# Martial artist getting the extra squeeze by a judge for being a Martial artist.



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2020)

Does being a martial artist put you at a disadvantage in court?

And sometimes it sort of does.

Aussie UFC fighter ‘Combat Wombat’ jailed after one-punch hit


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2020)

A fellow student who was also a cop told me that I could get in big trouble if I choked someone out on the street, even if they didn't die, because of my training background. I'm not sure how true that is, but I always viewed that as pretty messed up.

And despite the legal risk, you better believe I'm choking someone out if I can.


----------



## jobo (Oct 5, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Does being a martial artist put you at a disadvantage in court?
> 
> And sometimes it sort of does.
> 
> Aussie UFC fighter ‘Combat Wombat’ jailed after one-punch hit


its hard to argue when he plead guilty, of course he will be found  guilty , ive no idea if the,sentance is unduly hard, it does sound quite reasonable

but there seems no worth while self defence argument to be made, he over powered him, removed him from the club and then gave him a punishment knock, almost certainly on cctv ?, not smart couldnt he have accidently banged his head on the door on the way out


----------



## jobo (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> A fellow student who was also a cop told me that I could get in big trouble if I choked someone out on the street, even if they didn't die, because of my training background. I'm not sure how true that is, but I always viewed that as pretty messed up.
> 
> And despite the legal risk, you better believe I'm choking someone out if I can.


im aways reluctant to take legal adivice off cops to be honest, when he says big trouble,, he may mean the police will arrest you, thats not at all the same as saying youl get convicted, which will clearly turn on the facts of the particular case

its common for the police here to ask" have you been in trouble with the police" like thats a thing, yes ive had my fair share of trouble from the police, ive not however been in " trouble" with the courts,and thats the important thing


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Does being a martial artist put you at a disadvantage in court?
> 
> And sometimes it sort of does.
> 
> Aussie UFC fighter ‘Combat Wombat’ jailed after one-punch hit


I made the mistake of underestimating a wombat once.

...

...

once.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> A fellow student who was also a cop told me that I could get in big trouble if I choked someone out on the street, even if they didn't die, because of my training background. I'm not sure how true that is, but I always viewed that as pretty messed up.
> 
> And despite the legal risk, you better believe I'm choking someone out if I can.


I am a smaller guy. When I was LEO I was sort of known for working my way around a perp and jumping on their back and riding them down with a choke. I clearly stated that in several court cases and never got in any trouble or even had any blowback. A Lot of it is how you build your defense leading up to such a statement though.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Oct 6, 2020)

This reminds me of the legal **** about "if you knock someone out whos attacking you, you are liable for what happens next"    Now i forget the legal rebuttal to that, but i know its a pretty simple legal rebuttal. 

I dont think you are lible for anything like that happening in legitimate self defence because they would have instigated with you.  that stance is effectively stating "dont defend yourself".  (which is stupid as you would most of the time, love all to any consiqences after it)


Oh, off topic.   I like how police forces in the U.S list the laws of the state/county or what ever on their websites. Then they have the legal disclaimer like "this doesnt count as legal advice".    I mean, is it or isnt it the laws for the state/county? Are they or arent they in power?    That makes me laugh a bit.


----------



## jobo (Oct 6, 2020)

Rat said:


> This reminds me of the legal **** about "if you knock someone out whos attacking you, you are liable for what happens next"    Now i forget the legal rebuttal to that, but i know its a pretty simple legal rebuttal.
> 
> I dont think you are lible for anything like that happening in legitimate self defence because they would have instigated with you.  that stance is effectively stating "dont defend yourself".  (which is stupid as you would most of the time, love all to any consiqences after it)
> 
> ...


 in an adversarial system like we have in this country and they have in most of the states

then the polices job is to secure convictions, they are not at all interested in if that happens to be fair or not.

do they think they have enough evidence ? yes, then you will be charged

if you have an arguable legal defence, then you will have to argue it in court, the police are seldom interested in shades of grey, consequently you need to be very very careful what you say,' loose lips cost ships''

such advice as they do give tends to be on the simplistic side and completely avoid, suggesting that there are shades of grey or just ignore statutory defences all together, they are not going to help you to get off or encourage you to argue the toss with the police on the ground, who are telling you you must or can not do something, based on info provided by a police web site, wheres the sense in that ? they just want people to do as they are told regardless of if they have a legal obligation or not


----------



## lklawson (Oct 6, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Does being a martial artist put you at a disadvantage in court?
> 
> And sometimes it sort of does.


It happens with a fair bit of regularity.  I've posted about it before.


----------



## Buka (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> A fellow student who was also a cop told me that I could get in big trouble if I choked someone out on the street, even if they didn't die, because of my training background. I'm not sure how true that is, but I always viewed that as pretty messed up.
> 
> And despite the legal risk, you better believe I'm choking someone out if I can.



I am too. And I can do it with complete freedom! Check this out...

