Unarmed martial arts and self-defense law in the US

[Deleted member 39746]

Going back to that book i got based on the U.S polices continuum of force. and other books i have read on it, don't stomp. Or avoid it in any possible situation unless you can justify attacking someone you have grounded or tripped.

​

advocating of minimum force seems like a decent proposition*, or at least minimum force that would leave lasting damages one needs to go to hospital for. Plus if they dont require medical aid you dont have a high risk of getting a civil case for medical bills. which i think medical bills are more of a factor in the U.S and the aftermath of a situation both in civilian court cases and criminal.


Hit first with a stunning shot then run if applicable.

*Context pending obviously. I can think of two situations where it would be terrible to use minimum force available.

 

[CB Jones]

In the US the term isn’t the minimum force required....the standard is the necessary force to stop.

Legally if you can reasonably articulate that the force you used was the force needed to stop the threat you are justified.


In the case of the week, you have a 2 on 1 fight with the 1 being very drunk who started the altercation. The 2 (male and female....female was a LEO) had him restrained and while restraining the male applied a choke which the courts ruled as unnecessary due to them having him already restrained.

 

[punisher73]

In Michigan, for example, deadly force is defined as something that can cause "imminent great bodily harm and/or imminent death". Most states will then define what they mean by great bodily harm.

It is one of the things I have cautioned people on the BJJ for cops/civilians trend. It is one thing to know what to do on the ground and how to be safe and I am NOT saying that you don't need ground skills. What I AM saying is that putting on a rear naked choke or an armbar is a 10 year felony in Michigan (don't know other states laws) which falls under "great bodily harm less than murder". Because an "assault" is the threat of the injury and an actual injury doesn't need to occur. Think about it, if someone is putting you into a choke hold, do you know their intention? I am going to assume for my safety that they are trying to kill me. Now, flip the script. You are putting a choke on someone to only make them go unconscious. What do you think the other person is going to think?

Another key point about "self defense" is that you are acknowledging that you committed a crime, but due to the circumstances, mitigate that you had a legal reason to do so that eliminates culpability. Self-defense is an "affirmative defense" in legal proceedings.

I always tell people to find a local attorney who has a good reputation with the local DA/PA Office and speak with them ahead of time. Find out how they usually view cases like that and how they prosecute them. Especially if a firearm is involved, how do they feel about citizens carrying concealed weapons.

 

[jobo]

In Michigan, for example, deadly force is defined as something that can cause "imminent great bodily harm and/or imminent death". Most states will then define what they mean by great bodily harm.

It is one of the things I have cautioned people on the BJJ for cops/civilians trend. It is one thing to know what to do on the ground and how to be safe and I am NOT saying that you don't need ground skills. What I AM saying is that putting on a rear naked choke or an armbar is a 10 year felony in Michigan (don't know other states laws) which falls under "great bodily harm less than murder". Because an "assault" is the threat of the injury and an actual injury doesn't need to occur. Think about it, if someone is putting you into a choke hold, do you know their intention? I am going to assume for my safety that they are trying to kill me. Now, flip the script. You are putting a choke on someone to only make them go unconscious. What do you think the other person is going to think?

Another key point about "self defense" is that you are acknowledging that you committed a crime, but due to the circumstances, mitigate that you had a legal reason to do so that eliminates culpability. Self-defense is an "affirmative defense" in legal proceedings.

I always tell people to find a local attorney who has a good reputation with the local DA/PA Office and speak with them ahead of time. Find out how they usually view cases like that and how they prosecute them. Especially if a firearm is involved, how do they feel about citizens carrying concealed weapons.

well no, that's just not true at all, in any jurisdiction that's based on English common law, which is a large amount of the globe and nearly all of the USA,, innocent till proved guilty and all that
you have committed a crime when and only when you have been convicted by a court, (or at least no sooner that you admit to it,)

before that point you are a suspect, or if in court the accused,
defending yourself against attack is a statutory defence to an assault charge, if that defence is accepted by the prosicution or the court, no crime was committed,,

you are only accepting the harm you caused, not that causing that harm was a " crime"

 

[punisher73]

well no, that's just not true at all, in any jurisdiction that's based on English common law, which is a large amount of the globe and nearly all of the USA,, innocent till proved guilty and all that
you have committed a crime when and only when you have been convicted by a court, (or at least no sooner that you admit to it,)

before that point you are a suspect, or if in court the accused,
defending yourself against attack is a statutory defence to an assault charge, if that defence is accepted by the prosicution or the court, no crime was committed,,

you are only accepting the harm you caused, not that causing that harm was a " crime"

Poor word choice...the act you committed would normally be considered a crime and you committed that act based on other factors that eliminated culpability, or as you phrased it, no crime was committed.

