Martial Arts and The Law

[MJS]

In another thread, there is discussion about knife techniques in the FMAs. The question came up of using the knife in a self defense situation. I wanted to start this thread to hear everyones opinions on the use of weapons and Martial Arts in general in a SD situation and whether or not you're up to date on the SD laws in your state.

IMO, this is an area that is often overlooked, but yet its probably one of the most important areas of training. Do you know your use of force laws and is this something that is covered at your school?

Mike

 

[Ceicei]

Great thread! Thank you for starting this! I would rep you, but gotta share the joy some more...

 

[Cruentus]

Here were my statements in the other thread...

#2. The idea that knives are acceptable tools to carry for self-defense.

Most knife programs and the knife industry propigates knives as tools that can be carried for self-defense purposes. I disagree with this completely. Here is in excerp from a "legalities" article that we hand out in some of our programs:[/b]

Quote:

Using a weapon


The use of a weapon will call into question your reasonableness if the use of that weapon is not justifiable. We will discuss the only weapons that would be considered reasonable for a private citizen to use in Michigan. Remember that the laws will vary in other countries and states.
Firearm: A legally owned and properly licensed firearm is only to be used in lethal force situations, but is reasonable and recommended as the best tool for lethal force, provided that lethal force is justifiable. The firearm must be legal, and properly registered if it is considered a handgun. If you are carrying a concealed pistol outside of the home, you need the proper permit (Concealed Pistols License). You need to follow the state laws regarding firearms carry and use. Provided that the laws are followed, a firearm is an appropriate self-defense tool.
OC Spray: OC Spray, or "Pepper" spray is a considered a less lethal tool for self-defense, and is acceptable by Michigan standards to carry for self-defense. You must only use pepper spray that is legal for civilian carry, which would be 5% active ingredient or less. Pepper Spray is not to be confused with chemical sprays or irritant products like MACE products, which are illegal in Michigan for citizens to carry.

Weapons of Opportunity: Weapons of Opportunity are tools or items that you carry or can obtain from your environment and use as a weapon. The primary purpose for these tools is not for force. However, they can be used as such if it is what is available at the time of an attack. The lethality of these could vary from less lethal to lethal. Some examples of weapons of opportunity are keys, handbags, change, belts, books, drink containers like coffee mugs, knives or razors (if used as a utility item), pens, screwdrivers and tools (if used for utility), etc. The key is that you have to reasonably justify that these items are intended for some other utility other then self-defense. So, if I have a screwdriver in my pocket and use it for self-defense, I need to be able to reasonably justify that the screwdriver was intended to be used that day on screws or for prying or for some other utility besides a weapon. If you cannot justify that the weapon of opportunity was intended for use besides self-defense, then you risk being considered a mutual combatant.

The above are the only acceptable weapons for a private citizen to carry for self-defense in Michigan. Anything else, like knives not intended for utility, saps, whips, sticks or clubs, etc. are not acceptable. Illegal weapons, like martial arts weapons outside of the training hall, collapsible batons, tazers, MACE or Pepper spray over 5% active, etc., are not acceptable. The reason that these are not acceptable is because they throw your reasonableness into question. Right or wrong, the court system and the general public does not consider it acceptable to carry these items for self-defense. So for example, if you carry a combat knife, and it is clear that you carry it for "self-defense," then it is likely that you will be considered a mutual combatant by the courts regardless of the totality of the circumstance. It is likely that it will be argued that your actions were premeditated, meaning that you intended to get into a violent encounter with your weapon. If you use unacceptable weapons for force, your entire claim to self-defense will be put into question, and you will likely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

(C) Tulisan Company 2006
So, nuff' said. Knives are not really acceptable by the court system as "self-defense tools." If you carry them as such, or propigate that others carry them as such, then you are opening yourself up to trouble.

This doesn't mean that knife arts shouldn't be taught or trained. It just means that this needs to be understood, and that knives should really only be carried for utility as the primary purpose. If used in self-defense because lethal force is justifiable and no other option is available, then that is fine so long as the original purpose of the tool is not to harm someone else.

I think that not enough people that teach knife arts or tactical programs fully explain these facts.

 

[Cruentus]

And here was the thread this all spun from for those interested in the background:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45080

 

[searcher]

With the new CCW and use of force laws in our state I am not as up to date as I need to be. The changes are still confusing and I am going to have to read into them some more. That is where I am at.

 

[Last Fearner]

Yes, I cover the laws at my school, and I try to stay up to date, but the main advice I give is to be "reasonable" in your response. Laws are designed to regulate behavior, and punish those who behave inappropriately. However, it is the court's interpretation of the law, and the judge's assessment of your actions that is the final word.

