Unarmed martial arts and self-defense law in the US

[Tez3]

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

Actually it's not legal to stone anyone to death for anything under Mosaic law, it might say 'stone them' but the rabbis constructed a legal obstacle course so convoluted that it was practically impossible for anyone to be put to death as the result of a trial, to the extent that, in the event of a unanimous vote by the Sanhedrin to condemn a person to death, the guilty party was immediately exonerated, so that it's impossible to enact a death sentence for anything. A 'life for a life' never meant execution anyway, it meant/mean that if you lil someone you are then responsible for taking on all the responsibilities the dead person had, ie earning a living for their family etc. You have to give your life over to it, forever.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

You are assuming an implication that is not explicit in the statement. You are - purposely or by habit - reading for the most confrontational intention.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

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

As i was the one making the statement, i cant tell you it was not meant to convey doubt. I was saying if its true, as in not affirming that it is. Not that i doubt it.

 

[lklawson]

Actually it's not legal to stone anyone to death for anything under Mosaic law, it might say 'stone them' but the rabbis constructed a legal obstacle course so convoluted that it was practically impossible for anyone to be put to death as the result of a trial, to the extent that, in the event of a unanimous vote by the Sanhedrin to condemn a person to death, the guilty party was immediately exonerated, so that it's impossible to enact a death sentence for anything. A 'life for a life' never meant execution anyway, it meant/mean that if you lil someone you are then responsible for taking on all the responsibilities the dead person had, ie earning a living for their family etc. You have to give your life over to it, forever.

Strangely, the text does, in fact, record actual executions performed.

But that is beside the point. Please reference above for the point.

 

[Tez3]

Strangely, the text does, in fact, record actual executions performed.

But that is beside the point. Please reference above for the point.

Which text are you talking about? I'm talking about the third century CE and onwards when Jewish law ( always amusing when people like to call it 'Mosaic' law instead of what it is Jewish Law) was actually written down as opposed to being an Oral Law. (Though the Sanhedrin has stopped giving the death penalty before the destruction of the Temple in the 1st century BCE. )
Judah ha Nasi the head of the Jewish community in Palestine at the turn of the third century, compiled, systematised, and reduced the Oral Law, which had come down by word of mouth, into writing. Before this there were no texts on law as such. This collection of laws, legal opinions, decisions, and comments upon them is known as the Mishnah. it is less a code than a report on prevailing law and custom, and a digest of legal opinions which invite further study and discussion.

Study and discussion of the Mishnah in the centuries following were carried on in academies and applied in courts in Palestine and Babylonia. The summary and digest of this scholarly activity is called the Gemara. Not at all dry-as-dust legal argumentation, it reports on the exciting application of law to life, recording the disputations which grew out of diverse traditions and differing opinions. Here and there it is interlaced with a parable, a legend, or just a good story to make a point. The Mishnah plus the Gemara constitutes the Talmud.

The Mishnah is in Hebrew, the language of worship and scholarly discourse in late antiquity; the Gemara is in Aramaic, the language of common discourse of that time. There are two versions of the Talmud. The first, edited circa 325 CE, contains the discussions in Palestinian schools and courts and is called the Jerusalemite or Palestinian. The Babylonian, edited a century and half later, is the compendium of scholarly legal discussions carried on in the academies and courts of that Jewish community. Like the Mishnah, the Gemara is not a code of law (an organized body of legal decisions), but the raw material for establishing codes-the source for discussion, refinement, and application.

