Martial Arts and the law

[FearlessFreep]

I think one thing that might be helpful to keep in mind is witnesses. Try not to be in situations where you are alone. If you are in a situation where someone make become an aggressor; it helps to have friends around who can be your witness that you tried to not get in the fight, you only used appropriate response, etc..

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Do you really have to register your hands when you are a BB? If so, I need to do that soon!

No.

I'm going to repeat that. No.

Your hands by law are not weapons. Nor are your feet. Not anywhere. Not in Texas, not in Indiana. Sorry to have to tell you that guys and gals, but you are not...no matter what people might tell you...a weapon. Not legally, anyway.

You are not held to a higher legal standard by the law other than what a court might decide from disparity of force determinations. If someone would like to dispute this, please provide me with a proper citation of your state's legal code so I can add it to my references.

If you hear about some martial artist getting hammered by the law after a fight...it's more than likely because he probably broke the law and went beyond the legal bounds of self defense. More than likely the court didn't determine it a self defense situation at all. This happens to non-martial artists all the time. It happens to martial artists less so because there are less of us...but when it happens it is usually because we screwed up.


Regards,


Steve

 

[ginshun]

Maybe there is no actual verbage in the laws that specifically ploints to martial artists and says that we are held to a higher standard, but I think that in reality we are.

A few years ago, in my town, there was a fight outside a bar, I don't know the specifics of it, but what happened was that on the first punch that was thrown, the guy that got punched fell over backward, hit his head and ended up dieing as a result Apperently the guy that punched the other one, was trying to defend a womans honor or something to that effect, like I said I don't know the specifics.

Later, the prosecuter assumed and tried to prove that the guy who threw the punch was a martial artist, because "how else could he have killed someone with a single punch?" Ridiculous? Yes, maybe, but the guy actually called around to all the martial arts schools in the area, incuding a call to the school I am now a part of. He had it in his mind that if he could prove that the guy had martial arts training, that it would be easier to prosecute the case against him.

Its only annecdotal evidence I know, but I am sure that there are similar cases out there. So sure, maybe there is no law on the books that says martial artists are treated differently, but I personally think it is a little naive to not believe otherwise.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[dubljay]

I quote: "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." SGM Ed Parker

In a situation where you are forced to defend yourself you have mere seconds (if even that much) to decide what course of action would be best. The court system has hours, days, weeks, months, even years to decide which is the proper course of action.

 

[punisher73]

In the case that Ginshun provided two things come to mind

1) Defending a woman's honor is not self-defense, nor is it using force to defend someone else from physical harm.

2) At least in Michigan, he would probably be charged with manslaughter for his actions, because he was not using force lawfully.


Interesting enough, I sat in on a status conference today for one of our inmates. He is being charged with assault w/ intent to do great bodily harm. He punched his girlfriend twice and broke both her eye sockets and she had to get reconstructive surgery to repair the damage. The man accused of this is a kickboxer and had only one or two amateur fights. The prosecution is using that as a factor in his prosecution that because of his training he knew what he could do and meant to do it. The defense I believe is trying to bring in his old instructor to say how bad he was and that he wasn't really all that trained. Does it have any legal merit? NOPE, but it does have merit in the minds of juries when they hear that a kickboxer did this to his girlfriend.

PS After the verdict I will post the results and what the jury thought.

 

[ginshun]

Ya, I wasn't trying to say that the guy even had a case for self defense, and I don't even know what he was actually charged with.

I think just the fact that the prosecutor was calling martial arts schools to see if the guy had any training, goes to show that martail artists are not held to the same standard as everyone else. Regardless of what is actually written down in the books.

 

[Zujitsuka]

Excellent thread! I really enjoyed reading everyone's post.

In regards to martial arts and the law, this is why I worry about some of my fellow martial artists who want to carry the latest hide-away knife and all. I know a few guys who train in cutting arteries along the neck, arms and legs that will definitely cause a person to bleed out - that is manslaughter folks. Even though the martial arts / combat sports that I've trained in have served me well in self-defense situations (2 in the last 15 years), but I would not want to put them up against "Jail House Rock", do you feel me? Avoid jail and prison at all costs.

We all have to be careful in the techniques and tactics in which we train because the law will not smile upon us if we maim or kill someone because we practice lethal techniques (e.g. relying on blades, neck-breaks, etc.). Also, don't forget about wrongful death lawsuits.

It is my understanding that most states have a standard called duty to escape and if you can escape from a situation before or soon after you are attacked, it is your duty to do so - not stand and fight. I think if you're home, they make exceptions to this standard but you can't hold the bad guy hostage and beat him senseless/torture him (8th Amendment). The law will not be kind to you and besides standing and fighting may be hazardous to your health.

