Justified Force..?
- Thread starter Draven
- Start date
Have to agree with you here Bill.
Personally, this thread is the first time that I've heard the term 'justified' force used before. Reasonable yes, justified...nope.Agreed. Nice post!
I guess I'm just not following the thinking of some here. Someone comes up to you and pushes you, and you turn around and knock their teeth out, bust their nose, take them down and proceed to use their ribs as a football...well, shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that that is a bit too much. IMO, theres a huge difference between someone giving you a push, vs. someone coming at you with a knife. Despite my career, I do not claim to be a legal expert, and I take calls all the time, from people asking for 'legal' advice, to which I refer them to someone else. That being said, I'm fortunate to know and train with people in the LEO field, so many times, I go to them with questions that I have. As I said in my first post...I think its wise to talk to someone who knows the laws. Last thing you want to do is get jammed up.
KELLYG
2nd Black Belt
Good thread,
Talking out their zippers (priceless). This thread at least got me curious enough to look up the self defense laws for my State. Interesting stuff. We have Castle and stand your ground, as well as protection of not getting sued if you were attacked and had to defend yourself. This was very helpful indeed!!
Talking out their zippers (priceless). This thread at least got me curious enough to look up the self defense laws for my State. Interesting stuff. We have Castle and stand your ground, as well as protection of not getting sued if you were attacked and had to defend yourself. This was very helpful indeed!!
The problem with self-defense discussions is that they tend to get specific, and there aren't any specifics. So somebody says, "This guy came up to me and punched me in the nose, I didn't even know him, so I hit him in the etc, etc, etc, and then I jumped up and down on his etc, and what do you think, was that too much?"
The only answer to questions like that is "it depends."
It is not what you do, but the context in which you do it.
If a person draws back to punch me and I rip his eyeballs out and shove them up his nose, it might be lawful self-defense - and it might not. It depends on the situation and the laws of the state or country in which I am located.
Generally speaking, one is permitted to defend oneself from violence, even before the violence is committed. One is generally permitted to apply THAT FORCE REASONABLY NECESSARY to end the threat to oneself.
What is 'that force reasonably necessary'? Again, it depends. No one is going to find it in a book of laws or even a book on self-defense. It's that force with a 'reasonable and prudent man' (a legal term of art) would find reasonable.
If a person who was 6-5 and wearing biker garb and who had just dismembered another person with his bare hands in front of me drew back to punch me and I ripped his eyeballs out instinctively, well, a reasonable and prudent man might find that perfectly understandable. On the other hand, if a 9-year-old kid having a temper tantrum drew back to punch me and I ripped his eyeballs out, that might strike a reasonable and prudent man as a tad excessive.
Context is the key. The threat is the driving force. Presuming that the threat is 'reasonable', then the force required to end the threat is the 'reasonable' amount you can use. And when the threat ends, so does your right to use force.
In states which have a 'Duty to Retreat' law, if one is confronted with violence and one CAN withdraw, then one has the legal obligation to withdraw. That generally means running away. If you can't, then you can't. But if you can and you just decided that it would harm your ego to do so, then it's not self-defense in the eyes of the law.
In states which have 'Stand Your Ground' laws, then one does not have a duty to first attempt to withdraw, and one may use force to end a threat immediately - and again, only until the threat is ended.
'Castle' laws generally refer to the old saying that "a man's home is his castle," meaning the law will presume that any person who invades a private residence unlawfully is there to commit great bodily harm; if the resident applies deadly force preemptively, the law will not question it, and the resident may also be immune to civil law suits too. But one must know the law in their state or country before presuming that they can 'get away with it'.
Most self-defense laws are pretty basic and easy to understand, though. If you have the right to self-defense, and most of us do, then you can do what you have to do to end the threat, as long as a) a 'reasonable and prudent man' would agree that it was a reasonable response and b) you stop when the threat stops. It's not that hard, really.
Comments about hitting a person until they stop moving? I would hesitate to say such things, especially on a public forum. Not only would such behavior probably NOT be lawful self-defense, but it could theoretically be used against a person who said such things if they ever did find themselves in a legal jam for doing just that.
S/he who fights and runs away, lives to fight and run away another day.
+2 on the damn good post, Chris.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
Found this, but nothing on duty to retreat, unless I missed it. Regarding what you said in your post....you're right...its a fine line. I found it interesting in my link, when it said:
"A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm."
So, regarding the underlined part...what I may feel is reasonable, 10 others could have varying opinions. So, if this were to go to court, now I have to convince X number of people that what I did, I felt was reasonable.
Regarding the duty to retreat..so, would an example of that be if you were being mugged, retreating could be defined as complying, ie: handing over your cash, and then running, vs. saying screw you, you're not taking my cash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
So yes, what you or I might consider 'reasonable' might not be considered 'reasonable' by others (including perhaps jurors or judges or police officers). However, it is an attempt at a legal objective standard. A 'reasonable person' would not expect to open a can of nuts and find it filled with live bees. A 'reasonable person' would not think that a man offering his hand to shake was attacking him. A 'reasonable person' would not still feel himself in danger after beating his attacker to a thin paste.
Frankly, I tend to feel that much of what is posted here in terms of what a person claims they would do to an attacker is hyperbole - they'd most likely exhibit a tad more common sense than that. However, it encourages children and idiots, so I try to eschew it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
There is generally a difference between 'duty to retreat' when in public and when one is one's own home, even in states which have a 'duty to retreat' law instead of a 'stand your ground' law as part of their general self-defense laws.