So...I work as an Airport cop. I've been out of work for six months due to covid, but I'm still a cop there. Back in Boston we haven't been able to use a rear naked choke since Christ was a kid. Unless, of course, we've elevated to deadly force on a Use of Force Continuum.

But here, working for a foolish security company who has the contract with the state to provide Police Officers to the airport, we can use a rear naked choke with impunity. They even gave us paper work, on company letterhead no less, telling us so - and showing diagrams of what a rear naked choke is. We even had to sign for them.

I was stunned when they gave out that paperwork this past February. We all looked at each other and did the Groucho eyebrows.
We were all "Aloha and have a nice nap."

As for off duty, I'll choke out anyone if the need and opportunity arises. Legally easier, and safer, than striking them, that's for sure.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> in an adversarial system like we have in this country and they have in most of the states
> 
> then the polices job is to secure convictions, they are not at all interested in if that happens to be fair or not.
> 
> ...


Nail on the head. 
"Loose lips Sinks ships".


----------



## JP3 (Oct 6, 2020)

The dude had total control of the situation, was controlling the guy with one hand, the story reported.  Once away from everyone else, THEN he levels him?

No "defense" involved... he was a trained fighter, and knew, or should have known, what he was about to do was extremely likely to cause major trauma to what was, to him at that time due to the other guy's intoxication a defense-less person.

IMO -- Bouncer with "I'm a bouncer syndrome."  I knew lots of these guys back in the day, and to a man, they all had self-esteem problems of their own they were trying, unsuccessfully, to deal with.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 7, 2020)

Buka said:


> I am too. And I can do it with complete freedom! Check this out...
> 
> So...I work as an Airport cop. I've been out of work for six months due to covid, but I'm still a cop there. Back in Boston we haven't been able to use a rear naked choke since Christ was a kid. Unless, of course, we've elevated to deadly force on a Use of Force Continuum.
> 
> ...


Good to know, I'll remember this if I ever have issues with aggressive airport security.

It is best to put security or a cop down hard, and let the courts deal with it. At least in this day and age of police violence upon citizens.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 7, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Good to know, I'll remember this if I ever have issues with aggressive airport security.
> 
> It is best to put security or a cop down hard, and let the courts deal with it. At least in this day and age of police violence upon citizens.


Please tell me this was supposed to be a joke. Regardless, it was not appropriate at all.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 7, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Good to know, I'll remember this if I ever have issues with aggressive airport security.
> 
> It is best to put security or a cop down hard, and let the courts deal with it. At least in this day and age of police violence upon citizens.


Normally, that would have been the stupidest thing I've read all week, but the stupid has been flowing swift here on MT lately so you only get 3rd Place.

Don't feel too bad.  It's still Bronze.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 7, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Normally, that would have been the stupidest thing I've read all week, but the stupid has been flowing swift here on MT lately so you only get 3rd Place.
> 
> Don't feel too bad.  It's still Bronze.


It would be in first place for me; but it is just the middle of the week.


----------



## jobo (Oct 7, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Good to know, I'll remember this if I ever have issues with aggressive airport security.
> 
> It is best to put security or a cop down hard, and let the courts deal with it. At least in this day and age of police violence upon citizens.


the problem is your always going to be out numbered, they are aways goibg to get hold of you eventually and they are always going to get you in a cctv black spot, thats if they even care and dont just beat you on the spot,

how ever overly aggresive they are beibg they will always be covertly more aggesive if youve just banjoed one of their mates

last time i had a roll with the police,  i was doing fine with two of them, when i third joined in it went downhill fast


----------



## Buka (Oct 7, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Good to know, I'll remember this if I ever have issues with aggressive airport security.
> 
> It is best to put security or a cop down hard, and let the courts deal with it. At least in this day and age of police violence upon citizens.





Graywalker said:


> Good to know, I'll remember this if I ever have issues with aggressive airport security.
> 
> It is best to put security or a cop down hard, and let the courts deal with it. At least in this day and age of police violence upon citizens.



You wouldn't have to worry about it here, all the officers are gentleman. Honestly.

As for the rest of what you say, I'm kind of at a loss for words.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2020)

*REMINDER TO ALL USERS:*

Per the Rules and Policies you agreed to when you signed up, encouragement of illegal activities is not permitted.

______________
Gerry Seymour
*MartialTalk Moderator*
@gpseymour


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 8, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Please tell me this was supposed to be a joke. Regardless, it was not appropriate at all.


Neither was the original comment, at all and no it was not a joke.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> the problem is your always going to be out numbered, they are aways goibg to get hold of you eventually and they are always going to get you in a cctv black spot, thats if they even care and dont just beat you on the spot,
> That is becoming less of an issue, these types of techniques cause death and should be defended against appropriatly, why is it ok to be said by police and security, but not the public?
> how ever overly aggresive they are beibg they will always be covertly more aggesive if youve just banjoed one of their mates
> 
> last time i had a roll with the police,  i was doing fine with two of them, when i third joined in it went downhill fast


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 8, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Normally, that would have been the stupidest thing I've read all week, but the stupid has been flowing swift here on MT lately so you only get 3rd Place.
> 
> Don't feel too bad.  It's still Bronze.


