# What You Can/Can't Do.



## MJS (Mar 10, 2010)

While reading this thread, I found the debate between Draven and punisher73, to be very interesting. I think that both of them made some very good points, so rather than sidetrack that thread, I wanted to start a seperate one. 

I wanted to take this thread, to discuss the techniques that we see in various arts, use of force and the law. Now, if we look at pretty much any art, we can see some pretty nasty things, things that if done on someone, would probably wreck the person pretty bad. These things are usually done in response to punches, grabs, kicks, chokes, and various weapon attacks. 

Just looking at some of the Kenpo techniques, we see things such as arm breaks/dislocations for a simple grab. We see pokes/gouges to the eyes for punches. The list can go on and on, but I think you see where I'm going with this.  I've often thought about what other options there are, besides using the set technique, ie: instead of the eye shot, substitute that for a palm to the face. Still an effective move, but not on the same level as the eye shot.

So, anytime we talk about a SD scenario, the topic of the law, the courts, lawsuits, juries, etc. always come up. What the jury will think about this or that, what if the bad guy sues us, etc., etc. But, if we look at our art, whatever it may be, it almost seems that no matter what we do, we could end up in hot water. For example, in that other thread, a RNC, in one state that was listed, was considered deadly force. 

Now, I dont know about anyone else, but when I travel, I dont research the laws (and maybe I should??) of the area that I'm going to. In other words, when I take my yearly trip to NYC, I dont look online to see what I can/can't do, should I need to defend myself. I dont research the laws of the USVI, when I go on a cruise with my wife. Again, maybe I should. IMO, I dont see it that necessary, for a short trip. However, if I were to move to NY for example, then yes, I think that would be a wise idea.

Of course, while thinking of this thread today, something else came to mind. It seems that the majority of attacks that we may find ourselves in, are all on the assumption that they will be in daytime hours, in populated areas, that witnesses will be around, etc. So in other words, at 11pm, when you pull up to the ATM, and someone attempts to mug you, and you're fortunate enough to defend yourself, do you stay or take off? I know what I'd do, so I'm just tossing that out as a general question.  Would the bad guy, if he were to stab you, call for help for you, while you're bleeding to death on the sidewalk? If I had to wager a guess, I'd say no. 

So, in closing, I'll say what I've said in times before. The safety of myself and anyone with me, is my #1 concern. I really dont have any concern for the guy who's trying to rob me, kill me, rape my wife, steal my car, break into my house, etc. I didn't invite that persons actions, so IMO, he gets what he gets. Yes, of course, as I said I'll always assess the situation, but whatever happens to him, well, maybe next time he'll think twice. I'm sure this will be frowned upon by some, and thats cool.  Everyone has his/her opinions, and I'll respect that. Certainly not every situation will require a break of some sort. In that other thread, punisher73 commented that he ended a fight by attacking the biceps, of someone who threw roundhouse punches at him. Certainly a great move and very effective.  I'm a big fan of limb destructions. 

Thoughts, comments, ideas.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 10, 2010)

I think listening to the advice that a fraud gives is a rather poor idea.


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think listening to the advice that a fraud gives is a rather poor idea.


 
Forgive me for asking Bill, but you lost me on this one. Feel free to shoot me a PM.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think listening to the advice that a fraud gives is a rather poor idea.


 

Was that directed at me?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 10, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> Was that directed at me?



Absolutely not!  And I apologize to all and sundry.  I'm having a tough time keeping my big mouth shut.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Absolutely not! And I apologize to all and sundry. I'm having a tough time keeping my big mouth shut.


 

Thanks for the quick response.  I'll be honest, it hurt when I thought you were directing that at me.  I've always thought we've had good dialog.

Thanks for clarifying!  Have a great one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 10, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> Thanks for the quick response.  I'll be honest, it hurt when I thought you were directing that at me.  I've always thought we've had good dialog.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying!  Have a great one.



I am most humbly apologetic for hurting your feelings; I have the utmost respect for you.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 10, 2010)

Quite alright.  

Now to get the thread back on track.

The more I spoke with Draven, the more I thought we were closer to agreement than not.  As I understand it in his state, when someone gives opinions on legal matters they can be held responsible and face criminal charges.  They also don't have the "duty to retreat".  So for him, he can't give too much guidance in that area, but can only point to the direction.  If I advised my students to initiate an attack with WV laws then they would face criminal charges.

This is an example of why it is important to know your state's laws.  I guess if you had a "rule of thumb" while traveling it would be to find the most conservative self-defense laws and attempt to follow them.

I think it does come down to common sense though.  When you train and develop higher level skill, you know when you are in a dangerous situation and can keep a level head about yourself.  My instructor always used a "limbo" example. Think of the bar as your ability to deal with a situation.  When you first start, the bar is low and it requires great effort to go under it.  As you train, that bar is lifting and even though the situations might get more difficult, your ability to deal with them increases and makes it easier.  What is threatening to a beginner, might not be as threatening to someone experienced.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 10, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> Quite alright.
> 
> Now to get the thread back on track.
> 
> ...


I think Draven's description of WV law is probably a bit off kilter.  Both as regards any codification of the Castle Doctrine and/or duty to retreat laws, and what constitutes giving legal advice.  From the sound of his interpretation, you're committing at least a misdemeanor by simply telling someone the speed limit on a road or that killing someone deliberately and with malice aforethought is murder.

But more to MJS's theme...  Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're essentially standing up and saying that you did indeed do something that would ordinarily be illegal -- but you were justified in doing so because you faced imminent harm.  In general, for the legal defense to be successful, your force must have been reasonable and appropriate or proportionate to the threat presented.  This gets to be a complicated question -- but it doesn't mean "exactly equal" but not vastly out of scale, either.  A healthy adult using a rear naked choke or drawing down with a handgun on a five year old trying to tackle him is probably going to be rather out of scale.  

When you teach self defense, ideally, you're going to teach your students to be able to control and scale their reactions to the situation.  For example, the other night I taught a choke defense to a student.  It involves bringing the defenders elbows down on the front choke, then shooting the hands out in an x-shape to strike the throat or side of the head, grabbing the head or shoulders and pulling a knee strike in.  That's great... but what if it's just a kid shoving him into a wall at school?  Probably not advisable to hammer the side of the kid's head and pull the head into the knee, huh?  So, that cross/hammer to the head can become a push to the chest...

Legally and morally, we have an obligation to teach students to respond appropriately to attacks.  If all we're teaching is sport, that's fine.  We still have to teach them to play by the rules and be appropriate in their response.  (Wasn't it Frank Shamrock who "forgot" the rules he was playing under and delivered multiple illegal strikes?)  If we're teaching them to defend themselves in reality -- we still have to teach them to "play by rules" rather than simply turning a lethal weapon loose without control or a sense of responsibility.


----------



## Draven (Mar 10, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I think Draven's description of WV law is probably a bit off kilter. Both as regards any codification of the Castle Doctrine and/or duty to retreat laws, and what constitutes giving legal advice.


 
Well then since we're discussing the law and I''m not giving legal advise allow me to explain the issues I'm talking about...
WV Code 55-7-22


> a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.
> 
> (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section.
> (c) *A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his or her home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker*: *Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his or her residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force* against the intruder or attacker.
> ...


 
I bolded what I specifically saying earilier I simply have to "believe" I'm in threat of serious bodily harm or death to be justified in using lethal force.

As for the not permitted to give legal advise law thats *61-5-27a* subsection (e).


> * (e) *_*Impersonation*. -- _*It is unlawful for a person to knowingly impersonate or purport to exercise* any function of a public official, employee, tribunal or official proceeding *without legal authority to do so and with the intent to induce a person to submit to or rely on the fraudulent authority of the person.*


 
A lawyer must pass a state bar & as such is dully authroized to act as an officer of the court with certain legal authority. By advising anyone of legal matter & not having passed the state bar exam (that would includes police officers, paralegals & law students) it is illegal for anyone to give legal advise. My state no longer has a duty to retreat clause as it was replaced by the castle law.

Now of course as I said there are different types of violence which allow for different reactions; I'm a big believer in that Self-Defense goes beyond physical techniques... Those different levels of violence, and different mindsets play a huge role in how you are going to react. More so, when you find yourself in court saying you reacted with "this" because your attacker did "that" and its a psychological precurser for "this other thing" it gives you a better legal ground to claim self-defense.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 10, 2010)

> *and with the intent to induce a person to submit to or rely on the  fraudulent authority of the person.*


*

*This is a necessary condition for you to be breaking the law. Both contextually and verbally your students should understand that you aren't acting as an agent of the state, especially since part of your advice should be "educate yourself".


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2010)

In such cases, I would recomend using moves that don't look as if you are on the attack. If some one throws a big haymaker or straight punch at you, you can stick the guy right in the throat, with a swordhand and it will look like you just put your hands up to defend yourself. As long as you are concious of the third point of view, the idea of answering for what you have done becomes a lot easier. This has always been a concern in my circles.
Sean


----------



## Draven (Mar 11, 2010)

JWLuiza said:


> [/b]This is a necessary condition for you to be breaking the law. Both contextually and verbally your students should understand that you aren't acting as an agent of the state, especially since part of your advice should be "educate yourself".


 
I thought that as well however, I did ask a lawyer & I was told that the part that says "purport to exercise" refers to any action taken by an officer of the court & that "offical proceeding" ca refer to said lawyer/officer of the court's job to give legal advise. Like I said I can give an opinion but not advise, course the deciding factor between opinion and advise is the PA & court.

