Legal consequenses in the martial arts

[KempoGuy06]

I dont know if this topic has been covered before or not (i would hazard a quess at yes but my search function is causing my browser to have errors). Ive been told by my friends (who have no legal background) that if I were to get in an altercation with someone and I was to seriously hurt them I would be at fault even if I was on the defense because of my martial arts training. Their reasoning for this (probably from watching movies) is that I should have control over what I do and should know when to restrain myself. I agree with this to some extent if Im on the defense against an attacker I will limit what I do just to get them to stop basically I will do what the situation is warranting (drunk at a bar or a mugger you get the idea) but if I need to I will use any amount of force needed to protect myself and my last thought will be on whether or not im legally going to be introuble, this would be pointless if I were dead. I dont feel this is right, in a way this is almost descriminating against MA'ers because of their training.

Does anyone have anythoughts about this? I find it interesting so I though I would creat this thread.

Let it be known Im not talking about taking someones life, Im talking about injuring someone semi-serious or serious. Im sure the taking of someones life has been discussed but this is another beast in itself. because people can file lawsuits for almost anything now and days.

Also if this needs to be moved to another part of the forum please do

B

 

[Grenadier]

Ive been told by my friends (who have no legal background) that if I were to get in an altercation with someone and I was to seriously hurt them I would be at fault even if I was on the defense because of my martial arts training. Their reasoning for this (probably from watching movies) is that I should have control over what I do and should know when to restrain myself.

It's really not that different from a justified shooting, or any case of justifiable self-defense.

If your life (and in most places, someone else's) is in danger, and you use martial arts to defend yourself, then you acted in a justified manner. It's highly unlikely you would face criminal charges, unless there's a DA desperate for attention (such as Mike Nifong).

There must, however, be a legitimate threat of grevious bodily harm for you to use deadly force. If all someone did was scream insults at you, you can't really go after him and break his arms and legs, no matter how much he may have deserved it.

As stated before, if you were in danger of receiving significant bodily harm, then you will most likely be justified in defending yourself, and would probably not even face any charges in criminal court.

Where the liability issue you mentioned may come into play, though, could be in civil court, and not in criminal court. Anyone can bring up a civil case against someone else, and as silly as it may seem, someone may try to claim that you crippled them for life, and they are unable to partake in their favorite activities, such as breakdancing, square dancing, etc., because you "harmed" them. In this case, they have a lot more leeway in trying to get after you, since civil court does not require a unanimous verdict.

Still, the way I see it, it's better to have to be alive to face a civil suit and be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6.

 

[MJS]

I dont know if this topic has been covered before or not (i would hazard a quess at yes but my search function is causing my browser to have errors). Ive been told by my friends (who have no legal background) that if I were to get in an altercation with someone and I was to seriously hurt them I would be at fault even if I was on the defense because of my martial arts training. Their reasoning for this (probably from watching movies) is that I should have control over what I do and should know when to restrain myself. I agree with this to some extent if Im on the defense against an attacker I will limit what I do just to get them to stop basically I will do what the situation is warranting (drunk at a bar or a mugger you get the idea) but if I need to I will use any amount of force needed to protect myself and my last thought will be on whether or not im legally going to be introuble, this would be pointless if I were dead. I dont feel this is right, in a way this is almost descriminating against MA'ers because of their training.

Does anyone have anythoughts about this? I find it interesting so I though I would creat this thread.

Let it be known Im not talking about taking someones life, Im talking about injuring someone semi-serious or serious. Im sure the taking of someones life has been discussed but this is another beast in itself. because people can file lawsuits for almost anything now and days.

Also if this needs to be moved to another part of the forum please do

B

I'm sure some of the folks here with a LEO or legal background will be able to give more feedback.

