Self Defense against an MMA trained aggressor

[allenjp]

There's a reason that justification of the use of force has not been quantified as black letter law. Let's take the same bad guy; a 5' 10", 230 lb Hells Angel, about 25 years old. No weapons displayed or involved (as unlikely as that is). Now let's look at a couple of potential victims: a 22 year old US Navy SEAL, a 32 year old male typical "weekend warrior" in decent shape, a 42 year old MMA champion (think Randy Couture), a 45 year old female police officer who's also a competitive athlete, and a 75 year old retiree. Each of them would be justified in using a different level of force against the same attack, like a grab and punch combo, from that biker... Some may not be justified in using anything but empty hands, while others would be probably be justified in using lethal force!

All true, but what about the 32 year old computer programmer who doesn't practice any form of MA and while he may look physically able to defend himself, is just as likely as not to be killed by said 25 year biker behemoth?

This is a much more likely scenario IMO...

 

[MJS]

Guess I'll get back into the fray here...

I'm all for having the mindset/mental placement/blackness of heart etc... to fight like a pitbull and leave nothing out of bounds when the situation warrants it.

But as to the "attack first" concept, many here would do well to remember that as far as the law in many places is concerned, being the first to launch an actual physical attack when only words or threats have been exchanged up to that point makes you guilty of assault. Especially if you display the level of ferocity being discussed here. If you use a weapon in said encounter and you attack first, it could be assault with a deadly weapon, or worse, attempted murder. Whoever it was that suggested "shoot them" should be aware that there can also be legal problems with shooting a lone attacker if they are unarmed, even if they initiate the physical attack. Also, once the threat is removed, (the attacker is retreating, or unconcious, or laying on the ground bleeding and not offering any more violence) you should stop your attack immediately.

I work with inmates in jails a lot, and I can tell you that many of them were only defending themselves from an attack, but since the attacker ended up worse off than them, they are the ones arrested. Especially if the other guy (or gal, I am not sexist) called the police first.

I was the one who suggested carrying weapons and using them, and I affirm that opinion. But it should be made clear that that is only in case you are actually physically attacked. It would be difficult to explain your actions to a police officer, if you were to bludgoen/stab/shoot someone simply for saying they were going to attack you, if they didn't actually do it.

So my humble advice is, wait until you are actually attacked, and then beat them so they never forget it. And always be the first to call the police once the threat is ended.

Always remember, as dangerous as street fights can be, jail fights are almost always worse...

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything. The one thing that caught my eye was when you said to wait until you're attacked. Personally, I'd rather not wait until the attack is half way to me, but instead to use a pre-emptive strike. In other words, when the guy is drawing back to hit me, that is when I'm going to start my defense. Will I be in the wrong? Don't know, but frankly, at that point, the situation has escalated, I'm now in more fear for my well being, and am going to act.

Mike

 

[jks9199]

All true, but what about the 32 year old computer programmer who doesn't practice any form of MA and while he may look physically able to defend himself, is just as likely as not to be killed by said 25 year biker behemoth?

This is a much more likely scenario IMO...

I tried to make up a reasonable cross section of people; I can't possibly come up with every single combination. The hypothetical SEAL I included could have a serious injury impairing his ability to fight, or might be exhausted. The 75 year old retiree I mentioned could be any of several highly respected, well known, and fantastically capable martial arts masters I know of, like Maasaki Hatsumi or Dr. M. Gyi (among others) who are more than capable of defending themselves. The point I was trying to make is that there is no way to write a law that contemplates every possible combination of victim, attack, and attacker -- so the reasonableness of a particular use of force relies upon the articulation and explanation of the totality of the circumstances that surround it; what is reasonable in one set of circumstances would be completely unreasonable in another.

 

[allenjp]

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything. The one thing that caught my eye was when you said to wait until you're attacked. Personally, I'd rather not wait until the attack is half way to me, but instead to use a pre-emptive strike. In other words, when the guy is drawing back to hit me, that is when I'm going to start my defense. Will I be in the wrong? Don't know, but frankly, at that point, the situation has escalated, I'm now in more fear for my well being, and am going to act.

Mike

Yeah, it's a tough one, I understand what you're saying. It's hard for me to know if I would be able to wait until attacked, but just know that those kinds of things ("preemptive strike") are exactly what they are looking for to get you in trouble, they often don't see you as the victim, just another person involved in violence, especially if you beat thet livin' hell out of the guy (which by the way I am in favor of). But you should at any rate try to be the first to call the police to report that HE assaulted YOU, and only ever say that you were afraid. Scared, afraid, terrorized. Never anything about being pissed, or justified in what you did. Only afraid...

I should add though that once he draws a fist back, or even moves toward you threateningly, that can be considered a sufficient show of intent to attack, it just depends on the officer that comes to investigate, and the jury you get if charges are filed. I am mainly talking about when there have been no physical moves yet, just talking and mild posturing. But everything is open to interpretation...

