Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Just my opinion. I have a background in law enforcement, but I am not a cop either and have not been one for a very long time.
An old saying in karate is that there is no first strike in karate. Many people interpret this in many ways, but some people believe it means you have to wait to be attacked before you can respond. That's not how I interpret it.
I actually follow the laws of self-defense of most US states, including Michigan, where I live. Typically, the laws of self-defense have nothing to say about who hits first. The law doesn't care. The law also doesn't care if you have martial arts training or not.
Many of us who were raised in the USA may have had certain 'rules' instilled in us by our parents or by society.
1) Don't hit first.
2) If you have to fight, fight fair.
What that typically means is that as kids, we are expected not to initiate a fight, but if we have to fight, we don't pull hair, kick in the testicles, bite, pick up weapons, etc, etc. We are expected to square off, punch punch, maybe bloody up a nose or lip, shake hands, and move on. Hey, nice morals, I'm all for it!
But that's not self-defense. That's schoolyard fighting. Very different in most circumstances.
So what is self-defense and when can you do it?
Self-defense laws in western nations commonly descend from Roman Law, which during the time of Justinian were "vim vi repellere licet," meaning 'it is permitted to repel force with force'.
So, do you have to wait for an aggressor to swing on you before you can defend yourself?
Normally, no.
In most jurisdictions in the US (and perhaps in many other nations), the threat of force is itself force.
In other words, if a person cocks their fist at me, they have threatened me. That's unlawful and therefore I have the right to defend myself with actual force. They didn't necessarily swing that fist at me - but they have indeed already broken the law by threatening to use unlawful force on me.
There is more to it than just that, though. In addition to presenting a threat of unlawful violence, in most US jurisdictions, it must be such that a so-called reasonable and prudent person would believe the person was capable of making good on their threat.
Here are some examples:
1) Bad guy cocks a fist at me and says he is going to punch me out. But he's in a wheelchair and 50 feet away from me. Could he reasonably make good on his threat? Probably not. In that case, I'm not justified in running over to him and punching his lights out.
2) Bad guy tells me he is going to punch my lights out and he's all up in my face. Angry face, shouted words, clenched fists, etc. Can he reasonably make good on his threat? Yes. Am I justified in kicking his gonads up around his tonsils? Yes, in most jurisdictions. I don't have to wait for him to swing on me; in fact, it would be stupid of me to do so.
Now, keep in mind that the law does not care what his actual intent is. The law cares about what the mythical 'reasonable and prudent' person would THINK his intent was.
That also means that I do not get to decide that some random stranger represents a threat to me and punch him out for no reason. It's not MY judgment that the law cares about, it's the judgment of the so-called 'reasonable and prudent' person. It would NOT be 'reasonable and prudent' to believe that some guy walking past me who gives me a dirty look or calls me a name represents an actual threat to me.
So, once we start defending ourselves, when do we have to stop? Presuming we can defeat the bad guy, what's the place where the law tells us we have stop hitting them?
There are no black-and-white rules about that in most cases. Typically the courts have ruled that you have to stop when the threat stops - in some cases, when you perceive the threat to have stopped.
What about what kind of force you can use to defend yourself? Same thing, there are no black-and-white rules. Typically, you have to use only that type of force that a reasonable person would feel was appropriate. Does that mean you can use a machine gun on a guy who trips you? Probably not. However, if you happen to be a black belt in a martial art and you use your skills on a guy who tried to punch you out, will you be held liable for using unjustified force? Probably not.
The Michigan Supreme Court has said “a person in a state of excitement cannot be expected to make fine distinctions as to the extent of injuries likely to be inflicted and, thus, the amount of force needed for self-defense”
In other words, if you have the legal right to defend yourself in the first place, you are allowed to get to it, and immediately. When to stop and how much force to use is generally left up to the person defending themselves, so long as their beliefs are justified.
Also please note that most jurisdictions say nothing - NOTHING - about a person's status as a martial artist. In the eyes of the law, your training has no bearing on your right to self-defense or your ability to apply force to defend yourself. You are NOT expected to 'hold yourself to a higher standard' or 'warn the aggressor before using your martial arts training,' etc. Those are myths. IF you choose to do it, great, good for you. But the law requires no such thing.
Bottom line - self-defense law is really not that difficult to grasp. It may seem that way to people who want to make it seem complicated or unfair. It's not.
If a reasonable and prudent person (see many only definitions of what that means) believes that they are in imminent danger of being unlawfully attacked, they may defend themselves from that attack.
Even if there was no actual attack intended - if a reasonable and prudent person would have believed it was going to happen, it is still legal to defend against it.
Even if you're a eleventy-dozen degree black belt who knows six different styles of dim mak and can rip out human hearts - you are still allowed to defend yourself.
You don't have to register your hands and feet as deadly weapons with the police. You don't have to warn an attacker that you know Kung Fu, Karate, or Ho Chi Minh. You don't have to restrain yourself from using your 'full powers' to defend yourself from attack.
You do not have to avoid kicking them in the snarglies, biting, hair-pulling, tripping, throwing, or whatever else your devious little mind can come up with. If it's really self-defense we're talking about, all options are available.
Some states - not many - impose a duty to retreat before one can defend oneself. In other words, if you can run away, you must do so according to the law. Frankly, I am too old, too fat, and my knees are bad; I would not be able to outrun some young punk intent on cleaning my clock. So even if the law required it, that option isn't mine to take.
I recommend that people learn about the laws of self-defense where they live. It's usually not much more difficult than a simple Google search.