Was was stupid was the original commenter getting away with promoting violence on the public and not being warned.

"Let the court handle it" is exactly what is said in these situations of violence...

Why is that appropriate, but when a civilian states the same thing, it is somehow not ok and insulting.

I am not promoting nor telling anyone what to do in this situation, I am stating what I would do in order to defend my own life from these types of unnecessary attacks. Nothing more.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 8, 2020)

Why is this ok for employees of the people, in expressing this type of violence on the public. Do you not believe that all have a right to defend their own life?

It just doesn't make any sense at all.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 8, 2020)

But I will respect the warning and refrain from discussing or commenting, when one promotes violence on the people.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 8, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Was was stupid was the original commenter getting away with promoting violence on the public and not being warned.
> 
> "Let the court handle it" is exactly what is said in these situations of violence...
> 
> ...


You just advocated "to put security or a cop down hard."  The best case is he calls a bunch of his friends and they dogpile you.  The worst case is you get met with deadly force from multiple angles.

Yeah, it's a *remarkably stupid* thing to write.


----------



## jobo (Oct 8, 2020)

@greywalker
you need to work the quote function out mate

i agree, but you have just triggered one of the inherant biasis of the forum or which there are a fair few.

gun are a prime  and revular example where beibg in favour of blastibg away indiscrimatly with your glock is fine and dandy , feeling that perhaps thats not the best idea, breaks the rules, this forum seem to have a consideeable number of glock owners in postions of aurthority or influence

just as it also has a great number of police, expolice, peopke with people conection, etal,

so, the police are great is a good topic for conversation,  the police are phycotic bullies you may need to defend yourself from, less so


----------



## lklawson (Oct 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> so, the police are great is a good topic for conversation,  the police are phycotic bullies you may need to defend yourself from, less so


Even if they are, trying to fight them usually gets people dead.  Cops have lots and lots of friends they can call at the drop of a hat.  All of them are armed.  Just take the arrest, don't resist or physically fight.  Fight it in court instead.

Why try to fight a cop when you can have the Judge do it instead?


----------



## jobo (Oct 8, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Even if they are, trying to fight them usually gets people dead.  Cops have lots and lots of friends they can call at the drop of a hat.  All of them are armed.  Just take the arrest, don't resist or physically fight.  Fight it in court instead.
> 
> Why try to fight a cop when you can have the Judge do it instead?


well rather depends on if you feel your life in danger or if like some of the vids ive seen laterly they are just intent on beatibg you to a pulp,

in principal i agree withh you, unfortunely leaving your widow to get justice for you seems like second prize


----------



## lklawson (Oct 9, 2020)

jobo said:


> well rather depends on if you feel your life in danger or if like some of the vids ive seen laterly they are just intent on beatibg you to a pulp,


It's actually quite rare and I can't remember the last time it was not preceded by the suspect resisting arrest.  Everyone is wearing body cams now and all cop cars are equipped.  Let them arrest you and then you can fight it in court.  Cops making bad arrests have been disciplined and lost their jobs.



> in principal i agree withh you, unfortunely leaving your widow to get justice for you seems like second prize


I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to imply but I know that my family is better off with me having beaten a bad arrest in the courts than with me dead from resisting arrest.

Think with your brain, not your testosterone.


----------



## jobo (Oct 9, 2020)

lklawson said:


> It's actually quite rare and I can't remember the last time it was not preceded by the suspect resisting arrest.  Everyone is wearing body cams now and all cop cars are equipped.  Let them arrest you and then you can fight it in court.  Cops making bad arrests have been disciplined and lost their jobs.
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to imply but I know that my family is better off with me having beaten a bad arrest in the courts than with me dead from resisting arrest.
> ...


well yes and no, my original point was much as you say, you almost certanly not going to win, in the long run, not unless you have the means to escape the country,, and if there more than one cop probebly not in the short run either

that then leaves an open question of how much risk are you at not resisting, and that is totally dependent on how phycotic the cop is and what they think youve done

getting shot by the cops is quite rare in this country, but the incdebces of them shooting unarmed people is quite high as a % , coz if they have sent an armed unit,  its because they think you are armed and they get trigger happy.

following the terrorist  atttack on the london tube, the police follow as foreign  looking chap with a rucksack on to the tube and emptied a magazene in to him, the cops were being very brave, they thought he had a bomb,which he didnt, he was just going to work,

they didnt give him the opertunity to resist, similarrly if they think your a bank robber ir similar violent
 indevidual they will hit you hard with no warning and make sure you dont get up, resisting or not doesnt matter

and then there are just peopke standing up for their civil liberties, if you annoy them sufficiently even if you committed no crime, then they are not un likely to attack you unlawfully,

there was a case a few years ago, where some guy with a head wound from being attacked was lay on the ground, the police arrived and said" your going to hospital" the guys say " no im not " so the police beat him unconcious so that they can take him to hospital to recieve treatment for being beaten unconscious

the uk police often confuse what they want you to do, with the law, sure you can just allow yourself to be bullied,  but the presevation of liberties required that some people do not and if they do attack you, they are always going to say, you assualed them first