No one can truly second guess you in a real-life situation by using hindsight in looking back on how you responded. All you need to do is be sure that you don't verbally threaten or harass anyone, and any time you respond with physical force, make sure the situation warrants physical action, and that the amount of force you use is necessary to protect yourself or others from harm.

There are many details of law to consider, and each student should become aware of them, not only in their own state and local jurisdiction, but as you travel, what is allowed or not allowed in those areas. Common sense, a level head, and rational responses keep you out of trouble in most cases. Also, being sober or not on drugs goes a long way for the decision making process! Remember, your reputation is your best character witness, or your worst enemy in a court of law. Getting into fights on a regular basis tends to show a predilection for violence.

[note: the above is not to be construed as legal advice. Consult with an attorney for legal matters!]

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[Cruentus]

Oh yea... and my posts don't constitute as legal advice either! (I had a statement on my article regarding that as well..)

 

[Adept]

Once again, this isn't something I have to worry about. Carrying any kind of weapon, let alone using one against an assailant, is illegal in Australia.

 

[tellner]

I heartily recomm-- I urge all-- That's not right, either.

OK. I darned near get down on my knees and beg anyone with a serious interest in this to take Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 Judicious Use of Deadly Force. The second half is twenty hours of really good handgun instruction. The first half is solid gold. It's twenty hours of the legal and ethical parameters of the use of deadly force. It will tell you what is important, go through the legal issues, tell you a lot about why, help you through The Decision, tell you some of the personal issues to expect if you're in a deadly force situation. It will also keep you from doing yourself in legally with a Biblical weapon - the jawbone of an ***.

Take it if you possibly can. It is the best single investment you can make in self defense.

 

[Carol]

In my state, kicking someone with a shod foot (a foot with a shoe on it) can be sufficient for a charge to be escalated from Simple Assault to Assault with a Deadly Weapon. If convicted, a Simple Assault conviction does not get reported in a background check and does not need to be disclosed if asked. An Assault with a Deadly Weapon conviction does get reported on a background check and must be disclosed if asked.

There is a world of difference between those two charges and Massachusetts is not the only state that will bring Assault with a Deadly Weapons charges against someone using a shod foot in a fight.

Empty hand martial arts techniques may not be fighting "without weapons" in the eyes of one's state law.

Defense attorneys do more than defend criminals in court, they also help law-abiding citizens stay on the good side of the law. They also take legal responsibility for the advise they give you. Its cheap insurance.

 

[kachi]

Once again, this isn't something I have to worry about. Carrying any kind of weapon, let alone using one against an assailant, is illegal in Australia.

Isn't that cause to worry though? Knowing that I'm not allowed to walk around (especially the bad parts of town) without any way of defending myself besides the use of my own body just concerns me a bit. And even though we're not allowed to carry weapons it doesn't stop the mugger or the druggie carrying one which can leave you at a considerable disadvantage.

 

[tellner]

Carrying weapons may well be illegal in Australia, just like it is in the UK. Are you sure that using one in legitimate self defense is illegal? F'rinstance suppose you are being attacked by several large armed people who say they want to rape, rob and kill you and aren't terribly picky about the order. Is it actually a crime to pick up something and hit, slice or (if the gun is legal) shoot them with it? Even Britain allows you to use deadly force with weapons under certain circumstances.

 

[kachi]

Carrying weapons may well be illegal in Australia, just like it is in the UK. Are you sure that using one in legitimate self defense is illegal? F'rinstance suppose you are being attacked by several large armed people who say they want to rape, rob and kill you and aren't terribly picky about the order. Is it actually a crime to pick up something and hit, slice or (if the gun is legal) shoot them with it? Even Britain allows you to use deadly force with weapons under certain circumstances.

I'd say improvised weapons would be ok (not 100% sure). But i'd still rather have the assurance of being able to carry something with me... Anyting. And guns are a definite NO. I think we're very much similar to the UK in terms of weapons laws.

 

[Adept]

Isn't that cause to worry though? Knowing that I'm not allowed to walk around (especially the bad parts of town) without any way of defending myself besides the use of my own body just concerns me a bit. And even though we're not allowed to carry weapons it doesn't stop the mugger or the druggie carrying one which can leave you at a considerable disadvantage.

Oh, absolutely. I think the restrictions on weapons are frankly stupid, and have done nothing to reduce violent crime. However, I tolerate them in order to live where I do because, on the whole, I like my life in this country. I would like to be able to carry a concealed handgun, but I'm not going to move to the USA for that reason alone.

