martial art style and legal ramifications

[drummingman]

so i was talking to an instructor who teachers both usa goju karate and Japanese jujitsu (he said that he teaches more of a combat jujitsu style). we were talking about being able to use both of those arts in a street fight. he told me that he felt that the jujitsu is more practical for self defense for a few resons, one being that it is better to use a lock or hold of some sort instead of kicking someone in the head like you would do in karate because that can possibly lead to a law suite.
so this conversation made me wonder what all of you who practice striking arts like karate and wing chun kung fu think, if you feel like using your style on the street will get you in trouble with the law or with law suites even if you are protecting yourself? and for all of you that do styles like jujitsu how you feel about this subject and any others that you feel applies to the question of using your style for self defense and the legal ramifications.

 

[diamondbar1971]

I don't agree with that at all...Here in Missouri if I am attacked and I defend myself to the best of my ability, as I believe most on this site would agree, I don't really care how bad the attacker(s) are injured, and the law enforcement community views this as what most people with common sense calls SELF DEFENSE...so have at it, I have trained my whole life for situations just as this and as far as law suits, I think we need to file one under victims for being harrassed on the streets. hahaha

 

[Guardian]

so i was talking to an instructor who teachers both usa goju karate and Japanese jujitsu (he said that he teaches more of a combat jujitsu style). we were talking about being able to use both of those arts in a street fight. he told me that he felt that the jujitsu is more practical for self defense for a few resons, one being that it is better to use a lock or hold of some sort instead of kicking someone in the head like you would do in karate because that can possibly lead to a law suite.
so this conversation made me wonder what all of you who practice striking arts like karate and wing chun kung fu think, if you feel like using your style on the street will get you in trouble with the law or with law suites even if you are protecting yourself? and for all of you that do styles like jujitsu how you feel about this subject and any others that you feel applies to the question of using your style for self defense and the legal ramifications.

It all depends on the situation, locks and holds are great for one on one encounters, but if you have two or more, then it gets alittle tricky. It doesn't matter what you use, your defending yourself, whatever you've trained in is what you more then likely will use if you've trained hard/long enough. I don't think anyone who has actually defended themselves worries about a law suit while in the process of it. I know for me with a 220 lb man swinging away at me, the last thing I was worried about was a law suit while I was trying my best to block and counter his swings and do as much damage as possible to him.

Another thing just for some wierd sense of humor from me, if you would happen to get suid, turn around and file one yourself, it can be done for emotional trauma you suffered while having to defend yourself and causing another person injury. It's called turning the tables, of course you've got to put on the act of your life for that one. (insert wink because I can't get those darn emoticons to work).

 

[MJS]

so i was talking to an instructor who teachers both usa goju karate and Japanese jujitsu (he said that he teaches more of a combat jujitsu style). we were talking about being able to use both of those arts in a street fight. he told me that he felt that the jujitsu is more practical for self defense for a few resons, one being that it is better to use a lock or hold of some sort instead of kicking someone in the head like you would do in karate because that can possibly lead to a law suite.
so this conversation made me wonder what all of you who practice striking arts like karate and wing chun kung fu think, if you feel like using your style on the street will get you in trouble with the law or with law suites even if you are protecting yourself? and for all of you that do styles like jujitsu how you feel about this subject and any others that you feel applies to the question of using your style for self defense and the legal ramifications.

I think its important to have some understanding of the laws in your state regarding self defense. The sad thing is, is that in todays world, anyone can sue you. Someone breaks into your house and in the process, badly cuts his arm on the window that he just smashed. You could get sued. Sounds messed up, and of course it is, but we've all heard those law suit stories.

I also feel that its important to assess the situation. Chances are, we'll already be at a disadvantage in the eyes of the court, because we train. I feel that locks/controlling methods are a good thing to know. The beauty of those, is they can cause extreme pain, yet unless you crank it to the point of breaking, there won't be any marks, compared to if you hit someone in the nose.

But are locks the best choice? Is talking the best choice? This is why I suggested assessing the situation. You may not have a chance to talk. I think Jim Wagner brings up some good points with this.

 

[MBuzzy]

Many states actually have laws that will punish you MORE harshly if you were to choke someone than to beat on them.

 

[Kacey]

Many states actually have laws that will punish you MORE harshly if you were to choke someone than to beat on them.

I could see this... having learned to perform basic locks, releases, throws and chokes, I understand, and have practiced, how they could be used on an attacker - but remembering what I thought before I learned them, I could easily see how a person who is unfamiliar with MA would see them as worse than kicking and punching an attacker; they seem, somehow, more difficult, both for the actions themselves and because they involve approaching, rather than retreating.

