# Unarmed martial arts and self-defense law in the US



## lklawson (Nov 22, 2018)

It is a common misconception that unarmed martial art techniques are not considered deadly force in the United States. Very often they are. And not just punching to the head or the like. Did you know that even joint locks at the elbow knee or ankle can be considered deadly force under most law in the US?

Self defense lawyer Andrew Branca explains in his segment of the American Warrior Society podcast here. Go to about the seven and a half minute mark and listen to his case of the week segment.

The American Warrior Show: You Ask - We Answer!  Listener Q&A

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## Danny T (Nov 22, 2018)

Yep. 
The timeline for the Case of the Week begins at 17:20 not at the 7 1/2 minute mark.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 22, 2018)

They don't actually say a single word about the case of the week until about 17:40.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Don't use more force than is necessary.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Nov 23, 2018)

Not if you have a book on scaling force based on the force continuum which most police used to use. (not too sure if its popular now though)   

the general theme is, if it maims or can incapacitate or kill its deadly force. Thats the general thing i see people repeat for a reason to shoot someone, if you fear any of those things for yourself or someone who you can argue a duty of care for. 



Must say i need to try and break out some U.K sources as U.S policy is mostly useless outside of interest for me.


----------



## jobo (Nov 23, 2018)

Rat said:


> Not if you have a book on scaling force based on the force continuum which most police used to use. (not too sure if its popular now though)
> 
> the general theme is, if it maims or can incapacitate or kill its deadly force. Thats the general thing i see people repeat for a reason to shoot someone, if you fear any of those things for yourself or someone who you can argue a duty of care for.
> 
> ...


We don't have ' deadly force' as a legal concept in the uk


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Nov 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> We don't have ' deadly force' as a legal concept in the uk



I mean we do, as the police cant justify shooting anyone and they cant be prosecuted if we didn't.    nor could anyone justify maiming or killing somone with a  weapon attacking them. 

We dont have anything which inherently gives you the right* to use deadly force to my knowledge though and the courts still decide if it was correct use of force etc.       

* Like stand your ground and castle laws and derivatives. (to my knowledge of them)


im obviously not a lawyer nor have any credentials in that area.  Also if i mis interpreted a joke please tell me.


----------



## jobo (Nov 23, 2018)

Rat said:


> I mean we do, as the police cant justify shooting anyone and they cant be prosecuted if we didn't.    nor could anyone justify maiming or killing somone with a  weapon attacking them.
> 
> We dont have anything which inherently gives you the right* to use deadly force to my knowledge though and the courts still decide if it was correct use of force etc.
> 
> ...


well clearly we have force which is deadly, but not a legal concept of deadly force

a  uk police man who shoots an armed and occasionally an unarmed suspect, isn't trying to kill them, not legally, they are trying to stop them from doing what ever, that they live or die isn't the issue, its that they are stopped, and the force must be the minimum that achieves that goal and that exactly the same for you and me, saying that you elected to use " deadly force" would see you having a long holiday
 a few decades ago in northern Ireland, they had a " shoot to kill " policy that caused a lot of upset at the time and still, that's the closest we have come to a policy of using " deadly force" ie intending that the policeman actions should result in death or even serious injury

as there is no intent to kill, a uk policeman or someone defending themselves for that matter, could never be guilty of murder only manslaughter, no uk policeman has ever been convicted of manslaughter for a death he caused whilst on duty,let,  alone murder, even where they have shot complete innocent and unarmed people


----------



## lklawson (Nov 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> We don't have ' deadly force' as a legal concept in the uk


 that might be vaguely related to why the subject line ends with "...in the US."


----------



## jobo (Nov 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> that might be vaguely related to why the subject line ends with "...in the US."


 I was putting one of my countrymen right, is this a US only thread, or can the civilised world join in !


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> that might be vaguely related to why the subject line ends with "...in the US."


He was replying to someone from the UK defining deadly force. FWIW, if I hadn't read Jobo's response directly after, I would have assumed Rat was providing the definition for deadly force in England.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> It is a common misconception that unarmed martial art techniques are not considered deadly force in the United States. Very often they are. And not just punching to the head or the like. Did you know that even joint locks at the elbow knee or ankle can be considered deadly force under most law in the US?
> 
> Self defense lawyer Andrew Branca explains in his segment of the American Warrior Society podcast here. Go to about the seven and a half minute mark and listen to his case of the week segment.
> 
> ...


I train kung fu and everyone knows the kung fu stuff doesn't work.  So any deadly techniques from me is just going to written off as a fluke lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Seems pretty straight forward to me. Don't use more force than is necessary.


This has always been the rule.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> I was putting one of my countrymen right, is this a US only thread, or can the civilised world join in !


Barbarians only.  

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## CB Jones (Nov 24, 2018)

jobo said:


> a uk police man who shoots an armed and occasionally an unarmed suspect, isn't trying to kill them, not legally, they are trying to stop them from doing what ever, that they live or die isn't the issue, its that they are stopped,



It is the same in the US.

You don't shoot to kill...you shoot stop.  We just define that as deadly force because the force *could* result in death.  Even if you aimed and shot someone in the foot....that is deadly force because there is a chance of death.....but legally your actions are to stop them and once the threat stops deadly force has to stop.


Example:  If I shoot the tires of a fleeing vehicle....I have to be able to justify deadly force even though I'm an not shooting to kill the driver...I'm only trying to stop the vehicle but that action creates the possibility of being deadly so it falls within deadly force category.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 24, 2018)

jobo said:


> a few decades ago in northern Ireland, they had a " shoot to kill " policy that caused a lot of upset at the time and still, that's the closest we have come to a policy of using " deadly force" ie intending that the policeman actions should result in death or even serious injury




The police officers (RUC) in Northern Ireland never had a shoot to kill policy, despite being the frequent target of killers ( and still are) they used the same rules as are still in force today. They remain some of the bravest officers I have ever worked with.
Here's when British police are legally allowed to shoot under a new policy on lethal force


----------



## jobo (Nov 24, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The police officers (RUC) in Northern Ireland never had a shoot to kill policy, despite being the frequent target of killers ( and still are) they used the same rules as are still in force today. They remain some of the bravest officers I have ever worked with.
> Here's when British police are legally allowed to shoot under a new policy on lethal force


this says differently 
Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland - Wikipedia

for our US cousins, a significant number of unarmed deaths resulted in an inquiry, when it looked like the inquiry might reveal the truth, they  tried to frame the policman leading it and replaced him, the findings were never made public, 
it's one of the most disturbing examples of a government cover up, since they used British forces to test the effect of the radiation released in a nuclear explosion


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 24, 2018)

jobo said:


> this says differently
> Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland - Wikipedia
> 
> for our US cousins, a significant number of unarmed deaths resulted in an inquiry, when it looked like the inquiry might reveal the truth, they  tried to frame the policman leading it and replaced him, the findings were never made public,
> it's one of the most disturbing examples of a government cover up, since they used British forces to test the effect of the radiation released in a nuclear explosion




Sure, Wikipedia...hang on a minute and I'll go and edit it.

'Unarmed' deaths, of course lets not count the thousands killed by the terrorists. 300 Northern Irish police officers, some on their doorsteps in front of their families .
Police Roll of Honour - Northern Ireland - Criminal Acts
 31 Northern Irish prison officers. 
Memorials
Over 2000 civilians.

19 child soldiers of the IRA.
Troubles: The children killed in line of fire in Northern Ireland - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Don't for one minute make the mistake of thinking that the protestors were unarmed on Bloody Sunday Unless you served on Op Banner you have absolutely no idea what was going on.


----------



## jobo (Nov 24, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Sure, Wikipedia...hang on a minute and I'll go and edit it.
> 
> 'Unarmed' deaths, of course lets not count the thousands killed by the terrorists. 300 Northern Irish police officers, some on their doorsteps in front of their families .
> Police Roll of Honour - Northern Ireland - Criminal Acts
> ...


and that rant disproves the shoot to kill policy and the cover up how?

unless your saying just ok to execute " bad men " with out bothering a court,


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 24, 2018)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

This is rapidly becoming a political discussion. So either stop, now, or take it over to US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where it belongs. Or expect to see the thread locked and people getting points.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Mark A Cochran
Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2018)

It's not political to me, my fiancé died in Northern Ireland from a mine, another of his men died with him, and one lost both his legs. And I sat and held the hand of a woman as the body her policeman husband who was shot dead in front of her and her children, was taken away. I'm not making political statements but I will not have the memories of brave, hard working men and women besmirched by someone who has a chip on his shoulder.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Nov 25, 2018)

Going back to that book i got based on the U.S polices continuum of force. and other books i have read on it, don't stomp.   Or avoid it in any possible situation unless you can justify attacking someone you have grounded or tripped.
​advocating of minimum force seems like a decent proposition*, or at least  minimum force that would leave lasting damages one needs to go to hospital for.   Plus if they dont require medical aid you dont have a high risk of getting a civil case for medical bills.   which i think medical bills are more of a factor in the U.S and the aftermath of a situation both in civilian court cases and criminal.


