# Throws and Liability?



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 26, 2007)

Do you ever worry that if you did a throw or a takedown on an assailant, they might injure their head while falling?  Maybe opening yourself up for Civil Court?

Jeff


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 26, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> Do you ever worry that if you did a throw or a takedown on an assailant, they might injure their head while falling?  Maybe opening yourself up for Civil Court?
> 
> Jeff



Is this from a LEO perspective?   Me not being a LEO, I wouldn't worry about it at all, they shouldn't have been assailing me...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 26, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Is this from a LEO perspective?   Me not being a LEO, I wouldn't worry about it at all, they shouldn't have been assailing me...


Not from a LEO perspective at all.  There have been cases of people defending themselves and paying their assailant for the injuries that were bestowed on them.  That's more of where I'm thinking from.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 26, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> Not from a LEO perspective at all.  There have been cases of people defending themselves and paying their assailant for the injuries that were bestowed on them.  That's more of where I'm thinking from.



Oh, OK.  Where were those cases?  California?  HAHAHAHA  j/k 

I wonder the circumstances surrounding the cases though.  There is a fine line between doing what is necessary and vengance.  It can be easily crossed in the heat of the moment.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 26, 2007)

I've read a few cases like that, mostly involving using firearms.  One that has stuck in my head though was a fairly local bouncer who was being attacked by two people and he threw one of them.  He got sued by the assailant.  The laws might have changed since then 'cause this was at least eight years ago.

Jeff


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 26, 2007)

Anybody can sue you for anything; it's just up to the court to decide if they're going to entertain the suit.  And yes, I think about this a lot - not just with throws or takedowns, but with anything.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 26, 2007)

Hey Jeff,

Actually I would want to make sure that I was *legally *within my rights to defend myself and using *reasonable force*.  Combative style throwing is designed to drop the person on their head and or break something else during the throw.  So if I do not have a reason to use lethal force I will not be dropping them on their head and have to alter the throw so that they land in a different way.  It all comes down to doing something that is *reasonable*.  If the person has a knife and is trying to violently kill me or my family then a combative style throw could then be warranted but hopefully I will have a tool to equalize their knife and never have to get that close. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I would also hope to get out of Dodge first before it ever came to that.  Just my .02!  

Great topic!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 26, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Anybody can sue you for anything; it's just up to the court to decide if they're going to entertain the suit. And yes, I think about this a lot - not just with throws or takedowns, but with anything.


 

Great post Shesulsa!!!


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 26, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Anybody can sue you for anything; it's just up to the court to decide if they're going to entertain the suit.  And yes, I think about this a lot - not just with throws or takedowns, but with anything.


Absolutely!  I personally am getting ready to file suit against Bob for taking up so much of my time!


The cases I was refering to were ones that the attacker ended up winning.

Jeff


----------



## blackxpress (Feb 26, 2007)

It's been said many times but bears repeating.  I'd rather be tried by 12 than buried by 6.  The only way I would ever use my martial skills outside the dojo would be if I was in fear for my life/safety or the life/safety of someone else.  I don't think I would have time to worry about whether or not the bad guy was going to sue me.  I'd be too busy worrying about whether or not the bad guy was going to kill me.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 26, 2007)

I think Brian was spot on regarding doing what is *reasonable*.  I think following that principle, one may likely avoid a lawsuit of that nature.

There are ways to throw someone that the risk of injury is low but it can still be painful.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 26, 2007)

In general, if you are in danger of great bodily harm, then you are justified in using whatever means necessary to preserve yourself, and I don't mean in a morgue!

Dumping someone on his head is no different than putting a fist between someone's eyes, kicking him in the throat, choking someone out, etc.  All of the listed techniques have a chance of killing the recipient of such an attack.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 26, 2007)

Jeff

I'm liable to throw you if you don't give me that Chocolate pie recipe :uhyeah:



shesulsa said:


> Anybody can sue you for anything; it's just up to the court to decide if they're going to entertain the suit. And yes, I think about this a lot - not just with throws or takedowns, but with anything.


 
What she said. 

There was a case in my state where an attacker was suing the security guard and the facility he worked for his pain and suffering which he claimed was caused by the beating the security guard gave him with his maglite flash light. When the judge asked to see the flash light and a minimag was produced he kicked the whole thing out. 

Not a throw but a case that might apply to your question


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2007)

If we were to take a look at our techniques, I think it would be really eye opening to see just how many throws/takedowns are included.  Like Shesulsa said, we can be sued for anything.  Its really a tough situation.  

Brian brings up some great points in his post.  But on the other hand, we can punch someone, they can fall back and land on their head.  It all comes down to being justified. 

Mike


----------



## zDom (Feb 26, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Jeff,
> 
> Actually I would want to make sure that I was *legally *within my rights to defend myself and using *reasonable force*.  Combative style throwing is designed to drop the person on their head and or break something else during the throw.  So if I do not have a reason to use lethal force I will not be dropping them on their head and have to alter the throw so that they land in a different way.  It all comes down to doing something that is *reasonable*.  If the person has a knife and is trying to violently kill me or my family then a combative style throw could then be warranted but hopefully I will have a tool to equalize their knife and never have to get that close.
> 
> ...