I agree...in todays world, people sue each other over everything. IMO, I would think that if you did everything you could to avoid the situation first and were left with no other options, you would be justified in using force. However, only as much as needed to end the situation. Now, this is always an interesting subject, because it always seems like there are two sides: 1 side saying what I said above and another side saying that if they're attacked, then all bets are off and the guy is getting what he deserves. While we should probably try to verbally defuse the situation, we may not have the chance. What are we supposed to do, keep running away from the person while we try to defuse it? So if someone claims I cut him off in traffic and he follows me to the parking lot, gets out and is walking towards me quickly, red faced, fists clenched and calling me every swear in the book, I'm supposed to talk this guy down? Can I get back in the car and try to drive away? Sure, but what if he pulled his car behind mine? What if, in the process of driving away, he starts destroying my car?

Situations like this are so open ended. I like to refer back to that nice saying, "I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6." True words, and ones I like to live by. :

Great thread subject.

Mike

 

[KempoGuy06]

Very good points Grenadier and MJS

I see your point in criminal court if you have a legitamite case for using force to defend yourself most anyone would side with you. As far as civil court goes this is where our justcie system really shines (being sarcastic). The fact that someone can come up to you on the street ans attack you, you then defend yourself and lets say break their leg, they can then turn around and file suit against you. And then there is the possibility that the jury can find you guilty and make you pay money (usually big money) because you were defending yourself. Its just one of those injustices that there is really nothing that can be done.

I brough this up because I was landed in this situation that could have turned pretty ugly. I was confronted by a guy at a bar who thought I was hitting on his girlfriend I tried to talk him down to no avail he started swinging at me and I still did nothing finally after one punch grazed the side of my face I struck him in the groin. I was nervous because of what could have happened (nothing did because of multiple factors) but still had someone known my name and been a witness I could have been sued. Its just crazy to think that we have to be careful if we are defending out lives.

and yes "I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6." are words I will now live by

B

 

[MJS]

As far as civil court goes this is where our justcie system really shines (being sarcastic). The fact that someone can come up to you on the street ans attack you, you then defend yourself and lets say break their leg, they can then turn around and file suit against you. And then there is the possibility that the jury can find you guilty and make you pay money (usually big money) because you were defending yourself. Its just one of those injustices that there is really nothing that can be done

B

This is the part that always amazes me. Someone breaks into someones house, steals things, the homeowner defends himself and the bad guy can sue you??? Ummm.excuse me, but I didn't tell this guy to break into my house.

Mike

 

[Shaderon]

Still, the way I see it, it's better to have to be alive to face a civil suit and be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6.

Amen to that!

This is the part that always amazes me. Someone breaks into someones house, steals things, the homeowner defends himself and the bad guy can sue you??? Ummm.excuse me, but I didn't tell this guy to break into my house.

Mike

Very true, I hate the fact that if someone broke into my house and tried to sneak into my daughter's room, I would probably go mental and bash the heck out of them, then I'd be done for "using unneccessary force".... totally wrong, like you say MJS, they aren't supposed to be there so they SHOULD have to run the risk! Defending the criminal is getting out of hand.

 

[KempoGuy06]

This is the part that always amazes me. Someone breaks into someones house, steals things, the homeowner defends himself and the bad guy can sue you??? Ummm.excuse me, but I didn't tell this guy to break into my house.

Mike

I know. I remember the line in Liar Liar where Jim Carrey is down on his knees and is begging his assistant to stay and she tells him about her friend being sued after a guy broke in and cut his leg on a knife. This was a laugh at first but after some thought it is probably possible that it could happen if it already hasnt. This world is crazy.

B

 

[Grenadier]

One important thing, though, is that as soon as you're done defending yourself (physically), you should call the police as soon as possible. Just tell them the straight-up truth, and at least that helps get something in the record books.

God only knows, how many times, a sleazebag tried to attack someone, and got beaten up by the would-be victim, only to call the police and claim that the would-be victim attacked first...

 

[Drac]

and yes "I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6." are words I will now live by

I'd rather have an ugly trial and a beautiful funeral...