Hit first with a stunning shot then run if applicable. 

*Context pending obviously. I can think of two situations where it would be terrible to use minimum force available.


----------



## CB Jones (Nov 25, 2018)

In the US the term isn’t the minimum force required....the standard is the necessary force to stop.

Legally if you can reasonably articulate that the force you used was the force needed to stop the threat you are justified.


In the case of the week, you have a 2 on 1 fight with the 1 being very drunk who started the altercation.  The 2 (male and female....female was a LEO) had him restrained and while restraining the male applied a choke which the courts ruled as unnecessary due to them having him already restrained.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 27, 2018)

In Michigan, for example, deadly force is defined as something that can cause "imminent great bodily harm and/or imminent death".  Most states will then define what they mean by great bodily harm.

It is one of the things I have cautioned people on the BJJ for cops/civilians trend.  It is one thing to know what to do on the ground and how to be safe and I am NOT saying that you don't need ground skills.  What I AM saying is that putting on a rear naked choke or an armbar is a 10 year felony in Michigan (don't know other states laws) which falls under "great bodily harm less than murder".  Because an "assault" is the threat of the injury and an actual injury doesn't need to occur.  Think about it, if someone is putting you into a choke hold, do you know their intention?  I am going to assume for my safety that they are trying to kill me.  Now, flip the script.  You are putting a choke on someone to only make them go unconscious.  What do you think the other person is going to think?

Another key point about "self defense" is that you are acknowledging that you committed a crime, but due to the circumstances, mitigate that you had a legal reason to do so that eliminates culpability.  Self-defense is an "affirmative defense" in legal proceedings.  

I always tell people to find a local attorney who has a good reputation with the local DA/PA Office and speak with them ahead of time.  Find out how they usually view cases like that and how they prosecute them.  Especially if a firearm is involved, how do they feel about citizens carrying concealed weapons.


----------



## jobo (Nov 27, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> In Michigan, for example, deadly force is defined as something that can cause "imminent great bodily harm and/or imminent death".  Most states will then define what they mean by great bodily harm.
> 
> It is one of the things I have cautioned people on the BJJ for cops/civilians trend.  It is one thing to know what to do on the ground and how to be safe and I am NOT saying that you don't need ground skills.  What I AM saying is that putting on a rear naked choke or an armbar is a 10 year felony in Michigan (don't know other states laws) which falls under "great bodily harm less than murder".  Because an "assault" is the threat of the injury and an actual injury doesn't need to occur.  Think about it, if someone is putting you into a choke hold, do you know their intention?  I am going to assume for my safety that they are trying to kill me.  Now, flip the script.  You are putting a choke on someone to only make them go unconscious.  What do you think the other person is going to think?
> 
> ...


well no, that's just not true at all, in any jurisdiction that's based on English common law, which is a large amount of the globe and nearly all of the USA,, innocent till proved guilty and all that
you have committed a crime when and only when you have been convicted by a court, (or at least no sooner that you admit to it,)

before that point you are a suspect,  or if in court the accused,
defending yourself against attack is a statutory defence to an assault charge, if that defence is accepted by the prosicution or the court, no crime was committed,,

you are only accepting the harm you caused, not that causing that harm was a " crime"


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 27, 2018)

jobo said:


> well no, that's just not true at all, in any jurisdiction that's based on English common law, which is a large amount of the globe and nearly all of the USA,, innocent till proved guilty and all that
> you have committed a crime when and only when you have been convicted by a court, (or at least no sooner that you admit to it,)
> 
> before that point you are a suspect,  or if in court the accused,
> ...



Poor word choice...the act you committed would normally be considered a crime and you committed that act based on other factors that eliminated culpability, or as you phrased it, no crime was committed.  

Again, in Michigan, it is called an "affirmative defense".


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 28, 2018)

Back when I was a LEO, we had "confrontation training". It was a group of attorney's and an ADA who would coach us on the do's and don'ts of confrontation, deadly or otherwise. One of the common themes was your curtilage, the area nearest your body. A very vague and undefined are but essentially it means within your grasp in this context. If someone came in your curtilage uninvited they were fair game, to the extent of deadly force if the situation merited it. Arguably no questions asked, per the ADA. It wasn't so much about whether there was intent but the ability to do mortal harm as to whether shooting was a reasonable solution. Does this at all jive with today's legal stance for LEO's?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> well no, that's just not true at all, in any jurisdiction that's based on English common law, which is a large amount of the globe and nearly all of the USA,, innocent till proved guilty and all that
> you have committed a crime when and only when you have been convicted by a court, (or at least no sooner that you admit to it,)
> 
> before that point you are a suspect,  or if in court the accused,
> ...


Actually I think that's not quite so. In a lot of places in the US doing harm is considered a crime. The fact that you were doing it as self-defense is considered, legally, and "affirmative defense." essentially it is a legally acceptable excuse. Much like speeding is always a crime, there are times when you are allowed to commit the crime but be forgiven for it.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Actually I think that's not quite so. In a lot of places in the US doing harm is considered a crime. The fact that you were doing it as self-defense is considered, legally, and "affirmative defense." essentially it is a legally acceptable excuse. Much like speeding is always a crime, there are times when you are allowed to commit the crime but be forgiven for it.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


considered by who ?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> considered by who ?


In the US. Been said 3 or 4 times now.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3-pTkozrDhTZvli4nDe96Z&cshid=1543495945311


(mobile)


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

lklawson said:


> In the US. Been said 3 or 4 times now.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3-pTkozrDhTZvli4nDe96Z&cshid=1543495945311
> 
> ...


no expressly WHO  ? the government, the president, the police  the courts, Mrs Jones who lives next door,  WHO CONSIDETRS IT A CRIME, , ?

clearly you " consider "it so, but your not actually in charge of such things


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> no expressly WHO  ? the government, the president, the police  the courts, Mrs Jones who lives next door,  WHO CONSIDETRS IT A CRIME, , ?


You're trying to get off on a technicality on this one, Jobo. Your strong statement was essentially incorrect.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You're trying to get off on a technicality on this one, Jobo. Your strong statement was essentially incorrect.


which bit was incorrect, ?


----------



## CB Jones (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> Mrs Jones who lives next door,



I don’t think we are neighbors with @lklawson


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

Which is possibly fortune for him, Jones is quite a common name, at least it is in the valleys


CB Jones said:


> I don’t think we are neighbors with @lklawson


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> which bit was incorrect, ?


The part where you thought you were right.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The part where you thought you were right.


 another one where you proclaim I'm wrong but won't enter in to discourse
it's self evidently true, that if you accept your innocent till proved guilty, you cant be guilty of a crime till it has been proved so in a court of law,


----------



## CB Jones (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> another one where you proclaim I'm wrong but won't enter in to discourse
> it's self evidently true, that if you accept your innocent till proved guilty, you cant be guilty of a crime till it has been proved so in a court of law,



Except that in self defense you are making an affirmative defense in which you admit to violating the law but you claim legal justification  in doing so.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Except that in self defense you are making an affirmative defense in which you admit to violating the law but you claim legal justification  in doing so.


well clearly not, if you have a legal justication for using force no crime was committed, that why laws havestatutary defences built in, its part of the law, so no law was broken,

otherwise it would be true that you can break the law but not commit a crime and that would be silly,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> another one where you proclaim I'm wrong but won't enter in to discourse
> it's self evidently true, that if you accept your innocent till proved guilty, you cant be guilty of a crime till it has been proved so in a court of law,


Except that's the point of the plea. You entirely missed that point.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Except that's the point of the plea. You entirely missed that point.


well yes the point of the pkea is your saying your not guilty, which what the l jurry well say if your successful


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> well yes the point of the pkea is your saying your not guilty, which what the l jurry well say if your successful


In america at least, from what I understand, you are stating you are guilty of assaulting the person, as in you committed the act. But you're also saying it was justified, due to self-defense, and so you should not be punished for it. Bit different legally than saying that you did not assault the person at all.