If no one is familiar with being a defendant in a criminal case; let me tell you how its worked from my experience. First you are charged based on the "belief" of the AO; here they seem to believe that probable cause is saying you have probable cause, then you get arrested, get a bond hearing & go through the trial process. Guilt or innocence is determined via that process and no excuse or defense means anything until the court decides. The AO already thinks you're guilty otherwise they wouldn't be arresting you; so "shut up" & exercise you're miranda rights; especially your right to "shut up."

Oh and AO; means Arresting Officer...


----------



## just2kicku (Mar 12, 2010)

In my opinion, I don't care about the law. Period. If someone comes up to me and tells me they're going to break my finger, do I stop at just breaking their finger. Is it a like for like action that I'm supposed to take? Hell no. I am going to destroy them. I wouldn't need to do that if I weren't pushed. 

I live by the law, I don't break it. (Except for an occasional speeding ticket) so if I'm forced to break it by no choice of my own, then I'm going for it just shy of killing the guy. I think if more people did that, tere would be less crime.

The laws are made to keep honest citizens honest. Bad guys don't care.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> In my opinion, *I don't care about the law*. Period. If someone comes up to me and tells me they're going to break my finger, do I stop at just breaking their finger. Is it a like for like action that I'm supposed to take? Hell no. I am going to destroy them. I wouldn't need to do that if I weren't pushed.
> 
> *I live by the law*, I don't break it. (Except for an occasional speeding ticket) so if I'm forced to break it by no choice of my own, then I'm going for it just shy of killing the guy. I think if more people did that, tere would be less crime.
> 
> The laws are made to keep honest citizens honest. Bad guys don't care.



Extraordinarily bad advice.  Good luck in prison.


----------



## Draven (Mar 12, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> In my opinion, I don't care about the law. Period. If someone comes up to me and tells me they're going to break my finger, do I stop at just breaking their finger. Is it a like for like action that I'm supposed to take? Hell no. I am going to destroy them. I wouldn't need to do that if I weren't pushed.
> 
> I live by the law, I don't break it. (Except for an occasional speeding ticket) so if I'm forced to break it by no choice of my own, then I'm going for it just shy of killing the guy. I think if more people did that, tere would be less crime.
> 
> The laws are made to keep honest citizens honest. Bad guys don't care.


 
Well while I can't say you have the best example here in not saying you care about the law, I do have to agree with your logic. When "laws" interfer with your ability to protect yourself or even realistically live your life, you have to make a choice. You can either be handicapped by an "artifical social structure" or you can act on the natural law self-preservation...

For all those who take the side of looking the legal aspect & advising against whats considered "excessive force" I have to ask, at what point does the law become more valuable then human life? 

Are we to respect the rights of those who have already violated our legal & natural rights? 

More so, if a LEO "arrests me" for defending myself (and this has happened to me BTW) what makes them any different then the criminal I just "stopped?" 

Finally, I would like to ask this question, if two cars are racing the the fasting car crosses the finish line first (thus establishing the fact that faster finish's first) what does that mean for those law abiding people who allow an "attacker" to reach the "finish line" called excessive/overpowering force first?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 12, 2010)

I think if you are reasonably smart and if you need to defend yourself that you act reasonable under the circumstances then you have a reasonable chance that the LEO, Prosecuting Attorney, Judge will reasonably believe that you acted *within reason*.  Folks, it really is not that hard to be reasonable and responsible in your actions and you will be reasonably treated.  Go beyond that reasonable level and you open yourself up for all kinds of negative consequences!  Who determines what is *reasonable*?  First the witness the the arriving LEO's then it will go on to a prosecuting attorney and may go all the way up to a Judge or jury.  Bottom line know the law in your area and understand it and if you ever god forbid have to use force then be *reasonable* in your actions based off of the law!  This is not rocket science!!! 

That there is a lot of reason!


----------



## just2kicku (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Extraordinarily bad advice.  Good luck in prison.



Gee Bill, I guess not all of us can actually think about what is and isn't against the law while we're being attacked.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 12, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> Gee Bill, I guess not all of us can actually think about what is and isn't against the law while we're being attacked.


Your post came across as "I FINISH IT. UTTERLY. CONTEXT DOES NOT MATTER".

However, if you have the guy fleeing or under control, yet proceed to maim/kill, you are crossing ethical and legal lines.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 12, 2010)

I think you're talking to someone with an incomplete and biased understanding of the legal process and the law...

But I agree with you, Brian.  The concept of reasonableness isn't really that hard to understand.  Yes, it may well come down to the judgment of the arresting officer, prosecutor, and eventually a finder of fact (judge or jury).  That's why you have to have a good grasp of the basic concepts, and why it's imperative for an instructor to share and teach methods to adapt to different levels of force.  Otherwise, you're turning loose an unguided, unaimed, and uncontrollable bomb.


----------



## grydth (Mar 12, 2010)

Guys, there's no need to personalize this debate.

Bottom line, to me, is that it you should know as much as you can about self defense and about the law. Know the consequences of your actions.

Then make your decisions when you have to.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 12, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I think you're talking to someone with an incomplete and biased understanding of the legal process and the law...
> 
> But I agree with you, Brian.  The concept of reasonableness isn't really that hard to understand.  Yes, it may well come down to the judgment of the arresting officer, prosecutor, and eventually a finder of fact (judge or jury).  That's why you have to have a good grasp of the basic concepts, and why it's imperative for an instructor to share and teach methods to adapt to different levels of force.  Otherwise, you're turning loose an unguided, unaimed, and uncontrollable bomb.



Exactly!


----------



## Draven (Mar 12, 2010)

Ok here is the important fact I'd like to address;

a) Reasonably is subjective term; reasonable is based on the individual reason of the investigator, prosecutor or judge. Two people can look at the same event and see different beliefs in whats reasonable based on past experiences, personal fears & ideological differences. Saying use reasonable force doesn't mean anything unless you we can agree on whats reasonable?

b) No one answered the direct questions I asked because they have simple and direct answers. 

c) How many people here beisdes myself have had to defend themselves in court? If you haven't taken part in such, & I don't mean as a wittness, then well you're just a virgin talking about sex. Fact, the system is long and draw out & the DA/PA doesn't inspect cases they just grab a file, read it before trial & go argue whats in the file. 

Better yet allow me to give you all a simple "timeline" break down...
1. Event happens; you get mugged and break mugger's arm when he tries to stab you with a knife. You then call 911 and LEOs show up...

2. LEOs on scene don't know whats going on; they know your stand there & your attackers arm is broken. Your story "he tried to mug you..." his story "YOU tried to mug him, and you broke his arm with a baseball bat you got rid of & he tried to use the knife to defend himself."

3. LEOs arrest you both; charge you with malicious wounding & him for brandishing a weapon & assault. They take you into the station finger print you, snap a picture & then you either have to wait in jail for the magistrate to come in for a bail hearing or you get one that day/night...

4. If you get bail, the magistrate (an elected offical who is not required to know the law but must make decisions of a legal nature) then asks you two questions; 1) is how do you plea & 2) can you afford an attorney or does the court need to appoint one for you. You then fill out some paper work to be represented by the public defenders off.

5. Now if you are charge with a misdemeanor, you get bond out and fill out paperwork with the bondsman & won't even see your Public Defender until he grabs your file and shows up to court at your pretrial motions hearing; your public pretender will then try to convince you to take a plea agreement so he go to the next file on his list... Then you go to step 6.

5a. You are charged with a felony, which means you go through the bond motions & paperwork as before. The state has an "initial appear" somewhere within 3 buisness days from your arrest; you will then meet you Public pretender at the initial appearance & never the person again until your indictment before the grand jury; the feds and some states don't require you be present at your grandjury indictment so you won't see the PD until the pre-trial motions hearing. Then you can get to step 6.

6. You have your day in court & get your chance to explain yourself and convince a judge & jury of your reasonable actions...

All of which can take from a week to years if you are adiment about proving your innocence. All the reasonable doubt in the world doesn't mean anything if its not a trial matter. Further more. it is LEOs job to arrest those they feel are guilty, not determine innocence that the domain of the court.

For further reading;
Stages of Criminal Defense page 1
Stages of Criminal Defense page 2
Duties of a Police Officer

c) Allow me to point why is not only dangerious but stupid for a self-defense instructor to give legal advise. First, off all your doing is justifying a victim attitude; which is most likely there to avoid liability. Course by giving such advise and not being authorized to do so by passing the "state bar" (paralegals know just as much law as lawyers do, however they are not authorized by the state bar to give legal advise) you are making yourself more liable, because your "legal advise for restraint" is a) not valid legal advise & b) if it causes the injury of death of person using that advise you are criminally responsible.

Lets examine the Use of Force Levels:
Level 0: No Confrontation/Need for Violence Present
Level 1: Verbal Warning/Confrontation
Level 2: Verbal Confrontation/Threat of Violence
Level 3: Physical Restraint/Confrontation
Level 4: Lethal Force applied by unarmed techniques
Level 5: Lethal Force directly involving a force multiples (i.e. weapon)

Ok classic use of force SD theory is you climb the ladder as you're attacker climbs the ladder to remain within the confones of reasonable force. Problem as with those two cars racing, whoever gets to higher level first wins, maybe they will stop at knocking you (level 3), maybe they will jump up & down on your skull (level 4) or beat you with a brick (level 5) while you're out. While you are playing catch up they aren't playing. Now just because you're at a higher level mentally doesn't mean you have to go there physically. 

That said, I tell my students to climb down the ladder; they start at the highest level, if unarmed immideately "look for a weapon" within arms reach. Be ready to do severe bodily harm & make threats. Then apply that psychological training they get, if they get multiple warning signs & red flags, go straight into apply a higher level of violence. If a person is directly biligerant and trolling for verbal confrontation they usually want a pretext to engage. Go straight to the level of violence they feel comfortable with that they believe will end the "danger" immideately.

