# So what happens when you martial arts someone to death? Case study.



## drop bear (Sep 21, 2016)

Saw this on another thread and thought I would raise a very famous case where a boxer working as a bouncer killed a prominent cricketer in a night club fight.

All losers in Hookes death - National - theage.com.au


----------



## drop bear (Sep 21, 2016)

death threats and an arson attack on the bouncer.

Arson attack followed death threats - National - www.theage.com.au


----------



## Headhunter (Sep 21, 2016)

Depends on the circumstances sadly if you have martial art training or military training and badly hurt or kill a man it's going to go against you which is dumb but it depends to me if the martial art guy was defending himself hit the guy the other guy falls hits his head and dies that's not the martial artists fault it was self defence. But if the martial knocks him down and continues to hit him on the ground then he dies then it's murder


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 21, 2016)

Headhunter said:


> Depends on the circumstances sadly if you have martial art training or military training and badly hurt or kill a man it's going to go against you which is dumb but it depends to me if the martial art guy was defending himself hit the guy the other guy falls hits his head and dies that's not the martial artists fault it was self defence. But if the martial knocks him down and continues to hit him on the ground then he dies then it's murder


You do have a duty to stop, if the threat has been neutralized.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 21, 2016)

Headhunter said:


> Depends on the circumstances sadly if you have martial art training or military training and badly hurt or kill a man it's going to go against you which is dumb but it depends to me if the martial art guy was defending himself hit the guy the other guy falls hits his head and dies that's not the martial artists fault it was self defence. But if the martial knocks him down and continues to hit him on the ground then he dies then it's murder



This is one specific set of circumstances. A case study.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 21, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> You do have a duty to stop, if the threat has been neutralized.


I hate this because gun self defense seems to be more forgiving.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Sep 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I hate this because gun self defense seems to be more forgiving.


Yep I mean it reminds me of a scene in never back down 2 I mean I know it's only a movie and not real but this situation sounds like it very much could happen. A guy who's a trained mma fighter was sent to prision for killing a guy in a fight who started a fight with him. This was the quote in the movie 
"a guy starts a fight with me I finish it. Then when the judge hears about my background I get the maximum. Then my lawyer tells me if I shot the guy I'd have gotten off with self defence"

Now again I know it's only a movie and it's not real and exaggerated but I can absolutely see that happening in real life


----------



## Juany118 (Sep 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I hate this because gun self defense seems to be more forgiving.


You have a duty to stop with a gun too, when the threat ends firing ends, walk up and double tap the guy after he is on the ground gurgling, there will be a problem.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> You have a duty to stop with a gun too, when the threat ends firing ends


  lets see.
Something punching me repeatedly vs me getting shot repeatedly because someone still felt threatened.    "When the treat ends" is the problem when it comes to guns.  I've seen and read too many news reports where someone claimed that they were so threaten by another person's presence that they felt the need to shoot an unarmed person.


----------



## Juany118 (Sep 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> lets see.
> Something punching me repeatedly vs me getting shot repeatedly because someone still felt threatened.    "When the treat ends" is the problem when it comes to guns.  I've seen and read too many news reports where someone claimed that they were so threaten by another person's presence that they felt the need to shoot an unarmed person.


The standard is the same, in the US.  Objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances known at the time without the use of 20/20 hind sight.  As an example, if a person can articulate that the person they shot had a serious size and/or age advantage when an assault occurs, or can demonstrate facts that provided a reasonable belief, at the time, that the subject was armed lethal force would likely be permissible against an unarmed (or later found to be unarmed subject.) The main difference, imo, is that obviously an incident involving firearms is lethal more often than h2h.

As far as the AU case I am puzzled because I worked a case years ago when punch led to death (subject fell striking their head) during a fight the deceased started.  No charges were filed as it was ruled self defense.  It seems, from reading the article, that two things are at play there... 1. Conflicting witness statements that it was determined a jury should decide upon.  In the case I worked all witness statements were consistent.  2. The celebrity of the deceased.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 22, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> You do have a duty to stop, if the threat has been neutralized.


 
This is true for anyone though, regardless of martial arts training.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> lets see.
> Something punching me repeatedly vs me getting shot repeatedly because someone still felt threatened.    "When the treat ends" is the problem when it comes to guns.  I've seen and read too many news reports where someone claimed that they were so threaten by another person's presence that they felt the need to shoot an unarmed person.