The spirit of the Talmudic process is expressed in a tale in tractate Baba Meziah, Rabbi Eliezer, a proponent of unchanging tradition--"a well-lined cistern that doesn't lose a drop," as his teacher characterised him--was engaged in a legal disputation with his colleagues. "He brought all the reasons in the world," but the majority would not accept his view. Said Rabbi Eliezer, "If the law is as I hold it to be, let this tree prove it," and the tree uprooted itself a hundred amma, but they said, "Proof cannot be brought from a tree." Rabbi Eliezer persisted, saying, "Let these waters determine it," and the waters began to flow backwards, but his colleagues responded that waters cannot determine the law. Once again Rabbi Eliezer tried, asking the walls of the study house to support him. They began to totter, whereupon the spokesman for the majority, Rabbi Joshua, admonished them, "when rabbis are engaged in legal discussion what right have ye to interfere!" So the walls did not fall in respect for Rabbi Joshua, nor did they return to their upright position, in respect for Rabbi Eliezer-and "they remain thus to this day!" But Rabbi Eliezer would not surrender and cried out: "Let Heaven decide." A voice was heard from Heaven saying: "Why do ye dispute with Rabbi Eliezer; the law is always as he says it to be." Whereupon Rabbi Joshua arose and proclaimed, quoting Scripture, "It is not in Heaven!" Rabbi Jeremiah explained, "The Law was given at Sinai and we no longer give heed to heavenly voices, for in that Law it is stated: 'One follows the majority."' God's truth, divine law, is not determined by miracles or heavenly voices, but by the collegium of rabbis, men learned in the law, committed to the law and expert in its application to the life of the pious community.

In 2000 years there's only been two executions carried out by Jews one was a miscarriage of justice with the army officer being posthumously pardoned, that was under military law not Jewish law though. The other was Adolf Eichmann.

 

[dvcochran]

Actually it's not legal to stone anyone to death for anything under Mosaic law, it might say 'stone them' but the rabbis constructed a legal obstacle course so convoluted that it was practically impossible for anyone to be put to death as the result of a trial, to the extent that, in the event of a unanimous vote by the Sanhedrin to condemn a person to death, the guilty party was immediately exonerated, so that it's impossible to enact a death sentence for anything. A 'life for a life' never meant execution anyway, it meant/mean that if you lil someone you are then responsible for taking on all the responsibilities the dead person had, ie earning a living for their family etc. You have to give your life over to it, forever.

I found this interesting. Here is an interesting quote from the Theopolis Institute that supports and is in contrast with your post:
How did the death penalty function? First, the death penalty was the maximum penalty for various crimes, but it was not a mandatory penalty for most crimes. Numbers 35 is about the institution of cities of refuge for those who committed manslaughter. Verses 30-31 read, “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.” This makes it clear that convicted murderers had to be executed, but also implies that the penalty in other crimes might be commuted through a ransom, probably some monetary compensation (see Prov 6:32-35; Matt 1:19).

 

[Tez3]

I found this interesting. Here is an interesting quote from the Theopolis Institute that supports and is in contrast with your post:
How did the death penalty function? First, the death penalty was the maximum penalty for various crimes, but it was not a mandatory penalty for most crimes. Numbers 35 is about the institution of cities of refuge for those who committed manslaughter. Verses 30-31 read, “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.” This makes it clear that convicted murderers had to be executed, but also implies that the penalty in other crimes might be commuted through a ransom, probably some monetary compensation (see Prov 6:32-35; Matt 1:19).

Well, yes and no, as I said that's what the words say but the rabbis discussed the laws and put in much more complicated rules of deciding the verdict so what the words say and the actual outcome is not going to be the same. You are looking at the 'biblical' words not the laws as decided by the rabbis then and now.
Jewish law isn't set in stone, pun intended. This is the problem when discussing with non Jews, they don't get the idea that yes while it says the death penalty should be enacted, the actual trial is wrapped around with clauses and conditions that make it impossible to have the death penalty. We discuss the Law and consensus means it will change because of the clauses we write in, the 'biblical' laws are nothing like they were thousands of years ago. We don't take the written words as law but instead the decision of the Talmudic rabbis. ( in case anyone doesn't know rabbis aren't priests they are teachers and learned people)
According to the Mishnah capital cases had to be decided by a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. If the conviction in a capital case was unanimous the accused was acquitted. Perhaps most onerous of all, the offence had been witnessed by two people who warned the perpetrator immediately prior to committing the act that it was a capital offense. 

Such stringencies are often understood to account for the famous Mishnah passage hat states that if a Sanhedrin executed one person in seven years, it was considered destructive. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah objects that the standard is actually once in 70 years, and Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva say that had they served on the court, no one would have ever been executed.