That means if some comes at me with "friends" or has a history of pulling a weapon; I'm gonna go straight to level 5. I'll post bond and go to trial but corpses can't testafy & I'm smart enough to scream so that everyone can hear me "You & your friend s stay back I don't want to fight you." or "I know you like pull knives (guns) so just keep your distance I don't want to fight you." while drawing my own weapon.

Now why I choose to follow that course of action is simple;
a) LEOs don't often have all the info at all & many don't look for all the info; they leave that up to your lawyer & you...
b) Trying to use reasonable force can get in me arrested and standing before a judge & jury at trial just as easily as my disregard for applying reasonable force.
c) Its better to be a living prisoner awaiting parol (even if the wife leaves you & the kids think you're the "bad guy") then a dead slab of meat 6 feet under. At least with parol you can't make up for lost time but you can have sometime to try.
d) I don't believe in fairy tales of heros coming to save the day & I sure as heck don't believe in a victim mentality. All the legal advise in the world doesn't mean squat if its a) not from a lawyer & b) proven in court (which means case law)...


----------



## just2kicku (Mar 13, 2010)

JWLuiza said:


> Your post came across as "I FINISH IT. UTTERLY. CONTEXT DOES NOT MATTER".
> 
> However, if you have the guy fleeing or under control, yet proceed to maim/kill, you are crossing ethical and legal lines.


 

What I'm saying is that at the time of attack, I'm really not too concerned with what the law is or isn't. In fact, at that point in time, I dont care.

Now if I'm a driven to the point of having to fight to defend myself, then yes, I am going to finish it. I don't ask for trouble and I don't mess with anyone, so should my choice of just being left alone be taken away from me by no choice of my own, then I am going to finish it.

I have a friend whose house was broken into at 2:30-3:00 in the morning,
He woke up and shot the guy twice in the chest at about five feet away with a .357. His wife and 2 small children were in the house also. What do you think happened, 5 fricken' years in prison for excessive force. To shoot the guy once was OK, twice is excessive even tho the guy was dead before he hit the ground with the first shot. 

Should he have asked the bad guy to leave first? That would have been the "moral" and "ethical" thing to do. Wow, come to think of it, it would've been the "reasonable" and I guess the "legal" thing to do.

I am glad the Founding Fathers had the nuts to stand up and not be sheep, we'd all be singing "God save the Queen".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> Gee Bill, I guess not all of us can actually think about what is and isn't against the law while we're being attacked.



_"I don't care what the law says"_ and _"I follow the law"_ are inconsistent statements, and taken together they mean _"I have no idea what I'm talking about.  Just wanted to hear my head ring."_  The advice contained within those two statements consisted of gibberish, which makes for very bad advice.

No, a person can't always think about what is and is not legal at the time of an attack.  However, I don't think about breathing either,  I just know how to do it.  If you plan to defend yourself, know what the law is - that's your responsiblity.  If you don't care about the law, then as I said, good luck in prison.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> I have a friend whose house was broken into at 2:30-3:00 in the morning,
> He woke up and shot the guy twice in the chest at about five feet away with a .357. His wife and 2 small children were in the house also. What do you think happened, 5 fricken' years in prison for excessive force. To shoot the guy once was OK, twice is excessive even tho the guy was dead before he hit the ground with the first shot.



Cite or it didn't happen.  I do not believe it went down as you're describing.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 13, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> Gee Bill, I guess not all of us can actually think about what is and isn't against the law while we're being attacked.


A lack of control indicates you aren't planning your attack, so to speak. There is a fine line between ending the threat and playing in the bloody mess.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2010)

Great replies everyone. Lets keep this thread going! 

My apologies for not returning sooner. After reading the posts, I'll toss in a few more pennies. 

First, unless I missed it, I dont think I really saw a clear cut answer to a question that I asked in my OP, which was if we look at the techs. in our art, we'll see that, if we go by the 'letter of the law' that theres really very little that we can do, without it being considered overboard.

Regarding some of the recent comments...I think if we were to look at the art in question, we'll see that many of these arts, 2 that come to mind would be Krav Maga and Kenpo/Kajukenbo, we'd see 2 no nonsense arts. 2 arts that pretty much destroy the guy facing you.

I think that due to the nature of the attitude of the bad guys today, which is basically the fact that they don't give a rats *** about you, what they take from you, what they do to you, your family, etc., so in return, our attitude is the same. 

The other part that I dont believe was addressed, was the fact that it seems, at least to me anyways, that the general consensus is that there will always be a witness to the attack. I disagree with that notion. I could leave work tonight, head to my bank to use the ATM, and despite the bank being on a busy street, at that hour, if I were to be attacked, nobody passing by on the street would see me. Additionally, and I may be wrong in saying this, but its simply my opinion, but I'm not hanging around. Would the bad guy, after he stabbed and robbed me, hang around, tend to my wound or call for help? Not likely. 

My thinking is pretty much in line with Joes....we mind our own business, but at the time of the attack, an attack that we didn't bring onto ourselves, we're going to finish it, plain and simple. As I said, my concern at that time is for me and anyone with me. I always have, and always will, do my best to verbally defuse something, if possible, that being the key word.  Of course, dont mistake that for me giving the impression that I'm going to beg and plead for forgiveness. No, instead, I'll attempt to talk thigns down, but I'm going to be firm in doing so.  The other person will not get the reaction, the intimidation from me, that he's hoping for. But if that isn't an option, then whatever happens, happens. I'll deal with the other stuff later. I have no criminal record, have a job in which I work in a LE environment, and mind my own business. So if the day were to come, that I land in court, it should be quite obvious as to who the real victim in the matter is.


----------



## Draven (Mar 13, 2010)

Unfortunately, my understanding is that it doesn't matter what you do; you will be charged. Its also up to the opinion of judge and jury. This is where politics comes in at but as an example; you have individuals whose belief are firmly rooted in self-reliance & self-defense and others who are firmly rooted in government reliance & depend on the government to defend them...

That "administrator of justice" can see "going to the ground for submission hold" excessive force; because once the attacker is on the ground the threat ends & someone else may say that "because you didn't attempt retreat you used excessive force." It really comes down to what the local political view of one's judges, magastrates & other elected offical try to push.

I think in most cases any MA can be considered "excessive force" in application, take the "Rodney King Beating" the court ruled that the LEOs didn't use excessive force until the last 5 or 6 strikes. If a judge feels the attacker was no longer a threat once knocked to the ground then a simple MMA ground & pound or perhaps even a choke hold common to most MAs is excessive force. Most likely it will be the job around LE more then evidence which will get you out of trouble...


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2010)

Draven said:


> Unfortunately, my understanding is that it doesn't matter what you do; you will be charged. Its also up to the opinion of judge and jury. This is where politics comes in at but as an example; you have individuals whose belief are firmly rooted in self-reliance & self-defense and others who are firmly rooted in government reliance & depend on the government to defend them...
> 
> That "administrator of justice" can see "going to the ground for submission hold" excessive force; because once the attacker is on the ground the threat ends & someone else may say that "because you didn't attempt retreat you used excessive force." It really comes down to what the local political view of one's judges, magastrates & other elected offical try to push.
> 
> I think in most cases any MA can be considered "excessive force" in application, take the "Rodney King Beating" the court ruled that the LEOs didn't use excessive force until the last 5 or 6 strikes. If a judge feels the attacker was no longer a threat once knocked to the ground then a simple MMA ground & pound or perhaps even a choke hold common to most MAs is excessive force. Most likely it will be the job around LE more then evidence which will get you out of trouble...


 
And this is why, in my OP, I mentioned some Kenpo techs., in which for simple attacks, its taken to the extreme. Its kinda like your reverse ladder theory. The Kenpo techs. start with the extreme, but IMO, its up to the person doing the tech, to be able to modify accordingly. So, this is really where I was going with this thread...no matter what we do, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont. If I'm going to get the potential shaft I may as well defend myself anyways.  

Regarding the once you're on the ground the threat is over....think about this...how many techs. do we see, in which we take the guy down, and do a few more strikes? Happens all the time. Hell, look at Kaju...perfect example, with their groundwork. I'm not talking about grappling groundwork, but the multiple strikes that're thrown when the person is on the ground. IMO, just because we take the person down, does not mean that the threat is removed, and thats what the courts will most likely fail to see. I can take someone down, and they could get right back up again. Taking them down, and doing a few strikes to end it, vs. continuing to strike after the threat is removed...thats the difference IMO.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 13, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> What I'm saying is that at the time of attack, I'm really not too concerned with what the law is or isn't. In fact, at that point in time, I dont care.
> 
> Now if I'm a driven to the point of having to fight to defend myself, then yes, I am going to finish it. I don't ask for trouble and I don't mess with anyone, so should my choice of just being left alone be taken away from me by no choice of my own, then I am going to finish it.
> 
> ...


Bull pockey.

There're details not being presented, like a delay between the two shots, or he should have fired his lawyer or a plea bargain that may have been more in his attorney's interest than his.  It doesn't work that way.

Folks, very simply, if you use force to defend yourself, you may indeed find yourself under arrest.  The general principle of our society is that you don't get to shoot, hit, or beat upon each other.  The claim of self defense is an affirmative defense, which means that you admit you did something that you shouldn't have -- but you were justified in doing so because you reasonably believed yourself to be facing immediate attack.  If you find yourself arrested -- get the best lawyer you can beg, borrow, or sell the naming rights to your firstborn child to afford.  You want someone on your side who knows the rules -- and is going to look after your interests.  I'm going to suggest that, while you absolutely should listen to your attorney's guidance, if he's telling you to take a plea to something you didn't do or feel you were justified in doing...  At least talk to another attorney before you take the plea.

