'Reasonable' Self Defense

[seasoned]

Good point Carol K, don’t be where you are suppose to be when they thing you are not where you should have been. Angles, blocks and parries are all through the kata, and if trained consistently will become an automatic response with no thinking involved. kudos for blocks.

 

[Rich Parsons]

just curious...have you ever actually read your state's Use of Force statutes?


Sometimes cops aren't the best sources of information on what's legal and what isn't.

just sayin...

Tex,

I agree the police are not the best for Legal advice.

But as they are the first responders. They have a way of handling issues, and being hand cuffed or not and put into a car to be taken down for questioning has a way of ruining how one can perceive life.

I was just expressing that under some circumstances reacting first, may get you into trouble.

I take the 5th on if I ever responded first. :idunno:


All I have to say is the following:

:lisafault:

 

[Tez3]

Young and strong you will do what ever, and suffer the consequences later. Old and Seasoned you will try and buy time and elicit wittiness’s while looking for the way out. If this person is bent on harming you it will stand out, so my advice is to get it over with as soon as possible and administer first aid soon after. It will look good in court. J

My instructor says the last move you should do in a SD situation is put your attacker in the recovery position!! he's only half joking!!

 

[zeeberex]

this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.

I was wondering to...

Say I got in an altercation at the bar. Some guy think Im hitting on his girlfriend or whatever you want it to be. He cocks back to swing at me what are my options:

Most people would do the sensible thing and only use physical actions as a last resort but when that moment comes what do you do?

personally I want to end it quickly. Im not going to hit a guy in the face and hope that stops him. Im going for his throat or groin or some other weaker area to end it quickly, but is that considered to much force? What if I decide to strke only to the stomach or face and he gets the better of me? Would this change my decision in the future?

sorry for the long post

B

talk yer way out if you can, wait for him to go to the can, take him out there, leave quickly

 

[zeeberex]

When the courts decide what was justifiable for defense we have to realize that none of them where there and they can never understand all that was happening. It is a shame that if you put an attacker to the ground with a controlled move then hit him to make sure he will not attack once again you become the attacker. Keeping an aggressor down so they will not escalate should be considered but often it is not because of some slick talking attorney

if you need to, hit n' run and quickly leave the area

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Try to run. Failing that take away his ability to hurt you then call him an ambulance. You don't know if he has a knife, freinds or if he's a bruiser and you just got lucky. Get names of witnesses if possible. Use every reasonable exaggeration to protect yourself in court.

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html

Here, you need to show that you had an honest belief you were in fear of your life and you acted instinctively without sitting planning your attack. You can attack first to defend yourself and others. The police will of course look at your statement because they obviously cannot take at face value that it was self defence but if genuine you'll be fine.
The second link I put up has a very valid point about the media and self defence here. We had a high profile case where someone was jailed for shooting intruders leaving his house but the view was skewed by the press, he shot them as they were leaving, it was also a premeditated act as he was never threatened, he didn't even meet them in the house, he had had ample time to call the police so it was unreasonable force to kill someone in that way. If they'd broken in and he was defending himself it would have been different.

Where I live we call that 'self-defense' and acquit the guy.....no joke, we've had similar cases, and juries find them 'Not Guilty'! We really don't like burglars where I live.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As frustrating as the rules can sometimes be, especially when they "protect" someone I'm "certain" is guilty...

They actually serve to protect us all; were the rules and rights and protections of the US not so strong on protecting the accused from the might of the government, we'd all have no defense against power of the State.

Protecting criminals from the power of government is one thing.....protecting them from other citizens is quite another. To wit, passing laws designed to ensure that burglars are not unduly threatened is NOT serving the end of protecting us all from excesses of the state.

I'm libertarian in my out look......pass laws that balance the power toward homeowners, property owners and victims of crime, that give them the benefit of the doubt and WIDE LATITUDE in the face of an attack.

We have an attitude in this country as if 'This is the law, and there is nothing we can do about it'......well, We The People DO have a hand in making laws, and as is evidenced by the number of expanded Castle Doctrine laws and CCW laws over the past decade it's clear we CAN alter the law to fit our community standards.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sometimes cops aren't the best sources of information on what's legal and what isn't.

just sayin...

That's generally correct.......and many cops if they know, don't want to be responsible for telling someone something and them acting on it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sucker punched by a drunk? Wait a minute...doesn't anyone teach blocking anymore? If someone is determined to do you some harm, they will go at you. But for a random fool thats thinking right because he's half in the bag...he's going to punch at you expecting to be punched back. He'll probably be telegraphing like hell and won't expect a parrie...it may even be enough for him to stop the shenanigans.

While I can respect your opinion......There is a difference, however, subtle, between training a block in the dojo, and putting it in to practice in the street.

You may be able to pull off blocking this guys assault, I won't question that.....for my part, i've always found (and I have been on the receiving end) that a good offense is the best defense. With some guys, waiting for the actual attack is WAY TOO LATE! I prefer to hit a guy just BEFORE he swings.