In my humble opinion, focus your training on awareness, less-than-lethal techniques, and be in decent shape so you can run to safety. Standing your ground is very quixotic and all, but don't do it for real. If you like proven your manliness and all, take up a combat sport like boxing or wrestling. The street is NOT the place to tussle. Sometimes you can't help but fight but in most cases, you can by being aware, diffusing conflict (e.g. "I'm sorry if I pissed you off man, but I really don't want to fight. I just want to leave, okay?" I've done this a few times, it works and I still feel like a man.).

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Ya, I wasn't trying to say that the guy even had a case for self defense, and I don't even know what he was actually charged with.

I think just the fact that the prosecutor was calling martial arts schools to see if the guy had any training, goes to show that martail artists are not held to the same standard as everyone else. Regardless of what is actually written down in the books.

Then let someone here quote case law.

Again, the issue is one of disparity of force. A person with skill, whether it be boxing, martial arts, wrestling or otherwise, can be determined to be the more dangerous of the two. Other factors of disparity of force would be size, age, health.

Nobody would say that a five foot two woman with a second degree black belt would be held to a higher standard over a man who was six feet three inches and weighed 230 lean pounds.

Regardless of how the public views us, let's not get into the mindset of believing we have to "register our hands."


Regards,


Steve

 

[Miles]

Each State/Commonwealth has it's own laws on self-defense. In Michigan, the last case of which I am aware that discusses self-defense, is People v. Marcel Riddle. I haven't found anything about a heightened duty/responsibility due to training in martial arts to retreat twice.

Here is an excerpt from that case (467 Mich 116 (2002):

" The prosecution contends that Michigan law generally imposes a “duty to retreat” upon a person who would exercise deadly force in self-defense, and that the so-called “castle doctrine”–providing an exception to this duty to retreat when a person is attacked within his dwelling–does not extend to the area outside the dwelling. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the castle doctrine should be extended to the curtilage and that he was not required to retreat when he was assaulted in his backyard.

Because Michigan’s case law has become somewhat confused with respect to the concepts of retreat and the castle doctrine, we take this opportunity to clarify these principles as they apply to a claim of self-defense. We reaffirm today the following, according to the common-law principles that existed in Michigan when our murder statute was codified.

As a general rule, the killing of another person in selfdefense by one who is free from fault is justifiable homicide if, under all the circumstances, he honestly and reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that it is necessary for him to exercise deadly force.3 The necessity element of self-defense normally requires that the actor try to avoid the use of deadly force if he can safely and reasonably do so, for example by applying nondeadly force or by utilizing an obvious and safe avenue of retreat.4

There are, however, three intertwined concepts that provide further guidance in applying this general rule in certain fact-specific situations. First, a person is never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce, and violent attack;nor is he required to retreat from an attacker who he reasonably believes is about to use a deadly weapon.5 In these circumstances, as long as he honestly and reasonably believes that it is necessary to exercise deadly force in self-defense, the actor’s failure to retreat is never a consideration when determining if the necessity element of self-defense is satisfied; instead, he may stand his ground and meet force with force.6 That is, where it is uncontested that the defendant was the victim of a sudden and violent attack, the Court should not instruct the jury to consider whether retreat was safe, reasonable, or even possible,because, in such circumstances, the law does not require that the defendant engage in such considerations.7

Second, Michigan law imposes an affirmative obligation to retreat upon a nonaggressor8 only in one narrow set of circumstances: A participant in voluntary mutual combat will not be justified in taking the life of another until he is deemed to have retreated as far as safely possible.9 One who is involved in a physical altercation in which he is a willing participant–referred to at common law as a “sudden affray” or a “chance medley”–is required to take advantage of any reasonable and safe avenue of retreat before using deadly force against his adversary, should the altercation escalate
into a deadly encounter.

Third, regardless of the circumstances, one who is attacked in his dwelling is never required to retreat where it is otherwise necessary to exercise deadly force in selfdefense. When a person is in his “castle,” there is no safer place to retreat; the obligation to retreat that would otherwise exist in such circumstances is no longer present, and the homicide will be deemed justifiable. This is true even where one is a voluntary participant in mutual combat."

Miles

 

[Kamaria Annina]

It's a sad truth whenever martial artists are treated differently whenever it comes to the law. I agree with the fact that a martial artist has been trained for real life situations, and therefore should, by instinct be more in control of the situation.

My instructor has a step daughter who has borderline syndrome. While on a car trip, she suddendly started attacking his son. My instructor pulled over the car, and controlled the situation by taking her away from the reach of his son. He didn't punch at her, nothing of the sort. However when all this was taken to court, he was charged for 3rd degree assault. And all he was trying to do was protect his son.