----------



## jobo (Nov 29, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> In america at least, from what I understand, you are stating you are guilty of assaulting the person, as in you committed the act. But you're also saying it was justified, due to self-defense, and so you should not be punished for it. Bit different legally than saying that you did not assault the person at all.


no, in America or any other common law jurisdiction, your saying that despite using force, no crime was committed because you have a statuary defence  or the law contains the circumstances where that law is not applicable, in this case self defence.

your not guilty of anything,unless the Jury says GUILTY


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> no, in America or any other common law jurisdiction, your saying that despite using force, no crime was committed because you have a statuary defence  or the law contains the circumstances where that law is not applicable, in this case self defence.
> 
> your not guilty of anything,unless the Jury says GUILTY


The crime itself is using force. The defense is whether or not that crime is justifiable to the point that you do not get arrested. A very distinct difference that seems to be escaping you. I'm not sure of another way to state that.


----------



## Buka (Nov 29, 2018)

Had a nice surprise at work on Tuesday. A man stopped by where I was patrolling. He was an old student of mine from thirty five years ago. We had a lovely time catching up. He told me that some of the folks he trained with back then have been his best friends ever since. Names were mentioned and he filled me in on where everybody was.

One of the guys, Peter M, who was about twenty at the time, went on to become a successful lawyer. I had heard that. But I learned that he is now a Professor of Law in one of Boston's most prestigious Law Schools.

I'm going to try to reach out to him and get his perspective on the law as it applies to self defense in Massachusetts. Might be interesting.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 29, 2018)

jobo said:


> no, in America or any other common law jurisdiction, your saying that despite using force, no crime was committed because you have a statuary defence  or the law contains the circumstances where that law is not applicable, in this case self defence.
> 
> your not guilty of anything,unless the Jury says GUILTY



No.  Simply no.  An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged, but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act.  

<a href="What is AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE? definition of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)" title="AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE">AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</a>
Affirmative Defense


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> No.  Simply no.  An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged, but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act.
> 
> <a href="What is AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE? definition of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)" title="AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE">AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</a>
> Affirmative Defense


 that a not what you said,e above, you said you were guilty, there's nothing in that definition that says you are guilty, as you are excluded from criminal liability you clearly are not guilty,

and that blacks law link says absolutely nothing about the matter


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> No.  Simply no.  An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged, but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act.
> 
> <a href="What is AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE? definition of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)" title="AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE">AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</a>
> Affirmative Defense


here's an exert from wiki
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[3] A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[1] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if they can demonstrate that they had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect themself.[4]

now you admit to committing the " acts" ( the use of force) and are exonerated, if there are excepted, so that acts, not criminal acts and exonerated  not as you said being guilty,, 
you couldn't be father from the truth, which is depressing as its your countries laeyou seem willfully under informed about


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> here's an exert from wiki
> In an affirmative defense, *the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts,* but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[3] A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[1] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if they can demonstrate that they had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect themself.[4]
> 
> now you admit to committing the " acts" ( the use of force) and are exonerated, if there are excepted, so that acts, not criminal acts and exonerated  not as you said being guilty,,
> you couldn't be father from the truth, which is depressing as its your countries laeyou seem willfully under informed about



This is exactly what people have been saying that you keep trying to argue otherwise.  You keep trying to play word games instead of admitting that what you originally posted was incorrect in regards to the law.

JKS's post  





> "No. Simply no. *An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged,* but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act."



Again, people are saying exactly what the definition is and you are not accepting that fact.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> This is exactly what people have been saying that you keep trying to argue otherwise.  You keep trying to play word games instead of admitting that what you originally posted was incorrect in regards to the law.
> 
> JKS's post
> 
> Again, people are saying exactly what the definition is and you are not accepting that fact.


people kept saying your guilty, and that you have committed an illegal act, that couldn't be further from the actual facts of the matter, as I said in my initial post, you admit the use of force but invoke the statutory defence of self defence

that means your act was not illegal and your innocent, that the exact opposite of what you said


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> people kept saying your guilty, and that you have committed an illegal act, that couldn't be further from the actual facts of the matter, as I said in my initial post, you admit the use of force but invoke the statutory defence of self defence
> 
> that means your act was not illegal and your innocent, that the exact opposite of what you said


This is another example of you arguing words, rather than bothering to understand meaning.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> This is another example of you arguing words, rather than bothering to understand meaning.


their meaning was wrong, you can't say guilty when you mean not guilty and and then claim that's what you meant, the law is rather precise about such definition, just inventing your own meaning as people here are prone to do, doesn't work when discussing something with strict definitions like the law

if they don't understand the law and clearly they don't, they should avoid telling people who do( me) that I am incorrect


----------



## lklawson (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> no expressly WHO  ? the government, the president, the police  the courts, Mrs Jones who lives next door,  WHO CONSIDETRS IT A CRIME, , ?
> 
> clearly you " consider "it so, but your not actually in charge of such things


Don't be lazy.  Read the linked doc.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Except that's the point of the plea. You entirely missed that point.


Missed it or just feels like arguing?  It's pretty much SOP for him.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Don't be lazy.  Read the linked doc.


I have read it, you clearly haven't or not understood it  , nothing in that contradicts what I've said, what that case has done is  making get a self defence acquittal to your use of force far far easier at least in Arizona as it's moved the burden of proof from the accused to the prosecution on the justications of such force


----------



## lklawson (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> I have read it, you clearly haven't or not understood it  , nothing in that contradicts what I've said, what that case has done is  making get a self defence acquittal to your use of force far far easier at least in Arizona as it's moved the burden of proof from the accused to the prosecution on the reasoablness or such force


Page 1: "One aspect of claiming self-defense that I find many people have never thought about, is that you are confessing to a crime."

Honestly, now you're just arguing because you are a contrarian.  Your claim was disproved.  Mine is proved.  I'm done with your horsecrap for this thread.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Page 1: "One aspect of claiming self-defense that I find many people have never thought about,is that you are confessing to a crime."
> 
> Honestly, now you're just arguing because you are a contrarian.  Your claim was disproved.  Mine is proved.  I'm done with your horsecrap for this thread.


is that as far as you got, and you called me lazy, at least I read the whole thing, that's a through away line, that the rest of his text goes on to contradict, , 
that's just quote mining,


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 30, 2018)

Kempodisciple wrote 





> In america at least, from what I understand, *you are stating you are guilty of assaulting the person, as in you committed the act.* But you're also saying it was justified, due to self-defense, and so you should not be punished for it. Bit different legally than saying that you did not assault the person at all.



this is the ONLY time in the entire thread someone mentioned the word "guilty".  Even then it is then defined what he meant by saying you committed the act.  This is what EVERYONE else has said as well.  In an affirmative defense you ADMIT YOU COMMITTED THE ACT.  There are no two other ways about it.  There are only 2 ways to plead in a criminal court case.

1) Not Guilty
2) Guilty

When you plead "not guilty" you are saying that you didn't do it.  Then the courts have to go and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did.  If they don't prove their case, you are "not guilty" (never innocent).  If they do prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are "guilty".  You can't say "I didn't do it" and then say "I did it...but...."  

When you plead "guilty" (In Michigan) there are basically three ways to do it.  
      1) Admit guilt--you can't take a plea without admitting what you did. (court process stops at this point)
      2) Plead "no contest"--facts of the case are entered as true and you accept them without contesting them  (court process stops at this point)
      3) Plead with an affirmative defense--you admit what you did, but due to the circumstances, what is normally considered a crime, is excusable.  Court process keeps going at this point to either jury trial or bench trial (you get to choose).  Now you present all of your facts to show that what you did was justifiable and excused under the affirmative defense.  The prosecutor will bring in their witnesses and facts to show that what you did wasn't justifiable and was a crime.

As an aside, this is also why most places have a local ordinance for "disorderly by fighting".  Much lower standard to show that you caused a disturbance by fighting in a public place and the fine is usually so low it is paid and not taken to court.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> Kempodisciple wrote
> 
> this is the ONLY time in the entire thread someone mentioned the word "guilty".  Even then it is then defined what he meant by saying you committed the act.  This is what EVERYONE else has said as well.  In an affirmative defense you ADMIT YOU COMMITTED THE ACT.  There are no two other ways about it.  There are only 2 ways to plead in a criminal court case.
> 
> ...


but that's plead, NOT GUILTY WITH AN AFIMATIVE defence, not, just plead with an affirmative defence as you said


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 30, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> Kempodisciple wrote
> 
> this is the ONLY time in the entire thread someone mentioned the word "guilty".  Even then it is then defined what he meant by saying you committed the act.  This is what EVERYONE else has said as well.  In an affirmative defense you ADMIT YOU COMMITTED THE ACT.  There are no two other ways about it.  There are only 2 ways to plead in a criminal court case.
> 
> ...


