Wrestling - Questions from a BJJ guy.

[Hawk79]

Without going too much in to legal matters. There are basically two sections of the law you need to be familiar with.

Use of force and citizens arrest.

Which over here is the crimes act. Which I will reference because they are all pretty generic.

462a.

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 462A Use of force to prevent the commission of an indictable offence

classic.austlii.edu.au

And 458.

I assume with a name like "Drop Bear" you are Australian correct?

Use of force law is what the police do - I assume you mean self defence. I'm not trying to be smart. It is important to make the distinction because they are legally different things. Use of force will be more restrictive than self defence. You will often find that things prohibited under use of force can still be done under self defence.

It is not enough to just know about Self defence and citizens arrest in isolation. You should have a basic foundation in criminal law principles.

I'm not suggesting that MMA fighters go out and get law degrees. What I am saying is that they don't have sufficient knowledge of self defence; defence of property; citizens arrest etc etc law to be proficient in as many self defence situations that they could be. If they did have a better understanding of the law they could develop the martial arts in a way that would hopefully create the ultimate self defence system.

I am considerably less knowledgeable when it comes to Tort law in different countries. I'm not sure if Australia has a comprehensive Tort system. But if you do, then you would also need to know about Tort law as well. Even if Tort remedies have been extinguished by government compensation schemes, there may still be a right to bring Tort proceedings for punitive damages (rather than compensatory damages). I am not going to pretend to know. Maybe you need to know about Tort law, maybe you don't. But even if you don't, you definitely need to in some other countries.

Note my previous breakdown of the law was based on my assumption you were Australian. It may not be 100% correct because I primarily based it on English cases. But it is about 80%-100% applicable for you as an Australian. I don't keep up to date with Australian law. But it is a reasonable approximation.

 

[Hawk79]

462a.

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 462A Use of force to prevent the commission of an indictable offence​

classic.austlii.edu.au

This is about use of force which is why it refers to "disproportionate".

And 418.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 418 Self-defence--when available​

www5.austlii.edu.au

This one is about self defence and does not refer to proportionate/disproportionate. That is why I was saying self defence law does not necessarily require a proportionate response. Although it is possible that a court in Australia has rules otherwise I find it highly unlikely.

Some key terms that an MMA needs to have more than a cursory understanding of:

1. Circumstances.
2. Reasonable.
3. Justification. Even though the word "justified" is not mentioned in the statute that you linked it is a part of Australian law and is almost certainly applicable in Victoria as well. At the very least you will not that self defence in Victoria is not worded as a "right".

There are things that you cannot understand by simply reading statutes and that is one of the points I am trying to make. The statutes that you are linking me to are not enough for an MMA fighter to be able to use lawful self defence. Even if they were, reading these statutes is not part of the MMA curriculum.

What is important to know is who has the legal burden for what and when and who has the evidential burden for what and when. You will also want to know what you need to do to meet your evidential burden. None of this is explained in the statutes.

It is a feature of Australian statutes (and English statutes) that the law is written in a broad way - it allows the courts to clarify the law and address the more specific parts.

It is late here so I don't have time to do research (I also no longer have access to Australian law books). But I am confident that the English case of Woolmington and DPP [1935] applies in Australia - which establishes legal/evidential burdens. You can't see that in the statutes and yet it is more important to you then reading these statutes because the statutes are mostly stating the obvious. It is the criminal law principles that are primarily made through case law that is the most important thing for you to understand. That is what is going to let you down during the police interview in situations where you have attempted to protect yourself using MMA.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So to be clear, you don't want to create a new self-defense curriculum in the way that's normally viewed. What would be best for you is not figuring out a way to combine judo, wrestling and bjj to come up with a grappling system, and (assumedly) same with striking and some combination of like Muay Thai, Karate and kickboxing.

There are thousands of those out there, and honestly it seems like a waste of time for you to do that, when you've got something else to focus on, that those miss. Sounds like the better option would be to leave the technical aspect to someone else/add to an existing curriculum, or (the best option IMO) work with an MMA school and offer SD classes/teach MMA with a self defense focus.

That way you could focus on teaching the things that MMA traditionally lacks - the legal stuff, de-escalation, awareness, while knowing that they are already learning a proven fighting methodology.

The biggest thing that you'll find is a lack of interest. People just actively don't care about the legal stuff, and de-escalation/awareness can feel either too lectury or make-believe. Plus a bunch of people saying "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6", and ignoring whatever you are saying to avoid either of those happening. Which is another reason that adding it in as a class option to an existing MMA school may be your best bet.

 

[marvin8]

A clear understanding of the law would help MMA fighters understand the implications of what they are doing as well as what their attacker is doing.