An old saying in karate is that there is no first strike in karate. Many people interpret this in many ways, but some people believe it means you have to wait to be attacked before you can respond. That's not how I interpret it.
I actually follow the laws of self-defense of most US states, including Michigan, where I live. Typically, the laws of self-defense have nothing to say about who hits first. The law doesn't care. The law also doesn't care if you have martial arts training or not.
Many of us who were raised in the USA may have had certain 'rules' instilled in us by our parents or by society.
1) Don't hit first.
2) If you have to fight, fight fair.
What that typically means is that as kids, we are expected not to initiate a fight, but if we have to fight, we don't pull hair, kick in the testicles, bite, pick up weapons, etc, etc. We are expected to square off, punch punch, maybe bloody up a nose or lip, shake hands, and move on. Hey, nice morals, I'm all for it!
But that's not self-defense. That's schoolyard fighting. Very different in most circumstances.
So what is self-defense and when can you do it?
Self-defense laws in western nations commonly descend from Roman Law, which during the time of Justinian were "vim vi repellere licet," meaning 'it is permitted to repel force with force'.
So, do you have to wait for an aggressor to swing on you before you can defend yourself?
Normally, no.
In most jurisdictions in the US (and perhaps in many other nations), the threat of force is itself force.
In other words, if a person cocks their fist at me, they have threatened me. That's unlawful and therefore I have the right to defend myself with actual force. They didn't necessarily swing that fist at me - but they have indeed already broken the law by threatening to use unlawful force on me.
There is more to it than just that, though. In addition to presenting a threat of unlawful violence, in most US jurisdictions, it must be such that a so-called reasonable and prudent person would believe the person was capable of making good on their threat.
Here are some examples:
1) Bad guy cocks a fist at me and says he is going to punch me out. But he's in a wheelchair and 50 feet away from me. Could he reasonably make good on his threat? Probably not. In that case, I'm not justified in running over to him and punching his lights out.
2) Bad guy tells me he is going to punch my lights out and he's all up in my face. Angry face, shouted words, clenched fists, etc. Can he reasonably make good on his threat? Yes. Am I justified in kicking his gonads up around his tonsils? Yes, in most jurisdictions. I don't have to wait for him to swing on me; in fact, it would be stupid of me to do so.
Now, keep in mind that the law does not care what his actual intent is. The law cares about what the mythical 'reasonable and prudent' person would THINK his intent was.
That also means that I do not get to decide that some random stranger represents a threat to me and punch him out for no reason. It's not MY judgment that the law cares about, it's the judgment of the so-called 'reasonable and prudent' person. It would NOT be 'reasonable and prudent' to believe that some guy walking past me who gives me a dirty look or calls me a name represents an actual threat to me.
So, once we start defending ourselves, when do we have to stop? Presuming we can defeat the bad guy, what's the place where the law tells us we have stop hitting them?
There are no black-and-white rules about that in most cases. Typically the courts have ruled that you have to stop when the threat stops - in some cases, when you perceive the threat to have stopped.
What about what kind of force you can use to defend yourself? Same thing, there are no black-and-white rules. Typically, you have to use only that type of force that a reasonable person would feel was appropriate. Does that mean you can use a machine gun on a guy who trips you? Probably not. However, if you happen to be a black belt in a martial art and you use your skills on a guy who tried to punch you out, will you be held liable for using unjustified force? Probably not.
The Michigan Supreme Court has said “a person in a state of excitement cannot be expected to make fine distinctions as to the extent of injuries likely to be inflicted and, thus, the amount of force needed for self-defense”
In other words, if you have the legal right to defend yourself in the first place, you are allowed to get to it, and immediately. When to stop and how much force to use is generally left up to the person defending themselves, so long as their beliefs are justified.
Also please note that most jurisdictions say nothing - NOTHING - about a person's status as a martial artist. In the eyes of the law, your training has no bearing on your right to self-defense or your ability to apply force to defend yourself. You are NOT expected to 'hold yourself to a higher standard' or 'warn the aggressor before using your martial arts training,' etc. Those are myths. IF you choose to do it, great, good for you. But the law requires no such thing.
Bottom line - self-defense law is really not that difficult to grasp. It may seem that way to people who want to make it seem complicated or unfair. It's not.
If a reasonable and prudent person (see many only definitions of what that means) believes that they are in imminent danger of being unlawfully attacked, they may defend themselves from that attack.
Even if there was no actual attack intended - if a reasonable and prudent person would have believed it was going to happen, it is still legal to defend against it.
Even if you're a eleventy-dozen degree black belt who knows six different styles of dim mak and can rip out human hearts - you are still allowed to defend yourself.
You don't have to register your hands and feet as deadly weapons with the police. You don't have to warn an attacker that you know Kung Fu, Karate, or Ho Chi Minh. You don't have to restrain yourself from using your 'full powers' to defend yourself from attack.
You do not have to avoid kicking them in the snarglies, biting, hair-pulling, tripping, throwing, or whatever else your devious little mind can come up with. If it's really self-defense we're talking about, all options are available.
Some states - not many - impose a duty to retreat before one can defend oneself. In other words, if you can run away, you must do so according to the law. Frankly, I am too old, too fat, and my knees are bad; I would not be able to outrun some young punk intent on cleaning my clock. So even if the law required it, that option isn't mine to take.
I recommend that people learn about the laws of self-defense where they live. It's usually not much more difficult than a simple Google search.
