Should all head strikes in a self defense situation be considered deadly force?

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56269437-78/percent-injuries-utah-brain.html.csp

The fatal punching of a Utah soccer referee has stunned and saddened the community but was no freak occurrence, say medical experts who warn a single jolt to the head can kill.
"Assaults happen every day in our country, and an assault to the head or neck can cause serious injury, including death," said University of Utah neuropsychologist Angela Eastvold. "The number of deaths is small. But it’s always a possibility, especially if the victim has any vulnerability in the brain, and there’s no way of knowing that up front."


Eastvold works with survivors of traumatic brain injury (TBI), tracking their cognitive deficits and behavioral changes. She sees lives ended and disrupted by the neurological consequences of accidental falls, car crashes, suicide attempts and violence.
Any injury to the head, mild to severe, can disable someone; injuries to the neck can cause paralysis, she said. "The whole spectrum of injury involves the whole spectrum of possibilities."

Could all head strikes be considered deadly force? What would happen if a person responded with deadly force because the attacker was targeting the head in the conflict, assuming that the defender had done his due diligence in avoiding and retreating according to the law?
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
If you hit a person to the head there is always the possibility of killing or injuring them. Most deaths are probably due to the secondary hitting of the head on the ground, but regardless, you are probably going to end up in court if the person you hit dies or is badly injured . With the evidence beginning to show long term brain damage to footballers after repeated concussion, how long will it be before the spotlight is turned onto any sport that allows striking to the head? The evidence is showing that headgear does not protect the brain from concussion. Will 'consent' forms be challenged in court when injury occurs?

Prolonged fight scenes in movies where the hero walks away bruised, but unbroken, aren’t realistic, said Paul Barker, retired police officer and defense expert who teaches tae kwon do at Champion Karate West in Provo. "People are naive to the risk." When Barker’s students compete, they wear protective head gear with a face cage, gloves and guards for the chest, mouth and groin.


Hits to the face and certain hits to the head are off limits, such as reverse jab using the hand opposite your forward foot, he said. "That’s very powerful and could kill someone instantly."


Barker teaches his students to avoid conflict and warns against punching someone in the temple, the thinnest, most fracture-prone part of the skull.
So here we have a so called "defence expert" telling people that a strike to the head can kill but that it's ok to kick someone to the head as long as they are wearing a helmet. So, in answer to the question, yes, strikes to the head could be considered 'deadly force', even with consent. Mmm. :asian:
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
The way the law works with punches here in NY is pretty much results driven. If I punch you and leave no mark/blood or even just a bruise, I would only be charged with a violation harassment. If I break your nose or you fall and split your head I could get an assault and or reckless endangerment. If I whack you in the temple and kill you it could be manslaughter.

As in the Zimmerman trial though it's not so much the punch as the entire situation. If you are mounted and pounding away on my head with repeated blows that's different from you taking a poke at me as we stand face to face.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
The way the law works with punches here in NY is pretty much results driven. If I punch you and leave no mark/blood or even just a bruise, I would only be charged with a violation harassment. If I break your nose or you fall and split your head I could get an assault and or reckless endangerment. If I whack you in the temple and kill you it could be manslaughter.

As in the Zimmerman trial though it's not so much the punch as the entire situation. If you are mounted and pounding away on my head with repeated blows that's different from you taking a poke at me as we stand face to face.

On the other hand, should someone decide to take a swing at my head, there's precedent for considering it a deadly threat-especially if they happen to say something along the lines of, oh, I'm gonna effing kill you!!! while they're doing it.

I mean, if someone does that, you should be 'in fear for your life," and meet the standard of self-defense if you respond with deadly force.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Punches to the head are common in schoolground fights that are rarely very physically damaging. I'm not sure it can be a one-size-fits-all situation.