 

[Adept]

Carrying weapons may well be illegal in Australia, just like it is in the UK. Are you sure that using one in legitimate self defense is illegal? F'rinstance suppose you are being attacked by several large armed people who say they want to rape, rob and kill you and aren't terribly picky about the order. Is it actually a crime to pick up something and hit, slice or (if the gun is legal) shoot them with it? Even Britain allows you to use deadly force with weapons under certain circumstances.

You can certainly use a weapon if you have one to hand and the situation requires it, but you cannot legally have on on you. It would literally have to be a matter of convenience that there was a weapon (Improvised or not) in the vicinity when you were attacked.

 

[JBrainard]

I heartily recomm-- I urge all-- That's not right, either.

OK. I darned near get down on my knees and beg anyone with a serious interest in this to take Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 Judicious Use of Deadly Force. The second half is twenty hours of really good handgun instruction. The first half is solid gold. It's twenty hours of the legal and ethical parameters of the use of deadly force. It will tell you what is important, go through the legal issues, tell you a lot about why, help you through The Decision, tell you some of the personal issues to expect if you're in a deadly force situation. It will also keep you from doing yourself in legally with a Biblical weapon - the jawbone of an ***.

Take it if you possibly can. It is the best single investment you can make in self defense.

Thanks for the tip, my fellow Orygunion. I did some research on carrying weapons in our state and to my understanding you can carry a gun (with a permit, of course) or a blunt weapon but not a edged weapon. To the best of your knowledge, is this info correct?

 

[Grenadier]

Thanks for the tip, my fellow Orygunion. I did some research on carrying weapons in our state and to my understanding you can carry a gun (with a permit, of course) or a blunt weapon but not a edged weapon. To the best of your knowledge, is this info correct?

Not necessarily. You can carry a knife, concealed or unconcealed, in Oregon:

http://www.thehighroad.org/library/blades/knifelaws.html

A good quality folding, lockback knife, such as a Spyderco Delica, Spyderco Endura, or Spyderco Police (my favorite), should be fine.

For those who do a lot of travelling between states, though, the 2 7/8" blade of the Spyderco Delica is pretty much OK in almost all states.

 

[Cruentus]

Thanks for the tip, my fellow Orygunion. I did some research on carrying weapons in our state and to my understanding you can carry a gun (with a permit, of course) or a blunt weapon but not a edged weapon. To the best of your knowledge, is this info correct?

Read my posts here and on the FMA knife thread regarding knife carry, though. You can carry an edged "tool" just not a "weapon." I don't want to see anyone get thrown under the bus for making the wrong decisions...

 

[tradrockrat]

I made a decision many years ago to stop carrying a knife. this occasioned some rather surprised remarks from boith my MA friends and my Biker friends as I was (still am) a vocal proponent of the the 'ole "Tried by 12 / carried by six" sentiment.

Even though I can easily justify my knife as a tool for roadside repairs, etc. the fact was my very good friend and lawyer pointed out to me that I as both a MAist AND a biker put me in the worst light should I ever use one. Plus, my training with a knife is rather brutal - I don't believe in disarming with a knife and controlling the assailent. I trained to strike vital organs before they could strike mine.

I don't want to kill anybody! So I stopped carrying. I trust myself to survive most encounters with empty hands or found weapons (cause my knife won't help me much against a gun anyway...)

But just to be devils advocate here:

Good lawyers are better than the best understanding of the law.

The point is my friend is an excellent lawyer, and he has time and again proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lawyers, not "facts", win or lose court cases. When this guy told me I was in deep stuff if I ever harmed a guy with my knife, I listened.

But for others, just because a piece of paper says you can't doesn't mean a good lawyer won't "prove" you can. That grey area between tool and weapon can be interpreted differently for each individual case.

The real important thing is to decide what you can live with and be realistic about what it means to use a weapon - you might kill someone.

 

[Infinite]

Ok just a general point,

Law is not fact nor is it fixed it is in fact SUBJECTIVE.

The layers interpret their version of the law. They present their facts to support it. Then the judge decides if those facts are within legal guidelines which is again his interpretation of the law. Then the jury decides how they feel about it and how it pertains to what they think the law is.

This is why in law you hear so much about presidents these are opinions on how the law should be interpreted to guide future people.

So for example if you get pulled over the cop asks to search your car. He finds something he thinks is illegal he calls backup you get arrested. When it comes court time its you and the cops perceptions of the events that will lead you to guilty or innocent.

This is why I would if asked if they could search simply reply in the negative. I don't want one mans perception to be the basis of a legal battle on my behalf. If they find a reason to justify a search then they really don't have to ask me. So if they did ask it means they don't and I shouldn't really encourage them to try

--Infy