 
Hell, the news is full of stories these days of people shooting unarmed folks when they aren't even doing anything threatening.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 23, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The standard is the same, in the US.  *Objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances known at the time without the use of 20/20 hind sight.*  As an example, if a person can articulate that the person they shot had a serious size and/or age advantage when an assault occurs, or can demonstrate facts that provided a reasonable belief, at the time, that the subject was armed lethal force would likely be permissible against an unarmed (or later found to be unarmed subject.) The main difference, imo, is that obviously an incident involving firearms is lethal more often than h2h.
> 
> As far as the AU case I am puzzled because I worked a case years ago when punch led to death (subject fell striking their head) during a fight the deceased started.  No charges were filed as it was ruled self defense.  It seems, from reading the article, that two things are at play there... 1. Conflicting witness statements that it was determined a jury should decide upon.  In the case I worked all witness statements were consistent.  2. The celebrity of the deceased.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



You are correct.  But there are always going to be problems.  If a prosecutor files charges, on his own, or because of a grand jury, most people will have in the back of their minds that the person must have done something wrong.  That is the first prejudice the defense must overcome.

As to the bolded part, the prosecution will certainly try to introduce 20/20 hindsight into the evidence he presents.  He is normally allowed to do so, 

Which brings us to the underlined portion.  Will the defense want the client to testify, or rely on witnesses?  He may elect to take an affirmative defense, in fact, will almost certainly have to.  Regardless, he will be testifying and subject to cross.  How well can the accused articulate the circumstances that caused him to take the action he did.  Just as importantly, can he continue to present his reasons that stand up under cross examination?  Will his testimony be crippled in any way by the questions the prosecutor asks?

Certainly the prosecution will make much of a defendant's martial arts training and background.  How could he be afraid when he is a trained martial artist.  After all, everybody knows they are trained to perform superhuman feats.  And if he is a trained martial artist, isn't all his training to kill opponents, or at least if he fights, how does he control all that awesome power he has developed.  He may bring in a teacher of any martial art to testify how the accused didn't follow proper martial arts training or worse, did, with deadly result.

The bottom line as others have pointed out is that anyone who kills someone else may be prosecuted.  The burden will then be on the survivor to prove he did so in self defense, which he must clearly articulate was within the allowable responses to the circumstances, under the law.

Also, I don't think most of us here are lawyers.  I am certainly not.  Don't automatically see a post and think it sounds good, so you can follow that advice and not even go to court.  It will probably get you into trouble.  And even if you are acquitted in a criminal court, you can still be sued by family in civil court, where the standard of proof changes from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a "preponderance of facts" show guilt.  You can ask O.J. Simpson how that affected him.

Sorry for the long post, but I am often dismayed when I see post after post saying what people may have heard from someone else (not just in this thread, but in many others as well), or speculate what they think should work, without any background for that.  I always fear that someone will start working up scenarios in their mind as to how they will react to justify their actions should they be accosted.  The first priority is to avoid a fight.  The second is to hear from a local lawyer what the law is in the jurisdiction the fight took place in, and react based on that.


----------



## Juany118 (Sep 23, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> You are correct.  But there are always going to be problems.  If a prosecutor files charges, on his own, or because of a grand jury, most people will have in the back of their minds that the person must have done something wrong.  That is the first prejudice the defense must overcome.
> 
> As to the bolded part, the prosecution will certainly try to introduce 20/20 hindsight into the evidence he presents.  He is normally allowed to do so,



In a Grand Jury proceeding yes, but since the SCOTUS has clearly stated 20/20 hind sight is not a factor it really isn't allowed at Trial.  However that is why, at least in my State, unless it is basically 100% obviously over kill etc., self defense cases rarely come to trial.  



> Which brings us to the underlined portion.  Will the defense want the client to testify, or rely on witnesses?  He may elect to take an affirmative defense, in fact, will almost certainly have to. Regardless, he will be testifying and subject to cross.



This is slowly changing however.  in my State Self-defense is still an affirmative defense, however some States (Florida and Missouri come immediately to mind) the law has specifically changed this and it is actually the State's burden out of the gate also has to prove it was not self defense to either a Judge at a Preliminary Hearing or to a Grand Jury for indictment before it can proceed to trail and the same applies at trial.



> How well can the accused articulate the circumstances that caused him to take the action he did.  Just as importantly, can he continue to present his reasons that stand up under cross examination?  Will his testimony be crippled in any way by the questions the prosecutor asks?


  A lot of this though relies on whether the prosecution has witnesses to the contrary.  On cross examination you can only ask questions on point to the answers given during direct testimony, of either the person currently on the stand or other witnesses, so this becomes a very much variable area. 