----------



## lklawson (Oct 9, 2020)

jobo said:


> the uk police often confuse what they want you to do, with the law, sure you can just allow yourself to be bullied,  but the presevation of liberties required that some people do not and if they do attack you, they are always going to say, you assualed them first


You don't preserve liberties by letting bad cops kill you.  You fight it in court and get them fired.


----------



## jobo (Oct 9, 2020)

lklawson said:


> You don't preserve liberties by letting bad cops kill you.  You fight it in court and get them fired.


no you oresrve liberties by insisting your liberties are up held and then if necessary  going to court.

if you ve complied,  its to late, if they were pointing a gun at me however, id certainly do what i was told, so it is i supos3 country specific


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2020)

Ironically. Putting someone down hard and its consequences is kind of the topic of the thread.

An why the combat wombat is facing a few more dramas at the moment than he probably wanted to be.

And now will spend a year in jail and not gave a fight career.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Does being a martial artist put you at a disadvantage in court?
> 
> And sometimes it sort of does.
> 
> Aussie UFC fighter ‘Combat Wombat’ jailed after one-punch hit


This is ridiculous and extremely unfair, having a background in the martial arts shouldn't put you at a disadvantage in court. After all martial arts is not like a gun.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 26, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> This is ridiculous and extremely unfair, having a background in the martial arts shouldn't put you at a disadvantage in court. After all martial arts is not like a gun.



Did you actually read the article?  There was no "fight" and this was no self-defense situation, he sucker punched the guy and broke both sides of his jaw.  Yes, being a trained fighter and knowing HOW to inflict damage and also being skilled enough to know when and how to use your skills should hold you to a higher standard when you abuse it.

He should be held accountable.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 27, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> Did you actually read the article?  There was no "fight" and this was no self-defense situation, he sucker punched the guy and broke both sides of his jaw.  Yes, being a trained fighter and knowing HOW to inflict damage and also being skilled enough to know when and how to use your skills should hold you to a higher standard when you abuse it.
> 
> He should be held accountable.


I have not followed the whole story but given the evidence we see I agree. That is a tricky thing with video clips; they can really misrepresent a story. That said, if the trained fighter went on the offensive unprovoked or unabated then, yes, his MA experience/skill should be factored in and hold him to a higher standard, thus holding him more accountable.


----------



## jobo (Oct 27, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> This is ridiculous and extremely unfair, having a background in the martial arts shouldn't put you at a disadvantage in court. After all martial arts is not like a gun.


it does and probebly should if you go round punching people for no reason

of course if your not semi famous and keep your moulth shut, its very unlikely they will know, unless you kill someone and they put a bit more effort in


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> This is ridiculous and extremely unfair, having a background in the martial arts shouldn't put you at a disadvantage in court. After all martial arts is not like a gun.


It's not ridiculous.  There is a certain logic to it, even if I don't necessarily agree.  A person is more trained, has more expertise.  Any time a person can be shown to have more expertise, they are likely to be held to a higher standard.  Cops, it is argued, should be held to a higher standard on use of force because, among other reasons, they have (supposedly) more training than the average person.  There's a reason that we hire people with expertise in a field to work in that field; we expect them to be better at it, knowing when to start and when to stop.

Courts holding "trained martial artists" to a higher standard is a common theme in many nations, including the U.S.  Not too long ago, ims, I posted about a Boxer who, engaging in a self defense fight, did a one-two-three combo and his attacker got knocked down and died (depressed skull fracture, ims).  The courts held that he had used excessive force because they believed that the successive punches after the first were unnecessary.  The speed at which he was trained to deliver a one-two-three wasn't considered to be a factor.  "He should have stopped after the first."

Yes, I know...  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

Article by noted Self Defense Lawyer and expert, Andrew Branca:

Do Martial Arts Skills Increase Legal Jeopardy? – Law of Self Defense


*Do Martial Arts Skills Increase Legal Jeopardy?*
by Andrew Branca

You’re a martial artist who observes a woman being victimized by her domestic abuser.  You intervene in her defense, the confrontation turns physical, you throw some punches at the abuser.  You connect, the abuser falls, and hits his head on the ground. He dies of the head injury.

Is it possible that the criminal justice system, prosecutors, judges, and jurors, will evaluate your use-of-force differently because of your martial arts training than they would that of someone lacking that training?