And, before it happens, learn about articulation.  Cops make their cases in court by how they articulate what they saw, and what they did.  So will you in a self-defense case; how you can convince the police, and perhaps ultimately a judge or jury that you were indeed justified in your actions will make the difference between conviction and freedom.

When you use force to defend yourself, you are permitted to use no more force than a reasonable person would find was appropriate and proportionate to the threat presented.  It's not a tit-for-tat stair step or ladder where you must be exactly on the same rung.  The force used must be appropriate; you cannot use lethal force unless you are confronted by an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death.  (The Castle Doctrine loosely says that you can assume that a person breaking into your house while you're there is probably out to do you serious harm.)  Serious bodily harm generally includes things like maiming, or even significant broken bones, as well as lethal attacks.

If you're going to choose to teach self defense as part of martial arts instruction, or as a stand-alone program, you owe it to yourself (you may wish to review the term vicarious liability) as well as your students to do some basic research and be able to explain the general concepts and principles of these ideas.  You also have, in my opinion, a moral and ethical duty to teach students an appropriate range of responses.  I think the most negligent thing a security company can do is put a guard out, armed only with a sidearm, no baton, no pepper... nothing between going hand-to-hand and shooting someone.  And I see it happen all too often...  Teaching someone self defense skills without teaching them to scale their responses and giving them a range of responses is right up there, too.  

It ain't easy -- but you have to remain calm and respond appropriately to an attack.  And know when to stop.  You don't have to start at the barest minimum response as someone's trying to kill you -- but you also can't shoot someone for throwing dirty looks your way.  The general goal of self defense is simple: deal with the initial attack, and prevent further attack so that you can get away.  Law enforcement has a different responsibility; we generally have to duty to contain, constrain, and restrain the people we're dealing with.  (Cops are also generally held to a higher standard on use of force than a civilian.)

These are general principles that anyone can learn and share.  If you don't trust someone to be able to respond with a reasonable level of control after they've been trained -- what they hell are you doing teaching them in the first place?!


----------



## Draven (Mar 13, 2010)

Well like I said it goes back to politics; I've had to be wittness at a few trials where students or someone else had  been charged with "battery" because they were defending themselves. A lot of times excessive force comes down to ideological or political opinion; liberal judges & juriors seem more willing to "call for restraint" then conservation judges & juriors.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> First, unless I missed it, I dont think I really saw a clear cut answer to a question that I asked in my OP, which was if we look at the techs. in our art, we'll see that, if we go by the 'letter of the law' that theres really very little that we can do, without it being considered overboard.


There's plenty you can do; it's all about control and target selection.  You can punch the chest or shoulder rather than the throat; you can slap rather than rip the face off... or you can just stop when the attack stops.





> I think that due to the nature of the attitude of the bad guys today, which is basically the fact that they don't give a rats *** about you, what they take from you, what they do to you, your family, etc., so in return, our attitude is the same.


The predators never have, any more than the lion cares about the antelope.  Rather than rehash what someone's done better than I can here, I refer you to Rory Miller's book *Meditations on Violence*.  

And I'll note that most of us will not encounter real violence or real predators; we're much more likely to encounter a Monkey Dance scenario.





> The other part that I dont believe was addressed, was the fact that it seems, at least to me anyways, that the general consensus is that there will always be a witness to the attack. I disagree with that notion. I could leave work tonight, head to my bank to use the ATM, and despite the bank being on a busy street, at that hour, if I were to be attacked, nobody passing by on the street would see me. Additionally, and I may be wrong in saying this, but its simply my opinion, but I'm not hanging around. Would the bad guy, after he stabbed and robbed me, hang around, tend to my wound or call for help? Not likely.


I don't assume that there'll be a witness who can help you or provide context.  As a cop, I can't tell you how often I've heard one variant or another of "I saw what happened..." to be followed by "I heard... and then I looked over."  So they didn't really see...

But, in today's Western world, at least, there's a damn good chance that you're actions will be captured on somebody's video.  It may be a security camera, or it may be a bystander who can't be bothered to use that same phone they're videoing you with to call 911...  And they won't stick around , either.





> My thinking is pretty much in line with Joes....we mind our own business, but at the time of the attack, an attack that we didn't bring onto ourselves, we're going to finish it, plain and simple. As I said, my concern at that time is for me and anyone with me. I always have, and always will, do my best to verbally defuse something, if possible, that being the key word.  Of course, dont mistake that for me giving the impression that I'm going to beg and plead for forgiveness. No, instead, I'll attempt to talk thigns down, but I'm going to be firm in doing so.  The other person will not get the reaction, the intimidation from me, that he's hoping for. But if that isn't an option, then whatever happens, happens. I'll deal with the other stuff later. I have no criminal record, have a job in which I work in a LE environment, and mind my own business. So if the day were to come, that I land in court, it should be quite obvious as to who the real victim in the matter is.


In law enforcement, we learn to act until the threat is stopped.  Only then do you stop, whether it's shooting or using a baton or going hands on.  As civilized beings, you have to be able to flip the switch to "ON" to deal with the attack, and then back to "OFF" when the threat stops.


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> There's plenty you can do; it's all about control and target selection. You can punch the chest or shoulder rather than the throat; you can slap rather than rip the face off... or you can just stop when the attack stops.


 
Agreed, and I said that very thing in my OP.  However, you said yourself, in your reply to just2kicku, that you may find yourself under arrest. May/may not happen, but unless you do nothing, then you face that risk.




> The predators never have, any more than the lion cares about the antelope. Rather than rehash what someone's done better than I can here, I refer you to Rory Miller's book *Meditations on Violence*.
> 
> And I'll note that most of us will not encounter real violence or real predators; we're much more likely to encounter a Monkey Dance scenario.
> I don't assume that there'll be a witness who can help you or provide context. As a cop, I can't tell you how often I've heard one variant or another of "I saw what happened..." to be followed by "I heard... and then I looked over." So they didn't really see...


 
Very good book. I have it and am in the process of reading it. And you're right, the monkey dance is what we have a good chance of facing. Would you consider a mugging or carjacking or home invasion a monkey dance though? These are things that happen all the time, without the prefight posturing. 



> But, in today's Western world, at least, there's a damn good chance that you're actions will be captured on somebody's video. It may be a security camera, or it may be a bystander who can't be bothered to use that same phone they're videoing you with to call 911... And they won't stick around , either.


 
Anythings possible. 




> In law enforcement, we learn to act until the threat is stopped. Only then do you stop, whether it's shooting or using a baton or going hands on. As civilized beings, you have to be able to flip the switch to "ON" to deal with the attack, and then back to "OFF" when the threat stops.


 
I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was saying that after the threat was over, that I'd continue. Likewise I never said that I'd KO someone for calling me an *******. But, I also do not feel that we, as people, should be victims. As I've said, I keep to myself, dont frequent bad areas or problem locations. I'll refer back to my usual story, of when I was walking my dog thru my condo complex, made eye contact with someone in a passing car, I kept walking, the car stopped, and the passenger got out, yelling back at me, asking if, in his exact words, "Do you have a ****ing problem?" to which I stopped, turned around, looked around to confirm he was talking to me, and simply said, "Nope, no problem." Now, because I didn't bow down and kiss this guys ***, begging him for forgiveness, but instead stood there, not giving in, not giving him the reaction he was hoping for, somehow, my actions are frowned upon. Go figure. Personally, that guy could go **** himself, and here's why:

1) I did nothing wrong.

2) I made eye contact because I honestly thought I knew him or he knew me, but we didn't recognize each other.

3) He was clearly trying to intimidate me, but again, I wasn't giving in.

4) He backed off, and went about his business, because a) he didnt want to risk getting bit by the dog, b) he really was, deep down, a chicken **** *****, or c) realized I wasn't going to cower and his tough guy talk.

Again, I said nothing offensive or aggressive towards him, made no aggressive move towards him. I just stood there, and had every right to do so. Only if he came at me, would I have done something. But again, I'm the bad guy, because I didn't bow down to him. I stood my ground, and made him know that I was confident in my actions. 

As tempting as it may be, to get in one last shot, while the guy is down, I'm not that stupid.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 14, 2010)

As Jks9199 pointed out you need to be able to turn it off and on.  You need to be able to scale back once the threat has been neutralized.  Your neutralization of the threat cannot go beyond what would be considered reasonable under the circumstances.  So when you go to finalize a situation your level of force must be justifiable based on this unique individual situation.  In other words you cannot let your emotions run and control you.  Professionals like LEO's, Correction Officers, etc. have to do this not routinely because no violent encounter is routine but they experience having to justify their actions in a violent encounter.  Your average citizen simply does not but someone who is training in the Martial Sciences should make it a part of their training and understanding.  Having someone who knows the law ie. lawyer, LEO and can express an understanding of the law to practitioners is very important.  In our Instinctive Response Training Hall in the North ie. Alma, Michigan we have a lawyer who keeps us up to date on the law.  He is also a practitioner and understands our needs.  Then I also have my background in law enforcement to help and explain to practitioners what they can and cannot do.  I believe jks9199 mentioned that you owe it to yourself and people you train with to do quite a bit of research and have a firm understanding of the law and how to articulate what happened.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 14, 2010)

MJS said:


> Agreed, and I said that very thing in my OP.  However, you said yourself, in your reply to just2kicku, that you may find yourself under arrest. May/may not happen, but unless you do nothing, then you face that risk.


There may be nothing you can do to prevent the arrest.  Be ready to give a relatively clear, but short explanation, to the cops when they arrive.  Or lawyer up right away...  and say nothing.  You can get advice ranging from "tell it all" to "say nothing!" and all of it's good advice, but each choice will shape what happens.  Discuss it with a lawyer, 'cause what I'd do calls on my background and professional connections.  


