Self Defense Self Incrimination

[MarkBarlow]

Much in the same way that most LEOs go their entire careers without having to fire their guns in the line of duty, the vast majority of martial artists will never need to use their training to deal with a violent attack. On the other hand, should the need arise and we do inflict harm on someone in self defense, there is an excellent chance that our training and experience will be used against us in court.

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that everyone think twice about posting "what I'd do". Whether we're talking empty hand or with a weapon, discussing how you would violently deal with an attacker smacks of premeditation. In this litigious society, it's a sure bet that the assailant's legal defense will do a background check on you and them being able to present prior discussions you have had online about beating/killing/harming/stomping anyone for any reason will not help your case.

Think twice about what you post, both the content and the tone. It's easy to have online cojones but difficult to explain later that you didn't really mean it when you said you'd rip someone's head off.

 

[Thesemindz]

Yep. I've recommended before that people not talk online about how they lied to the police in an incident report or how they'd break federal law with regards to firearms ownership, and people occasionally call me paranoid.

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Keep it under your hat.


-Rob

 

[K-man]

It's a fine line. Do you teach your students the real applications of the techniques they are learning? As soon as you say, "be carefull, that neck crank could actually break the neck", you have then demonstrated knowledge that could later be used against you.
I sometimes wonder if we might be better off as a civilisation without our 'learned collegues'.

and people occasionally call me paranoid.

Rightly so. But just coz everyone is out to get me, doesn't mean I'm paranoid too. :erg:

 

[Thesemindz]

It's a fine line. Do you teach your students the real applications of the techniques they are learning? As soon as you say, "be carefull, that neck crank could actually break the neck", you have then demonstrated knowledge that could later be used against you.

There's a difference between making a comment in class and posting a comment on a website. One is hearsay evidence at a trial, the other is documented evidence at a trial.


-Rob

 

[Bruno@MT]

I've posted it before, but here it is: my rule no1 when it comes to dealing with internet, email or any other kind of message exchange.

Rule number 1 when posting anything on the net (or via email):
Do not write anything down that you wouldn't want your partner, kids, family, employer, banker, district attorney, worst enemy or anyone else to find out.

It really is that simple. What you post on the net can be around for decades. Until recently, I could still find the very first message I left on a message board, back in 1996 I think. Anyone looking for specific things will be able to turn up anything you posted. Your own words can turn a 'possible but unlikely conviction' into a 'slam dunk'.

Whether you realize it or not: this is self-defense, as much as learning to fight. If you don't want it used against you, then don't post it.

 

[Tez3]

What I'd do if attacked in the street is to run away crying because I can't fight and am a pacifist anyway! I have no knowledge of any techniques that might be considered fighting and no interest or knowledge in weapons whatsoever..

 

[seasoned]

What she said.

 

[Bruno@MT]

What I'd do if attacked in the street is to run away crying because I can't fight and am a pacifist anyway! I have no knowledge of any techniques that might be considered fighting and no interest or knowledge in weapons whatsoever..

But regardless of that. A woman defending herself against a man is not likely to get in trouble. If anything, the man will be made fun of because he was beat by a woman.

Otoh, if a guy were to hurt a woman in the process of defending himself, he is still liable to get into trouble, because he 'beat up a woman'.

 

[MJS]

Much in the same way that most LEOs go their entire careers without having to fire their guns in the line of duty, the vast majority of martial artists will never need to use their training to deal with a violent attack. On the other hand, should the need arise and we do inflict harm on someone in self defense, there is an excellent chance that our training and experience will be used against us in court.

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that everyone think twice about posting "what I'd do". Whether we're talking empty hand or with a weapon, discussing how you would violently deal with an attacker smacks of premeditation. In this litigious society, it's a sure bet that the assailant's legal defense will do a background check on you and them being able to present prior discussions you have had online about beating/killing/harming/stomping anyone for any reason will not help your case.

Think twice about what you post, both the content and the tone. It's easy to have online cojones but difficult to explain later that you didn't really mean it when you said you'd rip someone's head off.

Funny you should post this, especially after I was reading some comments from another member, in another thread. But, you're absolutley correct. I would say that a very large percent of the population is totally clueless when it comes to anything martial arts related. They go off of these half baked Bruce Lee wannabe movies, and assume that all martial arts are like that.

That being said, imagine sitting on the stand, and all 12 of the jurors are those clueless folks that I mention. Yes, I know, I've said it before....I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but this is also why I always say that is very important to assess each situation. As tempting as it may be to take a few more shots at the bad guy when he's down, its stuff like that, that'll be frowned upon.