Excerpts from "Courtroom KO! Joe Schilling cleared by Florida court over bar brawl:"

Joe Schilling has been cleared of all legal liability related to a violent confrontation in a Florida bar in June 2021.

The incident saw an inebriated man, Justin Balboa, confront Schilling at B Square Burgers in Fort Lauderdale. After a brief back-and-forth, Balboa appeared to fake a punch at the former GLORY kickboxing and Bellator fighter. Schilling immediately let his hands go, knocking out Balboa...

Citing Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws, circuit court judge, Fabienne E. Fahnestock, wrote a filing that stated Schilling, “reasonably believed” Balboa, “posed a threat of great bodily harm to himself ... Schilling used only such force necessary to neutralize the threat, and is therefore entitled to immunity...”

While the short video seen by the public seemed to show Schilling taking the opportunity to wreck some random guy, the judge saw security cam footage from the night, which included other interactions between Balboa and the Muay Thai champ. After seeing everything, the court ruled in Schilling’s favor.

The legal battle isn’t completely over. Schilling’s lawyer, David Katz, says they plan on going after Balboa for lawyer’s fees.

“Hopefully the Plaintiff was warned of the risks of filing this lawsuit by his attorneys before filing this suit,” Katz told MMA Fighting. “Balboa now stands liable for all of Schilling’s costs and fees for defending this lawsuit, including the trips he had to make from California and the hiring of investigators and experts.”

Balboa was the initial aggressor—he took a step forward with his left foot and shoulder feinted, video. A court found Joe acted in self-defense.

 

[marvin8]

Almost forgot .

Helen Believe (2023)​

 

[Hawk79]

Sounds like the better option would be to leave the technical aspect to someone else/add to an existing curriculum, or (the best option IMO) work with an MMA school and offer SD classes/teach MMA with a self defense focus.

Unfortunately I don't have access to MMA or wrestling or Judo.

The biggest thing that you'll find is a lack of interest. People just actively don't care about the legal stuff, and de-escalation/awareness can feel either too lectury or make-believe. Plus a bunch of people saying "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6", and ignoring whatever you are saying to avoid either of those happening.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I come across.

@marvin8 It seems that you have come across a requirement under Florida self defence law for self defence to be proportional. I thought this might happen - it is not possible to know the law with perfection for every single jurisdiction. At this stage I am not going to research further otherwise things could get out of hand. What I would say is that it is likely that there are exceptions to the Florida proportionality requirement which will be found in court cases.

The law Luisiana is also probably going to be very different from my understanding of law for historical reasons.

The problem is, reading these statues and basic explanations of the law is not enough. That doesn't stop people being convicted of assault. On the contrary, it is peoples belief that they understand how to deal with the law (because they have read a statute) that is getting them in to trouble and causing them to make bad choices.

None of this stuff that I am reading would help an MMA fighter ESTABLISH that they acted in self defence. That's something that you need to understand.

I'm not saying that MMA fighters will get in trouble anytime they defend themselves. What I am saying is that the reality is that people do defend themselves - people who believe that they know the law and have acted ethically, and then they end up in prison because they don't know how to establish self defence.

There is so much more that people need than a basic discription of self defence.

The people who read this stuff are the same people who end up in prison. There are plenty of cases out there. One of the sadest ones was a guy who tried to defend his brother from a brutal attack and ended up accidentally killing his brother. He went to prison for manslaughter - despite the brutality of the attack he was trying to save his brother from.

Your video of Balboa (Schilling?) completely misses the point. For a start, the guy ended up in court. Do you think that is a good example of self defence? Even if you win your case, you lost. Court proceedings are stressful, time consuming, and often very expensive. The important stuff that allowed Balboa (Schilling?) to claim self defence is not explained in that video. It does not mean that you can respond to someone in the same way. And that is the problem. Looking at this video and concluding that what Balboa/Schilling did is inherently lawful and something you can do if someone bothers you at the bar is a good example of what leads people to prison. You can copy Balboa actions - but will you copy Balboas statement to the police? Will the person you punched say the same thing as the person Balboa punched said to the police? Will someone record what happened? Will witnesses say the same thing that the witnesses to Balboa situation say? It is going to be completely different. These are all the things that matter and the video does not disclose any of this stuff. What if the guy you punch lies about what happened? Is there anything you can do to help protect you if they lie? Yes, there is. There are things that Balboa could have done to maximise his legal position that could have been in this video but was not.

Your not showing the "self defence" aspect of the violence.

You can give me examples of people defending themselves - but I already know those exist. It does not mean that there aren't plenty of cases where things don't go as expected on the legal side of things. I assure you, it is not as simple or straightforward as people think.