Thank you, you explained what I meant a lot better than I did.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> people kept saying your guilty, and that you have committed an illegal act, that couldn't be further from the actual facts of the matter, as I said in my initial post, you admit the use of force but invoke the statutory defence of self defence
> 
> that means your act was not illegal and your innocent, that the exact opposite of what you said



No.  We have said, repeatedly, that in an affirmative defense, you _*ADMIT THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF*_ but you had a good reason or were otherwise justified in doing so and should not be held criminally liable.  This is not the same as a guilty plea; a guilty plea is "I did it, you're right, hand me my lumps..."  A guilty verdict means that the tryer of fact found that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt (in the US) that you committed the alleged criminal act.  An Alford plea is a way of saying "you can prove I did it, but I'm not going to admit it" -- similar to a plea of no contest, where the defendant simply says "I'm not going to argue."  (Both are generally used to avoid the admission that might influence a seperate civil trial.)  In other words -- this stuff is complicated, some of us deal with it daily, and actually know what we are talking about and get a little frustrated when words are put in our mouths.  There are reasons for the way we say things...  

In the specific case of a self defense claim, the defendant admits that they did commit what would ordinarily be a criminal act, such as assault and battery, but that they did so to prevent a greater harm from coming to them.  In an extreme case, they are admitting that they killed someone, but that the homicide was justified to prevent the defendant or another person from serious bodily harm.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> but that's plead, NOT GUILTY WITH AN AFIMATIVE defence, not, just plead with an affirmative defence as you said


There is no such plea in the US.  There may, in some courts, be a plea of "guilty, with an explanation" or a judge in a particular court may choose to recognize one and allow the defendant to enter evidence after a guilty plea that acts to mitigate or excuse their guilt -- but they have still admitted that they broke the law, and pled guilty.  I've seen plenty of judges listen to the start of the "explanation" and change the plea to "not guilty."  

A plea of Not Guilty doesn't necessarily say "I didn't do it."  It says, plainly, "prove it!"  The prosecution, within the US, has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads not guilty did actually commit the alleged act.  The defendant has no burden to prove anything or enter a single item of evidence or word of testimony.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> No.  We have said, repeatedly, that in an affirmative defense, you _*ADMIT THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF*_ but you had a good reason or were otherwise justified in doing so and should not be held criminally liable.  This is not the same as a guilty plea; a guilty plea is "I did it, you're right, hand me my lumps..."  A guilty verdict means that the tryer of fact found that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt (in the US) that you committed the alleged criminal act.  An Alford plea is a way of saying "you can prove I did it, but I'm not going to admit it" -- similar to a plea of no contest, where the defendant simply says "I'm not going to argue."  (Both are generally used to avoid the admission that might influence a seperate civil trial.)  In other words -- this stuff is complicated, some of us deal with it daily, and actually know what we are talking about and get a little frustrated when words are put in our mouths.  There are reasons for the way we say things...
> 
> In the specific case of a self defense claim, the defendant admits that they did commit what would ordinarily be a criminal act, such as assault and battery, but that they did so to prevent a greater harm from coming to them.  In an extreme case, they are admitting that they killed someone, but that the homicide was justified to prevent the defendant or another person from serious bodily harm.


our we underlinning now

no you don't admit to what you are accused of, you are accused of using unlawful force, your claim is the force was lawful, so no the use of unlawful force is not admitted to in your afermative defence


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> There is no such plea in the US.  There may, in some courts, be a plea of "guilty, with an explanation" or a judge in a particular court may choose to recognize one and allow the defendant to enter evidence after a guilty plea that acts to mitigate or excuse their guilt -- but they have still admitted that they broke the law, and pled guilty.  I've seen plenty of judges listen to the start of the "explanation" and change the plea to "not guilty."
> 
> A plea of Not Guilty doesn't necessarily say "I didn't do it."  It says, plainly, "prove it!"  The prosecution, within the US, has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads not guilty did actually commit the alleged act.  The defendant has no burden to prove anything or enter a single item of evidence or word of testimony.


he already said there are only two pleas, guilty or not guilty, now your saying there is guilty  not guilty and something else ????

another can of worms, mitigation is not a defence,,  its eeer,e mitigation, an attempt to explain but not defend your actions, jeez lads buy a dictionary


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> he already said there are only two pleas, guilty or not guilty, now your saying there is guilty  not guilty and something else ????
> 
> another can of worms, mitigation is not a defence,,  its eeer,e mitigation, an attempt to explain but not defend your actions, jeez lads buy a dictionary


A little primer on the United States of America...

The USA consists of 50 independent States, each with a rather high level of independence bound by a shared Constitution and Federal government.  Each State has its own laws and courts; in fact, things that are illegal in one state may be fully legal in another.  (A current example -- recreational/personal marijuana has been legalized in some states, decriminalized in others, and remains illegal in most today.)  Things may be different in different States.   In fact, within the court system in each state, you can find courtrooms run in different ways...

On top of that, there are common practices or terms.  The Alford plea is one such; it's a specialized version of a guilty plea.  No Contest is another way of doing much the same thing.  In both, the effect is typically the same as if the defendant had pled guilty -- but they avoid actually admitting guilt.  Like I said -- it has implications in civil trials.

The simple fact is that these aren't soundbite issues.  They take a lot of reading, research and work to understand and follow.


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 30, 2018)

And this thread reaffirms to me the true beauty of the ignore function. 

It was quite interesting before someone derailed it for their own amusement.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> A little primer on the United States of America...
> 
> The USA consists of 50 independent States, each with a rather high level of independence bound by a shared Constitution and Federal government.  Each State has its own laws and courts; in fact, things that are illegal in one state may be fully legal in another.  (A current example -- recreational/personal marijuana has been legalized in some states, decriminalized in others, and remains illegal in most today.)  Things may be different in different States.   In fact, within the court system in each state, you can find courtrooms run in different ways...
> 
> ...


all the states, with the exception of Louisiana,,  believe have a legal system based on English common law, so whilst there are different laws and procedures, they are share the same base, that you are innocent until found guilty and you either plead innocent or guilty, all this smoke screen doesn't change those basic component of the law,


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Nov 30, 2018)

He is somewhat right, a lot of places had their legal systems based on English common law.     But to what extent and how they practice it now and how to define common law you will need to ask a Lawyer with relevant study. 

Im hardly educated in law however.   

(but then i don't think anyone denied the relevance of English common law)

I tell you what might be interesting though, don't quote me on it but i think in practice of law for England, you could in some circumstances take a weapon to a home break in if you can prove you feared for you life at that moment.   I will have to do some brief searching on the CPS website to see if i can find anything to back up that claim however.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 30, 2018)

Rat said:


> He is somewhat right, a lot of places had their legal systems based on English common law.     But to what extent and how they practice it now and how to define common law you will need to ask a Lawyer with relevant study.
> 
> Im hardly educated in law however.
> 
> ...


Even if that is true, or if english common law is what's used, that has no relevance on the plea you are making, and whether you are stating 'I committed the crime, but it's okay because I feared for my life' or 'I committed no crime because I feared for my life'.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 30, 2018)

Rat said:


> He is somewhat right, a lot of places had their legal systems based on English common law.     But to what extent and how they practice it now and how to define common law you will need to ask a Lawyer with relevant study.
> 
> Im hardly educated in law however.
> 
> ...


And much of that is based on Mosaic law, according to scholars.  But darn few people are claiming that it's legal to stone to death your kids for giving you lip.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Nov 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Even if that is true, or if english common law is what's used, that has no relevance on the plea you are making, and whether you are stating 'I committed the crime, but it's okay because I feared for my life' or 'I committed no crime because I feared for my life'.



Probably doesn't.   and i cant see why it should.


Also seen the relivence advertised on some law degree's.    Something like the U.S legal system has based itself on English common law.  (doesn't mean its the same)  So you might find some similarities between the two, and English common law has developed in its own way over the years as to whats still respected and the like.  a lot of countries have based their legal systems on the U.K's.  (mainly former colonies) 

Anyway im going to cut it there as i haven't studied law and have 0 experience with the U.S and comparative legal study.