> Very good book. I have it and am in the process of reading it. And you're right, the monkey dance is what we have a good chance of facing. Would you consider a mugging or carjacking or home invasion a monkey dance though? These are things that happen all the time, without the prefight posturing.


Mugging and carjackings are "real violence."  The Monkey Dance is a status fight; each culture has it's own rules for how it develops and when it stops.  And some predatory attacks do have a posturing element (brandishing a gun or knife in a robbery for example, rather than simply shooting/stabbing...) but you have to always assume that it's for real.  A Monkey Dance will only occur between two people who at least believe they have relatively equal status, so have equal amounts to gain or lose.  Otherwise, they look like idiots.  If there's nothing to lose or gain, the Monkey Dance won't happen.  You don't see a Rotty yipping and barking at everything that moves (as a general rule) they way you do a litlle ankle biter like a Pomeranian.



> I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was saying that after the threat was over, that I'd continue. Likewise I never said that I'd KO someone for calling me an *******. But, I also do not feel that we, as people, should be victims. As I've said, I keep to myself, dont frequent bad areas or problem locations. I'll refer back to my usual story, of when I was walking my dog thru my condo complex, made eye contact with someone in a passing car, I kept walking, the car stopped, and the passenger got out, yelling back at me, asking if, in his exact words, "Do you have a ****ing problem?" to which I stopped, turned around, looked around to confirm he was talking to me, and simply said, "Nope, no problem." Now, because I didn't bow down and kiss this guys ***, begging him for forgiveness, but instead stood there, not giving in, not giving him the reaction he was hoping for, somehow, my actions are frowned upon. Go figure. Personally, that guy could go **** himself, and here's why:
> 
> 1) I did nothing wrong.
> 
> ...



I've never said simply be a victim -- and I didn't think you were advocating overkill or overreaction to threats.  What I'm saying is that, while many of the techniques we do in various martial sciences are practiced to the overkill level -- you have to be enough of a human being to shape your reaction to the actual attack.  The Bando Monk System is a nonviolent martial art; a monk practitioner chooses to accept a risk of injury in using evasion and non-lethal (or even non-injurious) responses to attacks.  Their techniques aren't all that different from "normal" techniques -- it's the intent and execution that control the response.  The same applies to any of us.


----------



## MJS (Mar 15, 2010)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> As Jks9199 pointed out you need to be able to turn it off and on. You need to be able to scale back once the threat has been neutralized. Your neutralization of the threat cannot go beyond what would be considered reasonable under the circumstances. So when you go to finalize a situation your level of force must be justifiable based on this unique individual situation. In other words you cannot let your emotions run and control you. Professionals like LEO's, Correction Officers, etc. have to do this not routinely because no violent encounter is routine but they experience having to justify their actions in a violent encounter. Your average citizen simply does not but someone who is training in the Martial Sciences should make it a part of their training and understanding. Having someone who knows the law ie. lawyer, LEO and can express an understanding of the law to practitioners is very important. In our Instinctive Response Training Hall in the North ie. Alma, Michigan we have a lawyer who keeps us up to date on the law. He is also a practitioner and understands our needs. Then I also have my background in law enforcement to help and explain to practitioners what they can and cannot do. I believe jks9199 mentioned that you owe it to yourself and people you train with to do quite a bit of research and have a firm understanding of the law and how to articulate what happened.


 
Hey Brian,

I agree with what you're saying, and again, I apologize if I gave another impression.  I'm always stressing that its important to assess each situation.   I'll always try to talk first, but as we all know, thats not always going to work.  Interestingly enough, I was talking with one of my Arnis insts. last week.  He's a Capt. in the Dept. of Corrections, with a little over 20yrs in.  We were discussing use of force, and some incidents regarding excessive force on the part of some of the COs.  

Anywys, again, sorry if I gave the wrong idea.  I do maintain a few of the things that I have said, in addition to what Joe (Just2kicku) said as well, that being, that people should not have to walk around in fear of either their attacker or fear of using what we train in.  If that was the case, then my next question is...why train?  Like I said, I'll worry about the other stuff later.  My #1 concern is my well being.


----------



## MJS (Mar 15, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> There may be nothing you can do to prevent the arrest. Be ready to give a relatively clear, but short explanation, to the cops when they arrive. Or lawyer up right away... and say nothing. You can get advice ranging from "tell it all" to "say nothing!" and all of it's good advice, but each choice will shape what happens. Discuss it with a lawyer, 'cause what I'd do calls on my background and professional connections.


 
Agreed, and certainly good advice.  Again, this is all on the assumption that everyone hangs around.  



> Mugging and carjackings are "real violence." The Monkey Dance is a status fight; each culture has it's own rules for how it develops and when it stops. And some predatory attacks do have a posturing element (brandishing a gun or knife in a robbery for example, rather than simply shooting/stabbing...) but you have to always assume that it's for real. A Monkey Dance will only occur between two people who at least believe they have relatively equal status, so have equal amounts to gain or lose. Otherwise, they look like idiots. If there's nothing to lose or gain, the Monkey Dance won't happen. You don't see a Rotty yipping and barking at everything that moves (as a general rule) they way you do a litlle ankle biter like a Pomeranian.


 
Agreed, and this was in response to when you said that most people will never encounter real violence.



> And I'll note that most of us will not encounter real violence or real predators; we're much more likely to encounter a Monkey Dance scenario


 
To this I disagree, as the things that I mention happen all the time.  Just within the past 2 weeks, in the city that I work in, there was a carjacking, with the victim getting serious injuries, and 2 people assaulted by a group of males that had baseball bats.  I can list 2 cities in CT, in which shootings happen on a regular basis.  





> I've never said simply be a victim -- and I didn't think you were advocating overkill or overreaction to threats. What I'm saying is that, while many of the techniques we do in various martial sciences are practiced to the overkill level -- you have to be enough of a human being to shape your reaction to the actual attack. The Bando Monk System is a nonviolent martial art; a monk practitioner chooses to accept a risk of injury in using evasion and non-lethal (or even non-injurious) responses to attacks. Their techniques aren't all that different from "normal" techniques -- it's the intent and execution that control the response. The same applies to any of us.


 
You're right, and this is something I pointed out in my OP.  I gave an example of some attacks, things such as lapel grabs, with the end result being a dislocated or broken arm.  Problem is, is that I have to wonder how many instructors actually teach this.  Then again, as Joe said, will people be thinking this, or will they be thinking, just deal with the threat at hand.  I mean is someone really going to be thinking, "Ok, this guy is getting ready to punch me.  How do I not hurt him too bad?"  Or will they be thinking, "Incoming strike.  I'm going to defend myself with whatever means possible!"


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> Agreed, and this was in response to when you said that most people will never encounter real violence.
> 
> To this I disagree, as the things that I mention happen all the time.  Just within the past 2 weeks, in the city that I work in, there was a carjacking, with the victim getting serious injuries, and 2 people assaulted by a group of males that had baseball bats.  I can list 2 cities in CT, in which shootings happen on a regular basis.


The stats still say that most people are not direct victims of real violence.  Doesn't mean it won't happen to you or any other particular person at any time.  And, of course, choices you or our hypothetical person make can increase the odds that they'll be a victim.  If you go into Anacostia in DC, for example...  It's far more likely that we'll encounter some sort of Monkey Dance that may escalate to violence.  

And you can get just as hurt or dead in a Monkey Dance that escalates to violence as by a predatory attack.


> You're right, and this is something I pointed out in my OP.  I gave an example of some attacks, things such as lapel grabs, with the end result being a dislocated or broken arm.  Problem is, is that I have to wonder how many instructors actually teach this.  Then again, as Joe said, will people be thinking this, or will they be thinking, just deal with the threat at hand.  I mean is someone really going to be thinking, "Ok, this guy is getting ready to punch me.  How do I not hurt him too bad?"  Or will they be thinking, "Incoming strike.  I'm going to defend myself with whatever means possible!"



Very few instructors really teach how to scale responses.  Of course, I'd argue that there ain't all that many who really know how to teach preparation for violence, either.


----------



## MJS (Mar 17, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> The stats still say that most people are not direct victims of real violence. Doesn't mean it won't happen to you or any other particular person at any time. And, of course, choices you or our hypothetical person make can increase the odds that they'll be a victim. If you go into Anacostia in DC, for example... It's far more likely that we'll encounter some sort of Monkey Dance that may escalate to violence.
> 
> And you can get just as hurt or dead in a Monkey Dance that escalates to violence as by a predatory attack.


 
Not sure how the stats can say this, due to the fact that 'real violence' happens all the time.  Perhaps I'm not understanding what the stats are saying real violence is.  




> Very few instructors really teach how to scale responses. Of course, I'd argue that there ain't all that many who really know how to teach preparation for violence, either.


 
Fortunately my current teachers are all capable of doing this.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 18, 2010)

MJS said:


> Not sure how the stats can say this, due to the fact that 'real violence' happens all the time.  Perhaps I'm not understanding what the stats are saying real violence is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think we're talking past each other.  I'm not digging up the numbers, but most people aren't a victim of violence past grade school fights.  When you get to the set of victims -- yeah, they're victims of violence.  Though there's still a fair set of people who are equal participants in bar fights or similar events that have more to do with a Monkey Dance than a predatory attack.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 18, 2010)

MJS said:


> Not sure how the stats can say this, due to the fact that 'real violence' happens all the time.  Perhaps I'm not understanding what the stats are saying real violence is.



The stats say you probably will not win the lottery.  However, someone wins every week.  Make sense now?