Self defence law tends to be very similar throughout common law countries (mindful that you have given me an example where proportionality is a requirement). I am reasonably familiar with the wording of various self defence statutes. I promise you, behind those statutes are many court cases that further clarify and define what the words mean. Those court cases exist because people who thought they were defending themselves ended up being prosecuted.

@Monkey Turned Wolf I would still really appreciate any advice on whether it is worth buying a book on wrestling. There is no other way for me to learn it. But if 90% of it is too dangerous to be performed outside of a mat or if most of it is lethal, then there is not much point in me buying the book.

One day I would like to have a small course that I can teach to people who are already competent fighters once a year that helps explain the issues of self defence and covers various court cases.

 

[marvin8]

@marvin8 It seems that you have come across a requirement under Florida self defence law for self defence to be proportional...

The law Luisiana is also probably going to be very different from my understanding of law for historical reasons.

You are misreading some things. The infographic covers the U.S., including Louisiana. “Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements.”

None of this stuff that I am reading would help an MMA fighter ESTABLISH that they acted in self defence. That's something that you need to understand.

It helps MMA fighters understand the (up to) 5 elements of justified self-defense.

Your video of Balboa (Schilling?) completely misses the point. For a start, the guy ended up in court. Do you think that is a good example of self defence?

Balboa was the initial aggressor. Schilling is the one that had the right to self-defense. The video shows Schilling legally defending himself as decided by a court of law.

Your not showing the "self defence" aspect of the violence.

Yes I do. Above the video clip, "Balboa was the initial aggressor—he took a step forward with his left foot and shoulder feinted, video."

Self defence law tends to be very similar throughout common law countries (mindful that you have given me an example where proportionality is a requirement).

Proportionality includes don’t use excessive force, which may be a self-defense law element. Some rules in legally defending yourself from the infographic…

1) Don’t be the initial aggressor.
2) Retreat safely if possible.
3) You reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of suffering harm or death.
4) Don’t use excessive force.
5) Act reasonably.

 

[HighKick]

Excerpts from "Courtroom KO! Joe Schilling cleared by Florida court over bar brawl:"



Balboa was the initial aggressor—he took a step forward with his left foot and shoulder feinted, video. A court found Joe acted in self-defense.

There are countless examples of judicial exception on imminence and proportionality for your model hold much water.

 

[marvin8]

There are countless examples of judicial exception on imminence and proportionality for your model hold much water.

Again, “Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements.” To be safe, one can choose to follow all 5 legal elements.

 

[Hawk79]

You are misreading some things. The infographic covers the U.S., including Louisiana. “Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements.”

I'm sorry, I studied US self defence law over a decade ago and I don't have access to the materials I used to. I also don't want to do detailed research on this issue of proportionality.

Notwithstanding the infographic, I am quite confident that proportionality is not necessary. Like I said previously, justified force will often be proportional but not all justified force is proportional. Common examples where proportionality is not required is when you are dealing with people at a significant disadvantage to their attacker (e.g. disabled people). Who knows, maybe I have mixed up my understanding of US self defence law with other countries law. I am happy to concede the point as I am not interested in researching the case law to try and prove my point. I still think it's wrong, but will not be going to the effort to prove it. The infographic is an oversimplification of self defence law.

It helps MMA fighters understand the (up to) 5 elements of justified self-defense.

Which is the least important thing they need to understand. This is the easy stuff. It's exactly the stuff people quote right before they are arrested and prosecuted.

Balboa was the initial aggressor. Schilling is the one that had the right to self-defense. The video shows Schilling legally defending himself as decided by a court of law.

To be clear, he ended up in court. That is not a good outcome to a self defence situation. Even if the court sides with you. Once again, this is not a good example of self defence. There are things he could have done that would have improved his legal position to the point it may not have even required a court to decide it was self defence.

Yes I do. Above the video clip, "Balboa was the initial aggressor—he took a step forward with his left foot and shoulder feinted, video."

I'm sorry, your not understanding what I am saying. I can see the aggressive parts in the video. I can see that Balboa is the aggressor. But it is irrelevant as I am talking about MMA integrated with the law. Your not showing any legal integration here (because there was none). There is no example of Schilling taking any action to help a police officer, prosecutor, or court draw inferences about what he was thinking or what Balboas intentions were.

Proportionality includes don’t use excessive force, which may be a self-defense law element. Some rules in legally defending yourself from the infographic…

1) Don’t be the initial aggressor.
2) Retreat safely if possible.
3) You reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of suffering harm or death.
4) Don’t use excessive force.
5) Act reasonably.

This is all the basic stuff that people quote as they are being lead off to prison.

I don't know how else to explain this, this is just not enough for an MMA fighter to be able to both physically and legally defend themselves.