I often look back on some of my Kenpo techs. and think, "Man, I'm going to break/dislocate/hyper extend this guys arm, take his eyes, and hit his neck.......all for a lapel grab??????"

If we always have to resort to things like that, the martial arts world is in a sad, sad state of affairs. If thats what it takes to win, then IMHO, I seriously think that many should re-evaluate their marital arts training. Then again, I also don't feel that one should have to be victimized, or live with that constant fear that if we do do something, that we may get sued. That was actually the topic of a thread that I started a while ago....the fear of defending yourself.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Much in the same way that most LEOs go their entire careers without having to fire their guns in the line of duty, the vast majority of martial artists will never need to use their training to deal with a violent attack. On the other hand, should the need arise and we do inflict harm on someone in self defense, there is an excellent chance that our training and experience will be used against us in court.

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that everyone think twice about posting "what I'd do". Whether we're talking empty hand or with a weapon, discussing how you would violently deal with an attacker smacks of premeditation. In this litigious society, it's a sure bet that the assailant's legal defense will do a background check on you and them being able to present prior discussions you have had online about beating/killing/harming/stomping anyone for any reason will not help your case.

Think twice about what you post, both the content and the tone. It's easy to have online cojones but difficult to explain later that you didn't really mean it when you said you'd rip someone's head off.

I think folks in this society are way to afraid of lawyers.......now if you were a wealthy celebrity, that might justify the paranoia. But attorney's don't waste the tens of thousands of dollars it would take to track your internet traffic by private investigators and other experts in order to collect a judgment against someone who makes $40,000 or $50,000 a year.

A little paranoia is fine, but the idea that you're going to attacked AND then lawyers are going to wade through your entire internet history is right up there with getting attacked by a band of ninjas......

With attorneys it ALWAYS comes down to cost/benefit..........and if you do get sued, COUNTER SUE! Sue everyone involved.......sue the private investigators for invasion of privacy, sue the attorneys, sue the plaintiff!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yep. I've recommended before that people not talk online about how they lied to the police in an incident report or how they'd break federal law with regards to firearms ownership, and people occasionally call me paranoid.

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Keep it under your hat.


-Rob

Admitting the commission of a crime is an entirely different story. But the notion that one shouldn't share 'What if' scenarios, which are a very good training tool, out of fear of NINJA LAWYERS is a whole different level of paranoia.

 

[sgtmac_46]

There's a difference between making a comment in class and posting a comment on a website. One is hearsay evidence at a trial, the other is documented evidence at a trial.


-Rob

You actually have it backwards.......the evidence from CLASS is far more damning........you are actually selling yourself as an expert, and actual WITNESSES observed the statements, which are in question, and are not hearsay if they are the issue at hand.

Post made on the internet, even if the account can be traced back to you, can't be proven to be yours beyond a reasonable doubt........as hacking does occur, people do steal other people's internet identities all the time.

In a criminal proceeding you might find yourself in trouble........but a criminal proceeding would require your statements to have been evidence of a crime, not merely a disposition toward defending yourself......that would only be an issue in a civil court.

And finally, in Missouri where I live, state law has granted IMMUNITY from civil liability to anyone who has used force in lawful self defense (Meaning that no criminal charges are applicable) with the PLAINTIFF being liable for ALL fees involved with any attempt at litigation.......pretty much negating any bottom feeder attorney fishing expeditions.

 

[MarkBarlow]

Admitting the commission of a crime is an entirely different story. But the notion that one shouldn't share 'What if' scenarios, which are a very good training tool, out of fear of NINJA LAWYERS is a whole different level of paranoia.

Obviously, I disagree but that's the beauty of these discussion rooms, lots of ideas, lots of opinions.

To me, it's just an extension of preparedness. We train for combat that few will ever see. I avoid making statements that might be used against me. All part of the same mindset.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Obviously, I disagree but that's the beauty of these discussion rooms, lots of ideas, lots of opinions.

Again, you're not only suggesting ONE unlikely scenario, the idea you admit as highly unlikely, that you will actually have to use force to defend yourself......but you're suggesting an even MORE unlikely scenario to follow, that you might become a test case for the fact that your entire case will hinge on some statement you made on an internet forum years before.

If we say that the likelihood of being forced to use serious force to defend ourselves is arguably very low.......then we HAVE to admit that the odd's of your scenario occurring are microscopic, requiring the first scenario to have actually come to past FIRST.

It may bear noting, but it certainly doesn't bare obsessing on.......as it is predicated by the idea that we will FIRST have to defend ourselves and survive.

 

[Tez3]

The law here allows for reasonable force and pre emptive strikes so I'd actually be pretty well covered anyway.