It's pretty easy to get the statistics.  The FBI maintains them.  The most recent "Crime in the United States" report is for 2008.  For the entire US:

Year:
2008

US Population:
304,059,724

Number of reported violent crimes:
1,382,012

Violent crime rate:
454.5 per 100,000 residents

That, by the way, is down from a violent crime rate of 666.9 in 1998.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html

You can break this kind of data down by regions - the information is all there.  The federal government issues some cautions on relying on the raw data to draw conclusions, but overall, the basic information is what it is; if you're a US resident, in 2008, you stood roughly a one-half of one percent chance of being a victim of a violent crime.

That would tend to the support the idea that although over a million violent crimes occurred in the USA, a random person stood a statistical .45 percent chance of being a victim of such crime.

Yes, real violence happens all the time.  And the chances of it happening to one of us are no doubt very much higher based on circumstances not present in the raw data.  Where we live, how we live, whom we associate with, where we go; all of these could tend to increase or decrease our individual chances of facing a violent attack.  Some of these circumstances we might be able to control - like choosing not to hang around in bars; and some we might not be able to control - like living in an expensive subdivision instead of an inner city.  But on average, we face a fairly low chance of being involved in a violent crime.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I think we're talking past each other. I'm not digging up the numbers, but most people aren't a victim of violence past grade school fights. When you get to the set of victims -- yeah, they're victims of violence. Though there's still a fair set of people who are equal participants in bar fights or similar events that have more to do with a Monkey Dance than a predatory attack.


 
I dont believe I said that a situation would definately be one or the other.  I think its pretty obvious that each situation will vary.  Certainly, IMO, a mugging and some drunk knucklehead giving you crap are different.  As for the other part, I'll address that with Bills post, as its along the same lines.



Bill Mattocks said:


> The stats say you probably will not win the lottery. However, someone wins every week. Make sense now?
> 
> It's pretty easy to get the statistics. The FBI maintains them. The most recent "Crime in the United States" report is for 2008. For the entire US:
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the stats Bill.   I certainly agree and this is something that I myself has said many times, that depending on where you live, where you hang out, etc, can all play a part.  For myself though, I dont want to assume, just because its on paper, that certain things wont happen.  IMO, thats like some of these MMA guys that talk about high percentage moves.  They look at 5 fighters, see them doing a certain move with success, and assume that they themselves will have equal success.  I disagree with that, because what works for those 5, may not work for another 5.

In all honesty, I think that no matter what the PC thing to do is, it wont always happen.  In the 'heat of the moment' for lack of better words, people will not be thinking, and they'll just have to deal with whatever happens.


----------



## BLACK LION (Mar 19, 2010)

I think I am in accordance with MJS on the basis that; Becuase I train for worst case scenario ultimate force will be used when its is right to do so and if or when that time comes...legality will be the farthest from my thought process.  
To me, no judical system set up by man supercedes that which was preset by GOD... if the natural order of things puts me in the path of a monster its my job to onliterate his existence.  Ultimately my penance is with my maker and no mortal has a right to convict me....not when preservation of life is the reason.  
If it is truly about protection and preservation I WILL do whatever is warranted but it will be my moral compass guiding me.


----------



## Draven (Mar 19, 2010)

The problem with every arguement presented here is that it seems we are trying to avoid being charged. I won't go into details but I had a situation where my lil brother was messed up on pills, weed & alcohol and came to my house. I was trying to get him to pass out on the couch & calm down but one thing led to another and I kicked him out. He broke back in knife in hand & lunged at me; my response was to hit him in the head with a hammer. Now I have a malicious wounding charge, because the LEO felt I was using "excessive force." Now the grand jury has failed to indict me and this June will be over a year since the incident occurred.

Fine, I was arrested and out on bond within an hour & at my initial appearance the AO didn't even know what kind of knife was used much less the CSI drama investigation. However, he is involved in various political orgs & churchs; which are anti-2A...


----------



## buldog (Mar 20, 2010)

I had my own run in with the justice system many years ago.  I was at a State Park with 4 friends who were on leave from the Navy.  Needless to say we had quite a few beers with us at the barbeque that helped fuel the incident.  There was another group close by of about 20 people, one of whom really did not like one of my buddies.  They got to running their mouths and eventually got into it.  Lasted all of a few seconds when my friend took him down and pounded him out with about 4 punches.  While that was going on, another of their group swept the knee of my buddy was on a cane due to tendonitis. Bad mistake (he was a black belt in TKD and HKD).  He procedes to start choking him out and from the look on his face he was not going to stop either.  I get down and talk him out of killing the guy and get them seperated and the guy picks up a 3 ft log and starts swinging it at me.  Which is when the park ranger shows up.  He marches us all back to the parking lot and calls the cops.  My group just waits calmly for them to arrive but the 2 guys from the other group flee in their car (the cops caught them at the hospital later one with a badly swollen throat and the other with a broken jaw, eye socket and nose that wouldn't stop bleeding).  After all the statements are taken 2 people are arrested.  My buddy with the bloody knuckles and ME.  They did not arrest my MA buddy because he was defending himself, which was cool.  However, a number of the other witnesses claimed I held down the first guy while bloody knuckles beat the crap out of him and the ranger saw the other guy coming at me with the log so he figured I was definitely involved in the fight.  The 2 of us are at the station giving our statements when the Sgt. walks in and starts yelling at the cop for having 2 convicts unrestrained at the same time.  He grabs me, cuffs me, jabs me it the ribs a few times with his baton and then slams my face into the wall and throws me in a cell.  Bloody knuckles gets to leave about 15 minutes later, so I figure I'll be out soon.  That's when they bring in the 2 guys from the hospital and they get processed out in an hour or so.  I spoke up and asked when I was going to be released and was told "shut up convict".  It was not until 14 hours later that they let me go.  They asked me if I wanted to make a statement and I said hell no just let me out of here.  Well as it turned out the dozen or so times I had gone over the incident never counted as my statement. When it got to court I was viewed as the guy who fought with police and would not cooperate!  To make it worse, all my buddies were back on duty in the Med and could not testify. It was me against a dozen of the other group.  I got lucky in that the judge was able to see through all the bull and had a soft spot for the military.  It ended up as Nolo Contendre.  A good result but I still had to spend a night in jail and pay for an lawyer who did absolutely nothing to earn their pay (I got the impression that she thought I was lying to her).
Luckily, I have avoided any other serious confrontations since.  Pardon my rant but that has been bugging me for over 20 yrs.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 20, 2010)

Folks, let's not turn this into a "this is how the cops abused me" thread.  Those never, ever end well...

The question asked in the OP, as I understand it is this:  How do you handle the overkill inherent in the practice of many techniques or kata so that you don't go to jail?

I'm never going to advocate being a punching bag or simply taking abuse.  OK, there are a few circumstances, like dealing with a toddler, where you may deliberately choose to accept or receive the attacks without countering... but you can still avoid and evade.  And that's the key, to me -- your responses don't have to be rote application of a drill or kata or technique.  When it's appropriate, you may strike to the bicep instead of the head, or turn a punch into a push.  A throw may end in a controlled drop rather than a slam.  Or you may stop before the "completion" of the technique.

But doing this isn't easy, and takes particularized training.  You have to go beyond the simple repetition, and move into actual practicing the techniques in realistic manners.  You have to use some scenario-like training, including practicing that judgment call about when to stop a response.


----------



## Draven (Mar 20, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I'm never going to advocate being a punching bag or simply taking abuse. OK, there are a few circumstances, like dealing with a toddler, where you may deliberately choose to accept or receive the attacks without countering... but you can *still avoid and evade.* And that's the key, to me -- your responses don't have to be rote application of a drill or kata or technique. *When it's appropriate,* *you may strike to the bicep instead of the head, or turn a punch into a push. A throw may end in a controlled drop rather than a slam. Or you may stop before the "completion" of the technique.*


 
I see this (in bold) as an exercise in futility. First off avoiding and evading all come before the situation turns violent; you can avoid the high risk areas & behaviors so you don't need to defend yourself and you can evade a possible threat before it gets to that "oops" point. Trying to evade & avoid in the fight is allowing your assailant to attack and attacking means controlling the situation. When you give up control you've already lost...

However, it is never "appropriate" to hold back when your life or safety is threatened. Simply put you don't know what that person will do so if they are threatening you with violence assume the worst. More so, who decides whats "appropriate..?" Who has the right to tell you that you have to "be gentle" when the other guy is criminally assaulting you..? Again trying to "play by the rules" while someone else isn't is allowing them to control the situation & its basicly setting you up for failure...

Going to jail is like being punched in face; you always assume it worse then what it is when you've never had it happen to you & when it happens it ain't as bad as you thought it would be. Course, it stills sucks regardless but charged doesn't mean convicted. When looking at the legal of this we have to realize two things; 1) the people making laws often don't have a clue about self-defense or violence & 2) all laws are based on ceratin political ideologies which support the "welfare state concept" & exist to make doing anything but allowing the .gov crowd to come save you a crime.

Once you start looking at those two facts it makes the legal arguement of whats "appropriate" seem pointless; since in some states you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. That cuts your options down real quickly; go to jail or go to the morgue. The only options you have is fight or die.

More so, lets not believe the hype ourselves here; we're martial artists not action movie super heros. We aren't smarter, stronger, faster & more skilled then the "bad guys" because we train in an MA. Fact is in jail all you have is time & most people just hit the wieghts or do various body weight exercises to get stronger & faster. There are all kinds of liberary books & college courses you can take so they get smarter & their is more experienced criminials to learn from. Some of which are also martial artists & there are "prison martial arts." There is a huge difference between a gutter punk trying to get a fix or some wonna be trying to "prove themselves" & an experienced criminal "educated" by the system. Problem is you don't know if the person attacking you is a pro or punk & you only have a few seconds to find out.