 

[allenjp]

I tried to make up a reasonable cross section of people; I can't possibly come up with every single combination. The hypothetical SEAL I included could have a serious injury impairing his ability to fight, or might be exhausted. The 75 year old retiree I mentioned could be any of several highly respected, well known, and fantastically capable martial arts masters I know of, like Maasaki Hatsumi or Dr. M. Gyi (among others) who are more than capable of defending themselves. The point I was trying to make is that there is no way to write a law that contemplates every possible combination of victim, attack, and attacker -- so the reasonableness of a particular use of force relies upon the articulation and explanation of the totality of the circumstances that surround it; what is reasonable in one set of circumstances would be completely unreasonable in another.

I know whay the laws are written that way, because it's impossible to do it any other way for the reasons you mentioned. Problem comes because the people interpreting those laws that have authority over you currently are not the best ones to be making those decisions IMO.

I was just messin' wit ya, it's all good

 

[MJS]

Yeah, it's a tough one, I understand what you're saying. It's hard for me to know if I would be able to wait until attacked, but just know that those kinds of things ("preemptive strike") are exactly what they are looking for to get you in trouble, they often don't see you as the victim, just another person involved in violence, especially if you beat thet livin' hell out of the guy (which by the way I am in favor of). But you should at any rate try to be the first to call the police to report that HE assaulted YOU, and only ever say that you were afraid. Scared, afraid, terrorized. Never anything about being pissed, or justified in what you did. Only afraid...

I should add though that once he draws a fist back, or even moves toward you threateningly, that can be considered a sufficient show of intent to attack, it just depends on the officer that comes to investigate, and the jury you get if charges are filed. I am mainly talking about when there have been no physical moves yet, just talking and mild posturing. But everything is open to interpretation...

And thats what sucks IMHO. Someone makes physical threats to you. You attempt to verbally defuse the situation. It doesnt work. Things get heated. Opponent makes aggressive moves towards you....and the jury feels that we're supposed to wait until we get hit???? I wonder what the jury member would do if he/she were in a situation like that.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the jury, and IMO, I take that as a sign of aggression towards me. Unless I had no brains, I'm not going to stand there and wait until the punch, kick or whatever else they may be doing, is half way to my face or body.

Now, as you said in your closing paragraph, if there is no aggressive moes towards you, and its simply posturing and verbal comments, I don't think you should haul off and clock the guy....as tempting as it is.

 

[allenjp]

And thats what sucks IMHO. Someone makes physical threats to you. You attempt to verbally defuse the situation. It doesnt work. Things get heated. Opponent makes aggressive moves towards you....and the jury feels that we're supposed to wait until we get hit???? I wonder what the jury member would do if he/she were in a situation like that.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the jury, and IMO, I take that as a sign of aggression towards me. Unless I had no brains, I'm not going to stand there and wait until the punch, kick or whatever else they may be doing, is half way to my face or body.

Now, as you said in your closing paragraph, if there is no aggressive moes towards you, and its simply posturing and verbal comments, I don't think you should haul off and clock the guy....as tempting as it is.

That's the exact problem I think is that most jurors will not have had to face a situation like that. It's the same problem I have when I argue the futility of gun control laws that are too restrictive. When I hypothesize about that person being attacked by someone, many times I get answers like "Well that wouldn't happen to me because I wouldn't be in a place where thaings like that happen" or "In my whole life of 40 something years I have never had a situation like that" or even worse "If I am in a situation like that I would rather them kill me than me kill them". It is precisely that kind of thinking that makes them think that even if you were the one attacked, you probably did something to deserve it in the first place. Even if just by your very presence in the place where the altercation ocurred.

And I haven't even covered the situation where the police lie to convict you, yes I have seen it happen, and just try to get a juror to believe your word over that of a police officer...

 

[jks9199]

The concept of preemptive self defense has been discussed several times previously (check among these threads, for example), and I'd be happy to discuss it again. (In brief, yes, you can generally defend yourself before you get hit -- but you have to articulate why very carefully.) But, it's pretty far off topic for this thread, so if you want to do so, let's either start a new thread, or revive one of the previous ones.

 

[MJS]

The concept of preemptive self defense has been discussed several times previously (check among these threads, for example), and I'd be happy to discuss it again. (In brief, yes, you can generally defend yourself before you get hit -- but you have to articulate why very carefully.) But, it's pretty far off topic for this thread, so if you want to do so, let's either start a new thread, or revive one of the previous ones.

New thread here. We can reserve this thread for the original discussion.

Mike

 

[MJS]

That's the exact problem I think is that most jurors will not have had to face a situation like that. It's the same problem I have when I argue the futility of gun control laws that are too restrictive. When I hypothesize about that person being attacked by someone, many times I get answers like "Well that wouldn't happen to me because I wouldn't be in a place where thaings like that happen" or "In my whole life of 40 something years I have never had a situation like that" or even worse "If I am in a situation like that I would rather them kill me than me kill them". It is precisely that kind of thinking that makes them think that even if you were the one attacked, you probably did something to deserve it in the first place. Even if just by your very presence in the place where the altercation ocurred.

And I haven't even covered the situation where the police lie to convict you, yes I have seen it happen, and just try to get a juror to believe your word over that of a police officer...

I hear ya! I think this discussion is important and I'd be happy to hear more in the other thread I started.