Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

[Gyakuto]

Oh boy, my crystal ball says we will be debating for the next year whether the attorneys have earned their black be… er, law degree or if they got it from a McLaw school...

Not if we simply disengage from this thread!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

How bout lock your door, mind your business, and don’t shoot people who aren’t in the act of killing or raping someone?

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Not if we simply disengage from this thread!

Advice well taken. I’m out.

 

[PhotonGuy]

this is pretty consistent with what most people have said in other threads. Self defense is basically where one says, “yeah, I broke a law, assaulted someone (or worse), but I had to for reasons that make it okay.”

But it's not breaking the law if it's legitimate self defense. Sure, you're breaking the law if you just attack somebody out of the blue sky but it's not against the law to defend yourself when somebody else attacks you, at least not in the USA.

So if you use a gun, even if you are eventually exonerated (eg, George Zimmerman), your life may be permanently changed. Fighting, or as drop bear said, simply not killing someone, makes life a lot easier. It’s easier to argue that you didn’t over react, didn’t use excessive force, if you don’t pull out your gun and shoot someone.

Well yes, if you're a grown man and a woman or a small child takes a slap at you you can't shoot them but if a grown man attacks another grown man with just his bare hands and the other grown man fights back with just his bare hands and they're both roughly the same age and roughly the same size, the fellow who fought back shouldn't get in trouble as he was legitimately defending himself and he wasn't using excessive force as he wasn't using any weapons. A grown man = a grown man. Bare hands = bare hands.

No one so far is playing lawyer, and for what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone, anywhere is in any danger of taking anything in this thread as legal advice.

My posts aren't meant to be legal advice, on the contrary Im just making educated guesses and looking for feedback, if Im wrong I'm looking to be told how and why Im wrong.

So far, nothing said in this thread is any different than what has been discussed many times here in the last. My only gripe with this thread is that you could have pulled up and old thread so we don’t have to repeat ourselves.

I don't recall any recent threads of this sort.

 

[PhotonGuy]

It focuses on the use of lethal force and the grounds to use such, regardless of type. I used to teach the course, and I have taught seminars to LEOs on unarmed combat. It is important to get all of the information. Just a suggestion.

I've taken a few concealed carry courses myself and none of them have gotten into the legal aftermath if you take down a bad guy unarmed, it only talks about what happens if you shoot somebody and what to be prepared for should it come to that, at least with the courses I've taken.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I'm not even digging into this right now, because I've read it twice, and it's all over the place wrongness. Let me simply say that before you start talking about self defense, courts, and the law... you need to really know a whole lot more than you show here.

I don't claim to be an expert Im only making educated guesses and looking for feedback.

 

[PhotonGuy]

You are stating your opinion on a topic of which you lack even basic expertise to have common sense about. And anyone who knows ANYTHING about the legal system knows that common sense is about as far from it as penguins are from the grizzly bears.

So what do you know about the legal system? Do you have a legal background?

 

[PhotonGuy]

As would your original post! 😉

This thread is meant to be a serious discussion, not a thread for silly posts such as yours at post #5.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don't claim to be an expert Im only making educated guesses and looking for feedback.

You misspelled "ignorant and naive". Hope this helps.

 

[PhotonGuy]

You misspelled "ignorant and naive". Hope this helps.

You're not ignorant and naive if you make educated guesses, keyword educated.

 

[Steve]

But it's not breaking the law if it's legitimate self defense. Sure, you're breaking the law if you just attack somebody out of the blue sky but it's not against the law to defend yourself when somebody else attacks you, at least not in the USA.

killing people, as a rule, is bad. But many would argue that there are some exceptions. Like self defense. If you’re prosecuted for killing someone, you are hoping that you can convince a jury that you meet some legal exception to the rule.

Personally, I think it’s helpful to remember that being “right” is only part of the issue. Other people (like a prosecutor or a member of a jury) will be evaluating the situation and they may disagree with you that “it’s legitimate self defense”.

Well yes, if you're a grown man and a woman or a small child takes a slap at you you can't shoot them but if a grown man attacks another grown man with just his bare hands and the other grown man fights back with just his bare hands and they're both roughly the same age and roughly the same size, the fellow who fought back shouldn't get in trouble as he was legitimately defending himself and he wasn't using excessive force as he wasn't using any weapons. A grown man = a grown man. Bare hands = bare hands.

The trick is knowing when to stop.

My posts aren't meant to be legal advice, on the contrary Im just making educated guesses and looking for feedback, if Im wrong I'm looking to be told how and why Im wrong.

I get that, and I think everyone else does, too.

I don't recall any recent threads of this sort.

Maybe you didn’t go back far enough.

 

[jks9199]

So what do you know about the legal system? Do you have a legal background?

Have you paid attention? Have you noticed my signature line? I only have 24 years of law enforcement experience, including instructorships in Defensive/Control Tactics, Firearms, Taser, and more. And done a fair bit of self defense instruction, including being able to hold my own with some pretty big names in the field. Enough to know what I don't know, most importantly, and to know how much all of that stuff there is only valid in the small slice of the pie that I've worked.