There are things that I am not mentioning simply because I don't want to be giving tips out on a public forum of how people can improve their legal position in confrontations like the video you posted.


It does not matter that Schelling was found to be acting in self defence because:
1. He still ended up in court - which is not a pleasant experience.
2. Many people who think they understand self defence end up in prison.

It's is just not that simple. I don't know how else to explain it. I've literally read thousands of cases. Admittedly, not all of them were self defence cases. But I promise you, MMA is just a martial art. It is not integrated with the law and effective legal strategies (to be used in the self defence situation) are not being taught. Everyone I speak to has a general idea of what self defence requires and they all have terrible plans in place for how they intend to meet those requirements.

My interest is in information about wrestling.

 

[drop bear]

Again, “Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements.” To be safe, one can choose to follow all 5 legal elements.

And bear in mind our target audience isn't to train up some defence lawyers. Less is probably more in this case.

 

[drop bear]

I'm sorry, I studied US self defence law over a decade ago and I don't have access to the materials I used to. I also don't want to do detailed research on this issue of proportionality.

Notwithstanding the infographic, I am quite confident that proportionality is not necessary. Like I said previously, justified force will often be proportional but not all justified force is proportional. Common examples where proportionality is not required is when you are dealing with people at a significant disadvantage to their attacker (e.g. disabled people). Who knows, maybe I have mixed up my understanding of US self defence law with other countries law. I am happy to concede the point as I am not interested in researching the case law to try and prove my point. I still think it's wrong, but will not be going to the effort to prove it. The infographic is an oversimplification of self defence law.




Which is the least important thing they need to understand. This is the easy stuff. It's exactly the stuff people quote right before they are arrested and prosecuted.



To be clear, he ended up in court. That is not a good outcome to a self defence situation. Even if the court sides with you. Once again, this is not a good example of self defence. There are things he could have done that would have improved his legal position to the point it may not have even required a court to decide it was self defence.



I'm sorry, your not understanding what I am saying. I can see the aggressive parts in the video. I can see that Balboa is the aggressor. But it is irrelevant as I am talking about MMA integrated with the law. Your not showing any legal integration here (because there was none). There is no example of Schilling taking any action to help a police officer, prosecutor, or court draw inferences about what he was thinking or what Balboas intentions were.



This is all the basic stuff that people quote as they are being lead off to prison.

I don't know how else to explain this, this is just not enough for an MMA fighter to be able to both physically and legally defend themselves.

There are things that I am not mentioning simply because I don't want to be giving tips out on a public forum of how people can improve their legal position in confrontations like the video you posted.


It does not matter that Schelling was found to be acting in self defence because:
1. He still ended up in court - which is not a pleasant experience.
2. Many people who think they understand self defence end up in prison.

It's is just not that simple. I don't know how else to explain it. I've literally read thousands of cases. Admittedly, not all of them were self defence cases. But I promise you, MMA is just a martial art. It is not integrated with the law and effective legal strategies (to be used in the self defence situation) are not being taught. Everyone I speak to has a general idea of what self defence requires and they all have terrible plans in place for how they intend to meet those requirements.

My interest is in information about wrestling.

Ok. How do you suggest fighting as a physical capacity integrates itself with self defence law?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I studied US self defence law ...

When someone stabs a knife toward your chest, at that particular moment, do you think about self-defense law, or do you think about you own death?

Do you care about self-defense law if you are dead?

 

[marvin8]

I'm sorry, I studied US self defence law over a decade ago and I don't have access to the materials I used to. I also don't want to do detailed research on this issue of proportionality.

Notwithstanding the infographic, I am quite confident that proportionality is not necessary. Like I said previously, justified force will often be proportional but not all justified force is proportional. Common examples where proportionality is not required is when you are dealing with people at a significant disadvantage to their attacker (e.g. disabled people). Who knows, maybe I have mixed up my understanding of US self defence law with other countries law. I am happy to concede the point as I am not interested in researching the case law to try and prove my point.

Again, “Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements.” To be safe, one can choose to follow all 5 legal elements. You're not conceding a point, you're arguing a straw man.

Which is the least important thing they need to understand. This is the easy stuff. It's exactly the stuff people quote right before they are arrested and prosecuted.

It's important to understand that "Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements. If a prosecutor disproves any one required element, your entire self-defense justification collapses."

To be clear, he ended up in court. That is not a good outcome to a self defence situation. Even if the court sides with you. Once again, this is not a good example of self defence. There are things he could have done that would have improved his legal position to the point it may not have even required a court to decide it was self defence.

Most people can end up in court. The prosecution is the party that bears the burden of proof. It is an example of self-defense found justified by a court of law.