This may explain it better than I have, The Death Penalty - Masorti Judaism

 

[dvcochran]

Well, yes and no, as I said that's what the words say but the rabbis discussed the laws and put in much more complicated rules of deciding the verdict so what the words say and the actual outcome is not going to be the same. You are looking at the 'biblical' words not the laws as decided by the rabbis then and now.
Jewish law isn't set in stone, pun intended. This is the problem when discussing with non Jews, they don't get the idea that yes while it says the death penalty should be enacted, the actual trial is wrapped around with clauses and conditions that make it impossible to have the death penalty. We discuss the Law and consensus means it will change because of the clauses we write in, the 'biblical' laws are nothing like they were thousands of years ago. We don't take the written words as law but instead the decision of the Talmudic rabbis. ( in case anyone doesn't know rabbis aren't priests they are teachers and learned people)
According to the Mishnah capital cases had to be decided by a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. If the conviction in a capital case was unanimous the accused was acquitted. Perhaps most onerous of all, the offence had been witnessed by two people who warned the perpetrator immediately prior to committing the act that it was a capital offense. 

Such stringencies are often understood to account for the famous Mishnah passage hat states that if a Sanhedrin executed one person in seven years, it was considered destructive. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah objects that the standard is actually once in 70 years, and Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva say that had they served on the court, no one would have ever been executed.

This may explain it better than I have, The Death Penalty - Masorti Judaism

Yes, that is too deep and convoluted for me and very wrapped up in the law of "educated" men. Somewhere the translation is completely lost. It does have similarities to U.S. law however.

 

[Tez3]

Yes, that is too deep and convoluted for me and very wrapped up in the law of "educated" men. Somewhere the translation is completely lost. It does have similarities to U.S. law however.

I think you'll find that US law has some similarities with it, bearing in mind how old Jewish Law is compared to American law, I should probably point out your law is very, very young compared to just about everybody's.

I wouldn't say our law is for educated men at all, most Jews study the Torah and are able to argue the points, it's one of the things we do so most of us are quite able to understand it. Educating your children is one of the most important things you can do we believe, not just the so called 'religious' stuff but being literate, able to think ( one of the reasons Jews have so many differing views) and to argue your case.
27. Torah Study
Studying Torah | My Jewish Learning

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you'll find that US law has some similarities with it, bearing in mind how old Jewish Law is compared to American law, I should probably point out your law is very, very young compared to just about everybody's.

I wouldn't say our law is for educated men at all, most Jews study the Torah and are able to argue the points, it's one of the things we do so most of us are quite able to understand it. Educating your children is one of the most important things you can do we believe, not just the so called 'religious' stuff but being literate, able to think ( one of the reasons Jews have so many differing views) and to argue your case.
27. Torah Study
Studying Torah | My Jewish Learning

Similarity isn't directional, Tez. I have a lot of similarities with my father. My brother has a lot of similarities with me. No causality implied.

That said, while your previous post got way too deep for me to stay with, I love learning bits about how ideas (like laws) develop. Keep posting that, please!

 

[Tez3]

Similarity isn't directional, Tez. I have a lot of similarities with my father. My brother has a lot of similarities with me. No causality implied.

That said, while your previous post got way too deep for me to stay with, I love learning bits about how ideas (like laws) develop. Keep posting that, please!

The way I was taught English in school does make the comparing of two things 'directional' as in if your brother is older then you are like him and vice versa, the one coming first being literally the first and the one coming second being like them. Consider it an English quirk of logic that the younger is compared to the older.

I think non Jews rarely actually think about Judaism when they pronounce things like 'Mosaic law' being the basis of their law etc, it's not just law though. It seems to be assumed that Judaism is Christianity without Jesus when it's not, it's a very different thing. It's actually not that deep when you read it because above all else we are pragmatic about life.

 

[dvcochran]

The way I was taught English in school does make the comparing of two things 'directional' as in if your brother is older then you are like him and vice versa, the one coming first being literally the first and the one coming second being like them. Consider it an English quirk of logic that the younger is compared to the older.

I think non Jews rarely actually think about Judaism when they pronounce things like 'Mosaic law' being the basis of their law etc, it's not just law though. It seems to be assumed that Judaism is Christianity without Jesus when it's not, it's a very different thing. It's actually not that deep when you read it because above all else we are pragmatic about life.