So, yeah, I just might know a thing or three.

And your thoughts and ideas in your original post are rather dangerously wrong. Let me cavaeat all of the following with this: It is not legal advice and is merely a discussion of principles and concepts, and is focused on US law, more specifically, Virginia law.

However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

The courts only slightly look at the means of applying force; the very first question is wheather or not any force is justified at all. Self defense as a legal concept is an affirmative defense -- the person who claims self defense is admitting that they committed an act which is ordinarly a crime (usually some form of battery, or ultimately criminal homicide), but that they were justified in doing so because they were under unjustified assault, or reasonably believed they were about to be, and that force was necessary to prevent that harm. Along with that, the assertion is made that the force was reasonable and appropriate to the threat faced. Pocket nukes are not reasonable and appropriate to counter spitballs. Gun, fist, or rear naked choke... force is force. I will admit that empty hand techniques have one big advantage over a gun -- they can be scaled from less lethal to lethal.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges

Nope... force is force. If the force is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death, it's lethal force. If it's not likely to, it's less than lethal. And if your less than lethal ends up killing someone... It might well be murder. Even if it wouldn't have been likely to kill them according to "common sense." Push someone away, and they stumble and fall against a curb, and break their neck or crack their skull... or die due to a preexisting condition that is aggravated... and it's still homicide, and might well be charged as such.

And the criminal and civil sides are two very different worlds. Starting with the burden of proof... Ask one Orenthal J. Simpson about that... but both apply whether the means of force are your hands, or a knife, or a firearm. In fact, you can be not guilty or even factually innocent and still be civilly liable.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.

Uh, no. Not at all. In fact, claiming that you are a trained martial artist just might get you held to a higher standard and expected to control the level of force you use more effectively. Yeah, that might be a bad thing. There's a reason that anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you to get an attorney experienced and versed in the laws of self defence if you are ever faced with the situation.

Oops... maybe I should revisit that statement about not using a pocket nuke against a spitball... Someone might start calling me Chris if I keep this up...

 

[PhotonGuy]

killing people, as a rule, is bad. But many would argue that there are some exceptions. Like self defense. If you’re prosecuted for killing someone, you are hoping that you can convince a jury that you meet some legal exception to the rule.

Killing is justified if you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm, but aside from that you're far less likely to kill using just your hands and body than if you use a gun, which is all the more reason why it has that advantage in court.

Personally, I think it’s helpful to remember that being “right” is only part of the issue. Other people (like a prosecutor or a member of a jury) will be evaluating the situation and they may disagree with you that “it’s legitimate self defense”.

It would depend on the situation, if you just attack somebody out of the blue sky it's obviously not self defense.

The trick is knowing when to stop.

You stop when your adversary stops. If you incapacitate an attacker and then continue to beat on them when they're no longer coming at you, at that point it's not self defense and it will get you in trouble.

I get that, and I think everyone else does, too.

Apparently not everyone, based on some of the replies.

Maybe you didn’t go back far enough.

Maybe not, however in this thread Im comparing the legal consequences of using a gun vs not using a gun, I don't recall ever making that comparison before on this forum.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This thread is meant to be a serious discussion, not a thread for silly posts such as yours at post #5.

You've been around MT long enough to know that silly posts are required at least once per page, per thread.

 

[Gyakuto]

This thread is meant to be a serious discussion, not a thread for silly posts such as yours at post #5.

#6 actually.

 

[Gyakuto]

You've been around MT long enough to know that silly posts are required at least once per page, per thread.

At your service 🙏🏽

 

[PhotonGuy]

Have you paid attention? Have you noticed my signature line?

Much of your signature line is very small and hard to read.

I only have 24 years of law enforcement experience, including instructorships in Defensive/Control Tactics, Firearms, Taser, and more. And done a fair bit of self defense instruction, including being able to hold my own with some pretty big names in the field. Enough to know what I don't know, most importantly, and to know how much all of that stuff there is only valid in the small slice of the pie that I've worked.

So, yeah, I just might know a thing or three.

So you have lots of experience with various methods of self defense, you know how to defend yourself using all sorts of various means, but do you have much experience in the courtroom? Do you know how to avoid being tried by 12 just because you refused to be carried by 6? Do you know how to win in court?

And your thoughts and ideas in your original post are rather dangerously wrong. Let me cavaeat all of the following with this: It is not legal advice and is merely a discussion of principles and concepts, and is focused on US law, more specifically, Virginia law.

The courts only slightly look at the means of applying force; the very first question is wheather or not any force is justified at all. Self defense as a legal concept is an affirmative defense -- the person who claims self defense is admitting that they committed an act which is ordinarly a crime (usually some form of battery, or ultimately criminal homicide), but that they were justified in doing so because they were under unjustified assault, or reasonably believed they were about to be, and that force was necessary to prevent that harm.