I'm sorry, your not understanding what I am saying. I can see the aggressive parts in the video. I can see that Balboa is the aggressor. But it is irrelevant as I am talking about MMA integrated with the law. Your not showing any legal integration here (because there was none). There is no example of Schilling taking any action to help a police officer, prosecutor, or court draw inferences about what he was thinking or what Balboas intentions were.

Again, Balboa was the initial aggressor—he took a step forward with his left foot and shoulder feinted, video. Again, a court found Schilling, “reasonably believed” Balboa, “posed a threat of great bodily harm to himself ... Schilling used only such force necessary to neutralize the threat, and is therefore entitled to immunity...”

This is all the basic stuff that people quote as they are being lead off to prison.

I don't know how else to explain this, this is just not enough for an MMA fighter to be able to both physically and legally defend themselves.

It's important to understand that "Every claim of self-defense in the U.S. is based on (up to) 5 legal elements."

My interest is in information about wrestling.

One has the right to defend themselves, whether they use kicking, striking, wrestling or locking. I posted the wrestling movie trailer Helen Believe (2023).

 

[Hawk79]

Again, “Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements.” To be safe, one can choose to follow all 5 legal elements. You're not conceding a point, you're arguing a straw man.

Apologies, I didn't notice the second message you did where you acknowledged there are exceptions to the proportionality requirement.

Whether or not you live in a jurisdiction where proportionality is a requirement or not is an important distinction. The proportionality requirement make it difficult for weaker individuals to defend against stronger people. So if you live in a place where there is an exception to a requirement of proportionality then you absolutely want to make sure that you are aware of this and teach it as part of self defence. People often find themselves in a self defence situation precisely because they are at a physical disadvantage. A proportionality requirement would put them at an even bigger disadvantage. For those people, it may be safe to focus on justifiable force rather than proportional and justifiable force.

It's important to understand that "Every claim of self-defense is based on (up to) 5 legal elements. If a prosecutor disproves any one required element, your entire self-defense justification collapses."

This isn't the important stuff people need to know. If you are trying to be a good person, you will naturally tick all the self defence requirements 99% of the time - but it will not be enough because the law is much more complicated than that - something I am about to explain in response to @drop bear's question.

Ok. How do you suggest fighting as a physical capacity integrates itself with self defence law?

First, it is important for you to have a little bit more legal background. Otherwise the techniques won't make sense.

First, in legal proceedings there are two types of question:

1. Question of fact.
2. Question of law.

A judge always makes rulings on questions of law. When it comes to facts, sometimes juries will be tasked with making a finding of fact and other times it will be a judge.

Second, if a case ends up in court, the prosecution has the burden of proof and evidential burden that requires them to show that you committed a criminal act (actus rea) with the required mindset (mens rea) (note: there are exceptions to this). Common mindset requirements are intentional, reckless, negligent etc etc. They need to discharge their burden of proof by presenting evidence. They will not just say what they think happened. They need to have evidence for each thing they say. If the prosecution establishes the actus rea and mens rea of the offence of assault beyond reasonable doubt then the burden then shifts to the defendant. At this point, the question of fact has been answered: you are guilty of the crime of assault.

So, the prosecution has done its task. Now you can either attack their evidence or present your own evidence that undermines their case. Pay careful attention to the fact that literally everything is requiring you or the prosecution to offer evidence. You lawyer cannot simply stand up in court and say "my client feared for his life" or "my client was attacked". If you cannot present evidence in your defence and you cannot (or choose not to) attack the prosecution evidence then you only have one other option - to accept that you committed the actus rea and mens rea of assault and then present a legal defence (e.g. self defence). If you are attacking the evidence presented by the prosecution or introducing your own evidence to undermine their case then you are arguing over the facts of the case - a defence based on the facts. If you are claiming self defence you are presenting a legal defence.

Let me give you an example of what often happens. Bob has just been in an altercation. The police have arrived and interviewed Bob. He makes the following statement:

"I was walking down this alley and I saw this guy walking towards me. I have no idea what he was doing but anyone around here at this time of night is usually up to no good. I was keeping an eye on him because i've heard plenty of stories about people hiding down alleys at night and then robbing the elderly as they are walking through. He started swearing at me and yelling at me to stop looking at him. For my own safety I grabbed him in a bear hug to protect myself in case the guy tried to attack me I then asked him what he was doing. He began to struggle. I released him and pushed him away to gain distance just in case he was to try and strike me as I was letting him go. Then I backed up and called the Police."

Bob thinks he is familiar with self defence law and knows he needs to justify his actions and only use force that is reasonable. He has been very careful in how he dealt with the other man and is confident he did not use excessive force.