Answer:  It’s absolutely possible. In fact, it would be almost bizarre for a prosecutor or judge to not take that kind of martial arts expertise into account, and their arguments and the judge’s jury instructions are likely to compel the jury to consider such expertise, as well. (That said, this is not a good reason to not learn martial arts, as I explain later.)

Before we dive in, today’s content is sponsored by CCW Safe, a provider of legal membership services (what many mistakenly refer to as “self-defense insurance”).  I’m a member of CCW Safe myself, as is my wife, and I encourage you to consider them as a means of ensuring you have the legal resources you need to win the legal fight if you’re ever involved in a use-of-force event.  You can learn more about them at:

Checkout | Law of Self Defense

If you do decide to become a CCW Safe member, you can save 10% on your membership by using the discount code LOSD10 when you sign up.

The fact pattern I described above is real, and comes to us out of the United Kingdom.  In that actual case, the martial artist was charged with manslaughter. He claimed self-defense at trial, he was convicted of that charge and has been sentenced to 5 ½ years in prison.  (You can read more about the case here.)

And we know in this case that the defendant’s martial arts expertise was used against him by both the prosecutor, in arguing manslaughter to the jury, and the judge, who gave the defendant a longer sentence than would have been the case absent the defendant’s martial arts expertise.

Naturally, here at Law of Self Defense we only cover the self-defense law of the United States. As I’ll explain, however, US law should be expected to apply in a very similar manner as was UK law applied to this now convicted martial artist.

*The 5 Elements of Self-Defense Law*

As members of the Law of Self Defense community are well aware, there are up to five elements of any claim of self-defense. These elements are cumulative, meaning all required elements are, well, required.  That means that a prosecutor can defeat a claim of self-defense and secure a conviction in a use-of-force case by disproving any one of those required elements.  If one required element is defeated, the entire legal defense of self-defense fails.

If you are new to the Law of Self Defense community and unfamiliar with this concept of the five elements of self-defense, then I’m afraid you lack the most basic knowledge needed to understand how self-defense law works at all.  There’s good news, however–we offer a FREE “5 Elements of Self-Defense Law” infographic that explains these five elements in plain English.  You can get this FREE infographic at the link below. (Did I mention it’s FREE?). For a deeper explanation of those five elements we also provide an optional ~10-minute video micro-course at that same link, also FREE.)

Foundations: The 5 Elements of Self-Defense Law – Law of Self Defense

So, how would expertise in martial arts play into those five elements of a self-defense claim? More specifically, how would possession of such martial arts expertise open up avenues of attack by a prosecutor on a claim of self-defense, where those avenues of attack would not be as viable absent that expertise?

Martial arts expertise would most strongly impact the elements of Proportionality and Reasonableness.

*Proportionality*

The element of Proportionality has to do with the degree and/or duration of a use-of-force. In this case, it’s the degree aspect that’s relevant, meaning whether the force used qualified as deadly force or mere non-deadly force.

By “deadly force” we mean force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. By “non-deadly force” we mean all lesser degrees of force.

It’s generally the case that a use-of-force involving only one’s bare hands—typically, thrown punches—is going to be assumed by the court to be a use of non-deadly force, rather than deadly force.

That general assumption is just that, however, a generalization that’s subject to being overcome if there are aggravating circumstances associated with the bare hands.  For example, the bare hands might be used in a manner unusually likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, such as to strangle a victim.  Alternatively, the bare hands might be wielded by an aggressor is so much larger or stronger than the defender that they are more likely than normal to cause death or serious bodily injury.  Still another factor could be that there are multiple bare handed attackers against a single defender, a disparity of numbers that makes it more likely than normal that multiple sets of bare hands could cause death or serious bodily injury.

Can you see the common pattern among all those “aggravating factors” that can shift a bare handed attack from the non-deadly force bucket, into which bare-handed attacks normally fall, to the deadly force bucket?  That’s right:  the circumstances are such that this particular bare handed attack is more likely than normal to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Expertise in martial arts shares exactly that characteristic.  Why do people study martial arts, and here I mean specifically the martial arts that train the student to better strike blows against an attacker, and in the context of self=defense?  (In the real-world case that opened this post, the specific martial art involved was Tae Kwon Do, which involves substantial punching and kicking technique.)

Within that context, people study martial arts precisely to try to make their blows faster, better targeted, more powerful—bottom line, to be more effective at neutralizing a threat than would the blows of an untrained person.

By this reasoning, the punches thrown by someone with genuine martial arts expertise are likely to be substantially more powerful than the punches thrown by someone lacking that expertise. Specifically, the expert’s punches are more likely to inflict deadly force—force likely to cause either death or serious bodily injury—than are the non-expert’s punches.

To put it another way, whereas a punch thrown by a non-expert will almost always be deemed to have been a non-deadly use of force, a punch thrown by an expert martial artist—or professional boxer, MMA fighter, etc.—can more readily be perceived as qualifying as a deadly use of force.

And this perception of the expert’s punch qualifying as a use of deadly force is particularly likely when the victim of that expert’s punch actually dies as a result.

