Unarmed martial arts and self-defense law in the US

[jks9199]

but that's plead, NOT GUILTY WITH AN AFIMATIVE defence, not, just plead with an affirmative defence as you said

There is no such plea in the US. There may, in some courts, be a plea of "guilty, with an explanation" or a judge in a particular court may choose to recognize one and allow the defendant to enter evidence after a guilty plea that acts to mitigate or excuse their guilt -- but they have still admitted that they broke the law, and pled guilty. I've seen plenty of judges listen to the start of the "explanation" and change the plea to "not guilty."

A plea of Not Guilty doesn't necessarily say "I didn't do it." It says, plainly, "prove it!" The prosecution, within the US, has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads not guilty did actually commit the alleged act. The defendant has no burden to prove anything or enter a single item of evidence or word of testimony.

 

[jobo]

No. We have said, repeatedly, that in an affirmative defense, you ADMIT THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF but you had a good reason or were otherwise justified in doing so and should not be held criminally liable. This is not the same as a guilty plea; a guilty plea is "I did it, you're right, hand me my lumps..." A guilty verdict means that the tryer of fact found that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt (in the US) that you committed the alleged criminal act. An Alford plea is a way of saying "you can prove I did it, but I'm not going to admit it" -- similar to a plea of no contest, where the defendant simply says "I'm not going to argue." (Both are generally used to avoid the admission that might influence a seperate civil trial.) In other words -- this stuff is complicated, some of us deal with it daily, and actually know what we are talking about and get a little frustrated when words are put in our mouths. There are reasons for the way we say things...

In the specific case of a self defense claim, the defendant admits that they did commit what would ordinarily be a criminal act, such as assault and battery, but that they did so to prevent a greater harm from coming to them. In an extreme case, they are admitting that they killed someone, but that the homicide was justified to prevent the defendant or another person from serious bodily harm.

our we underlinning now

no you don't admit to what you are accused of, you are accused of using unlawful force, your claim is the force was lawful, so no the use of unlawful force is not admitted to in your afermative defence

 

[jobo]

There is no such plea in the US. There may, in some courts, be a plea of "guilty, with an explanation" or a judge in a particular court may choose to recognize one and allow the defendant to enter evidence after a guilty plea that acts to mitigate or excuse their guilt -- but they have still admitted that they broke the law, and pled guilty. I've seen plenty of judges listen to the start of the "explanation" and change the plea to "not guilty."

A plea of Not Guilty doesn't necessarily say "I didn't do it." It says, plainly, "prove it!" The prosecution, within the US, has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads not guilty did actually commit the alleged act. The defendant has no burden to prove anything or enter a single item of evidence or word of testimony.

he already said there are only two pleas, guilty or not guilty, now your saying there is guilty not guilty and something else ????

another can of worms, mitigation is not a defence,, its eeer,e mitigation, an attempt to explain but not defend your actions, jeez lads buy a dictionary

 

[jks9199]

he already said there are only two pleas, guilty or not guilty, now your saying there is guilty not guilty and something else ????

another can of worms, mitigation is not a defence,, its eeer,e mitigation, an attempt to explain but not defend your actions, jeez lads buy a dictionary

A little primer on the United States of America...

The USA consists of 50 independent States, each with a rather high level of independence bound by a shared Constitution and Federal government. Each State has its own laws and courts; in fact, things that are illegal in one state may be fully legal in another. (A current example -- recreational/personal marijuana has been legalized in some states, decriminalized in others, and remains illegal in most today.) Things may be different in different States. In fact, within the court system in each state, you can find courtrooms run in different ways...

On top of that, there are common practices or terms. The Alford plea is one such; it's a specialized version of a guilty plea. No Contest is another way of doing much the same thing. In both, the effect is typically the same as if the defendant had pled guilty -- but they avoid actually admitting guilt. Like I said -- it has implications in civil trials.

The simple fact is that these aren't soundbite issues. They take a lot of reading, research and work to understand and follow.

 

[pgsmith]

And this thread reaffirms to me the true beauty of the ignore function.

It was quite interesting before someone derailed it for their own amusement.

 

[jobo]

A little primer on the United States of America...

The USA consists of 50 independent States, each with a rather high level of independence bound by a shared Constitution and Federal government. Each State has its own laws and courts; in fact, things that are illegal in one state may be fully legal in another. (A current example -- recreational/personal marijuana has been legalized in some states, decriminalized in others, and remains illegal in most today.) Things may be different in different States. In fact, within the court system in each state, you can find courtrooms run in different ways...

On top of that, there are common practices or terms. The Alford plea is one such; it's a specialized version of a guilty plea. No Contest is another way of doing much the same thing. In both, the effect is typically the same as if the defendant had pled guilty -- but they avoid actually admitting guilt. Like I said -- it has implications in civil trials.

The simple fact is that these aren't soundbite issues. They take a lot of reading, research and work to understand and follow.

all the states, with the exception of Louisiana,, believe have a legal system based on English common law, so whilst there are different laws and procedures, they are share the same base, that you are innocent until found guilty and you either plead innocent or guilty, all this smoke screen doesn't change those basic component of the law,

 

[Deleted member 39746]

He is somewhat right, a lot of places had their legal systems based on English common law. But to what extent and how they practice it now and how to define common law you will need to ask a Lawyer with relevant study.

Im hardly educated in law however.

(but then i don't think anyone denied the relevance of English common law)

I tell you what might be interesting though, don't quote me on it but i think in practice of law for England, you could in some circumstances take a weapon to a home break in if you can prove you feared for you life at that moment. I will have to do some brief searching on the CPS website to see if i can find anything to back up that claim however.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

He is somewhat right, a lot of places had their legal systems based on English common law. But to what extent and how they practice it now and how to define common law you will need to ask a Lawyer with relevant study.