Just to cover it quickly im not disputing the use of no contest in U.S courts.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 30, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> In Michigan, for example, deadly force is defined as something that can cause "imminent great bodily harm and/or imminent death".  Most states will then define what they mean by great bodily harm.
> 
> It is one of the things I have cautioned people on the BJJ for cops/civilians trend.  It is one thing to know what to do on the ground and how to be safe and I am NOT saying that you don't need ground skills.  What I AM saying is that putting on a rear naked choke or an armbar is a 10 year felony in Michigan (don't know other states laws) which falls under "great bodily harm less than murder".  Because an "assault" is the threat of the injury and an actual injury doesn't need to occur.  Think about it, if someone is putting you into a choke hold, do you know their intention?  I am going to assume for my safety that they are trying to kill me.  Now, flip the script.  You are putting a choke on someone to only make them go unconscious.  What do you think the other person is going to think?
> 
> ...



Wow. Don't take this wrong but I am glad I do not live in Michigan. A LEO is only going to put you in a choke if you give them a reason to. And, if they know how to do it they are being really nice to you, only choking you out. I am a smaller guy and I really practice how to make a choke cause a person to pass out as quickly as possible. Two specific events I have had; both involved big men who were really doped up. I came into the scene as backup after other officers had tried to get cuffs on the guy. They tazed, they pepper sprayed to no success. Both times I had the other officers distract the guy so I could jump on, ride his back and choke him out. NEVER did I have deadly force in mind while holding the choke. Hell, I knew one of the guys. 
One plead out, one hired a legal TEAM and tried to make it a big deal. He and his team were thoroughly embarrassed in the courtroom. I never heard a peep personally.
Especially in today's climate, the guy(s) probably would have been shot. How is that more humane? 
We cannot let attorneys and judges twist intent. LE patrolman are not elite, high paying jobs. They earn and deserve respect. It is time most of the police videos that go public show the minutes that lead up to what is seen on the news. Then the real truth will be seen.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Even if that is true, or if english common law is what's used, that has no relevance on the plea you are making, and whether you are stating 'I committed the crime, but it's okay because I feared for my life' or 'I committed no crime because I feared for my life'.


well it is true, , are you really saying you don't know the origin of your own legal system, you yank are amazing, i bet you thought Benjamin Franklin made out up, you've only got 200 years of history and you can't be bothered to learn that


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> well it is true, , are you really saying you don't know the origin of your own legal system, you yank are amazing, i bet you thought Benjamin Franklin made out up, you've only got 200 years of history and you can't be bothered to learn that


Once again, you’re branching off into nonsense attacks, rather than staying with the topic. You are consistent, if nothing else.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> well it is true, , are you really saying you don't know the origin of your own legal system, you yank are amazing, i bet you thought Benjamin Franklin made out up, you've only got 200 years of history and you can't be bothered to learn that


Did I say that it wasn't true?


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2018)

lklawson said:


> And much of that is based on Mosaic law, according to scholars.  But darn few people are claiming that it's legal to stone to death your kids for giving you lip.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


well it uses the moral frame work from the 10 commandments, but it's a fair stretch to say its religious law,
there were 3types of law in old England, king laws, those originating from the state, church laws which were very much mosaic law  ( but even back then its seems unlikely you'd be stoned to death )and the common law, which was laws made by " judges "to deal with the common people and their problems which would by definition not result in cheeky children being stoned or killed, just being put in the stocks and having rotten tomatoes ( or if they really didn't like you, turnips)thrown at them was probably sufficient


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Did I say that it wasn't true?


you said " if it's true" which strongly suggests you don't know if it's true or not !


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> you said " if it's true" which strongly suggests you don't know if it's true or not !


It actually is a logically neutral statement.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It actually is a logically neutral statement.


it's a statement that cast doubt on the veracity of my statement, and as my statement is a FACT easily check by a quick Google its also indicative of someone who is avoiding checking facts in order that they won't be wrong or at least won't have to admit I'm correct. willful blindness ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> it's a statement that cast doubt on the veracity of my statement, and as my statement is a FACT easily check by a quick Google its also indicative of someone who is avoiding checking facts in order that they won't be wrong or at least won't have to admit I'm correct. willful blindness ?


Nope. In logical use, "if" identifies an assumption - something that is assumed to be true (whether it is or not) as a condition for the rest of the statement. It is a neutral usage.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Nope. In logical use, "if" identifies an assumption - something that is assumed to be true (whether it is or not) as a condition for the rest of the statement. It is a neutral usage.


no, in that context,, if identify a doubt, not an assumption


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2018)

lklawson said:


> And much of that is based on Mosaic law, according to scholars.  But darn few people are claiming that it's legal to stone to death your kids for giving you lip.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Actually it's not legal to stone anyone to death for anything under Mosaic law, it might say 'stone them' but the rabbis constructed a legal obstacle course so convoluted that it was practically impossible for anyone to be put to death as the result of a trial, to the extent that, in the event of a unanimous vote by the Sanhedrin to condemn a person to death, the guilty party was immediately exonerated, so that it's impossible to enact a death sentence for anything. A 'life for a life' never meant execution anyway, it meant/mean that if you lil someone you are then responsible for taking on all the responsibilities the dead person had, ie earning a living for their family etc. You have to give your life over to it, forever.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> no, in that context,, if identify a doubt, not an assumption


You are assuming an implication that is not explicit in the statement. You are - purposely or by habit - reading for the most confrontational intention.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> no, in that context,, if identify a doubt, not an assumption


As i was the one making the statement, i cant tell you it was not meant to convey doubt. I was saying if its true, as in not affirming that it is. Not that i doubt it.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's not legal to stone anyone to death for anything under Mosaic law, it might say 'stone them' but the rabbis constructed a legal obstacle course so convoluted that it was practically impossible for anyone to be put to death as the result of a trial, to the extent that, in the event of a unanimous vote by the Sanhedrin to condemn a person to death, the guilty party was immediately exonerated, so that it's impossible to enact a death sentence for anything. A 'life for a life' never meant execution anyway, it meant/mean that if you lil someone you are then responsible for taking on all the responsibilities the dead person had, ie earning a living for their family etc. You have to give your life over to it, forever.


Strangely, the text does, in fact, record actual executions performed.

But that is beside the point. Please reference above for the point.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Strangely, the text does, in fact, record actual executions performed.
> 
> But that is beside the point. Please reference above for the point.



Which text are you talking about? I'm talking about the third century CE and onwards when Jewish law ( always amusing when people like to call it 'Mosaic' law instead of what it is Jewish Law) was actually written down as opposed to being an Oral Law.  (Though the Sanhedrin has stopped giving the death penalty before the destruction of the Temple in the 1st century BCE. ) 
 Judah ha Nasi  the head of the Jewish community in Palestine at the turn of the third century, compiled, systematised, and reduced the Oral Law, which had come down by word of mouth, into writing.  Before this there were no texts on law as such. This collection of laws, legal opinions, decisions, and comments upon them is known as the Mishnah. it is less a code than a report on prevailing law and custom, and a digest of legal opinions which invite further study and discussion.

Study and discussion of the Mishnah in the centuries following were carried on in academies and applied in courts in Palestine and Babylonia. The summary and digest of this scholarly activity is called the Gemara. Not at all dry-as-dust legal argumentation, it reports on the exciting application of law to life, recording the disputations which grew out of diverse traditions and differing opinions. Here and there it is interlaced with a parable, a legend, or just a good story to make a point. The Mishnah plus the Gemara constitutes the Talmud.

The Mishnah is in Hebrew, the language  of worship and scholarly discourse in late antiquity; the Gemara is in Aramaic, the language of common discourse of that time. There are two versions of the Talmud. The first, edited circa 325 CE, contains the discussions in Palestinian schools and courts and is called the Jerusalemite or Palestinian. The Babylonian, edited a century and half later, is the compendium of scholarly legal discussions carried on in the academies and courts of that Jewish community. Like the Mishnah, the Gemara is not a code of law (an organized body of legal decisions), but the raw material for establishing codes-the source for discussion, refinement, and application.