Bottom line, if you have a degree of martial expertise that makes your thrown punches more likely to inflict death or serious bodily injury than would the punches of a non-expert, don’t be surprised if your expert punches are put in the deadly force bucket, especially if you’ve killed someone with them.The legal consequences to your claim of self-defense can be severe—the total loss of that legal defense of self-defense. Why? Because in order to justify a use of non-deadly defensive force you need merely be able to demonstrate that you were facing a greater-than-zero threat of some physical injury, however slight.  In order to justify a use of deadly defensive force, however, you need to be able to demonstrate that you were facing a deadly force threat.

If your expert punch is deemed to have been deadly force in nature, and the threat you were defending yourself against was merely non-deadly in nature (e.g., a non-expert’s thrown punch), then you used disproportionate defensive force, you lose the element of Proportionality, and therefore you lose the legal defense of self-defense.

And if you lose the legal defense of self-defense, you’ve made yourself almost entirely vulnerable to being convicted of the underlying criminal charge—in the real-world case that opened this post, the charge of manslaughter.

*Reasonableness*

I’ve met many martial artists who object to this legal reality.  Why should they be held to a higher standard legal standard for use-of-force ,just because they’ve invested the effort to gain self-defense expertise, than would someone who had not made such an effort.  It’s not fair!

The element of Reasonableness is kind of an umbrella element that sits over all the others.  Everything you perceive, decide, or do in self-defense must be the perception, decision, or action of a reasonable person.  If it is not that of a reasonable person, you lose the element of Reasonableness, and you lose the legal defense of self-defense.

That element of Reasonableness is itself made up of two components, both having to do with the defender’s state of mind:  subjective reasonableness, and objective reasonableness.

Subjective reasonableness has to do with the defender’s genuine, good faith belief in the need to act in self-defense as they did.  If that subjective belief is lacking, the use of force could not have been reasonable.

But subjective reasonableness alone, however, is not sufficient.   An unreasonable subjective belief in the need to act in self-defense is not enough to sustain the legal justification of self-defense.  That subjective belief also has to be objectively reasonable.

Objective reasonableness asks whether a hypothetical reasonable & prudent person would have shared that same subjective belief. If so, the subjective belief is objectively reasonable. If not, then not.

Objective reasonableness is not an absolute standard, however, but is customized to fit the facts of the particular use-of-force event.  It’s customized for the circumstances surrounding the use of force—day time versus night time, public place versus inside your home, etc.  It’s customized to account for the stress of being in a fight—we’re not required to make perfect decisions in self-defense, we’re merely required to make reasonable decisions in self-defense.

The objective reasonableness is also customized in two other respects that tie into a defender having an expertise in martial arts.  Specifically, objective reasonableness is customized for any special abilities or disabilities that the defendant may possess, and also customized for any specialized knowledge that the defendant may possess.

In terms of disabilities, it’s not hard to imagine that what might be a reasonable means of flight to avoid the need to use force in self-defense might differ between, say, a young, fit and healthy defender on the one hand, and an older, infirm, or disabled defender on the other hand.  The disabled person’s reasonable options are simply not the same as those of the able person.

Conversely, in terms of abilities, a defender who has an exceptional fighting ability is likely to have more options available than would a defender with no particular expertise in fighting.  And frankly it’s hard to not agree that these two classes of people should be treated differently.  With genuine expertise comes responsibility, and the person possessing that expertise is going to be held to a higher legal standard than would someone lacking that expertise.

It’s also invariably the case that the defender with martial arts expertise is going to possess specialized knowledge that the non-expert lacks.  That specialized knowledge could be as simple as having a well-informed understanding of the reasonable consequences of striking someone with an expert’s punch—for example, the increased probability that the victim of the strike might fall, strike their head on the ground, and die.

In short, the punch thrown by a martial arts expert might be objectively unreasonable, even if a punch thrown by a non-expert would have been objectively reasonable.

Once again, the legal consequence to your claim of self-defense can be severe—the total loss of that legal defense of self-defense. Why? Because in order for your use of defensive force to qualify as lawful self-defense it must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.  If it’s perceived as lacking either characteristic, it lacks the required element of Reasonableness, and you lose the legal defense of self-defense.

A prosecutor who can successfully argue that you did not actually have a subjective, good faith belief in the need to use your martial arts expertise as you did, or that your  use of your martial arts expertise was objectively unreasonable precisely because of that expertise, can strip you of self-defense, and make you enormously vulnerable to conviction for the underlying criminal charge (in this case, manslaughter).

*So, Should You NOT Learn Martial Arts?*

Alternatively, I’m sometimes accused of at least implicitly suggesting that because gaining martial arts expertise might result in the imposition of a higher legal standard in a use-if-force case, that it would be better to not acquire that martial arts expertise.