So, I have some questions for you:

1. What has Bob told the Police officer that is legally relevant?
2. What evidence does the Police officer have that could be used to prosecute Bob?
3. If he is prosecuted, is there anything that Bob can do to undermine the prosecution evidence or any evidence that Bob could use to make the prosecution evidence less persuasive?
4. What evidence does Bob have that you can use to make a case for self defence?

Well, first of all. Bob has admitted to the police officer that he has prima facie ("on the face of it") committed assault. Specifically, he told the police officer that he placed the other guy in a bear hug (the actus rea) and that he did so because he thought it would protect him in case the guy attacked him. This shows intention (the mens rea) - he didn't accidentally bear hug the other man.

So, the second question. What evidence do the police have that Bob committed the actus rea and mens rea of assault? They have the police statement. The police statement is evidence (you will recall the famous line from movies "anything you say may be used in evidence"). The police/prosecutor has more than enough evidence to meet their legal burden of proof (to prove the actus rea and mens rea of assault beyond reasonable doubt). They have the police statement evidence which allows them to meet their evidential burden.

Thinking about the third question, Is there anything that Bob can do to undermine the prosecution evidence or is there evidence that Bob could present to make the prosecution case less pursuasive? No, unless Bob has evidence that he was coerced into making the statement or there are witness statements that contradict his own police statement (and assuming their statement is favourable to Bob) and Bob intends to argue that his own Police statement is a lie and the witnesses are correct, there is nothing that he can do. That's okay, because Bob obviously intends to rely on self defence. In order to rely on self defence Bob needs to admit to the actus rea and mens rea any way.

That brings us to the fourth question. What evidence does Bob have that he could use to argue self defence? The answer is that there is no evidence. Now, did Bob act in a way that was reasonable? Reasonable for what? Bob did the work of the prosecution by admitting to the actus rea and mens rea of assault. The evidential burden is now on him. He must point to some evidence that he can use to establish an evidential foundation that he was acting in self defence. So, where is that evidence? It's not in the police statement. In fact, Bob actually says that he does not know what the other guy was doing. So, what about his belief that the guy might have been hiding down the alley to attack the elderly? That's not evidence. Even if he believes that to be true, it's just speculation. His belief that it is true is not evidence that it is true. There is no evidence that Bob was actually under attack. This is true, even if Bob actually was under attack. Even if I, as the creator of this scenario tell you right now that Bob was actually about to be murdered by the guy, there is no evidence that Bob can point to in order to discharge the evidential burden that is now upon him. His lawyer cannot simply get up in court and say "Bob was looking out for the elderly" or "Bob was genuinely afraid that the guy was about to attack him". The judge won't let Bob's lawyer say that because there is no evidence supporting those statements.

So, knowing all this. What could Bob have done to improve his legal position? Well, he could have said this to the suspected assailant:

"Hey man, you're making me feel like you're about to attack me. Can you back up a bit?"

What is the significance of that statement? Well, if the guy moves forward or fails to move back, there is now at least some evidence that Bob could use to help establish self defence. He can now say to the police officer:

"I told the guy he was making me think he was about to attack me and I asked him to back up. But then the guy moved forward. This lead confirmed for me that he was in fact intending to attack. So I quickly grabbed him in a bear hug to protect myself in case he was going to attack me".

Now Bob has evidence of self defence - the guy moved forward after being made aware that he was being perceived as an attacker. The guy did nothing to try and show that he meant no harm. In fact, he actually stepped forward. This is certainly good evidence that Bob was facing imminent attack. To be clear, there is evidence that the guy moved forward after being told that he was being perceived as an attacker - it's Bob's own police statement. Now that Bob has some evidence (a witness statement (Bob's statement)) to show that the other guy did something suspect, he can now use the fact (backed up by evidence) to explain why he reacted the way he did (why he put the man in a bear hug).

Incidentally, the value of the police statement to the defence is often overlooked (think of all the times you hear people say "never talk to the police"). I know of cases where the police have intentionally not interviewed a suspect as part of a strategy to deny them the use of the police statement as evidence that they can use in their defence. This forces the defendant to testify in their own defence - and be subjected to cross examination. The defendant's lawyer actually made an application to the court for the judge to order the police to interview his client. The judge refused to make the order. Effectively dooming the defendant to conviction.

So, something as simple as "setting a boundary" can drastically improve your legal position in a self defence situation. If MMA fighters were trained to say "Hey man, you're making me think your about to attack me, can you back up a bit?" as soon as they can when they sense a potential altercation, they will be drastically more prepared for self defence situations. They should practice this. There is no point in just being vaguely aware of the need to set a boundary and then forgetting to do it when trouble starts.

Setting a boundary helps establish the circumstances you are facing - but it also helps provide evidence of both the assailants and defenders mindset.