The story goes that Savate developed a system of kicking mixed with open-handed slapping b/c at the time in France a blow with a fist was considered assault with a deadly weapon but a slap or kick--even with a shod foot (the literal meaning of the art's name)--was not. I've heard in other locales and times any kick with a shod foot was considered assault with a deadly weapon.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
The way the law works with punches here in NY is pretty much results driven. If I punch you and leave no mark/blood or even just a bruise, I would only be charged with a violation harassment. If I break your nose or you fall and split your head I could get an assault and or reckless endangerment. If I whack you in the temple and kill you it could be manslaughter.

As in the Zimmerman trial though it's not so much the punch as the entire situation. If you are mounted and pounding away on my head with repeated blows that's different from you taking a poke at me as we stand face to face.

Virginia would be similar. A punch to the face might be simple assault -- or it might be malicious wounding, if it tore the skin or did significant, disfiguring damage like shattering the orbital bone. And if it resulted in a death, we could be looking at manslaughter or possibly even murder depending on the exact circumstances. And, of course, there's a range of actions that all constitute strikes to head, ranging from a slap across the chops by an offended lady (or perhaps as a challenge a la code duello ;) ) through curb stomping.

So, let's look at this by definitions. Legally speaking, the basic definition of deadly force is force that is reasonably likely to cause significant bodily injury or death. So... when is a blow to the head likely to cause bodily injury or death? Right off the bat, most shots to the head using a weapon (baseball bat, ASP baton, 2x4, what-have-you) are likely to cause significant injury, right? So they're clearly deadly force. So, let's stick to the unarmed stuff. Hand techniques? A full force punch, delivered with vicious intent, to a number of sensitive targets? It could certainly be argued as lethal force. But a shot deliberately delivered obliquely around the hardest parts of the head in order to stun or shock? Probably not. Repeated blows delivered from a mount-type position? I could argue it as being lethal force, I think. The attacker is dominant, striking repeatedly, which is likely to do more accumulative damage often than a single hard shot. What about kicks? (Let's ignore obvious things like punting a downed opponent's melon or curb stomps...) I can make two arguments here... The first is that damn few folks I've come across can actually deliver power to a head level target when they're standing. Way too many of them wouldn't actually hit the target... (And that's despite doing breaks at that height with kicks...) But -- for those that can really deliver effective kicks at head level -- they pack a wallop. I think you could certainly argue that they would cause serious bodily injury or death...

In short... the answer is going to be fluid, and depend on the circumstances, like most use of force questions.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
23,363
Reaction score
9,103
Location
Pueblo West, CO
Given the astronomically high odds against death from a punch to the head, I think the notion that such a strike should be considered deadly force extremely silly.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Given the astronomically high odds against death from a punch to the head, I think the notion that such a strike should be considered deadly force extremely silly.

It depends on the circumstance. Such a punch delivered by a large and powerful attacker might have higher risks.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
23,363
Reaction score
9,103
Location
Pueblo West, CO
It depends on the circumstance. Such a punch delivered by a large and powerful attacker might have higher risks.

And if the punch was delivered while wearing a steel gauntlet with a 6" spike, it might have even higher risks.

The question was if ALL head strikes should be considered deadly force. The most appropriate answer is "don't be silly".
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
The question was if ALL head strikes should be considered deadly force. The most appropriate answer is "don't be silly".

Not necessarily.

The standard for the use of lethal force in self-defense is imminent fear for one's life.

Not "reasonable fear."

Not "appropriate fear."

"Imminent fear."

If a punch in the head can kill, then one can be said to be in imminent fear for one's life if they are being.....well, punched in the head.

Especially if the attacker has established lethal intent[/I[ with words like, I'm gonna effing kill your.

Under those circumstances, a punch to the head is a lethal threat, and might be met with deadly force.

Of course, that doesn't mean you won't go to jail.....:lfao:
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
Not necessarily.

The standard for the use of lethal force in self-defense is imminent fear for one's life.

Not "reasonable fear."

Not "appropriate fear."

"Imminent fear."

If a punch in the head can kill, then one can be said to be in imminent fear for one's life if they are being.....well, punched in the head.

Especially if the attacker has established lethal intent[/I[ with words like, I'm gonna effing kill your.

