What does the law in your country say about punching first?

[Yew]

From what I've seen on Youtube, it seems that if you raise your hands up saying you don't want any trouble, but if the person still walks forward and invades your personal space, you can punch them first.

All the people in these videos sound American so I guess in U.S.A the law let's you hit first. Which I think is logical since we do not know how fast or how strong he will be if he hits first. If he is both faster and stronger, then waiting for him to hit first and then only deflecting will be too late.

Does the United States law allow that?
What about European law or Australian law?

As for my country's law,it's hard to tell since the authorities are so chaotic. :duh: :lfao:

 

[Drac]

Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...

 

[MA-Caver]

Was told by a LEO that if someone so much as makes a threatening move towards me, even after a series of threatening verbal assaults that I am in a position to defend myself. Saying "I'm gonna kick your ***" with a string of expletives placed before during and after the statement is enough to warrant "self-defense".
Also (he winked) someone has to SEE you throw the first punch, otherwise you can still claim that THEY threw the first punch/kick. But then that was in the days where there wasn't a camera around every 20 feet (exaggerating-- a little) or in someone's hand via their phone. Still, I wouldn't throw a first punch unless I felt it absolutely necessary. Of all the altercations I've been in that happened only once. All others I either blocked or ducked or simply got the hell out of Dodge.

 

[seasoned]

Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...

What he said.

 

[jks9199]

Was told by a LEO that if someone so much as makes a threatening move towards me, even after a series of threatening verbal assaults that I am in a position to defend myself. Saying "I'm gonna kick your ***" with a string of expletives placed before during and after the statement is enough to warrant "self-defense".
Also (he winked) someone has to SEE you throw the first punch, otherwise you can still claim that THEY threw the first punch/kick. But then that was in the days where there wasn't a camera around every 20 feet (exaggerating-- a little) or in someone's hand via their phone. Still, I wouldn't throw a first punch unless I felt it absolutely necessary. Of all the altercations I've been in that happened only once. All others I either blocked or ducked or simply got the hell out of Dodge.

Not exactly...

I can sit here, states away, and tell you I'm going to kill you. I have no way to actually carry out the threat, so you can't lob a SCUD missile on my head. Extreme -- but the principle applies. A five year old kid threatening to beat me up won't justify the same response as a 25 year old college athlete...

When they show intent to harm you, you can prepare to act. When actually carrying out that intent becomes imminent, you can act. You don't generally have to wait to get punched.

Note that this is a general principle, and that you really need legal guidance from an attorney for specific legal advice.

 

[Sandstorm]

Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...

That about sums it up right there.
This whole issue is such a grey area. Ask different legal eagles and the answer will be different from each one. At the end of the day, it comes down to circumstances and who your judge/jury/magistrates are sat in front of you listening to your side. If you are concerned, then maybe take up an art that teaches you evasion and locking/trapping techs to give you room for escape from the situation, then run. You should never have to punch someone necessarily.
Also, if you do do something to your attacker, don't report it. Keep your mouth shut and hope your attacker doesn't pursue charges against you.

 

[Tez3]

In the Uk you are allowed to punch first as long as you believe that your life and safety are at risk. We are allowed to use reasonable force to defend ourselves and our families/friends etc.
Despite what is the common perception people who defend themselves here aren't prosecuted.

 

[Wishbone]

From what I've seen on Youtube, it seems that if you raise your hands up saying you don't want any trouble, but if the person still walks forward and invades your personal space, you can punch them first.

All the people in these videos sound American so I guess in U.S.A the law let's you hit first. Which I think is logical since we do not know how fast or how strong he will be if he hits first. If he is both faster and stronger, then waiting for him to hit first and then only deflecting will be too late.

Does the United States law allow that?
What about European law or Australian law?

As for my country's law,it's hard to tell since the authorities are so chaotic. :duh: :lfao:

I wouldn't use youtube videos of fights as a reference for presumptions about United States law.

 

[Gordon Nore]

 

[KenpoTex]

If the assailant has the ability and opportunity to attack you and you feel that you are in jeopardy (i.e. he has the intent to hurt you) you are authorized to take whatever action is necessary to protect yourself.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In the US, the law varies depending on jurisdiction. Federal law does not speak to self-defense rights except in the larger sense of civil liberties.

However, generally speaking, a person has the right to defend themselves if they are reasonably in fear for their safety.

Period.

There is no '21 foot law' or 'if he raises his hand to you' rule, nothing like. People who do not know what they are talking about make that crap up.

The right to self defense is generally enumerated in state or municipal law. And the most typical description is that it may be used according to the 'reasonable man' standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

Please click on the above link and refer to the section labeled "Legal status of self-defense."