 

[MarkBarlow]

Again, you're not only suggesting ONE unlikely scenario, the idea you admit as highly unlikely, that you will actually have to use force to defend yourself......but you're suggesting an even MORE unlikely scenario to follow, that you might become a test case for the fact that your entire case will hinge on some statement you made on an internet forum years before.

If we say that the likelihood of being forced to use serious force to defend ourselves is arguably very low.......then we HAVE to admit that the odd's of your scenario occurring are microscopic, requiring the first scenario to have actually come to past FIRST.

I think I've mentioned the unlikelihood of it ever being an issue. Is that a reason to not proceed with caution?

Again, if you feel differently, more power to you. I see avoiding some types of discussion as prudent.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think I've mentioned the unlikelihood of it ever being an issue. Is that a reason to not proceed with caution?

Again, if you feel differently, more power to you. I see avoiding some types of discussion as prudent.

Tell you what.......find me any example of a scenario you suggest ever happening and we'll call it 'plausible'. And I don't mean someone admitting to a crime on line. I mean where a hypothetical discussion months or years before, where the statements themselves were not criminal, that has been dragged in to court and somehow influenced the proceedings.

There's prudent, and then there's 'what if's' that have never occurred......if it has occurred, or is becoming quite common place, then i'll certainly acknowledge my error accordingly......at this point I mean no offense, but in my estimation this ranks up there with 'What if I was attacked by an al-Qaeda death squad while visiting Baskin Robbins'......yeah, it could happen.......but it's not something i'm going to dwell on. IMHO.

 

[MarkBarlow]

Tell you what.......find me any example of a scenario you suggest ever happening and we'll call it 'plausible'. And I don't mean someone admitting to a crime on line. I mean where a hypothetical discussion months or years before, where the statements themselves were not criminal, that has been dragged in to court and somehow influenced the proceedings.

There's prudent, and then there's 'what if's' that have never occurred......if it has occurred, or is becoming quite common place, then i'll certainly acknowledge my error accordingly......at this point I mean no offense, but in my estimation this ranks up there with 'What if I was attacked by an al-Qaeda death squad while visiting Baskin Robbins'......yeah, it could happen.......but it's not something i'm going to dwell on. IMHO.

Call me a forward thinking paranoid if you like. I'm perfectly content with you not seeing it as plausible. Share what you want and say whatever you feel. No harm, no foul...probably. I choose to be more circumspect.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Tell you what.......find me any example of a scenario you suggest ever happening and we'll call it 'plausible'. And I don't mean someone admitting to a crime on line. I mean where a hypothetical discussion months or years before, where the statements themselves were not criminal, that has been dragged in to court and somehow influenced the proceedings.

Sure thing.

How about this one: a cop on facebook, referencing 'training day' as a tutorial on proper police procedure, and setting his facebook status to 'devious' some time before he arrested someone for illegal posession of a weapon.
The case got thrown out because his comments could be interpreted as the intention to plant the weapon on an innocent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/nyregion/11about.html?_r=3

That real enough for you?

Checking your requirements:
- He didn't admit to anything illegal.
- It happened before the facts.
- It has been dragged into court.
- It did significantly alter the proceedings.

Rule number 1, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sure thing.

How about this one: a cop on facebook, referencing 'training day' as a tutorial on proper police procedure, and setting his facebook status to 'devious' some time before he arrested someone for illegal posession of a weapon.
The case got thrown out because his comments could be interpreted as the intention to plant the weapon on an innocent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/nyregion/11about.html?_r=3

That real enough for you?

Checking your requirements:
- He didn't admit to anything illegal.
- It happened before the facts.
- It has been dragged into court.
- It did significantly alter the proceedings.

Rule number 1, ladies and gentlemen.

You FAILED to make your point.....your example does not represent the concern of the above...he STATED he was going to commit an illegal act, and it was used to acquit SOMEONE ELSE of a crime.......many things are used by defense attorneys to get their clients acquitted, statements made by police officers about committing a criminal act are admissible.......that's not the premise of the author of this thread.

Your example DOES NOT illustrate an individual making self-defense statements in a discussion forum being used to prosecute them.......the standard is ENTIRELY different.......and the idea that what can be used to defend someone CAN ALSO be used to prosecute someone is based on watching TOO many episodes of 'Law and Order'.


Let me break it down for you.....the whole PREMISE of this thread is the idea that statements about defending YOURSELF will be used against YOU in CRIMINAL proceedings to prosecute you or CIVIL proceedings to sue you..........when you find an example of either of those things, get back with me when you do........but since you probably googled like heck to find the above non-example, I imagine it's a difficult prospect.

I'll still be waiting for an example of such a prosecution.