The spirit of the Talmudic process is expressed in a tale in tractate  Baba Meziah, Rabbi Eliezer, a proponent of unchanging tradition--"a well-lined cistern that doesn't lose a drop," as his teacher characterised him--was engaged in a legal disputation with his colleagues. "He brought all the reasons in the world," but the majority would not accept his view. Said Rabbi Eliezer, "If the law is as I hold it to be, let this tree prove it," and the tree uprooted itself a hundred amma, but they said, "Proof cannot be brought from a tree." Rabbi Eliezer persisted, saying, "Let these waters determine it," and the waters began to flow backwards, but his colleagues responded that waters cannot determine the law. Once again Rabbi Eliezer tried, asking the walls of the study house to support him. They began to totter, whereupon the spokesman for the majority, Rabbi Joshua, admonished them, "when rabbis are engaged in legal discussion what right have ye to interfere!" So the walls did not fall in respect for Rabbi Joshua, nor did they return to their upright position, in respect for Rabbi Eliezer-and "they remain thus to this day!" But Rabbi Eliezer would not surrender and cried out: "Let Heaven decide." A voice was heard from Heaven saying: "Why do ye dispute with Rabbi Eliezer; the law is always as he says it to be." Whereupon Rabbi Joshua arose and proclaimed, quoting Scripture, "It is not in Heaven!" Rabbi Jeremiah explained, "The Law was given at Sinai and we no longer give heed to heavenly voices, for in that Law it is stated:* 'One follows the majority.*"'* God's truth, divine law, is not determined by miracles or heavenly voices, but by the collegium of rabbis, men learned in the law, committed to the law and expert in its application to the life of the pious community.
*
In 2000 years there's only been two executions carried out by Jews one was a miscarriage of justice with the army officer being posthumously pardoned, that was under military law not Jewish law though. The other was Adolf Eichmann. 
*


*


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's not legal to stone anyone to death for anything under Mosaic law, it might say 'stone them' but the rabbis constructed a legal obstacle course so convoluted that it was practically impossible for anyone to be put to death as the result of a trial, to the extent that, in the event of a unanimous vote by the Sanhedrin to condemn a person to death, the guilty party was immediately exonerated, so that it's impossible to enact a death sentence for anything. A 'life for a life' never meant execution anyway, it meant/mean that if you lil someone you are then responsible for taking on all the responsibilities the dead person had, ie earning a living for their family etc. You have to give your life over to it, forever.



I found this interesting. Here is an interesting quote from the Theopolis Institute that supports and is in contrast with your post:
How did the death penalty function? First, the death penalty was the maximum penalty for various crimes, but it was not a mandatory penalty for most crimes. Numbers 35 is about the institution of cities of refuge for those who committed manslaughter. Verses 30-31 read, “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the *evidence of witnesses*, but no person shall be put to death *on the testimony of one witness*. Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he *shall surely be put to death*.” This makes it clear that convicted murderers had to be executed, but also implies that the penalty in other crimes might be commuted through a ransom, probably some monetary compensation (see Prov 6:32-35; Matt 1:19).


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I found this interesting. Here is an interesting quote from the Theopolis Institute that supports and is in contrast with your post:
> How did the death penalty function? First, the death penalty was the maximum penalty for various crimes, but it was not a mandatory penalty for most crimes. Numbers 35 is about the institution of cities of refuge for those who committed manslaughter. Verses 30-31 read, “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the *evidence of witnesses*, but no person shall be put to death *on the testimony of one witness*. Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he *shall surely be put to death*.” This makes it clear that convicted murderers had to be executed, but also implies that the penalty in other crimes might be commuted through a ransom, probably some monetary compensation (see Prov 6:32-35; Matt 1:19).



Well, yes and no, as I said that's what the words say but the rabbis discussed the laws and put in much more complicated rules of deciding the verdict so what the words say and the actual outcome is not going to be the same. You are looking at the 'biblical' words not the laws as decided by the rabbis then and now. 
 Jewish law isn't set in stone, pun intended. This is the problem when discussing with non Jews, they don't get the idea that yes while it says the death penalty should be enacted, the actual trial is wrapped around with clauses and conditions that make it impossible to have the death penalty. We discuss the Law and consensus means it will change because of the clauses we write in, the 'biblical' laws are nothing like they were thousands of years ago. We don't take the written words as law but instead the decision of the Talmudic rabbis. ( in case anyone doesn't know rabbis aren't priests they are teachers and learned people) 
According to the Mishnah capital cases had to be decided by a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. If the conviction in a capital case was unanimous  the accused was acquitted. Perhaps most onerous of all, the offence had been witnessed by two people who warned the perpetrator immediately prior to committing the act that it was a capital offense.   Such stringencies are often understood to account for the famous Mishnah passage hat states that if a Sanhedrin executed one person in seven years, it was considered destructive. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah objects that the standard is actually once in 70 years, and Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva say that had they served on the court, no one would have ever been executed.

This may explain it better than I have, The Death Penalty - Masorti Judaism


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Well, yes and no, as I said that's what the words say but the rabbis discussed the laws and put in much more complicated rules of deciding the verdict so what the words say and the actual outcome is not going to be the same. You are looking at the 'biblical' words not the laws as decided by the rabbis then and now.
> Jewish law isn't set in stone, pun intended. This is the problem when discussing with non Jews, they don't get the idea that yes while it says the death penalty should be enacted, the actual trial is wrapped around with clauses and conditions that make it impossible to have the death penalty. We discuss the Law and consensus means it will change because of the clauses we write in, the 'biblical' laws are nothing like they were thousands of years ago. We don't take the written words as law but instead the decision of the Talmudic rabbis. ( in case anyone doesn't know rabbis aren't priests they are teachers and learned people)
> According to the Mishnah capital cases had to be decided by a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. If the conviction in a capital case was unanimous the accused was acquitted. Perhaps most onerous of all, the offence had been witnessed by two people who warned the perpetrator immediately prior to committing the act that it was a capital offense.   Such stringencies are often understood to account for the famous Mishnah passage hat states that if a Sanhedrin executed one person in seven years, it was considered destructive. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah objects that the standard is actually once in 70 years, and Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva say that had they served on the court, no one would have ever been executed.
> 
> This may explain it better than I have, The Death Penalty - Masorti Judaism


Yes, that is too deep and convoluted for me and very wrapped up in the law of "educated" men. Somewhere the translation is completely lost. It does have similarities to U.S. law however.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Yes, that is too deep and convoluted for me and very wrapped up in the law of "educated" men. Somewhere the translation is completely lost. It does have similarities to U.S. law however.



I think you'll find that US law has some similarities with it, bearing in mind how old Jewish Law is compared to American law, I should probably point out your law is very, very young compared to just about everybody's.  

I wouldn't say our law is for educated men at all, most Jews study the Torah and are able to argue the points, it's one of the things we do so most of us are quite able to understand it. Educating your children is one of the most important things you can do we believe, not just the so called 'religious' stuff but being literate, able to think ( one of the reasons Jews have so many differing views) and to argue your case.
27. Torah Study
Studying Torah | My Jewish Learning


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I think you'll find that US law has some similarities with it, bearing in mind how old Jewish Law is compared to American law, I should probably point out your law is very, very young compared to just about everybody's.
> 
> I wouldn't say our law is for educated men at all, most Jews study the Torah and are able to argue the points, it's one of the things we do so most of us are quite able to understand it. Educating your children is one of the most important things you can do we believe, not just the so called 'religious' stuff but being literate, able to think ( one of the reasons Jews have so many differing views) and to argue your case.
> 27. Torah Study
> Studying Torah | My Jewish Learning


Similarity isn't directional, Tez. I have a lot of similarities with my father. My brother has a lot of similarities with me. No causality implied.

That said, while your previous post got way too deep for me to stay with, I love learning bits about how ideas (like laws) develop. Keep posting that, please!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Similarity isn't directional, Tez. I have a lot of similarities with my father. My brother has a lot of similarities with me. No causality implied.
> 
> That said, while your previous post got way too deep for me to stay with, I love learning bits about how ideas (like laws) develop. Keep posting that, please!




The way I was taught English in school does make the *comparing* of two things 'directional' as in if your brother is older then you are like him and vice versa, the one coming first being literally the first and the one coming second being like them. Consider it an English quirk of logic that the younger is compared to the older.

I think non Jews rarely actually think about Judaism when they pronounce things like 'Mosaic law' being the basis of their law etc, it's not just law though. It seems to be assumed that Judaism is Christianity without Jesus when it's not, it's a very different thing. It's actually not that deep when you read it because above all else we are pragmatic about life.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The way I was taught English in school does make the *comparing* of two things 'directional' as in if your brother is older then you are like him and vice versa, the one coming first being literally the first and the one coming second being like them. Consider it an English quirk of logic that the younger is compared to the older.
> 
> I think non Jews rarely actually think about Judaism when they pronounce things like 'Mosaic law' being the basis of their law etc, it's not just law though. It seems to be assumed that Judaism is Christianity without Jesus when it's not, it's a very different thing. It's actually not that deep when you read it because above all else we are pragmatic about life.