Either form of self-defense could lead to a lawsuit, which I find to be absurd - if someone attacks me, I am going to respond in kind, and if they get hurt, well, they asked for it. That the law does not see it that way is why criminals get away with so much - the law, written to protect the innocent, must be applied consistently and without bias, which leads to protecting the guilty as well. It concerns me that the legally "correct" response to being attacked is to fold - it gives the criminals way too much power. This is a cultural issue that goes way beyond self-defense; it permeates business, education, child-rearing, and many other aspects of society - the idea that one should go along to get along, and those who follow the rules are lost in the efforts to protect those who break the rules.

 

[jks9199]

While locks and holds have a place -- they're not really practical for true self defense, unless you're also going to carry handcuffs and restraints.

Someone attacks you, you tie 'em up with a hold... Now what? Your hands are literally tied up with the bad guy!

As to legal ramifications of self-defense... Getting sued should be the last thing you're worrying over if you're being attacked. You have to understand and use the concept of reasonableness in your response, of course -- you can't kill someone for tickling you, to engage in a bit of hyperbole -- but you have time to handle the legal issues. You don't have time to handle the guy in front of you. You can call on experts (called lawyers) for the legal issues. YOU have to be the expert during the attack.

 

[theletch1]

One of the things everyone seems to be forgeting about the locks and holds is that there is a continuum along which each lock will flow. A lock doesn't have to stop when your attacker yells "Oweee!" Think of training locks in the dojo. Uke attacks, nage blends and applies a lock and uke taps. Nage stopped the pain because uke tapped, not because he had reached the extent of the lock. Take that lock just a half inch further and there is some serious damage done to the joint (to include complete destruction). A lock IS a hold to a certain extent. It's just that when done with a limitation the lock becomes a hold. Go beyond that limit and it's a break that will do more damage than most blunt force trauma strikes will do.

Buzzy and Kacey have valid points. Especially if you encounter a judge, lawyer or juror who have a rudimentary understanding of the martial arts. Applying a lock or hold requires much more training time to become proficient with (why aikido takes so long to become street effective) that one COULD argue that the amount of training that you've had made the altercation unfair. Personally, I think it's BS. Keep your hands to yourself and nobody gets hurt.

 

[Hank Colado]

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[Explorer]

Hi Everybody <EVERYBODY: Hi Dr Nick!>

(Even if I'm not Dr. Nick, I think it sounds funny)

Um. Most folks don't realize that classical martial arts such as Okinawan karate and the Chinese systems originally contained the grappling techniques you're talking about. Tuite (karate) and Chin Na (Chinese systems).

The disconnect is the difference between how these arts were taught within Okinawa and China BEFORE WWII and the way they were transmitted to the west AFTER WWII.

We refer to the post WWII era as the Traditional Era. The arts taught to westerners during the Traditional Era were by-and-large watered down and lacking in the critical components that would make them more useful in a real self defense encounter.

These days in our Classical Okinawan dojo ... we teach tuite (grabbing/seizing) in combination with striking. When practicing Level 1 Randori, our students must respond with a tuite technique before they're allowed to strike (hand or foot). It's a lot of fun and many of the students tell us they would happily train randori like this 3 or 4 hours a day.

Best Wishes,

Oh, as for legal ramifications ... I paraphrase 'The Laws of Self Defense' ... "Leave before the trouble starts." No physical trouble, no legal trouble. Simple. On the other hand if forced, end it quickly to minimize damage to all parties, leave the danger zone (run if necessary) and report the incident to the police immediately. BTW - the cameras on automatic teller machines can see 2 or 3 blocks down the street and some techniques look nastier through those lenses then they were in application. Something like grabbing the chin and turning the head can look like a choke. Be aware that you are being watched and act accordingly.

 

[charyuop]

Kill the assailant, dead people won't sue (if it happens near home just drag the corpse on your lawn) :snipe2:.





(Of course it was a joke, before they sue me for encoraging people to kill others).

 

[Tez3]

We've had the law in England (not the UK, we have different laws in Scotland and N Ireland) modified from allowing minimum force to reasonable force.
"The Criminal Law Act 1967 Section 3 states that reasonably necessary/proportionate force may be used to:-
Defend yourself Protect your property - in certain circumstances
Defend others Arrest for an indictable offence.
(a 'citizens's arrest')

What is reasonable force depends on several factors including, the gravity of the crime you were trying to prevent, whether it was possible to prevent it by non violent means, whether you were prepared to try non violent means first and the relative strength of the parties concerned.

 

[theletch1]

We've had the law in England (not the UK, we have different laws in Scotland and N Ireland) modified from allowing minimum force to reasonable force.
"The Criminal Law Act 1967 Section 3 states that reasonably necessary/proportionate force may be used to:-
Defend yourself Protect your property - in certain circumstances
Defend others Arrest for an indictable offence.
(a 'citizens's arrest')

What is reasonable force depends on several factors including, the gravity of the crime you were trying to prevent, whether it was possible to prevent it by non violent means, whether you were prepared to try non violent means first and the relative strength of the parties concerned.