Im hardly educated in law however.

(but then i don't think anyone denied the relevance of English common law)

I tell you what might be interesting though, don't quote me on it but i think in practice of law for England, you could in some circumstances take a weapon to a home break in if you can prove you feared for you life at that moment. I will have to do some brief searching on the CPS website to see if i can find anything to back up that claim however.

Even if that is true, or if english common law is what's used, that has no relevance on the plea you are making, and whether you are stating 'I committed the crime, but it's okay because I feared for my life' or 'I committed no crime because I feared for my life'.

 

[lklawson]

He is somewhat right, a lot of places had their legal systems based on English common law. But to what extent and how they practice it now and how to define common law you will need to ask a Lawyer with relevant study.

Im hardly educated in law however.

(but then i don't think anyone denied the relevance of English common law)

I tell you what might be interesting though, don't quote me on it but i think in practice of law for England, you could in some circumstances take a weapon to a home break in if you can prove you feared for you life at that moment. I will have to do some brief searching on the CPS website to see if i can find anything to back up that claim however.

And much of that is based on Mosaic law, according to scholars. But darn few people are claiming that it's legal to stone to death your kids for giving you lip.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Even if that is true, or if english common law is what's used, that has no relevance on the plea you are making, and whether you are stating 'I committed the crime, but it's okay because I feared for my life' or 'I committed no crime because I feared for my life'.

Probably doesn't. and i cant see why it should.


Also seen the relivence advertised on some law degree's. Something like the U.S legal system has based itself on English common law. (doesn't mean its the same) So you might find some similarities between the two, and English common law has developed in its own way over the years as to whats still respected and the like. a lot of countries have based their legal systems on the U.K's. (mainly former colonies)

Anyway im going to cut it there as i haven't studied law and have 0 experience with the U.S and comparative legal study.


Just to cover it quickly im not disputing the use of no contest in U.S courts.

 

[dvcochran]

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.

Wow. Don't take this wrong but I am glad I do not live in Michigan. A LEO is only going to put you in a choke if you give them a reason to. And, if they know how to do it they are being really nice to you, only choking you out. I am a smaller guy and I really practice how to make a choke cause a person to pass out as quickly as possible. Two specific events I have had; both involved big men who were really doped up. I came into the scene as backup after other officers had tried to get cuffs on the guy. They tazed, they pepper sprayed to no success. Both times I had the other officers distract the guy so I could jump on, ride his back and choke him out. NEVER did I have deadly force in mind while holding the choke. Hell, I knew one of the guys.
One plead out, one hired a legal TEAM and tried to make it a big deal. He and his team were thoroughly embarrassed in the courtroom. I never heard a peep personally.
Especially in today's climate, the guy(s) probably would have been shot. How is that more humane?
We cannot let attorneys and judges twist intent. LE patrolman are not elite, high paying jobs. They earn and deserve respect. It is time most of the police videos that go public show the minutes that lead up to what is seen on the news. Then the real truth will be seen.

 

[jobo]

Even if that is true, or if english common law is what's used, that has no relevance on the plea you are making, and whether you are stating 'I committed the crime, but it's okay because I feared for my life' or 'I committed no crime because I feared for my life'.

well it is true, , are you really saying you don't know the origin of your own legal system, you yank are amazing, i bet you thought Benjamin Franklin made out up, you've only got 200 years of history and you can't be bothered to learn that

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well it is true, , are you really saying you don't know the origin of your own legal system, you yank are amazing, i bet you thought Benjamin Franklin made out up, you've only got 200 years of history and you can't be bothered to learn that

Once again, you’re branching off into nonsense attacks, rather than staying with the topic. You are consistent, if nothing else.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

well it is true, , are you really saying you don't know the origin of your own legal system, you yank are amazing, i bet you thought Benjamin Franklin made out up, you've only got 200 years of history and you can't be bothered to learn that

Did I say that it wasn't true?

 

[jobo]

And much of that is based on Mosaic law, according to scholars. But darn few people are claiming that it's legal to stone to death your kids for giving you lip.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

well it uses the moral frame work from the 10 commandments, but it's a fair stretch to say its religious law,
there were 3types of law in old England, king laws, those originating from the state, church laws which were very much mosaic law ( but even back then its seems unlikely you'd be stoned to death )and the common law, which was laws made by " judges "to deal with the common people and their problems which would by definition not result in cheeky children being stoned or killed, just being put in the stocks and having rotten tomatoes ( or if they really didn't like you, turnips)thrown at them was probably sufficient

 

[jobo]

Did I say that it wasn't true?

you said " if it's true" which strongly suggests you don't know if it's true or not !

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you said " if it's true" which strongly suggests you don't know if it's true or not !

It actually is a logically neutral statement.

 

[jobo]

It actually is a logically neutral statement.

it's a statement that cast doubt on the veracity of my statement, and as my statement is a FACT easily check by a quick Google its also indicative of someone who is avoiding checking facts in order that they won't be wrong or at least won't have to admit I'm correct. willful blindness ?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it's a statement that cast doubt on the veracity of my statement, and as my statement is a FACT easily check by a quick Google its also indicative of someone who is avoiding checking facts in order that they won't be wrong or at least won't have to admit I'm correct. willful blindness ?

Nope. In logical use, "if" identifies an assumption - something that is assumed to be true (whether it is or not) as a condition for the rest of the statement. It is a neutral usage.

 

[jobo]

Nope. In logical use, "if" identifies an assumption - something that is assumed to be true (whether it is or not) as a condition for the rest of the statement. It is a neutral usage.

no, in that context,, if identify a doubt, not an assumption