However, some states actually do have a 'duty to retreat' law with regard to home invasions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#Duty-to-retreat
Duty to retreat means just that - you have to try to run away first. Retreating would not be complying with a mugger's demands, because presumably, you would not then be hitting him. If you tried to run from a mugger and he grabbed you up and then you had no choice but to comply with his demands and you chose to fight instead, you'd have performed your 'duty to retreat' - that is, in states which require such things.
As a side note: I did not know this before tonight, but I discovered that West Virginia (it seems like the only state that has this) has a 'proportionate' requirement as part of its self-defense law. Very unusual:
That's new to me, I never knew any states to have such requirements. In this, it seems WV is somewhat like similar laws in the UK.
Good post Bill. Thank you.
IMO, in the end it comes down to common sense and knowing the laws of the state you reside in. Do your best to avoid bad situations, do your best to talk your way out of things before resorting to physical actions. I think (and this is just my opinion) that there've been enough documented cases that would show that those who did comply, retreat, etc., and were still attacked, killed, etc., that any court, with any amount of reasonable (theres that word again..lol) people, would not jam you up for defending your property or yourself.
As tempting as it may be to get in one last shot on someone, after they're down and/or the person is no longer a threat, would not be wise.
IMO, in the end it comes down to common sense and knowing the laws of the state you reside in. Do your best to avoid bad situations, do your best to talk your way out of things before resorting to physical actions. I think (and this is just my opinion) that there've been enough documented cases that would show that those who did comply, retreat, etc., and were still attacked, killed, etc., that any court, with any amount of reasonable (theres that word again..lol) people, would not jam you up for defending your property or yourself.
As tempting as it may be to get in one last shot on someone, after they're down and/or the person is no longer a threat, would not be wise.
KELLYG
2nd Black Belt
I was wondering if a knowledge of Martial arts will reflect upon and individual that was attacked and had to defend themselves? I feel that people with MA experience would have to be very carefully of the force that they used because an "outsiders" opinion of the "Black Belt" martial artist is skewed. Any thoughts?
"I am required to warn you that my hands are registered as deadly weapons!"
Well, perhaps not. However:
http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm
http://www.amazon.com/American-Trained-Fighter-Carl-Brown/dp/0897500911
Definately. A MAist will certainly be under the microscope moreso than the average Joe, due to their heightened skills. This is why, should you find yourself on the stand, choose your wording very carefully. OTOH, depending on the circumstances, I may not hang around long enough afterwards, should I need to defend myself.
Some years ago, a significant ranking (black belt definitely, brown belt probably) or significant years of training would definitely have been a factor in evaluating a person's use of force. Today -- I suspect not, though you really would need to ask a lawyer (and pay for their opinion). Enough people have trained in enough martial arts that I suspect there's more leeway than their once was to be called a "trained fighter."
These issues are very complicated and depend on a lot of particular details of the incident. Martial arts training in an attacker is definitely something that could justify using more force to protect yourself -- and, as a martial artist, you could be expected to be able to use less force than an untrained person to defend yourself from an attack. A lot would come down to how and what you articulate about what you did and why you did it.
These issues are very complicated and depend on a lot of particular details of the incident. Martial arts training in an attacker is definitely something that could justify using more force to protect yourself -- and, as a martial artist, you could be expected to be able to use less force than an untrained person to defend yourself from an attack. A lot would come down to how and what you articulate about what you did and why you did it.
If you have acted 'reasonably' it is not an issue. If you have gone too far they will throw the book at you. Legally, you are an easier target than the poor violent punk, who has been terrorising the neighbourhood, you have picked on.
If there are witnesses, try to yell out before you hit him. Things like, "Don't do it", "Leave me alone", "Get away", etc. Witnesses will recall and have the impression that the other guy was threatening or attacking, even if you took the pre-emptive route. Afterwards you can honestly testify "I asked him to stop". And as previously stated, be very careful of what you say. Something like "he sure picked the wrong guy, he won't do that again in a hurry", won't go down too well in court. On the other hand, "I really had no choice, I tried to get him to stop but he wouldn't listen. I didn't mean to hurt him but I was concerned for my safety", will appear that you adopted a reasonable and responsible response. :asian:
Something my Aikido instructor often says. If you are involved in some sort of altercation and you beat the crap out if someone, he will harbour resentment (aspecially if he has had a couple of weeks in hospital to think about it
). In a small community you may not be always able to ensure you don't come across him again and next time he may have his mates with him. On the other hand, if you can handle the situation without causing damage, like just putting him easily to the ground and leaving, it makes him unsure and unlikely to pick you again, and highly unlikely he would look to seek revenge.
Obviously not applicable in every situation but worthy of consideration. :asian:
Obviously not applicable in every situation but worthy of consideration. :asian:
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
Unfortunately you're right, lawyers are parasitical little fiends........if this is a civil suit, someone must have some money, because the blood-suckers don't come after those who are dry.*
*Just in case one the parasites does peruse the thread.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
You laugh but people do actually say that.........but most folks who say that in a fight are posers who are actually hoping to bluff their way out of a fight.......and most of them get their butts whipped shortly thereafter.