I disagree with you analogy. A quirk is this engineering constant; directional does NOT imply direction. A head scratcher until you think about the fact that directional implies nothing about position.

 

[Tez3]

I disagree with you analogy. A quirk is this engineering constant; directional does NOT imply direction. A head scratcher until you think about the fact that directional implies nothing about position.

Not sure how you can disagree with what is a British norm, it may not be technically 'correct' but it is a British thing to do this ( and we've also been doing this a long long time before America in fact), that when we compare thing in this manner ( not everything obviously) we compare the younger to the older as simply because it was there first. Jewish law isn't 'like' American law, simply because it's a couple of thousand years older (and not actually the same) so obviously as American law was supposedly taken from Jewish law it must be compared against the older law.
People compare modern singers/actors/writers etc for example with older ones all the time. When introducing people don't you introduce the younger to the older as a matter of courtesy?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The way I was taught English in school does make the comparing of two things 'directional' as in if your brother is older then you are like him and vice versa, the one coming first being literally the first and the one coming second being like them. Consider it an English quirk of logic that the younger is compared to the older.

I was wondering after I posted that if there's a difference in English usage. It somehow fits with the "different to" in my mind. It might also be the original way the word was used - I'd have to look at the etymology to see if there was directionality in the base.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree with you analogy. A quirk is this engineering constant; directional does NOT imply direction. A head scratcher until you think about the fact that directional implies nothing about position.

We're not in engineering here, though but in common usage. In common usage, "directional" actually refers to direction, so a verb that is said to be directional would, in fact, imply direction.

 

[punisher73]

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.

In Michigan, any type of choke for an officer is considered deadly force. There have been many pushes to get it legal to control lower levels of force when appropriate. Even in California you can choke a suspect when it is not deadly force. As a use of force instructor we were trained and tested on the "lateral vascular neck restraint" (formal name escapes me in JJ/Judo terms) in case it became legal. Even PPCT has a special manual for Michigan that does not include the LVNR in it.

 

[Tez3]

In Michigan, any type of choke for an officer is considered deadly force. There have been many pushes to get it legal to control lower levels of force when appropriate. Even in California you can choke a suspect when it is not deadly force. As a use of force instructor we were trained and tested on the "lateral vascular neck restraint" (formal name escapes me in JJ/Judo terms) in case it became legal. Even PPCT has a special manual for Michigan that does not include the LVNR in it.

In the UK when an arrest is shown in the media with four or five officers holding a person down there's much comment about the waste of police manpower ie 'surely it doesn't take 5 officers to arrest' etc etc, however the case now is that to avoid accusations of using illegal holds, unnecessary force or violence police have to follow a protocol which mean officers to hold head, officers to hold arms and officers to hold legs. There is so much criticism whatever you do, an officer using a chokehold would bring howls of protest of police brutality, they see someone being 'choked to death' without understanding how that hold works.

the recent use of police bodycams which are showing the problems the police face with an increasingly violent public is shocking people at the moment, hopefully it's educating the public but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[dvcochran]

In Michigan, any type of choke for an officer is considered deadly force. There have been many pushes to get it legal to control lower levels of force when appropriate. Even in California you can choke a suspect when it is not deadly force. As a use of force instructor we were trained and tested on the "lateral vascular neck restraint" (formal name escapes me in JJ/Judo terms) in case it became legal. Even PPCT has a special manual for Michigan that does not include the LVNR in it.

I really hate how the laws gets twisted sometimes.

 

[Tez3]

I was wondering after I posted that if there's a difference in English usage. It somehow fits with the "different to" in my mind. It might also be the original way the word was used - I'd have to look at the etymology to see if there was directionality in the base.

It's logical in these cases to compare younger with older, after all you'd say baby looked like dad not the other way around! We'd say that the Blackpool Tower was similar to the Eiffel Tower because the latter was built first and the former built in imitation.

 

[dvcochran]

We're not in engineering here, though but in common usage. In common usage, "directional" actually refers to direction, so a verb that is said to be directional would, in fact, imply direction.

Agree, but the other post inferred directional always meant forward which is incorrect.