 

[Drac]

One important thing, though, is that as soon as you're done defending yourself (physically), you should call the police as soon as possible. Just tell them the straight-up truth, and at least that helps get something in the record books.

God only knows, how many times, a sleazebag tried to attack someone, and got beaten up by the would-be victim, only to call the police and claim that the would-be victim attacked first...

Great points..Defend yourself and your loved ones THEN call the police..PLus NEVER, EVER say anything about martial arts training..Say you own some videos or watched a lot of Bruce Lee movies..There are STILL judges that HATE the mention of MA, and scumbag lawyers that will use you MA training to paint the picture of an out of control to a jury..

 

[Zida'sukara]

Still, the way I see it, it's better to have to be alive to face a civil suit and be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6.

Yep I see it this way too.

But what court concerns. In the Netherlands it is not much better, I know a few cases where somebody defended himself. A friend of mine (he has been arrested a few times because he can be verý agressive) was a little drunk and another guy punched him in the face and he of course punched back but he is so strong that 1 punch from him does a lot. So the other guy fell backwards and hit his head against a wall. He was in Coma for some weeks and my friend got the blame for it and stayed in Prison for 1 year.

One of the reasons was that the judge wanted to make clear to the people that violence is not good but my friend was truly innocent this time. When he got out of prison, his baby was already 1,5 years old, he lost the first baby years together with his first daughter. His wife changed in this year and left him with the baby when he got out.

This is very sad but it happens, my friend does not regret it he knows he was right. He did learn not to hang around bars anymore and he had the chance to get a study in jail and finally has a good job so some things did get better.

Now in Germany court is a little(just a little) different they really seem to check who has the blame and even if someone is sueing you afterwards, they really go into the case to have a clear picture. And if someone broke in and hurt himself because the owner of the house kicks his ***, they will not easily protect the buglar when he is trying to sue the owner.

Like Grenadier says, I would follow my heart and do that what I think is right and not worry about court.

Barbara

 

[Adept]

Part of the problem, as KempoGuy demonstrated in the first post, is that the general public has a misguided view of the martial arts. As such, a jury would expect you to be able to have done a spinning-jumping-handstand-backflip-crescent kick to disarm your attacker, and then to have imobilised them by touching two pressure points, like Jet Li in Kiss of the Dragon. Or, if they've been reading the wrong stuff, to have even knocked them out without touching them!

As such, a martial artist in court attempting to defend his actions will have an uphill battle, since the jury does not have a realistic view of what the martial arts are.

 

[Adept]

This is the part that always amazes me. Someone breaks into someones house, steals things, the homeowner defends himself and the bad guy can sue you??? Ummm.excuse me, but I didn't tell this guy to break into my house.

Mike

I don't know about where you are, but a criminal here cannot sue for damages caused during the comission of a crime. If they break into your house and get savaged by your dog, it's tough luck for them. A very sensible change to the law, IMO.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Part of the problem, as KempoGuy demonstrated in the first post, is that the general public has a misguided view of the martial arts. As such, a jury would expect you to be able to have done a spinning-jumping-handstand-backflip-crescent kick to disarm your attacker, and then to have imobilised them by touching two pressure points, like Jet Li in Kiss of the Dragon. Or, if they've been reading the wrong stuff, to have even knocked them out without touching them!

As such, a martial artist in court attempting to defend his actions will have an uphill battle, since the jury does not have a realistic view of what the martial arts are.

Very good point. Misinformation and misguided opinions lead to prejudice (i use this for lack of a better term but it does seem to fit). Also we as MA'ers are not alone, bodybuilders fall into this category. I go to the gym 5 times a week and there are some guys up there that are as big as mountains but are the nicest men Ive ever met. They too would be looked at differently because of the people's opinions about steroids. A lost of people think that all muscle bound people use steroids and because they know that steroids can cause uncontrollable mood swings, they invision this hulk size monster with no control tearing into people.

