstances, where its talking about saying that you feared for your life.
Mike

Mike,

I can't say it any clearer than I have. Try consulting a lawyer on this stuff and show him the posts and the language and ask him what language would be more effective during legal proceedings. It is sticky business, but it really depends on what your local courts/LEO are like as well.

If you read my posts, I clarify the idea of three areas that you will be judged/scrutinized by (actions before during and after the incident) as well as the full spectrum of SD (inside you, street, legal system). So, I am not 'merely' saying that "I feared for my life" I am demonstrating it in all three areas that I will be scrutinized by from the legal system.

I am also making it very clear and as unarguable a point as possible in court that my INTENT to use the force I did was because I wanted to stop a threat and escape. Throw up all the stuff you want, but that is the hinging difference. I am - in the legal arena - presenting as consistent an impression of 'stopping the violence' and with no room for any other interpretation. The consistency of language, the lack of variation and the avoidance of mentioning any 'lethal force' on my part is what I am focusing on.

I think I have to be done with this, I see the difference, you don't so I guess we have to simply settle on disagreeing here.

 

[Gary Crawford]

Wow! Ya'll have gotten way too deep on this one.There are too many situation possibilities to have one blanket answer.The law only allows oneself to defend with enough force to stop the attack.Having said that.The known intelegence about the attacker is a large portion of any legal defense or decision of how much force is needed.The first question of both legal and situation decision is-Is this someone you personally know or know of or a complete stranger?If the attacker is known to you(and usually is),you already have a good idea what the attacker is capable of,or what the intention is.Example:if the attacker is someone you know and has made verbal threats in the past and has mentioned killing you in the threats,then leathal force can be justified and neccisary.if it's an unknown attacker,then everything is different-time to react in kind.If the attacker is unknown,then robbing you is most likely the motivation(unless you are female).If robbery is the purpose,better to give em your money and look for an opportunity to attack.If the purpose is rape,then fight with everything you have.No matter what the situation,always be the first to contact police because you did not choose to be attacked.If you are the one to contact police first,the cops will usually be on your side.

 

[Ceicei]

Paul- I went back, looked through all my posts and found no mention on my part of deadly force. I found that I always said that I'd use the proper force as whats being used against me.

Now, I may have missed it, so if you'd care to go back and look, please feel free to do so, and post it here.

Mike

MJS,

The legal system, especially the prosecutors, will try to make whatever words you use against you. "I'd use the proper force as what's being used against me" can very easily be manipulated by the lawyer to mean, "By your use of the words, 'proper force', do you mean to say if Mr. Smith intended to kill you, do you intend to kill him?" Essentially, what you are implying is the "eye for an eye theory", and unfortunately, as had been mentioned earlier, the legal system doesn't look necessarily at only what happened, but also on the intent of both parties. Expression of certain words will convey, whether for good or bad, the intent.

Now, I know what you are speaking from and I agree with you on using "proper force" equal to what the attacker did to defend myself. If he rachets up the violence against me, I will rachet up my defense--if it ended up the attacker gets seriously hurt or dead, and I manage to stay live and hopefully not as maimed, then I've done what I can. However, I certainly would do that, but I *would not* say it that way in the court.

The lawyers, most likely, will not be martial artists themselves. Their job in the legal profession is to dissect *everything* that is said and done. Basically, you will want to put yourself in the *best possible* light, and if choosing the *best words* to say will help, then do so.

Bottom line here, almost no one here on MT can argue self defense purpose is to be able to stay alive. An attack would construe as a possible attack on my life. Thus, to say "I feared for my life" as the reason for taking self defense actions is a very valid and reasonable response, and recognized in the court system.

All it boils down is how words are used. There are more than one way to describe things, some words will serve better than others. Make words your buddies whenever possible and remove all doubt from the police, medical personnel, lawyers, judge, and jury by making the words favorable for you.

- Ceicei

 

[MJS]

Ceicei- I hear ya. So basically, the bottom line is, the bad guy wins, the good guy gets screwed! No matter what I do, say, etc. it will always be wrong in the eyes on the court. Well, it looks like if I ever get attacked with a knife, I'll be the one who ends up in jail then.

Oh well.

Mike