That’s definitely not my position.  The top priority has to be to win the physical fight. If you don’t do that, everything else becomes rather less important.  Acquiring expertise in martial arts suitable to self-defense better enables you to win that physical fight—and here I’m speaking of martial arts broadly to include not just traditional Asian fighting arts but also BJJ, defensive knife use, defensive gun use, defensive OC spray use, verbal judo, etc.

*Win. The. Fight.*

That said, it also should not be surprising that the society generally and the law in particular will treat a person with a substantial degree of expertise in fighting than they will someone who lacks such expertise, and in particular where that expertise was used in such a manner as to cost another human being their life.

So, develop the expertise, win the fight … and expect to be held to a higher legal standard, if you kill someone using that expertise, than would someone lacking that expertise.

And conduct yourself accordingly.​Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> You just advocated "to put security or a cop down hard."  The best case is he calls a bunch of his friends and they dogpile you.  The worst case is you get met with deadly force from multiple angles.
> 
> Yeah, it's a *remarkably stupid* thing to write.


I agree with this, and I think most people do.  The million dollar question right now is whether this is a feature or a flaw.  A lot of folks look at the true statement above and say, "Regardless of actual circumstance, this is exactly what happens.  Someone says or does something and the cops call their friends, dogpile, and you get met with deadly force from multiple angles."  


lklawson said:


> You don't preserve liberties by letting bad cops kill you.  You fight it in court and get them fired.


Here's a relevant question.  What if you reasonably believe that the cops are going to kill you regardless?  Heck, we see videos with regularity now of "bad apples" killing or beating folks who aren't resisting.  To be clear, this isn't a referendum on cops.  It is, however, a reality that some people believe when they encounter a cop that chances are probable he (usually) is a bad cop and their life is in as much danger as if they were being robbed at gun point.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> I agree with this, and I think most people do.  The million dollar question right now is whether this is a feature or a flaw.  A lot of folks look at the true statement above and say, "Regardless of actual circumstance, this is exactly what happens.  Someone says or does something and the cops call their friends, dogpile, and you get met with deadly force from multiple angles."


If it is a problem to be addressed, while it's occurring to you is not a good place to try to fix the issue.



> Here's a relevant question.  What if you reasonably believe that the cops are going to kill you regardless?  Heck, we see videos with regularity now of "bad apples" killing or beating folks who aren't resisting.  To be clear, this isn't a referendum on cops.  It is, however, a reality that some people believe when they encounter a cop that chances are probable he (usually) is a bad cop and their life is in as much danger as if they were being robbed at gun point.


Well, first off, statistics seem to indicate that the vast, vast majority of cops are decent folks and those rare events really are rare and probably really do constitute bad apples.  By some statistics there are "2.5 million contacts per day, 75 million contacts per month and 900 million contacts per year. The vast majority of police-citizen contacts are handled without incident and when force must be used to gain compliance, it involves minimal to no injury in most cases."  In many of those "bad apple" contacts that we end up hearing about, it turns out that the facts were misrepresented to try to wind up public outrage.  But even if we assume that all or most are not misrepresented, let's call it 2/3 just for argument sake, then that represents, what?, maybe half-a-dozen per year of cops "killing or beating folks who aren't resisting."  Let's raise it way way up and make it an even 20.  What is 20 divided by 900,000,000?  Statistical noise, is what.  Should that be stamped out?  Of course. No one is making an excuse for bad cops using excessive force.  Get rid of them.  What I am saying is that with north of 900 million contacts per year, any believe that "cops are going to kill you regardless" is not founded in reality.  So what's my advice if you believe cops are going to kill you anyway?  Look at the actual numbers or get some help for paranoia because the fear is not well founded but, instead, is likely a result of The Illusory Truth Effect.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> If it is a problem to be addressed, while it's occurring to you is not a good place to try to fix the issue.


But when one finds him or herself in the moment, you're literally suggesting that they just hope for the best.  





> Well, first off, statistics seem to indicate that the vast, vast majority of cops are decent folks and those rare events really are rare and probably really do constitute bad apples.  By some statistics there are "2.5 million contacts per day, 75 million contacts per month and 900 million contacts per year. The vast majority of police-citizen contacts are handled without incident and when force must be used to gain compliance, it involves minimal to no injury in most cases."  In many of those "bad apple" contacts that we end up hearing about, it turns out that the facts were misrepresented to try to wind up public outrage.  But even if we assume that all or most are not misrepresented, let's call it 2/3 just for argument sake, then that represents, what?, maybe half-a-dozen per year of cops "killing or beating folks who aren't resisting."  Let's raise it way way up and make it an even 20.  What is 20 divided by 900,000,000?  Statistical noise, is what.  Should that be stamped out?  Of course. No one is making an excuse for bad cops using excessive force.  Get rid of them.  What I am saying is that with north of 900 million contacts per year, any believe that "cops are going to kill you regardless" is not founded in reality.  So what's my advice if you believe cops are going to kill you anyway?  Look at the actual numbers or get some help for paranoia because the fear is not well founded but, instead, is likely a result of The Illusory Truth Effect.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 Honestly, it really depends on how we're defining "bad apple."