I disagree with you analogy. A quirk is this engineering constant; directional does NOT imply direction. A head scratcher until you think about the fact that directional implies nothing about position.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I disagree with you analogy. A quirk is this engineering constant; directional does NOT imply direction. A head scratcher until you think about the fact that directional implies nothing about position.




Not sure how you can disagree with what is a British norm, it may not be technically 'correct' but it is a British thing to do this ( and we've also been doing this a long long time before America in fact), that when we compare thing i_n this manner_ ( not everything obviously) we compare the younger to the older as simply because it was there first. Jewish law isn't 'like' American law, simply because it's a couple of thousand years older (and not actually the same) so obviously as American law was supposedly taken from Jewish law it must be compared against the older law. 
People compare modern singers/actors/writers etc for example with older ones all the time. When introducing people don't you introduce the younger to the older as a matter of courtesy?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The way I was taught English in school does make the *comparing* of two things 'directional' as in if your brother is older then you are like him and vice versa, the one coming first being literally the first and the one coming second being like them. Consider it an English quirk of logic that the younger is compared to the older.


I was wondering after I posted that if there's a difference in English usage. It somehow fits with the "different to" in my mind. It might also be the original way the word was used - I'd have to look at the etymology to see if there was directionality in the base.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I disagree with you analogy. A quirk is this engineering constant; directional does NOT imply direction. A head scratcher until you think about the fact that directional implies nothing about position.


We're not in engineering here, though but in common usage. In common usage, "directional" actually refers to direction, so a verb that is said to be directional would, in fact, imply direction.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Wow. Don't take this wrong but I am glad I do not live in Michigan. A LEO is only going to put you in a choke if you give them a reason to. And, if they know how to do it they are being really nice to you, only choking you out. I am a smaller guy and I really practice how to make a choke cause a person to pass out as quickly as possible. Two specific events I have had; both involved big men who were really doped up. I came into the scene as backup after other officers had tried to get cuffs on the guy. They tazed, they pepper sprayed to no success. Both times I had the other officers distract the guy so I could jump on, ride his back and choke him out. NEVER did I have deadly force in mind while holding the choke. Hell, I knew one of the guys.
> One plead out, one hired a legal TEAM and tried to make it a big deal. He and his team were thoroughly embarrassed in the courtroom. I never heard a peep personally.
> Especially in today's climate, the guy(s) probably would have been shot. How is that more humane?
> We cannot let attorneys and judges twist intent. LE patrolman are not elite, high paying jobs. They earn and deserve respect. It is time most of the police videos that go public show the minutes that lead up to what is seen on the news. Then the real truth will be seen.



In Michigan, any type of choke for an officer is considered deadly force.  There have been many pushes to get it legal to control lower levels of force when appropriate.  Even in California you can choke a suspect when it is not deadly force.  As a use of force instructor we were trained and tested on the "lateral vascular neck restraint" (formal name escapes me in JJ/Judo terms) in case it became legal.  Even PPCT has a special manual for Michigan that does not include the LVNR in it.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> In Michigan, any type of choke for an officer is considered deadly force.  There have been many pushes to get it legal to control lower levels of force when appropriate.  Even in California you can choke a suspect when it is not deadly force.  As a use of force instructor we were trained and tested on the "lateral vascular neck restraint" (formal name escapes me in JJ/Judo terms) in case it became legal.  Even PPCT has a special manual for Michigan that does not include the LVNR in it.




In the UK when an arrest is shown in the media with four or five officers holding a person down there's much comment about the waste of police manpower ie 'surely it doesn't take 5 officers to arrest' etc etc, however the case now is that to avoid accusations of using illegal holds, unnecessary force or violence police have to follow a protocol which mean officers to hold head, officers to hold arms and officers to hold legs. There is so much criticism whatever you do, an officer using a chokehold would bring howls of protest of police brutality, they see someone being 'choked to death' without understanding how that hold works.

the recent use of police bodycams which are showing the problems the police face with an increasingly violent public is shocking people at the moment, hopefully it's educating the public but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 3, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> In Michigan, any type of choke for an officer is considered deadly force.  There have been many pushes to get it legal to control lower levels of force when appropriate.  Even in California you can choke a suspect when it is not deadly force.  As a use of force instructor we were trained and tested on the "lateral vascular neck restraint" (formal name escapes me in JJ/Judo terms) in case it became legal.  Even PPCT has a special manual for Michigan that does not include the LVNR in it.


I really hate how the laws gets twisted sometimes.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I was wondering after I posted that if there's a difference in English usage. It somehow fits with the "different to" in my mind. It might also be the original way the word was used - I'd have to look at the etymology to see if there was directionality in the base.




It's logical in these cases to compare younger with older, after all you'd say baby looked like dad not the other way around! We'd say that the Blackpool Tower was similar to the Eiffel Tower because the latter was built first and the former built in imitation.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> We're not in engineering here, though but in common usage. In common usage, "directional" actually refers to direction, so a verb that is said to be directional would, in fact, imply direction.


Agree, but the other post inferred directional always meant forward which is incorrect.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Not sure how you can disagree with what is a British norm, it may not be technically 'correct' but it is a British thing to do this ( and we've also been doing this a long long time before America in fact), that when we compare thing i_n this manner_ ( not everything obviously) we compare the younger to the older as simply because it was there first. Jewish law isn't 'like' American law, simply because it's a couple of thousand years older (and not actually the same) so obviously as American law was supposedly taken from Jewish law it must be compared against the older law.
> People compare modern singers/actors/writers etc for example with older ones all the time. When introducing people don't you introduce the younger to the older as a matter of courtesy?


Never thought much about your last paragraph. The "common business protocol" as I was taught is, if going around the room at a meet and greet,  introduce the party who is your guest to whoever you walk up to, age regardless. This assumes your party is newer to the room and you want them to feel welcome. 
I do think I would follow your protocol in most instances however.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Never thought much about your last paragraph. The "common business protocol" as I was taught is, if going around the room at a meet and greet,  introduce the party who is your guest to whoever you walk up to, age regardless. This assumes your party is newer to the room and you want them to feel welcome.
> I do think I would follow your protocol in most instances however.



It's what we were taught, British manners though are even now more formal that those in the USA.  We'd also introduce lower 'ranked' people to the higher 'ranked' in business situations and if you move in circles where people have titles ( as in Lord, Sir, Lady, Dame etc). I'm not sure we do 'meet and greets' lol it sounds very informal. I'm used to formal events in the military ( and that can be very formal especially the army) and with various people I know are probably more formally polite than most. I would call Lord B by his first name usually but when introducing a stranger to him who didn't outrank him I would introduce him by title ( which confusingly is actually Baron) and surname not H****! 

So you can see why our police officers are just about unfailingly polite even when throwing you in the back of police cars ( it's always mind your head)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> It's logical in these cases to compare younger with older, after all you'd say baby looked like dad not the other way around! We'd say that the Blackpool Tower was similar to the Eiffel Tower because the latter was built first and the former built in imitation.


We'd say that the same way (baby looks like dad). We'd also say, as the kid aged that the boy and his father look similar (no direction).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Never thought much about your last paragraph. The "common business protocol" as I was taught is, if going around the room at a meet and greet,  introduce the party who is your guest to whoever you walk up to, age regardless. This assumes your party is newer to the room and you want them to feel welcome.
> I do think I would follow your protocol in most instances however.


It used to be the norm to introduce in the direction Tez mentioned. I've seen it recently (2 years ago) in a client's business communications training material. I ignored it - as you said, it's no longer something most business people would pay attention to.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> In the UK when an arrest is shown in the media with four or five officers holding a person down there's much comment about the waste of police manpower ie 'surely it doesn't take 5 officers to arrest' etc etc, however the case now is that to avoid accusations of using illegal holds, unnecessary force or violence police have to follow a protocol which mean officers to hold head, officers to hold arms and officers to hold legs. There is so much criticism whatever you do, an officer using a chokehold would bring howls of protest of police brutality, they see someone being 'choked to death' without understanding how that hold works.
> 
> the recent use of police bodycams which are showing the problems the police face with an increasingly violent public is shocking people at the moment, hopefully it's educating the public but I'm not holding my breath.