There are other things you can do as well. Physically backing up and holding your arms up is a good way to show a neighbours door cam that you are not trying to initiate violence. If you back up and put your hands up and the other guy moves forward - it's not a good look for him. It indicates something about the guys intent (mens rea). You're no longer just saying "I thought the guy was going to attack me". Now you're saying "I put my hands up, I backed away and this dude moved towards me and so THEN I thought he was going to attack me and so I pre-emptively defended myself".

Now, can someone dropping their shoulders and shifting there wait indicate that they are about to attach you? Sure, but will most witnesses be able to see that? Will they say in their witness statements that they saw the aggressor drop their shoulder and shift their weight? You are far better to create very visible indicators of what is going on. Most people understand the phrase "You're making me uncomfortable, can you back up" and they understand very well what is happening when the other guy steps forward.

There are a lot of other things that I could mention but I have written far too much already. There are other issues that defenders need to consider - strategies/tactics that can be used to protect you in the event that your attacker and witnesses lie about what happened. How do you think you can claim self defence if the only people who saw the attack are friends of the attacker? Your not going to be able to do it by saying "I didn't use excessive force" or "it was self defence" or "I was justified".

What do you think you can do to make it more likely that you can put your side of the story across (remember, you must have evidence) when there are ten other people who are saying your the attacker and their friend is the victim? There are things you can do to help establish the facts.

 

[marvin8]

Apologies, I didn't notice the second message you did where you acknowledged there are exceptions to the proportionality requirement.

It's in the infographic which I quoted 6 times and you quoted it.

Whether or not you live in a jurisdiction where proportionality is a requirement or not is an important distinction. The proportionality requirement make it difficult for weaker individuals to defend against stronger people. So if you live in a place where there is an exception to a requirement of proportionality then you absolutely want to make sure that you are aware of this and teach it as part of self defence. People often find themselves in a self defence situation precisely because they are at a physical disadvantage. A proportionality requirement would put them at an even bigger disadvantage. For those people, it may be safe to focus on justifiable force rather than proportional and justifiable force.

No, proportionality doesn't per the infographic. If you are a weaker individual and you reasonably believe you are under a deadly force or serious bodily injury attack, you are justified in countering with deadly force.

This isn't the important stuff people need to know. If you are trying to be a good person, you will naturally tick all the self defence requirements 99% of the time - but it will not be enough because the law is much more complicated than that - something I am about to explain in response to @drop bear's question...

Second, if a case ends up in court, the prosecution has the burden of proof and evidential burden that requires them to show that you committed a criminal act (actus rea) with the required mindset (mens rea) (note: there are exceptions to this)...

No, it's important for people to understand the (up to) 5 legal elements of self-defense law in the U.S. (These same [up to] 5 elements are found in various legal sources.) Because If the prosecution disproves any one of the (up to) 5 elements, their claim of self-defense is not justified.

So, something as simple as "setting a boundary" can drastically improve your legal position in a self defence situation. If MMA fighters were trained to say "Hey man, you're making me think your about to attack me, can you back up a bit?" as soon as they can when they sense a potential altercation, they will be drastically more prepared for self defence situations. They should practice this. There is no point in just being vaguely aware of the need to set a boundary and then forgetting to do it when trouble starts.

Setting a boundary helps establish the circumstances you are facing - but it also helps provide evidence of both the assailants and defenders mindset.

There are other things you can do as well. Physically backing up and holding your arms up is a good way to show a neighbours door cam that you are not trying to initiate violence. If you back up and put your hands up and the other guy moves forward - it's not a good look for him. It indicates something about the guys intent (mens rea). You're no longer just saying "I thought the guy was going to attack me". Now you're saying "I put my hands up, I backed away and this dude moved towards me and so THEN I thought he was going to attack me and so I pre-emptively defended myself".

Now, can someone dropping their shoulders and shifting there wait indicate that they are about to attach you? Sure, but will most witnesses be able to see that? Will they say in their witness statements that they saw the aggressor drop their shoulder and shift their weight? You are far better to create very visible indicators of what is going on. Most people understand the phrase "You're making me uncomfortable, can you back up" and they understand very well what is happening when the other guy steps forward.

There are a lot of other things that I could mention but I have written far too much already. There are other issues that defenders need to consider - strategies/tactics that can be used to protect you in the event that your attacker and witnesses lie about what happened. How do you think you can claim self defence if the only people who saw the attack are friends of the attacker? Your not going to be able to do it by saying "I didn't use excessive force" or "it was self defence" or "I was justified"..