Again, in Michigan, it is called an "affirmative defense".

 

[dvcochran]

Back when I was a LEO, we had "confrontation training". It was a group of attorney's and an ADA who would coach us on the do's and don'ts of confrontation, deadly or otherwise. One of the common themes was your curtilage, the area nearest your body. A very vague and undefined are but essentially it means within your grasp in this context. If someone came in your curtilage uninvited they were fair game, to the extent of deadly force if the situation merited it. Arguably no questions asked, per the ADA. It wasn't so much about whether there was intent but the ability to do mortal harm as to whether shooting was a reasonable solution. Does this at all jive with today's legal stance for LEO's?

 

[lklawson]

well no, that's just not true at all, in any jurisdiction that's based on English common law, which is a large amount of the globe and nearly all of the USA,, innocent till proved guilty and all that
you have committed a crime when and only when you have been convicted by a court, (or at least no sooner that you admit to it,)

before that point you are a suspect, or if in court the accused,
defending yourself against attack is a statutory defence to an assault charge, if that defence is accepted by the prosicution or the court, no crime was committed,,

you are only accepting the harm you caused, not that causing that harm was a " crime"

Actually I think that's not quite so. In a lot of places in the US doing harm is considered a crime. The fact that you were doing it as self-defense is considered, legally, and "affirmative defense." essentially it is a legally acceptable excuse. Much like speeding is always a crime, there are times when you are allowed to commit the crime but be forgiven for it.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

 

[jobo]

Actually I think that's not quite so. In a lot of places in the US doing harm is considered a crime. The fact that you were doing it as self-defense is considered, legally, and "affirmative defense." essentially it is a legally acceptable excuse. Much like speeding is always a crime, there are times when you are allowed to commit the crime but be forgiven for it.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

considered by who ?

 

[lklawson]

considered by who ?

In the US. Been said 3 or 4 times now.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3-pTkozrDhTZvli4nDe96Z&cshid=1543495945311


(mobile)

 

[jobo]

In the US. Been said 3 or 4 times now.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3-pTkozrDhTZvli4nDe96Z&cshid=1543495945311


(mobile)

no expressly WHO ? the government, the president, the police the courts, Mrs Jones who lives next door, WHO CONSIDETRS IT A CRIME, , ?

clearly you " consider "it so, but your not actually in charge of such things

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no expressly WHO ? the government, the president, the police the courts, Mrs Jones who lives next door, WHO CONSIDETRS IT A CRIME, , ?

You're trying to get off on a technicality on this one, Jobo. Your strong statement was essentially incorrect.

 

[jobo]

You're trying to get off on a technicality on this one, Jobo. Your strong statement was essentially incorrect.

which bit was incorrect, ?

 

[CB Jones]

Mrs Jones who lives next door,

I don’t think we are neighbors with @lklawson

 

[jobo]

Which is possibly fortune for him, Jones is quite a common name, at least it is in the valleys

I don’t think we are neighbors with @lklawson

 

[Gerry Seymour]

which bit was incorrect, ?

The part where you thought you were right.

 

[jobo]

The part where you thought you were right.

another one where you proclaim I'm wrong but won't enter in to discourse
it's self evidently true, that if you accept your innocent till proved guilty, you cant be guilty of a crime till it has been proved so in a court of law,

 

[CB Jones]

another one where you proclaim I'm wrong but won't enter in to discourse
it's self evidently true, that if you accept your innocent till proved guilty, you cant be guilty of a crime till it has been proved so in a court of law,

Except that in self defense you are making an affirmative defense in which you admit to violating the law but you claim legal justification in doing so.

 

[jobo]

Except that in self defense you are making an affirmative defense in which you admit to violating the law but you claim legal justification in doing so.

well clearly not, if you have a legal justication for using force no crime was committed, that why laws havestatutary defences built in, its part of the law, so no law was broken,

otherwise it would be true that you can break the law but not commit a crime and that would be silly,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

another one where you proclaim I'm wrong but won't enter in to discourse
it's self evidently true, that if you accept your innocent till proved guilty, you cant be guilty of a crime till it has been proved so in a court of law,

Except that's the point of the plea. You entirely missed that point.

 

[jobo]

Except that's the point of the plea. You entirely missed that point.

well yes the point of the pkea is your saying your not guilty, which what the l jurry well say if your successful