> Certainly the prosecution will make much of a defendant's martial arts training and background.  How could he be afraid when he is a trained martial artist.  After all, everybody knows they are trained to perform superhuman feats.  And if he is a trained martial artist, isn't all his training to kill opponents, or at least if he fights, how does he control all that awesome power he has developed.  He may bring in a teacher of any martial art to testify how the accused didn't follow proper martial arts training or worse, did, with deadly result.



This is actually becoming less and less a factor not only because of all the McDojo's around but also the classes taught at YMCA's etc. has greatly demystified the ideas of the Martial Arts.  UFC has helped as well actually since you see people on TV all the time now talking about the "non-sense hokus pokus" of TMA's (not that that ever existed outside of movies but hey...)  

Also the last bit is questionable as well.  First the instructor would have to be certified as an expert witness, which can be no small matter.  I once sat on the stand for well over an hour going over my credentials regarding narcotics investigations between direct and cross.  Then the expert needs to be able to point to specifics, not only in the art itself but the facts of the incident.  Is there video or a witness who is equally skilled in martial arts to be able to describe the techniques actually used?  Simply saying "well a good martial artist would not have killed a guy" doesn't cut it.  The Baltimore State Attorney found that out the hard way when her Expert on a "rough ride" had to admit on the stand he had no actual facts related to a potential rough ride in that specific case and that he was just "going off of stories he heard about what happens in Baltimore."



> The bottom line as others have pointed out is that anyone who kills someone else may be prosecuted.  The burden will then be on the survivor to prove he did so in self defense, which he must clearly articulate was within the allowable responses to the circumstances, under the law.



This is indeed true, which is why I tell people to educate themselves on the UoF Continuum if they plan to use Martial Arts, especially if they are going to use an art with a lot of weapons influence such as FMA.  That said prosecutors tend to lean towards the person claiming self defense, so long as there isn't clear evidence of over the top activity such as kicking the guy when down in the fetal position, or something totally crazy like this Byron David Smith killings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia when you set up an ambush and double tap them with head shots after you have already disabled them.  Now this of course is not counting any political pressure to bring a case (which I suspect has bearinbg on the AU case), but history has shown those cases usually end in defeat for the prosecution.



> Also, I don't think most of us here are lawyers.  I am certainly not.  Don't automatically see a post and think it sounds good, so you can follow that advice and not even go to court.  It will probably get you into trouble.



I am not a lawyer either but I have worked many cases where claims of self defense were made, 2 of which resulted in death.  One was a guy who was punched in a bar.  When he punched the assailant in response, the assailant fell back and struck his head on the concrete floor, a screw from a plate in his head entered his brain causing death.  The second was a man who was the victim of a strong arm robbery.  He lashed out blindly with a knife striking the would be robber in the femoral artery.  The suspect managed to run about 30 feet, collapsed and had bled out before EMS arrived.  Charges were not filed by the DA in either case.

So at least in my case this is not speculation in the least, it direct experience with investigating cases and watching how the law plays out.  Now you do have to keep in mind the UoF continuum, stop when the threat stops, AND know your State's laws on self defense etc. but as long as you truly educate yourself on these matters (and they are no small thing mind you, I just went through a mandated 6 credit hours of UoF classroom training and that was just a "refresher", there was no knew case law) you should be good to go.


----------



## JP3 (Sep 23, 2016)

Headhunter said:


> Depends on the circumstances sadly if you have martial art training or military training and badly hurt or kill a man it's going to go against you which is dumb but it depends to me if the martial art guy was defending himself hit the guy the other guy falls hits his head and dies that's not the martial artists fault it was self defence. But if the martial knocks him down and continues to hit him on the ground then he dies then it's murder



Here... in your above description, it'd be manslaughter if there was no "intent" to kill, 2nd degree murder if there was the "fit of rage"/lack of pre-meditation type if the guy was judged to have acted outside of self-defense.  But, here's something else, if you can't use the self-defense angle, you are probably responsible for the death because of the "but for" basis.  In other words, "But for being punched in the head, he would not have fallen and hit his head that instant, therefore the punch is what caused his death."

The jury came up with the best result for the muddy facts as presented in the story.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2016)

JP3 said:


> Here... in your above description, it'd be manslaughter if there was no "intent" to kill, 2nd degree murder if there was the "fit of rage"/lack of pre-meditation type if the guy was judged to have acted outside of self-defense.  But, here's something else, if you can't use the self-defense angle, you are probably responsible for the death because of the "but for" basis.  In other words, "But for being punched in the head, he would not have fallen and hit his head that instant, therefore the punch is what caused his death."
> 
> The jury came up with the best result for the muddy facts as presented in the story.



They have since changed the laws here. But not in response to this case. 

Anyway you do a minimum of 8 years for a death due to what is called a king hit.


----------