Part of the issue is mindset.....anyone 'thinking' defensively is behind the power curve to begin with. In some fights it takes an offensive viciousness to come out ahead. In extreme circumstances aggression will save you when caution will not.

 

[grydth]

Try to run. Failing that take away his ability to hurt you then call him an ambulance. You don't know if he has a knife, freinds or if he's a bruiser and you just got lucky. Get names of witnesses if possible. Use every reasonable exaggeration to protect yourself in court.

For the most part, my opinion would be great advice. Many times, you can see trouble coming - get out before the storm breaks. Other times you know a place, or a person, is trouble - stay away.

Finishing it quickly is always the best advice. Getting cute or complex is a good way to get leveled.

Stay away from "reasonable exaggeration" when dealing with police and courts..... they may well view it as simply telling a lie, and once a cop or a judge catches you in a lie, it is all downhill. They will look at it 180 degrees differently. If you choose to talk to the law, tell the truth. If uncertain, don't say anything until you talk with your ow lawyer.

 

[searcher]

Here is KS we teach that you should continue until the BG is no longer a threat. As Deaf stated, that is for the jury to decide.


"I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6." Think about that phrase for a while, it may change how you look at a dangerous situation.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

"I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6." Think about that phrase for a while, it may change how you look at a dangerous situation.

It makes me think I'd rather avoid either scenario
While there are situations where that level of force is required, the vast majority of them could be ended safely without resorting to it. I don't mean that we should ignore the possibility it could be required, thats just sticking your head under the blanket and hoping the bad men go away.
What I do feel is that an awful lot of martial artists seem to focus only on the part where either you hand your opponent flowers and heal his tortured soul with your love beams - or else the part where you bludgeon him to death with his own severed legs.
There's a large gap in between those that many arts and dojo's seem very determined to avoid.

 

[tellner]

This is a really important topic, one where there's a lot of misinformation.

Remember that the whole point of self defense is to go home, have a beer and make love to your honey at the end of the day.

That means you have to make it home, be allowed to live in your home and have a honey who isn't going to beat you up. I'll assume that everyone here has enough training for the first part. If you're having trouble with #3 talk to me offline. There are plenty of resources for people dealing with domestic violence.

#2 is the sticky issue.

I'm not an expert. I'm certainly not a lawyer. If I were I still wouldn't be your lawyer. If you take legal advice from me you've made a real mistake. But I do know people who are experts.

Anyone who can scrape together the money really needs to take Massad Ayoob's LFI-1. He is an expert. He's been a prosecutor, run many many many successful legal defense teams in self-defense cases and is accepted as an expert witness by just about every courtroom where they don't actually play racquetball.

Seriously. The guy knows more about it than just about anyone around, and he gives you pretty much everything a regular person would ever need to know. When I took the course a judge and a couple defense attorneys were there as students. They said they learned more in those twenty hours than they had ever learned in law school.

Anyhow, now that the unsolicited plug is over, let's get back to the discussion.

If you're serious about self defense you need to know how to stay on the right side of the Law so that the police and courts will let you go home to have that beer.

You need to do the right thing.
You need to avoid doing the wrong thing.
You need to convince the people in authority that you did the right thing.

The Right Thing

The first thing you need here is information. What does the Law say you can do?

A lot of martial arts teachers think they know. But unless they've had special training in the legal aspects of self defense they don't know anymore than you do. Maybe less. A lot of them have a bunch of myths and legends. A lot of those are self-serving ones that are designed to reinforce the idea that their martial arts are especially deadly. Some of ths stuff that I've been told by Black Belts would have put me in jail if I'd listened to them.

So forget what your Sensei said unless he's a cop, a lawyer, a judge or has had something like the training from FAS, LFI, Modern Warrior or a similar well-respected place that has a track record of steering people in the right direction.

Cops know some things about the Law. But they're not judges or lawyers. Their job is to "uphold the peace and enforce the Law", to investigate crimes, to arrest suspects and to drink an amazing quantity of really bad coffee. More power to them. But they are generally only familiar with the little bits of the Law that directly concern their jobs, and even then a lot of them forgot the specifics as soon as they got out of the Academy. Their advice is better than most people's but it's not something to stake your freedom on.

There are people who have spent years and thousands of dollars learning what the Law is. They can tell you what it is, what it means and give you advice on how to stay on the right side of it. They are called attorneys. It doesn't cost much to go to a good defense attorney and ask him or her to look up the statutes and case law concerning self defense in the area where you live. It's well worth the investment. Besides, they remember people who have given them money. If you have to use force to defend yourself you know who to call and won't have to rely on an underpaid public defender.

The next thing to do is figure out your own definition of "reasonable", your own personal and ethical limits. That's a job for you and your conscience. I have answers which work for me. You have to develop answers which work for you. "Eat your enemies in secret" has a certain visceral appeal but probably won't get you many friends. I can't fully comprehend total pacifism, but some people live by it.