 

[Hawkeye]

As a retired police officer, and advisory witness on use of force, I have never seen anyone charged or prosecuted because of his martial arts. The standard from state courts to the Supreme Court is "reasonableness".


Did you start the altercation? - It's your fault
Did you use reasonable force to defend yourself - that's okay.
Did you attempt to avoid conflict even when the jerk was provoking you? Then you might be guilty.
Could you have walked, run or driven away and avoided the fight? Your fault.
Did you down the guy in self defense and then hit him in the head with a brick? - Get a good lawyer.

If your actions pass a reasonableness test - would a reasonable person react the way you did in the same situation? If so, you're okay.

If the Grand Jury disagrees - You need a defense attorney.

You'll notice that I never mentioned your martial arts. However, if you are 200 lbs. and have extensive martial arts training the the jerk is 150 lbs. and drunk and you decide that it's the right time to show your date or friends or ?? that you can do a great spinning wheel kick...instead of using a simple arm bar or wrist lock or pressure point (like you've been taught to), call a lawyer.

 

[MichiganTKD]

All other things being equal, martial artists are theoretically held to a higher standard of self defense than Joe Shmoe. That means that IF you break the guy's jaw with a TKD technique, and IF he gets a lawyer (after he sobers up, realizes what happened, and remembers it was you), and IF that lawyer decides to bring your martial arts expertise into account, it is possible you can be held liable. Especially if the guy's lawyer can demonstrate he was not particularly threatening. Again, it goes back to what the prosecutor or the lawyer can prove, not what you can prove.
I doubt seriously that a 5'2" female using karate against a 6'2" attacker is going to be held liable for her actions. Any reasonable jury would find her skills the great equalizer against a big man. A 6' man versus a 5'2" attacker is a different story. All things being equal, remember? A small man is just not seen as much as a threat. Rather Freudian, I think. All it takes is a decent lawyer to say "ladies and gentleman, my client is 5'2". How dangerous is he really going to be?"

 

[GAB]

As a retired police officer, and advisory witness on use of force, I have never seen anyone charged or prosecuted because of his martial arts. The standard from state courts to the Supreme Court is "reasonableness".


Did you start the altercation? - It's your fault
Did you use reasonable force to defend yourself - that's okay.
Did you attempt to avoid conflict even when the jerk was provoking you? Then you might be guilty.
Could you have walked, run or driven away and avoided the fight? Your fault.
Did you down the guy in self defense and then hit him in the head with a brick? - Get a good lawyer.

If your actions pass a reasonableness test - would a reasonable person react the way you did in the same situation? If so, you're okay.

If the Grand Jury disagrees - You need a defense attorney.

You'll notice that I never mentioned your martial arts. However, if you are 200 lbs. and have extensive martial arts training the the jerk is 150 lbs. and drunk and you decide that it's the right time to show your date or friends or ?? that you can do a great spinning wheel kick...instead of using a simple arm bar or wrist lock or pressure point (like you've been taught to), call a lawyer.

Yes, Yes and Yes...

In Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo we are taught the escaping arts so you can avoid and escape with out touching or getting touched, that is true self defense...

Regards, Gary

 

[TigerWoman]

We are taught in TKD to break knees, gouge eyes etc. or inflict debilitating pain. I asked about escaping maneuvers but our master won't teach them especially to women. I see his point for women, but at BB, I would like to learn more, so that if I have a choice, I can use it. I'm 5'7", not diminuitive so I don't know how the courts would view me breaking someone's knee unless I had cause, witnesses, the guy was big or he had a weapon. Is it not reasonable to attack first if a big guy was coming at me? TW

 

[Sam]

We joke about this in semi-seriousness at the studio. We always say, " Tell the police 'I felt that my life was in danger' and then call your lawyer!" I personally would rather defend myself and get out of a bad situation and then have to deal with legal crap instead of being worried about the legal crap while in the bad situation. What could happen in the situation could be far far worse than any legal headaches and that's not something I'd be willing to risk.

 

[lvwhitebir]

I personally would rather defend myself and get out of a bad situation and then have to deal with legal crap instead of being worried about the legal crap while in the bad situation. What could happen in the situation could be far far worse than any legal headaches and that's not something I'd be willing to risk.

It's better to actually think about these things *beforehand* (also called mind-setting) so you know what you can/can't/will/won't do when in the situation. Yes they can come on quick and you don't want to think about it then. But I can pretty much guarantee that you won't be allowed to use that latest neck-breaking, eye-gouging, trachea-smashing maneuver in most situations. It you learn to limit your responses to simple moves that cause only enough damage to create escapes, you'll get out of most situations. You can then fall back on the really damaging moves if worst-comes-to-worst. Unfortunately, too many people jump to the real damaging moves up front.