The only "appropriate" reaction is to nuetralize the attacker by whatever means is necessary & neutralize means "stop them." If you injure an attacker and can break contact do it & if you bust their head on the curb like an over rip melon its "appropriate" as long as you break contact at the first chance you get. The same rule in groundfighting applies in SD; never give an opponent your back. If you break contact without stopping the threat you risk being blindsided & getting yourself seriously hurt...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2010)

> The only "appropriate" reaction is to nuetralize the attacker by whatever means is necessary & neutralize means "stop them."




http://www.register-herald.com/poli...r-man-indicted-for-assaulting-federal-officer

http://www.register-herald.com/policecourts/x519093650/Man-gets-one-year-in-jail

How's that philosophy been working for you so far, Ron?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 20, 2010)

Draven said:


> I see this (in bold) as an exercise in futility. First off avoiding and evading all come before the situation turns violent; you can avoid the high risk areas & behaviors so you don't need to defend yourself and you can evade a possible threat before it gets to that "oops" point. Trying to evade & avoid in the fight is allowing your assailant to attack and attacking means controlling the situation. When you give up control you've already lost...
> 
> However, it is never "appropriate" to hold back when your life or safety is threatened. Simply put you don't know what that person will do so if they are threatening you with violence assume the worst. More so, who decides whats "appropriate..?" Who has the right to tell you that you have to "be gentle" when the other guy is criminally assaulting you..? Again trying to "play by the rules" while someone else isn't is allowing them to control the situation & its basicly setting you up for failure...


There's a story of one of the great teachers in my system.  He was a holy man or monk in India, and one day, he was set upon by four men who were unhappy that he refused their request for money.  Using evasive stepping and impressive emotional restraint, he managed to subdue or drive off two of the men at the scene, and used locks and restrained the other two.  He took the two he had restrained to his home, and they became his disciples.  He, due to his religious beliefs, chose not to use lethal force, or even do serious harm to his attackers.

There is a time for restraint and control.  Even wild animals recognize this; a dominance battle rarely ends in the death of the loser.  It's unwise at a minimum to react without control or thought; what you have basically said here is that you have less ability to reason or control than an animal, and won't bother to do so under pressure.  You're simply going to assume that every possible attack you face justifies using lethal force -- and that's not true.



> The only "appropriate" reaction is to nuetralize the attacker by whatever means is necessary & neutralize means "stop them." If you injure an attacker and can break contact do it & if you bust their head on the curb like an over rip melon its "appropriate" as long as you break contact at the first chance you get. The same rule in groundfighting applies in SD; never give an opponent your back. If you break contact without stopping the threat you risk being blindsided & getting yourself seriously hurt...



Interestingly enough, I've never said, nor have I seen anyone here say, that you shouldn't use enough force to handle the threat.  But you're suggesting beginning at the top of the force paradigm; I'm suggesting using appropriate force, whatever that might be.  There is a difference.

Most LE trainers I know or know of have moved away from the stair-step approach in assessing use of force.  You can find one of the more common ones (or the source of many imitators) at The (Original) Use of Force Model.  You may note that it focuses on whether or not the force used is likely to result in insufficient, or excessive levels of control.  While it's not 100 percent applicable to non-LE situations (a LEO is seeking generally to control an assailant; self defense is about dealing with the initial attack, and using enough force to prevent further attack while making good your escape), the principle is solid.  

Here's the thing...  In the end, you won't make the decision about whether or not you get arrested, nor are you likely to make the decision about whether or not you get convicted.  (Let's ignore plea bargaining for the sake of discussion...)  You can learn to make the decision about the force you use, which then gives you the most control you can have over the other issues.  By understanding some of the basic ideas, and speaking carefully when you choose to speak during the investigation, you may well create a situation where it is quite unlikely for you to be arrested...

And you'll be a friggin' human being, not some sort of death-dealing automaton or animal.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2010)

Draven said:


> The problem with every arguement presented here is that it seems we are trying to avoid being charged.


 
This is what I mentioned in my OP.  This thread was started by myself, because of comments that I saw between you and another member, in that other thread, which I also linked in my OP.   

This thread was simply designed to show that it seems like no matter what you do to defend yourself, you run the risk of getting in trouble.  It may have wandered off slightly, but thats the main jist of it.


----------



## Draven (Mar 21, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> There's a story of one of the great teachers in my system. He was a holy man or monk in India, and one day, he was set upon by four men who were unhappy that he refused their request for money. Using evasive stepping and impressive emotional restraint, he managed to subdue or drive off two of the men at the scene, and used locks and restrained the other two. He took the two he had restrained to his home, and they became his disciples. He, due to his religious beliefs, chose not to use lethal force, or even do serious harm to his attackers.
> 
> There is a time for restraint and control. Even wild animals recognize this; a dominance battle rarely ends in the death of the loser. It's unwise at a minimum to react without control or thought; what you have basically said here is that you have less ability to reason or control than an animal, and won't bother to do so under pressure. You're simply going to assume that every possible attack you face justifies using lethal force -- and that's not true.


 
Well I think you're missing something here;
a) I'm not going to get into the debate of "religious ideology" because well if someone feels that by their faith they have to be restained (I don't, but) thats a whole different matter from "appropriate" use of force & more toward philosophy. 
b) I plainly stated a context "criminal assault" thats not a dominance issue but someone trying to commit a criminal act against another person through violence; muggings, rape, aggrevated battery etc. Thats different then social violence and well even social violence can turn into criminal assaults, there are plenty of cases of people who just wanted "beat up" someone and accidently killing them.



jks9199 said:


> Interestingly enough, I've never said, nor have I seen anyone here say, that you shouldn't use enough force to handle the threat. But you're suggesting beginning at the top of the force paradigm; I'm suggesting using appropriate force, whatever that might be. There is a difference.


 
The problem is we don't have a clear definition of "appropriate force," legal or otherwise. This isn't like some poltician talking about "hope & change" or "fixing the system" and not giving you a clear cut step to that process. Appropiate force is term used but its a term thats is decided when you have you're day in court.



jks9199 said:


> Most LE trainers I know or know of have moved away from the stair-step approach in assessing use of force. You can find one of the more common ones (or the source of many imitators) at The (Original) Use of Force Model. You may note that it focuses on whether or not the force used is likely to result in insufficient, or excessive levels of control. While it's not 100 percent applicable to non-LE situations (a LEO is seeking generally to control an assailant; self defense is about dealing with the initial attack, and using enough force to prevent further attack while making good your escape), the principle is solid.


 
OK, The Use of Force Paradigm for Enforcement and Corrections, you linked to has two main problems when dealing a self-defense situation. First off, it a LEO regulation & LE regs don't effect civilians. Secondly, the reason why LE regs (policies) don't effect civilians is because LEOs have to confront criminals but are restrained in how much force they can use by the Constitution. As a civilian I an limited only by the law and, not the policies. 

More so, I hope you did notice that I did mention "breaking contact" twice in the sentence you quoted in this reply. The reason for this is I'm not talking about trying to "win the fight" I'm talking talking about doing enough damage to end the threat, you cannot (except in Jackie Chan & Jet Li Movies) do enough damage to stop an attacker without exceeding the level of violence they use to "gain the dominant" position to gain the chance to "break contact" with an attacker.

More so, all you have to deal with is known facts; if all you know is there is an unknown person, who displays aggressive behavior & is threating you with violence. Trying to play catch up to some arbitary regulations is life threatening.

Hind sight is 20/20 & I've yet to see a LEO who when faced with unknown assailants who didn't go to a "ready posture" for using lethal force prior to establishing the boundries for use of force regulations. I advocate nothing more then going to a "mental readiness posture" to use lethal force. If you don't need it you can drop down a level or two.



jks9199 said:


> Here's the thing... In the end, you won't make the decision about whether or not you get arrested, nor are you likely to make the decision about whether or not you get convicted. (Let's ignore plea bargaining for the sake of discussion...) You can learn to make the decision about the force you use, which then gives you the most control you can have over the other issues. By understanding some of the basic ideas, and speaking carefully when you choose to speak during the investigation, you may well create a situation where it is quite unlikely for you to be arrested...
> 
> And you'll be a friggin' human being, not some sort of death-dealing automaton or animal.


 
Ok you're the one asserting that a "friggin' human being" has to us "appropriate force" however there is no clear docturine for "appropriate force" for civilians except in common law (case law) & specific criminal codes.

As such (& I'll refer to federal law since its applicatable in all states) there are numerous common law instances where the right to defend yourself isn't wieghed by some local political Ideology.
1. Beard v. United States: There is No Duty to Retreat Before Using Deadly Force
2. Allen v. United States: Self-Defense Decisions Can be Made in a Hurry; There is a Duty to Retreat on Public Property 
3. Rowe v. United States: Withdrawal from a Fight Revives the Right to Self- Defense
4. Allison v. United States: Self-Defense is for Juries to Evaluate, Not for Judges to Exclude. Also establishs that self-defense claims must be decided by courts alone... 

More so, I'm not saying to be "some sort of death-dealing automaton or animal" thats your assessment based on trying to push a use of force policy reserved for those whose duty is restrained by the Constution as public servants. Civilians need only be concerned with two things; what the laws in the books and say & what the higher courts have decided.

As such as civilians we have NO DUTY to retreat before using lethal force (a broken arm can be considered lethal force), have NO DUTY to retreat in public, "breaking contact"/withdrawl revives the right self-defense (why some states claim a duty to retreat) & any matters of self-defense must be established in the Court of Law. Thats means "anything you say to the investigating LEO can be used against you in the court of law" & no one but a trial court over that case can determine self-defense. 