Under those circumstances, a punch to the head is a lethal threat, and might be met with deadly force.

Of course, that doesn't mean you won't go to jail.....:lfao:


Reasonableness is inherit in the justification of the use of force. The fear has to be reasonable; it has to make sense to that hypothetical wonder, the reasonable man. I may be deathly phobic of having spiderwebs on my head -- but it's not reasonable for me to shoot someone because they brandish a Halloween prop at me. A person with a drastic peanut allergy, however, might be able to justify responding with significant force to someone who begins to throw peanuts at them.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I can make two arguments here... The first is that damn few folks I've come across can actually deliver power to a head level target when they're standing. Way too many of them wouldn't actually hit the target... (And that's despite doing breaks at that height with kicks...) But -- for those that can really deliver effective kicks at head level -- they pack a wallop. I think you could certainly argue that they would cause serious bodily injury or death...

The complicating issue here is that it's so often not the blow itself but the fall that does the greatest damage.
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
If i punch you in the head enough times, you will die. Same goes for a ten year old doing the punching. If i force a properly sized rock down your throat, you will die after a while. Therefore, possession of a small stone is intent to commit murder.

Its not a working formula. I agree with the results-rather-than-method approach others have described above.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
If i punch you in the head enough times, you will die. Same goes for a ten year old doing the punching. If i force a properly sized rock down your throat, you will die after a while. Therefore, possession of a small stone is intent to commit murder.

Its not a working formula. I agree with the results-rather-than-method approach others have described above.

Oddly enough, New York Penal Law section 35.15 says that:

"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary


So you can use deadly force to defend property.-never mind the fear of kidnapping, rape, sodomy or death. :lol:

The standard-in most states in the union-to which juries are instructed in terms of self defense, is that a reasonable person might reasonably fear potential deadly force.

People are killed by blows to the head.

An imminent blow to the head is a potential deadly attack.

A reasonable person could reasonably respond with equally deadly force.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
While it's possible... I don't think a bar fight right cross coming at you is not generally going to be considered as "readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury" thus justifying a DPF response...but go ahead and see how it works out for you. :)
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
While it's possible... I don't think a bar fight right cross coming at you is not generally going to be considered as "readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury" thus justifying a DPF response...but go ahead and see how it works out for you. :)

"Bar fight right cross??" Moi?

Oh, no, good sir-you have the wrong man. I would never, ever be subjected to such. While I might frequent such establishments, they are usually not the sort where such things occur.....last time I was "confronted" in a bar, the exchange went something like this:

Kid, looking at my tattoo:Is that a dragon? Are you a dragon? I don't think so. Let's see! Let's see!

Me: Hey, I'm fifty years old. My *** is "draggin' ", and that's about it.

And with that, I did what a prudent individual would do, and left for my hotel room.
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
Hm. In retrospect, i contradicted myself in my reply.

"If i punch you in the head enough times, you will die. Same goes for a ten year old doing the punching."
Thats absolutely true. But that also means the first punch could be the first of many. This... is complicated. I wanna say that it should NOT be considered deadly force since punching someone is perhaps among the least practical yet functional ways of killing someone, and its mostly just a harm-but-not-seriously-harm thing. But at the same time, you cant know what the intent is until after, and thatd be too late.

I need to think about this.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
23,363
Reaction score
9,103
Location
Pueblo West, CO
Not necessarily.

The standard for the use of lethal force in self-defense is imminent fear for one's life.

Not "reasonable fear."

Not "appropriate fear."

"Imminent fear."

If a punch in the head can kill, then one can be said to be in imminent fear for one's life if they are being.....well, punched in the head.

Especially if the attacker has established lethal intent[/I[ with words like, I'm gonna effing kill your.

Under those circumstances, a punch to the head is a lethal threat, and might be met with deadly force.

Of course, that doesn't mean you won't go to jail.....:lfao:


If a punch to the head is considered lethal force merely because it can (in very rare cases) kill, then a strike ANYWHERE is lethal force, because any strike could conceivably kill.
 

Latest Discussions

Top