There was a recent case in New York (Eric Garner) where the officer took down an extremely overweight (and taller/larger) suspect using a neck restraint and once on the ground almost immediately  lets go.  The suspect ended up dying due to other complications, but the headline read that the suspect was killed using a "choke".  If you watch the first initial contact that the officer attempts to apply the restraint until he is seen letting go is about 6-7 seconds.  It is AFTER the restraint was let go that he starts saying he couldn't breathe.  But, public perception is that it was the choke that killed him, even though he never lost consciousness.  It was more likely a case of positional asphyxiation due to being almost 400 lbs and on his stomach.





Short clip above


----------



## lklawson (Dec 3, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> There was a recent case in New York (Eric Garner) where the officer took down an extremely overweight (and taller/larger) suspect using a neck restraint and once on the ground almost immediately  lets go.  The suspect ended up dying due to other complications, but the headline read that the suspect was killed using a "choke".  If you watch the first initial contact that the officer attempts to apply the restraint until he is seen letting go is about 6-7 seconds.  It is AFTER the restraint was let go that he starts saying he couldn't breathe.  But, public perception is that it was the choke that killed him, even though he never lost consciousness.  It was more likely a case of positional asphyxiation due to being almost 400 lbs and on his stomach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember it.  I got wore out trying to educate and correct uniformed people, with no experience or training, opining and insisting on policy changes.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 3, 2018)

jobo said:


> well clearly not, if you have a legal justication for using force no crime was committed, that why laws havestatutary defences built in, its part of the law, so no law was broken,
> 
> otherwise it would be true that you can break the law but not commit a crime and that would be silly,



That might be an interesting argument in a logic class.  I don't know as I am no expert on logic.

And clearly you are no expert on USA law.

'Nuff said.


----------



## pgsmith (Dec 3, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I remember it. I got wore out trying to educate and correct uninformed people, with no experience or training, opining and insisting on policy changes.



  The problem being that in today's society most people want to be vindicated, not educated. Surprisingly few people are actually attempting to learn new things and expand their minds, despite the abundance of information available to learn almost anything. Perhaps it is this very over-abundance of information that causes people to be overwhelmed, and so they insist on what they "know" rather approaching life with an open mind and searching for truths.

  Sorry, just rambling now ...


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 3, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I remember it.  I got wore out trying to educate and correct uniformed people, with no experience or training, opining and insisting on policy changes.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yep, me too.  Not sure what the medical examiner was doing (political pressure/agenda) but they ruled: "Cause of Death: Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police" and "Contributing Conditions: Acute and chronic bronchial asthma; Obesity; Hypertensive cardiovascular disease".  

I have NEVER seen a medical cause of death from a neck compression that the person never lost consciousness without any type of other factor, such as, blocked arteries or plaque buildup that caused continued damage.  That neck hold (on video) is less than 7 seconds and it was not even secure for some of that time and Garner never lost consciousness.  His death was fat and positional asphyxiation if I ever saw one.  Granted, I'm not a doctor, but in my reading of medical implications of neck restraints are that there is no danger of death prior to the person losing consciousness.  The problem and warning are ALWAYS if it is held too long.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> That might be an interesting argument in a logic class.  I don't know as I am no expert on logic.
> 
> And clearly you are no expert on USA law.
> 
> 'Nuff said.



No expert on UK law either.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It used to be the norm to introduce in the direction Tez mentioned. I've seen it recently (2 years ago) in a client's business communications training material. I ignored it - as you said, it's no longer something most business people would pay attention to.




I would if working with Europeans though, it's taken quite seriously, the French especially expect the niceties to be observed. Often Americans are perceived as being rude, they aren't of course but their more laid back and friendly demeanor looks to many like rudeness when used on strangers. I don't find it rude just a little startling when an American who I have just met treats me like an old friend, not unpleasant but startling all the same.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I would if working with Europeans though, it's taken quite seriously, the French especially expect the niceties to be observed. Often Americans are perceived as being rude, they aren't of course but their more laid back and friendly demeanor looks to many like rudeness when used on strangers. I don't find it rude just a little startling when an American who I have just met treats me like an old friend, not unpleasant but startling all the same.


Training for interacting with a different culture is an entire topic. What each expects is quite different (though there's a lot of common expectations from Europe). The perception of rudeness goes both ways with the French - they tend to seem (to Americans) dismissive of new business acquaintances. And then there's the issue of punctuality dealing with Germans (who will absolutely walk out of a meeting at its scheduled ending time, I've been told).


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> We'd say that the same way (baby looks like dad). We'd also say, as the kid aged that the boy and his father look similar (no direction).



Saying they look similar isn't the same as comparing them though.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Training for interacting with a different culture is an entire topic. What each expects is quite different (though there's a lot of common expectations from Europe). The perception of rudeness goes both ways with the French - they tend to seem (to Americans) dismissive of new business acquaintances. And then there's the issue of punctuality dealing with Germans (who will absolutely walk out of a meeting at its scheduled ending time, I've been told).




The French are dismissive full stop. they do consider many non French rude for such things as not greeting the shop assistant when you walk in etc. Germans can be difficult to work with, I lived in Germany for three years, I've not known them to walk out but they do like precision in business and they do expect people not to be late or sloppy. They also because of past history are very defensive with Americans and Brits. 

Obey all the rules of the road if in Germany, if you do not stop at a give way sign even if there's nothing coming you will be charged with a motoring offence. That's how they roll.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Dec 10, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> They don't actually say a single word about the case of the week until about 17:40.
> Seems pretty straight forward to me. Don't use more force than is necessary.


That can be iffy, from a legal standpoint. Obviously you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you but lets say a grown man attacks you with his bare hands. You fight back with your bare hands and you stop him. Once he's no longer a threat you stop. If you were to continue to beat on him after he's no longer a threat that would not be a case of self defense since he's no longer attacking you. The fact of the matter is, you're both grown men, he's attacking with his bare hands, you're fighting back with your bare hands, and you stop when he stops. Based on that, it should be a clear case of self defense.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2018)

PhotonGuy said:


> That can be iffy, from a legal standpoint. Obviously you can't shoot a small child who takes a slap at you but lets say a grown man attacks you with his bare hands. You fight back with your bare hands and you stop him. Once he's no longer a threat you stop. If you were to continue to beat on him after he's no longer a threat that would not be a case of self defense since he's no longer attacking you. The fact of the matter is, you're both grown men, he's attacking with his bare hands, you're fighting back with your bare hands, and you stop when he stops. Based on that, it should be a clear case of self defense.


Agree. The bigger question in when a weapon is involved. Do you have to show some level of restraint to stay out of the courtroom?


----------



## Bruce7 (Dec 14, 2018)

Self defense works most of the time in Texas so long as you don't kill someone important.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> There was a recent case in New York (Eric Garner) where the officer took down an extremely overweight (and taller/larger) suspect using a neck restraint and once on the ground almost immediately  lets go.  The suspect ended up dying due to other complications, but the headline read that the suspect was killed using a "choke".  If you watch the first initial contact that the officer attempts to apply the restraint until he is seen letting go is about 6-7 seconds.  It is AFTER the restraint was let go that he starts saying he couldn't breathe.  But, public perception is that it was the choke that killed him, even though he never lost consciousness.  It was more likely a case of positional asphyxiation due to being almost 400 lbs and on his stomach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The interesting thing about neck restraints is that as bad as they look. They do stop peoples heads bouncing off the ground.

They are a really tricky for and against.

Oh. And crushed windpipe will kill a guy without the choke ko.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> The interesting thing about neck restraints is that as bad as they look. They do stop peoples heads bouncing off the ground.
> 
> They are a really tricky for and against.
> 
> Oh. And crushed windpipe will kill a guy without the choke ko.


Speaking as a bouncer, not a martial artist: Do you think neck restraints are actually safer overall then other types of restraints?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Speaking as a bouncer, not a martial artist: Do you think neck restraints are actually safer overall then other types of restraints?



There are two considerations. If the neck restraint was done professionally buy a trained guy then yeah heaps safer. I have broken guys arms and legs locking guys up.

But bouncers will also tend to try and take a head home with them so then it becomes risky.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 17, 2018)

drop bear said:


> The interesting thing about neck restraints is that as bad as they look. They do stop peoples heads bouncing off the ground.
> 
> They are a really tricky for and against.
> 
> Oh. And crushed windpipe will kill a guy without the choke ko.



Correct.  In this case, there was no damage to ANY internal structure of neck/throat area.  In another post, I said that I had never heard of someone dying from a neck restraint alone unless there was some other type of damage or injury when there was no loss of consciousness.


----------