Please note also that it is not a matter of what YOU consider a 'reasonable fear', the standard is what a mythical 'reasonable and prudent man' would be in fear from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Nothing is cut and dried - cases are evaluated on their merits, and if you defend yourself with force, you may find that you have to defend your actions to a police officer, a DA, or in court.

Getting back to the original question - if you have the right to defend yourself in a given situation, you are under no obligation to wait until the other person actually hits you.

Bear in mind that the right to self defense may not be absolute. Some states have a 'Castle Doctrine' or so-called 'Stand your ground' law that does not include a duty to retreat - some do not, and you are actually required to retreat to the extent that you are able before you can defend yourself legally.

Also, having the right to defend yourself generally means you are only allowed to use 'that force which is necessary' to end the danger. Roughly speaking, that means you can't beat the guy with a baseball bat if you actually tower over him and can easily subdue him with empty hands.

Self defense also means you have to stop when the danger stops.

Self defense also means you can't 'revenge' for self defense. If the danger is over, your right to defend yourself is over.

And of course, remember that martial artists may be held to a higher standard regarding minimum amount of force used - just so you know.

OK, summary:

You generally have the right to defend yourself against dangers that would make a reasonable and prudent man afraid for his safety. If that is true, you do not have to wait until actually attacked.

The right to self defense attaches to the danger, not the actions taken against you.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

 

[MA-Caver]

Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...

Yes, well, having never been on trial or even SEEN a for-real trial I wonder if it's anything like those seen in tv or movies where a prosecutor or defense attorney is asking questions and you start to say "well, no but I... " and they interrupt "just a simple yes or no will do!!" ... always hated that aspect. Answering a simple yes or no and not allowed to follow up with an explanation...

But then I gather real trials aren't like that.... or are they?

Either way, if I threw the first punch in any altercation and it gets tangled up with legal matters ... you betcha I'll have a good story to back it up.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, well, having never been on trial or even SEEN a for-real trial I wonder if it's anything like those seen in tv or movies where a prosecutor or defense attorney is asking questions and you start to say "well, no but I... " and they interrupt "just a simple yes or no will do!!" ... always hated that aspect. Answering a simple yes or no and not allowed to follow up with an explanation...

Been involved in more trials that I can count. It's a little bit like what you see on TV, but in general - no. Yes, attorney's sometimes want yes or no answers - it depends on if they want you to expound on your answer, or if they just want to get a yes or no for the jury. If you're a defendant and the DA asks a yes or no question that your defense attorney thinks kept you from adequately explaining yourself, he or she will ask you the same question again and ask you to expound when they get their turn.

But then I gather real trials aren't like that.... or are they?

They're often incredibly boring.

Either way, if I threw the first punch in any altercation and it gets tangled up with legal matters ... you betcha I'll have a good story to back it up.

Self defense in general often gets tangled up. It really doesn't matter who threw the first punch. The cop doesn't care, the DA doesn't care, the judge and jury don't care. The only thing that matters is whether or not you were reasonably in fear of your safety and what you did about it. And that might play out on the scene, before trial, or at trial. It just defends on whether or not the cop, DA, or a judge and jury believe you.

And don't forget about being sued. An entirely different situation, and anybody can sue anybody. Being found innocent at trial or not even being tried is not a defense against being sued.

Not that you should not defend yourself. But be aware that self defense is not always a "punch the dirtbag and then it's over" proposition.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...

And that's exactly what you do. Here in Texas if you 'fear' for your life you can use force or deadly force to stop it. Even if they have not actually thrown a punch or swung a club.

BUT, you are going to have to convice a) the cops, b) the DA, and c) the grand jury, that what you did was reasonable. That will be the hard sell.

If there is an ovious disparancy of force, it's in a bad neighborhood, they made threats, etc... that's a good start. Just make sure you can explain all that to the cops (after you see your lawyer.)

Deaf

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just make sure you can explain all that to the cops (after you see your lawyer.)

I would suggest speaking to the police sans lawyer until and unless advised that you are a suspect and advised of your rights. If you're Mirandized, ask for an attorney. But the police need to investigate to decide whether or not to even lodge a charge or make an arrest. Refusing to speak to them on the scene can lead to you being arrested until they can get your statement in the presence of an attorney - which may not make them altogether predisposed to see things your way.

But it's just an opinion. To each their own.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Bill,

The hard part is this. Right after a self defense situation there is a very good chance you (or me) will be upset. It is very easy to get confused and have the sequence of events backwards or out of sequence. Or the cop may ask questions that are specific, and while you can't really remember, you still blurt out an answer (wrong one to) and he writes it down. Later as the facts come out they now say you are a liar.