Never Point the Weapon at Anything You're Not Prepared to Destroy Buy

Another thing to remember is that if you do use physical force let alone deadly force your standards for "reasonable self defense" are going to run right up against those of the police, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. You might not be charged with anything, but there's a good chance you will. And you will get involved with lawyers and billable hours. Make sure that whatever you do is worth the $10,000+ it will take to extract yourself from the mess.

Someone calls you names. Is giving him the ***-whipping he's begging for worth ten grand? Probably not.

Someone is trying to stick body parts normally covered by underwear into your personal areas without permission. Is keeping them out worth that much to you? A year's worth of AIDS medicine costs at least that much. Trauma counseling can cost even more. So, yes.

A guy with an "88HH Rahowa!" tattoo has pulled a knife on a friend because she wears a head scarf? As far as I'm convinced she can't be replaced. It's worth the legal fees to keep her alive.

Who Says It's Reasonable?

Unfortunately, when you're in front of a jury of your peers it's not a jury of MTalkers. It's a jury of twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty and probably don't get out much period. Their ideas about martial arts, self defense and your capabilities come from movies and television. If they knew anything about the subject they wouldn't be allowed on the jury.

The prosecutor is going to try and convince them that you are the love-child of Hitler and bin Laden.

The judge spends his time as God Almighty in his courtroom. He has court officers to protect him. He is overworked and probably bored. If you're lucky you won't get one who practices pneumatic hobbies while he's presiding over your case.

The guiding principle here is:

Know what you did and why you did it. Be able to explain it to a group of ignorant unfriendly people.

Keep all that in mind. Internalize it. Live it. Avoid trouble where you can. And you might get to go home at the end of the day, have a beer and make love to your honey.

 

[Cruentus]

Part of the issue is mindset.....anyone 'thinking' defensively is behind the power curve to begin with. In some fights it takes an offensive viciousness to come out ahead. In extreme circumstances aggression will save you when caution will not.

I am not going to hash through the legal discussion only because it has been discussed so much in the past here on this forum that I am of the opinion that you will get almost everything you need to know simply by using the search function. From that point, you need to talk to an attorney that specializes in this area (preferably one that will defend you if you get in this sort of a circumstance) that will help you hash out the true info from the BS.

Ultimatily it will come down to who's attorney can beat up who's in the courtroom; and your behavior will help or hurt your attorney's ability to defend YOU.

But I quoted the above because I am an wholehearted agreement with the statement. This idea that your level of training will allow you to have superhuman control over your opponent(s) is a false one, and one that has gotten people killed. You need to respond appropriate to the circumstance and level of threat from an objective standpoint rather then thinking that because you are really experienced in the martial arts that you can avoid having to use an appropriate level of force (which may be lethal force depending on the circumstance).

 

[Guardian]

Second, under criminal law here in Texas you can use force, or deadly force, to protect a third party (but under civil law you still can be sued, maybe not sucessfully, but they can try.)

Good point, but if I remember right under the Castle Doctrine or "Stand your Ground Law" here in Texas if you are not criminally charged, then you cannot be sued in civil court either, they wanted to cover both aspects just for that cause.

I'll have to recheck that just to make sure.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Good point, but if I remember right under the Castle Doctrine or "Stand your Ground Law" here in Texas if you are not criminally charged, then you cannot be sued in civil court either, they wanted to cover both aspects just for that cause.

It applies only in your home Guardian. The Castle Doctrine does cover lawsuits, but only in your home.

The 'Stand Your Ground Law" allows you to not have to retreat outside your home. But, it does not cover civil remedies. So, yes, you can be sued.

Deaf

 

[Guardian]

It applies only in your home Guardian. The Castle Doctrine does cover lawsuits, but only in your home.

The 'Stand Your Ground Law" allows you to not have to retreat outside your home. But, it does not cover civil remedies. So, yes, you can be sued.

Deaf

Sorry wrong date and it was a double entry

 

[Guardian]

It applies only in your home Guardian. The Castle Doctrine does cover lawsuits, but only in your home.

The 'Stand Your Ground Law" allows you to not have to retreat outside your home. But, it does not cover civil remedies. So, yes, you can be sued.

Deaf

Ok, help me out Deaf, this is the new law effective
1 Sep 2007 as far as I read it or have found and it reversed that from the old law.

•It presumes you are reasonable in using deadly force if someone – illegally and with force – enters or is attempting to enter your occupied home, car or workplace. You are not given this presumption if you provoked the person or were engaged in a crime.
•It removes your obligation to retreat if possible before using deadly force if you are anywhere you have a right to be. The previous law obliged you to retreat if a "reasonable person" would have, except in a situation where someone unlawfully entered your home.
•It gives you added protection from lawsuits by injured attackers or their families. The previous law granted this protection if someone illegally entered your home, but not in other situations.

The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force.
Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force.

 

[Guardian]

Or I guess my question should be is this the law now?