Simple assault is the most prevalent crime of violence and a high percentage of those are from non-strangers (friends or family). Knowing and practicing minimal-damage striking is in your best interest.

Rates per 1000 people over 12-years-old:
Both Male Female
Rape/Sexual Assault 1.1 0.2 1.9
Robbery 2.8 3.8 1.7
Assault, Aggravated (weapon) 5.3 6.5 4.2
Assault, Simple (no weapon) 15.9 16.7 15.1

Stranger Non-Stranger
Rape/Sexual Assault 0.4 0.7
Robbery 2.2 0.6
Assault, Aggravated (weapon) 2.9 2.4
Assault, Simple (no weapon) 6.8 9.1


It would be terrible to "defend yourself" only to go to jail and have the bad guy walking around on the street. Oh, and don't forget the civil lawsuits where you're actually paying him thousands of dollars for the crime he was committing against you. It would also be terrible to permanently disable your friend because you fought over some girl.

WhiteBirch

 

[ginshun]

Then let someone here quote case law.

Take it easy.
Actually, I don't rememer saying that I was quoting any law case, I was simply repeating a story that I have been told, and I think I made that pretty clear.

Again, the issue is one of disparity of force. A person with skill, whether it be boxing, martial arts, wrestling or otherwise, can be determined to be the more dangerous of the two. Other factors of disparity of force would be size, age, health.

Nobody would say that a five foot two woman with a second degree black belt would be held to a higher standard over a man who was six feet three inches and weighed 230 lean pounds.

obvioustly other things play a role, I think you are right that nobody is going to hold that woman to a higher standard if she is defending herself against a 6'3" 230lb guy. The thing is that they more than likely would hold her to a higher standard if she was defending herself agianst another woman that was comparble in size to herself.

Regardless of how the public views us, let's not get into the mindset of believing we have to "register our hands."


Regards,


Steve

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be more aware of how we conduct ourselves during certain situations that your average person. Like you said, the same may apply to a boxer or wrestler, not just a martial artist.

In my opinion, anybody who has actually beened trained how to fight, regardless of what that training is in, needs to be more careful than your average person.

I'm not here to convince anyone else of this, I am just stating what I beleive.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I asked about escaping maneuvers but our master won't teach them especially to women. I see his point for women

I'm not sure I understand the 'especially to women' angle?

In our TKD class, at least so far (we learn certain SD techniques at various belt-levels so, as a yellow belt, I've only seen up to my level and what my greeen belt kids have been taught) we don't work much on escapes, per se, but a lot of our moves end up with the opponent down and us in control. We talk a lot about 'escalation', too, about keeping the level of response equal to the level of the aggressors intention. Naturally, being TKD, we do work leg and hand strikes into it, but a side-kick to break the knee is a fairly serious response and would have to be in response to a pretty serious threat.

Now that I reflect on it, I realize we do use a lot of strike, but the strikes are more to get the opponent to react and/or move in a certain direction. We use a lot of blocks as strikes (like trapping the wrist and putting an inner block into the back of the arm.) where you will either move the opponent or break the elbow, depending on how hard you strike and pull.

Just free associating....

 

[Hawkeye]

Besides the "reasonableness" test that all courts use there is also the situation that most states allow "any reasonable and necessary force". Most also use a force continuium to evaluate necessary force. So if someone embarrasses you it's not reasonable to hit him/her.

If they slap you - hitting them across the head with a pool cue is not reasonable. You can defend yourself but you may not become the attacker. It's pretty simple really - stay out of street fights but be prepared to "defend" your life or the life of another - not your pride if necessary.

Unless someone hears the guy say "I'm going to kill you". AND he has the means to do so AND makes a move to do so - just call 911 and let the guys who are paid to deal with knuckleheads deal with them.

 

[still learning]

Hello, From what I understand here in Hawaii is "if you break the guys bones,you pay for damages, unless you can prove self-defense for your life. Best to break the pinky finger,cheaper than the thumb.

One should always strike/take down/locks/ or breaks, to end the fight. Not to win and pound away. We must train ourselves to use reasonable force. Now what is reasonable force? Um?

Marc the "animal" has good books on this subject. He makes a lot sense. Best to talk your way out of it and walk away. Unless you are willing to face death,jail time,life time injuries or/and possible revenge from them and their families and friends. Even if you win the fight, whats to stop him from getting a gun/knife/bat and so on to get even later? Best to run and leave quicky if can. If you have no choice? Make sure you are saying out loud " I do not want to fight" and be ready to hit first...then run......Just my thoughts...will your new friends at jail be nicer? ......Aloha