Further education on the (up to) 5 legal elements of self-defense law and how to stay within them can be helpful. This is analogous to the "Principles vs Techniques" thread. Knowing techniques isn’t enough. You need to know why and how they work, when to use them, and how to make them work for you.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I would still really appreciate any advice on whether it is worth buying a book on wrestling. There is no other way for me to learn it. But if 90% of it is too dangerous to be performed outside of a mat or if most of it is lethal, then there is not much point in me buying the book.

I don't think you are likely to learn much useful from a book on wrestling (other than perhaps the rules of the sport) regardless of the context. Still pictures and written descriptions just don't effectively communicate what you need to make the movements work. If you are interested in wrestling techniques, check out YouTube channels like the one I linked in my first comment. Then you can try out any moves that seem potentially useful during your BJJ sessions.

To address the second part of your question, the vast majority of wrestling is not "lethal". In fact, one the great advantages of wrestling in its various forms is that it's all about controlling your opponent's body, which gives you considerable discretion in how much damage you can choose to deliver. I do recommend that you primarily train any sort of grappling art (wrestling, Judo, BJJ, etc) on a mat or on grass/dirt rather than a hard surface. It's not that you can't execute a wrestling technique on the sidewalk without injury - but if you put in full regular training session (1-2 hours) grappling on a hard surface, then you will accumulate enough bumps. bruises, and abrasions that you won't want to come back and train the next day.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Just also be aware that wrestling is not a common martial art in my country.

I have a good understanding of the legal aspects of self defence

What country do you live in?

I ask for two reasons.

The first is that almost every country and culture has some sort of native wrestling/grappling tradition. Your country may not have much in the way of folkstyle/freestyle/Greco-Roman wrestling, but there may be some other local grappling methods that you haven't known to look for. Perhaps someone here might have some suggestions for avenues you could investigate.

The second is that your follow-up discussion seems primarily concerned with legal considerations. Laws are different in every jurisdiction. It doesn't make sense to argue over interpretation of U.S. law or Australian law if you are living in a country with an entirely different legal system.

 

[HighKick]

I'm sorry, I studied US self defence law over a decade ago and I don't have access to the materials I used to. I also don't want to do detailed research on this issue of proportionality.

Notwithstanding the infographic, I am quite confident that proportionality is not necessary. Like I said previously, justified force will often be proportional but not all justified force is proportional. Common examples where proportionality is not required is when you are dealing with people at a significant disadvantage to their attacker (e.g. disabled people). Who knows, maybe I have mixed up my understanding of US self defence law with other countries law. I am happy to concede the point as I am not interested in researching the case law to try and prove my point. I still think it's wrong, but will not be going to the effort to prove it. The infographic is an oversimplification of self defence law.




Which is the least important thing they need to understand. This is the easy stuff. It's exactly the stuff people quote right before they are arrested and prosecuted.



To be clear, he ended up in court. That is not a good outcome to a self defence situation. Even if the court sides with you. Once again, this is not a good example of self defence. There are things he could have done that would have improved his legal position to the point it may not have even required a court to decide it was self defence.



I'm sorry, your not understanding what I am saying. I can see the aggressive parts in the video. I can see that Balboa is the aggressor. But it is irrelevant as I am talking about MMA integrated with the law. Your not showing any legal integration here (because there was none). There is no example of Schilling taking any action to help a police officer, prosecutor, or court draw inferences about what he was thinking or what Balboas intentions were.



This is all the basic stuff that people quote as they are being lead off to prison.

I don't know how else to explain this, this is just not enough for an MMA fighter to be able to both physically and legally defend themselves.

There are things that I am not mentioning simply because I don't want to be giving tips out on a public forum of how people can improve their legal position in confrontations like the video you posted.


It does not matter that Schelling was found to be acting in self defence because:
1. He still ended up in court - which is not a pleasant experience.
2. Many people who think they understand self defence end up in prison.

It's is just not that simple. I don't know how else to explain it. I've literally read thousands of cases. Admittedly, not all of them were self defence cases. But I promise you, MMA is just a martial art. It is not integrated with the law and effective legal strategies (to be used in the self defence situation) are not being taught. Everyone I speak to has a general idea of what self defence requires and they all have terrible plans in place for how they intend to meet those requirements.

My interest is in information about wrestling.

This post is spot on. Well said.

 

[marvin8]

This post is spot on. Well said.

I don't believe it is, for the U.S.

Also, sorry I replied to your post thinking you were Hawk79 by mistake. What did you mean by...

There are countless examples of judicial exception on imminence and proportionality for your model hold much water.

The infographic might be considered a "model." The Schilling case was a recent court decision on a MMAist's self-defense immunity hearing, not necessarily a model. That was in reply to his post...

A clear understanding of the law would help MMA fighters understand the implications of what they are doing as well as what their attacker is doing.