Well put, Brian.

How I would throw an attacker, personally, really depends on how threatened I feel and what kind of surface they will be hitting.


----------



## crushing (Feb 26, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> Do you ever worry that if you did a throw or a takedown on an assailant, they might injure their head while falling? Maybe opening yourself up for Civil Court?
> 
> Jeff


 
No.  In fact, depending on the threat level I can imagine one using a throw to purposefully put the attacker on his head.


----------



## crushing (Feb 26, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Jeff,
> 
> Actually I would want to make sure that I was *legally *within my rights to defend myself and using *reasonable force*. Combative style throwing is designed to drop the person on their head and or break something else during the throw. So if I do not have a reason to use lethal force I will not be dropping them on their head and have to alter the throw so that they land in a different way. It all comes down to doing something that is *reasonable*. If the person has a knife and is trying to violently kill me or my family then a combative style throw could then be warranted but hopefully I will have a tool to equalize their knife and never have to get that close.
> 
> ...


 
Brian already said it earlier in the thread, but I missed it somehow.  I agree with his statements on this.  I'm not a lawyer or a LEO though.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 27, 2007)

I think Brian pretty much nailed it...

AFAIC, deadly force is deadly force.  I tell my students that if I'm jabbing someone in the eyes or hitting them in the throat, the only reason I'm not shooting or stabbing them is because I don't have a weapon in my hand.  I would imagine this would apply to throws (where there is a high probability of a head injury) as well.  

Make sure your actions are justified and reasonable, beyond that, there's not much you can do.  If the scumbag is going to sue you, hopefully the judge is smart enough to toss the case out of court.


----------



## still learning (Feb 27, 2007)

Hello, Well put guys (above comments).  Throws and takedowns are great controling techniques,  (Judo)..they call the gentle art...an experence Judo person can take you down gently or with full force.  Break something on the way down or controling holds.

Throws and liability? ....like everyone said...you can be sue for all kind of things. ( the laws seem to protect the bad people more sometimes).

When you throw a person off a cliff? ...expect the worst from the Judge.

If throwing up....different story....Aloha


----------



## charyuop (Feb 27, 2007)

I love this Aikido feeling in the air...but in reality???
Sure I think now about being sued for use of excessive strength, and I find it the most idiot law in the world (also because it is almost worldwide) since no1 told you to attack me. But would would be still thinking about that when someone attacks you??

Ok, there are big Masters here from 3rd to 6th Dan who feel very comfortable in beating someone attacking them and can be kind. But someone who has not that skill and manages to take advantage of the attacker do you think he should just gently throw him away so he won't hurt him? Giving another chance to attack and maybe this time with luck or who knows how gain hold of me???

I don't know, maybe when I am at your very high level (maybe a 3rd Dan in 30 years...hee hee I am optimist) I might think "poor guy let's not hurt him", but now what I think it is "yes I got him, now I won't give you another chance to try it again". If I can break something, even a small finger, it is welcome.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 27, 2007)

What about the circumstance wherein the defender is not "consciously choosing" to react this way or that; rather, they rely on the natural response that their body produces.  If this type of a scenario results in what could be determined as "beyond reasonable", then does the defender remain culpable of using excessive force?

It seems to me that there need be some type of litmus test for determining the defender's ability to control the level of force that they respond with before intent to cause undue harm can be demonstrated.  Mind you, I'm not a lawyer.  I simply don't know the answer.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 27, 2007)

Flatlander said:


> What about the circumstance wherein the defender is not "consciously choosing" to react this way or that; rather, they rely on the natural response that their body produces.  If this type of a scenario results in what could be determined as "beyond reasonable", then does the defender remain culpable of using excessive force?
> 
> It seems to me that there need be some type of litmus test for determining the defender's ability to control the level of force that they respond with before intent to cause undue harm can be demonstrated.  Mind you, I'm not a lawyer.  I simply don't know the answer.


To the best of my knowledge, the reasonableness of the defensive force used will be judged in light of the totality of the circumstances; things like relative size and fitness, time to react, escape alternatives, weapons used or displayed or implied, and more.  Reasonable force is not the MINIMUM force necessary; the question is whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, was the force used reasonably in line with the threat presented.  One of the determining factors in whether something is lethal force or not is whether the person using it could or should have known it was likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  You could simply shove someone away, and they fall and land just right to break their neck; was the technique something a reasonable person would foresee as leading to that outcome?  And that's only the criminal side of the question...

Use of force is a very complicated area of law.  Civil lawsuits involving use of force get even more complicated -- and the burden of proof in a civil case is different from that of a criminal case.    

If you simply reacted instantly, with no thought or planning, to an actual attack -- not a mere threat -- in a way that accidentally caused serious bodily harm, my guess (which is not at all a substitute for legal guidance from an attorney!) is that you could come out OK.  But it's still going to be costly to go to trial...


----------