Also Adept what MJS brought up is very sad but true, in the attempt to grant everyone rights the US government has made the tragic error of giving rights to the wrong people which inturn takes away the rights of other people (like not being robbed or attacked)

B

 

[zDom]

I don't know about where you are, but a criminal here cannot sue for damages caused during the comission of a crime. If they break into your house and get savaged by your dog, it's tough luck for them. A very sensible change to the law, IMO.

Our state legislators in Missouri are currently trying to establish the "Castle Doctrine" here which would protect residents in their homes from legal action for actions they take during home invasions, as I understand it.

 

[JBrainard]

Still, the way I see it, it's better to have to be alive to face a civil suit and be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6.

Funny, my Arnis teacher told me the exact same thing...

 

[MJS]

I don't know about where you are, but a criminal here cannot sue for damages caused during the comission of a crime. If they break into your house and get savaged by your dog, it's tough luck for them. A very sensible change to the law, IMO.

A while back, there was a woman who went to McDonalds. She ordered a cup of coffee at the drive up window. Apparently she spilled the coffee all over her, got severe burns and........sued the McDonalds because the coffee was too hot!!! Now, I don't drink coffee, but I can't believe this woman actually won because last time I checked, coffee was always hot, unless you specify iced coffee. It was her being careless and yet she won.

Slightly off topic, but just goes to show how people can sue for things that are their own fault.

Mike

 

[Ping898]

I don't know about where you are, but a criminal here cannot sue for damages caused during the comission of a crime. If they break into your house and get savaged by your dog, it's tough luck for them. A very sensible change to the law, IMO.

Wish we had that in the good ol' usa....

 

[Ping898]

A while back, there was a woman who went to McDonalds. She ordered a cup of coffee at the drive up window. Apparently she spilled the coffee all over her, got severe burns and........sued the McDonalds because the coffee was too hot!!! Now, I don't drink coffee, but I can't believe this woman actually won because last time I checked, coffee was always hot, unless you specify iced coffee. It was her being careless and yet she won.

Slightly off topic, but just goes to show how people can sue for things that are their own fault.

Mike

I really hate this example cause it leaves out a lot of facts. Not the least of which is McDonald's regularly kept their coffee a full 40 to 50 degrees hotter than most other restaruants and McDonald's knew they served their coffee too hot, but did it anyways to save money figuring it was cheaper to pay the workman's comp claims or whatever....and in the end the lady settled, presumably for under the 600k the award had been reduced too...

http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm

I am not saying she was right or wrong, just that people ignore a lot of the details when using this example....

 

[grydth]

Let me give you a few general areas where you can stay out of trouble with some care:

1) Excessive force - A guy is stealing the hub caps and stereo off my favorite poor man's sports car, the Daytona. Sensing an opportunity, I bag the thief from a second floor window with my bow. William Tell, eat your heart out? No, I go directly to jail. Most states do not allow you to use deadly force to protect property when you are not endangered. Same rule applies for crushing a guy's wind pipe for just looking at my gorgeous wife the wrong way.... Just wait til the judge disses you on sentencing.

2) Prohibited weapons - As the murderous thug charges, I stagger him with a volley of shuriken, then drop him dead with one slash from my sword cane..... and I go to jail again! Why? In the Peoples Republic of New York, sword canes are illegal.... as are stars..... as are nunchaku. It is one of the weirdest laws.... but you'd better know the law in the state you live in. Ditto for making that AK or AR fully automatic.

3) Booby Traps.... I go to see "300" again just to hack off the government of Iran.... but before I go, I rig traps around my house to protect my stuff. A thieving druggie in fact falls into my pit with bamboo stakes out back..... and.... Jail again??? Yes - booby traps are just as likely to kill police, EMT or my children. Illegal.

Do some reading. Use some sense. Don't over react to every challenge.Even in these awful times, you will usually come out okay.