The relative strength of the parties is, well, relative.:wink2: How much does a weapon in the hands of the attacker (if he's smaller), the training of the defender (if he's smaller) come into play? I'm asking this almost rhetorically, Irene, as I'm certain that lawsuits in England are just as convoluted as lawsuits here in the US. It's a shame that anyone should have to do a quick review of the legal ramifications of defending one self before actually doing so.

 

[Tez3]

Any assault is a criminal offence and comes under criminal law it wouldn't come under civil law, I don't know of any case where someone has been sued for damages for defending themselves in an attack. If the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was a case to answer through someone using more than reasonable force to defend themselves it would be a criminal case. It would be charged as assault (the type ie GBH. ABH etc would depend on the injuries) and be tried in the courts. It's there you'd have to argue it was reasonable not in the civil courts. The victim couldn't really sue as justice would be done in the court though he'd be entitled to compensation from the Criminal Injuries Board if his attacker was found guilty.These are on a sliding scale and aren't actually huge amounts of money, usually only a few thousand pounds.

 

[tellner]

What is reasonable force depends on several factors including, the gravity of the crime you were trying to prevent, whether it was possible to prevent it by non violent means, whether you were prepared to try non violent means first and the relative strength of the parties concerned.

Two thoughts come to mind. One is a quote from the great juristOliver Wendell Holmes. "Calm reflection is not possible in the face of the upraised knife."

The other is about "reasonable". It isn't going to be decided by a jury of MT members. They'd all get excluded in initial challenges. It's going to be twelve people who can't find a way out of jury duty and probably don't get out much. They will be ring-led by two lawyers. One of them is being paid to believe you are the love child of Hitler and Osama bin Laden. The other one is paid to defend you but will probably urge you to take the plea. They will tell competing fairy tales which may have nothing to do with the truth. It's all run by a person who has police and the Officers of the Court to protect him . He is the Zeus Almighty in his little cosmos.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Yet another reason why I'm glad that what I study doesn't have belt ranks.

 

[Guardian]

That's one of the things I like about Texas, they are introducing a couple of new laws (15 other states have already done it) that would nullify any civil suits in self-defense cases also. Giving the victum more rights then the criminals, you've got to love that.

 

[Guardian]

That's one of the things I like about Texas, they are introducing a couple of new laws (15 other states have already done it) that would nullify any civil suits in self-defense cases also. Giving the victum more rights then the criminals, you've got to love that.

Sorry, there are some stipulations, you can't be committing a crime and then claim SD in it. There are a couple of others also, but they are minor for this discussion.

 

[jks9199]

Any assault is a criminal offence and comes under criminal law it wouldn't come under civil law, I don't know of any case where someone has been sued for damages for defending themselves in an attack. If the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was a case to answer through someone using more than reasonable force to defend themselves it would be a criminal case. It would be charged as assault (the type ie GBH. ABH etc would depend on the injuries) and be tried in the courts. It's there you'd have to argue it was reasonable not in the civil courts. The victim couldn't really sue as justice would be done in the court though he'd be entitled to compensation from the Criminal Injuries Board if his attacker was found guilty.These are on a sliding scale and aren't actually huge amounts of money, usually only a few thousand pounds.

Interesting...

Here in the US, it's possible to be both charged criminally and sued as a result of the same act. Let's stick with an imperfect case of self defense, where someone uses more force than is reasonable to defend themselves. They get charged with the crime of assault, and prosecuted criminally. That criminal prosecution is no bar to -- and in fact, may help -- a civil suit for the tort of assault, as well. A good, well known example is the OJ Simpson murder trial; Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial, where the burden is to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but found liable in the civil trial for the tort of wrongful death, where the burden is only to prove the case bya preponderance of the evidence.

It's not uncommon for a prosecutor here to decide that a case doesn't merit criminal prosecution -- but for a civil suit to go forward based on the same facts. The civil justice system and the criminal justice system are separate. It seems like you're saying that it doesn't work that way across the pond?

 

[grydth]

Kill the assailant, dead people won't sue (if it happens near home just drag the corpse on your lawn) :snipe2:.





(Of course it was a joke, before they sue me for encoraging people to kill others).

This caution is in no way directed at charyuop - note he was joking.

But, when speaking of self defense cases, I should point out that one of the oldest urban legends out there is that you can just alter the crime scene - drag the dead criminal into your house - and the police will be fooled.

Uh..... no.

Given the state of modern forensics and the experience level of most homicide detectives, it is almost certain that you'll be caught. Once you are proven to have lied and tampered with evidence, the police and DA will look at you in a whole new way.... and that isn't a good way.