The legal definition of lethal force is _"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. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm."_

I'm not saying you have to kill, cripple or main an attacker; thats a judgement call at the time of the event, but simple technique ranging from a hit throw, to double-leg takedown, RNC or punch to the face can be considered "lethal force" if it can be "expected to cause death." We as experienced martial artists all know you can't "shove the nose bone into the brain" with a palm strike but, a Prosicutor can still make that claim to a grand jury to get indictment. More so, any action can taken to be "expected to cause death" because we are martial artists.



MJS said:


> This is what I mentioned in my OP. This thread was started by myself, because of comments that I saw between you and another member, in that other thread, which I also linked in my OP.
> 
> This thread was simply designed to show that it seems like no matter what you do to defend yourself, you run the risk of getting in trouble. It may have wandered off slightly, but thats the main jist of it.


 
Thats true, however I'm also using this thread for what its designed for. Take all of the above statements from myself. Remember its illegal for me to give legal advise, not illegal for me to give opinions based on my limited knowledge of the law & personnal experience


----------



## BLACK LION (Mar 24, 2010)

Draven said:


> The problem with every arguement presented here is that it seems we are trying to avoid being charged. I won't go into details but I had a situation where my lil brother was messed up on pills, weed & alcohol and came to my house. I was trying to get him to pass out on the couch & calm down but one thing led to another and I kicked him out. He broke back in knife in hand & lunged at me; my response was to hit him in the head with a hammer. Now I have a malicious wounding charge, because the LEO felt I was using "excessive force." Now the grand jury has failed to indict me and this June will be over a year since the incident occurred.
> 
> Fine, I was arrested and out on bond within an hour & at my initial appearance the AO didn't even know what kind of knife was used much less the CSI drama investigation. However, he is involved in various political orgs & churchs; which are anti-2A...


 
Wow, my brother tried to stab me when I was a teen and I used my martial prowess of that time to defend myself but he kept coming...he was my brother so I held back even thought I probably shouldnt have. I didnt take him seriously even though he tells me now he was posessed and truly wanted to kill me.  My dad beat a reckoning into him that night that changed him forever... If cps was then what it is now, they would have rasied hell.


----------



## Draven (Mar 25, 2010)

BLACK LION said:


> Wow, my brother tried to stab me when I was a teen and I used my martial prowess of that time to defend myself but he kept coming...he was my brother so I held back even thought I probably shouldnt have. I didnt take him seriously even though he tells me now he was posessed and truly wanted to kill me. My dad beat a reckoning into him that night that changed him forever... If cps was then what it is now, they would have rasied hell.


 
Small problem with that, my lil brother has MA training as well & is more than competant with a knife. I should know I taught most of his grappling techniques and he's ranked in Karate, Judo & Kick Boxing plus training in some Combatives system.


----------



## BLACK LION (Mar 25, 2010)

Draven said:


> Small problem with that, my lil brother has MA training as well & is more than competant with a knife. I should know I taught most of his grappling techniques and he's ranked in Karate, Judo & Kick Boxing plus training in some Combatives system.


 
Looks like the good ole hammer trumped that sheet though!


----------



## BLACK LION (Mar 25, 2010)

JWLuiza said:


> Your post came across as "I FINISH IT. UTTERLY. CONTEXT DOES NOT MATTER".
> 
> However, if you have the guy fleeing or under control, yet proceed to maim/kill, you are crossing ethical and legal lines.


 
This comment is directed in general and in no way focused on any single person. 
I see people talking to one another like they are the least educated martial artist around here more often than I care to. 

I also see alot of stuffing of words into others mouths and assumptions. 

Stop it, please.    

This is "Martial talk"...  Most of us here know what martial means and the fact that this place is martial talk and not mixed martial talk or martial arts talk, one would think that we could have more fruitfull discussions on that which pertains to war and not a bunch of schooling on bs.  

This isnt lecture time or lets read 4 pages of conjecture time.... geez.  

I am not perfect and I cannot say that I do  not break laws...hell most of us break laws we dont even know we are laws. Itry my best to remain a law abiding citizen however there is a natural law or morality that precedes any of that and when mans laws conflict with the law of my maker then I have a problem.   Anyhow, when it comes to preservation of life or limb, If I believe I or another undeserving person or animal is in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm or possibly death I am going to use my moral compass and not the 2010 california penal code.  
I think this is what J2KU was saying... he is a law abiding citizen but when a scumbag steps up to the plate all bets are off becuase they arent going off a more or legal compass one bit...  At least I am using one of the two.  
When in fear for my life or that of another I will act accordingly, the what will remain a mystery until that day comes... I will train in a way that gives me options from stitches to a permanent relocation 6 feet below the earths crust, plus all thats in between.  

Those that choose to walk the path of using force in a righteous and just manner better full well understand the force continuum...not only legally but morally as well....How an individual makes his or her choices along that path is something that is completely up to them.  No one can tell anyone how to exercise thier free will, above all, their will to live.


----------



## SenseiBear (Mar 25, 2010)

just2kicku said:


> Gee Bill, I guess not all of us can actually think about what is and isn't against the law while we're being attacked.



But you are thinking about it before hand...  And making a plan to go "just short of killing" someone who threatens to break your finger.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 25, 2010)

BLACK LION said:


> This comment is directed in general and in no way focused on any single person.
> I see people talking to one another like they are the least educated martial artist around here more often than I care to.



It was direct feedback on how his posts read. I don't make assumptions on what people know or don't know. It was germain to the discussion and highlighting why there were issues...and why there were four pages of discussion. It was not an attack against the person nor was it inappropriate given the tone of the discussion.


> I think this is what J2KU was saying... he is a law abiding citizen but  when a scumbag steps up to the plate all bets are off becuase they arent  going off a more or legal compass one bit...  At least I am using one  of the two.
> When in fear for my life or that of another I will act accordingly, the  what will remain a mystery until that day comes... I will train in a way  that gives me options from stitches to a permanent relocation 6 feet  below the earths crust, plus all thats in between.
> 
> Those that choose to walk the path of using force in a righteous and  just manner better full well understand the force continuum...not only  legally but morally as well....How an individual makes his or her  choices along that path is something that is completely up to them.  No  one can tell anyone how to exercise thier free will, above all, their  will to live.



It may have been what he meant, but it really didn't come across as that. His posts sounded rigid and devoid of any flexibility. It may or may not be his beliefs, but they were not articulated well.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 25, 2010)

LOL... and quoting someone and then saying your response is not directed against anyone in particular...well just really doesn't work.


----------



## BLACK LION (Mar 30, 2010)

JWLuiza said:


> LOL... and quoting someone and then saying your response is not directed against anyone in particular...well just really doesn't work.


 
It does if you read. Especially since I went through the pages before posting and the CONTEXT of my post reflects that.  You made yourself the example by choosing to take what I said personally.  Just cuz I quoted your post to bounce my comment off of doesnt mean I meant YOU and only YOU... I meant any and all that apply...If you wish to make it sound like you are the only one that applies based on my post, thats your choice.    

Looks like we are done here.  

Take care everyone.


----------



## Steve Grody (Apr 2, 2010)

I'm glad that I have three students that are lawyers (and one is a reserve cop as well) that I have been able to talk with about SD legalities. Although there is a possibility that you could get in trouble legally while still trying to act appropriately within the law (interpretation being so often subjective), there are some general principles to be aware of. "Appropriate Force" is of course central, but what seems rationally to be "just enough" could easily be hard to stop at when the situation seems threatening enough. In this regard, it seems to me that the law could easily be in conflict with self-defense: I know of people that have gotten in trouble for kicking the man after he is down, but down is certainly not "out," so kicking the Bad Guy on the ground, seems perfectly proper to me if he seems uninjured. On the other hand, if my memory serves me correctly, one of those lawyer students mentioned "fighting words," e.g. "I'm going to beat the snot out of you!," which legally is assault. In those cases you do not have to wait until the person moves on you and you may attack-as-defense first. It sure helps if it does not appear to be a "consensual" fight, e.g. knuckleheads at the bar. The bottom line still seems to be the ol' "Better to be tried by twelve rather than being carried out by six."
stevegrody.com


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2010)

Steve Grody said:


> I'm glad that I have three students that are lawyers (and one is a reserve cop as well) that I have been able to talk with about SD legalities. Although there is a possibility that you could get in trouble legally while still trying to act appropriately within the law (interpretation being so often subjective), there are some general principles to be aware of. "Appropriate Force" is of course central, but what seems rationally to be "just enough" could easily be hard to stop at when the situation seems threatening enough. In this regard, it seems to me that the law could easily be in conflict with self-defense: I know of people that have gotten in trouble for kicking the man after he is down, but down is certainly not "out," so kicking the Bad Guy on the ground, seems perfectly proper to me if he seems uninjured. On the other hand, if my memory serves me correctly, one of those lawyer students mentioned "fighting words," e.g. "I'm going to beat the snot out of you!," which legally is assault. In those cases you do not have to wait until the person moves on you and you may attack-as-defense first. It sure helps if it does not appear to be a "consensual" fight, e.g. knuckleheads at the bar. The bottom line still seems to be the ol' "Better to be tried by twelve rather than being carried out by six."
> stevegrody.com


 
Hi Steve!  Welcome to the forum. 

Can't disagree with anything you said here, and this was the main reason I started this topic, because as you said, it seems like there is that 'fine line' and what seems ok to one person, may not be ok in the eyes of the courts.  Additionally, as another member said, are we going to be thinking clearly at that moment?  While its easy to sit and say that we can be aware of what we're doing, I for one, am thinking about my safety, first and foremost, not whether or not the strike I'm about to do is going to be viewed as 'wrong.'  

And yes, I prefer to live by that quote in your last paragraph...better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


----------