That is what the lawyer is for.

You tell the cops the dynamics of the situation. That is, you are the good guy, they on the ground are the bad guys. Then point out any evidence before it disappears (people in crowds might take something or the cops miss it.) Then lastingly assure them you will co-operate 100 percent with the investigation... BUT only after you have time to calm down, collect your thoughts, and call your lawyer.

Say that all to the cops politely. Look them in the eye and assure them you will co-operate 100 percent. Then ask for your lawyer.

Oh, and carry your lawyers card in your wallet (I do!) Never know when you may need that one phone call.

Deaf

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill,

The hard part is this. Right after a self defense situation there is a very good chance you (or me) will be upset. It is very easy to get confused and have the sequence of events backwards or out of sequence. Or the cop may ask questions that are specific, and while you can't really remember you still blurt out an answer (wrong one to) and he writes it down. Later as the facts come out they now say you are a liar.

That is what the lawyer is for.

You tell the cops the dynamics of the situation. That is, you are the good guy, they on the ground are the bad guys. Then point out any evidence before it disappears (people in crowds might take something or the cops miss it.) Then lastingly assure them you will co-operate 100 percent with the investigation... BUT only after you have time to calm down, collect your thoughts, and call your lawyer.

Say that all to the cops politely. Look them in the eye and assure them you will co-operate 100 percent. Then ask for your lawyer.

Oh, and carry your lawyers card in your wallet (I do!) Never know when you may need that one phone call.

Deaf

Good points, all. I tend to trust my ability to speak clearly, rationally, and give good expert witness. But everyone should follow the ref's advice in boxing "Protect yourself at all times." Including knowing when to speak to the attorney before speaking to the police - or anyone else.

 

[MA-Caver]

Good points, all. I tend to trust my ability to speak clearly, rationally, and give good expert witness. But everyone should follow the ref's advice in boxing "Protect yourself at all times." Including knowing when to speak to the attorney before speaking to the police - or anyone else.

Well I'm sure officers would appreciate the simple statement when asking you questions after an incident: "Officer, I am rather too upset at the moment to answer any questions and would appreciate the presence of my attorney."

but then asking for an attorney implies guilt doesn't it? Still I think you DO have the right to have a few moments to "calm down" ... don't you?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well I'm sure officers would appreciate the simple statement when asking you questions after an incident: "Officer, I am rather too upset at the moment to answer any questions and would appreciate the presence of my attorney."

No, officers don't appreciate anything that slows them down. And the goal is not piss them off, trust me on this.

but then asking for an attorney implies guilt doesn't it? Still I think you DO have the right to have a few moments to "calm down" ... don't you?

It's not that asking for an attorney implies guilt, but that it ticks them off. Their evening just got a lot more complicated because you lawyered up.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, Deaf Smith was dead on accurate. I'm saying it is something to consider.

An unwarned (meaning you have not been advised of your right to remain silent) statement is admissible in court if you issue a spontaneous confession, that sort of thing. But generally, the first statements you are asked to make are the basic facts of the sitatuion. Where were you, where was he, what did he say, what did you say, what happened then, what time was it, etc. These things COULD get you into trouble, but generally not if you have done nothing wrong. They're *supposed* to stop you and advise you of your rights if at any point they begin to suspect you of a crime.

There's a lot going to be going on behind the scenes you won't know about. Criminal history on NCIC will be a biggie. If you have no prior criminal history and no wants or warrants, and bad guy does, your story basically writes itself. The cops won't much care if you beat the guy senseless because you didn't like his face and then claimed self defense.

I'm just saying. Citizens who act like citizens generally don't get rousted. The cops know the good guys from the bad most of the time.

 

[Chris Parker]

What about European law or Australian law?

As for my country's law,it's hard to tell since the authorities are so chaotic. :duh: :lfao:

Hi,

Well, for Australia, we have laws based on "escape at the first possible time", and that certainly allows for the first strike. Fortunately, our art is designed with very similar ideas in mind...

Basically, if you feel threatened, then you have the right to strike first, provided the opponent has what is called "present ability". Essentially, that means that if you feel threatened, and the opponent is capable of carrying out the percieved or actual threat, then you can strike first in order to create the opportunity to escape. But , of course, if you have to cross 30 feet of room to hit them, that's assault. And if someone threatens to run you over and you're indoors, that is not a viable threat (unless they're in a wheelchair, maybe?), so don't hit them... yet.

Within our schools we have a number of Australian Federal Police Officers, and they assist us in staying on top of assault laws, and this insight is used to help design our street defence programs.

We also look to prepare students for the other side of the legal realities of an altercation, by giving them an understanding of what to expect, what to say, and how to present your story to the police.