You're talking about Virginia law and Im not all that familiar with how it is in Virginia but it can be a bit more complicated than that. From my own research I've learned that some jurisdictions have the duty to retreat where if you're attacked in a public place your first course of action should be to run, if you can. In other jurisdictions you can stand your ground where you can use force to stop your attacker instead of running. In jurisdictions where you can stand your ground you can use force to incapacitate your attacker, even if running is an option.

Along with that, the assertion is made that the force was reasonable and appropriate to the threat faced. Pocket nukes are not reasonable and appropriate to counter spitballs.

OK well I will give you a hypothetical situation. Let's take Bob and Steve, they're both relatively the same age and relatively the same size. Bob attacks Steve with his bare hands unprovoked. Steve fights back with his bare hands. The way I see it is that Steve should not get in trouble for fighting back with his bare hands as long as he stops once Bob stops. Once Steve incapacitates Bob so that he is no longer a threat Steve cannot continue to pound on Bob as at that point it would no longer be self defense, but as long as Steve stops when Bob stops Steve should not get in trouble. Steve is not using a pocket nuke in response to Bob is attacking him with spitballs, they're both of relatively the same age and relatively the same size and it was Bob who attacked Steve first and Bob is not using any weapons but neither is Steve. So Steve was using reasonable force and should be justified, I would think.

Gun, fist, or rear naked choke... force is force.

So what you're saying is that, if you choke somebody to death the courts will see it in the same light as if you shot them to death, and you will face the same charges, convictions, and sentences.

I will admit that empty hand techniques have one big advantage over a gun -- they can be scaled from less lethal to lethal.

It also depends on where you hit somebody and also on the caliber of the weapon. Most handgun rounds are ballistically deficient most of the time will just injure somebody without killing them, unlike rifle rounds which are much more likely to kill.

Nope... force is force. If the force is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death, it's lethal force. If it's not likely to, it's less than lethal.

And just how "likely" does a type of force have to be in order for it to be considered "lethal force?" As I stated above, most handgun shots will just injure a person without killing them, depending on where you hit them, so you can say handgun shots have a less than 50% chance of killing. On the other hand just about anything can kill. People have died from being hit with blackjacks and from being tazed and from being pepper sprayed. All those methods aren't meant to kill but in some instances they can and do. That being as it is, are they considered "lethal force?"

And if your less than lethal ends up killing someone... It might well be murder. Even if it wouldn't have been likely to kill them according to "common sense." Push someone away, and they stumble and fall against a curb, and break their neck or crack their skull... or die due to a preexisting condition that is aggravated... and it's still homicide, and might well be charged as such.

So if a big muscular guy who doesn't appear to have any preexisting condition is coming at you and you push him and by a cruel twist of fate he falls and hits his head on a curb and dies what you're saying is that you could be charged with homicide.

And the criminal and civil sides are two very different worlds. Starting with the burden of proof... Ask one Orenthal J. Simpson about that... but both apply whether the means of force are your hands, or a knife, or a firearm. In fact, you can be not guilty or even factually innocent and still be civilly liable.

Yes I know criminal and civil charges are different, civil charges can be a real pain to say the least.

Uh, no. Not at all. In fact, claiming that you are a trained martial artist just might get you held to a higher standard and expected to control the level of force you use more effectively. Yeah, that might be a bad thing.

Much of it depends on the art as to how well you can control the level of force that you use. With an art such as Jiu Jitsu for instance you can have good control over how much force you use. With an art such as Muai Thai on the other hand, you probably aren't going to have good control over how much force you use as you don't really learn that in Maui Thai. Maui Thai emphasizes maximum power and the infliction of maximum damage and doesn't really teach much about control.

You do have a point however that claiming you're a trained martial artist can be used against you in court. For that reason I would not tell the courts that I am trained in the martial arts and I would try to avoid having the courts find out that I've got such a background. I would simply state that I didn't use a gun or any weapons for that matter when I took down my assailant and that bare hands are nothing like guns in terms of destructibility.

There's a reason that anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you to get an attorney experienced and versed in the laws of self defence if you are ever faced with the situation.

Do you know any on this forum? You claim to have lots of experience yourself in self defense but you've never claimed to be a lawyer.

 

[gyoja]

It also depends on where you hit somebody and also on the caliber of the weapon. Most handgun rounds are ballistically deficient most of the time will just injure somebody without killing them, unlike rifle rounds which are much more likely to kill.

Shot placement is vastly more important than caliber. I wouldn’t say that most handgun rounds are ballistically deficient, just are so when compared to high velocity rifle rounds. The issue is that during the engagement your body dumps adrenaline, your field of vision narrows and your heart pounds in your ears. People that are inexperienced will focus on everything except their front sight post.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

At your service 🙏🏽

I will take a double on the rocks.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My only gripe with this thread is that you could have pulled up and old thread so we don’t have to repeat ourselves.

Please don't encourage him lol