Studies in various cities put the number of bad apples at somewhere in the area of 5 to 10%, based on community/external and internal/inner-departmental complaints. There was also a study in Chicago (IIRC), which looked at the negative impact that "bad apples" can have on other cops.  I've posted links in the past. Bad apples don't kill everyone they encounter, and if the bar for bad cop is set to "beating or killing folks who aren't resisting" we're in more trouble than I thought.

But even if we strip away all of the noise and static you're bringing into the discussion, the fact remains that a lot of folks in this country... more than a few... genuinely believe that if they encounter a cop, their life is in danger regardless of their behavior... in much the same way that it is endangered by being robbed at gunpoint.

My point is simply this.  You are suggesting to folks that they just don't do anything and hope for the best.  Let's put that in a self defense context.  Would you say this to someone who is taking a self defense class?  "Hey, guys.  I'm going to show you some self defense tips... but really... your best bet is to do nothing and just take that bad guy to court."

And just to be clear, we could really dig into the specious logic you use above.  I'd like to hear more about how "contact" is defined, etc, and etc.  But that's really irrelevant to the point.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

Just, before we get too far down the rabbit hole of folks asserting that there is clear evidence that some miniscule number of cops are "bad apples" and that most encounters are just fine, there have been a few credible studies done on use of force.  The most recent one from 2018 acknowledges up front that, "While allegations that some police force is excessive, unjustified, and discriminatory continue and proliferate, current data regarding police use of force is insufficient to determine if instances are occurring more frequently. The public continues to hear competing narratives by law enforcement and community members, and *the hard reality is that available national and local data is flawed and inadequate."
*
Simply put, like gun issues, no information has been collected reliably.  "Without accurate data on police use of force, allegations by community members and actions by law enforcement not only sow distrust among communities and the police, making policing more dangerous, but also jeopardize public safety. Research consistently shows that positive relationships between community members and law enforcement are essential for safer communities. Citizens are more likely to aid in crime reduction and partner with police if they believe that law enforcement are engaging in equitable treatment and are impartial towards all."

Once again, the point isn't to argue pro cop or anti-cop.  It's the opposite, to nip this in the bud, acknowledging that there is a dearth of data, and folks will believe what they are inclined to believe.

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> But when one finds him or herself in the moment, you're literally suggesting that they just hope for the best.


When "in the moment" is defined as "in the midst of being arrested," then yes.  Trying to physically fight the cops while they are trying to arrest you is simply not an effective way of trying to prevent cops from using excessive force while trying to arrest you.  Suggesting "they're just going to hurt me anyway" is both a fallacy and also ineffective at preventing the use of excessive force.  The simple fact is that physically fighting cops while they're trying arrest you can only increase the odds of a "bad apple" (however you want to define that) using excessive force.  It's all down-sides, no up.



> Honestly, it really depends on how we're defining "bad apple."
> 
> Studies in various cities put the number of bad apples at somewhere in the area of 5 to 10%, based on community/external and internal/inner-departmental complaints. There was also a study in Chicago (IIRC), which looked at the negative impact that "bad apples" can have on other cops.  I've posted links in the past. Bad apples don't kill everyone they encounter, and if the bar for bad cop is set to "beating or killing folks who aren't resisting" we're in more trouble than I thought.
> 
> But even if we strip away all of the noise and static you're bringing into the discussion, the fact remains that a lot of folks in this country... more than a few... genuinely believe that if they encounter a cop, their life is in danger regardless of their behavior... in much the same way that it is endangered by being robbed at gunpoint.


Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.  About half of the people on Planet Earth currently genuinely believe in Creationism and the other half genuinly believe in Evolution.  One half of them are wrong, despite what they genuinely believe.



> My point is simply this.  You are suggesting to folks that they just don't do anything and hope for the best.  Let's put that in a self defense context.  Would you say this to someone who is taking a self defense class?  "Hey, guys.  I'm going to show you some self defense tips... but really... your best bet is to do nothing and just take that bad guy to court."


Against cops arresting you?  Yes.  If you are worried about LEO excessive force, then let them arrest you, then take it to court.

Have you *EVER*, ever in your life, heard of a person who resisted arrest, physically fought the cops, and it turned out well for him?  He successfully fended off the cops, didn't get injured, the cops didn't call a crap ton of their friends, all armed, and then get the suspect anyway, who then didn't have additional charges leveled against him?  Ever?

Physically fighting the cops, resisting arrest, never ends well.  Take the arrest.  Go to court.



> And just to be clear, we could really dig into the specious logic you use above.  I'd like to hear more about how "contact" is defined, etc, and etc.  But that's really irrelevant to the point.


2.5 million contacts happened yesterday, and none of them made the national news.  Not sure how that's <cough> "specious."  It's indicative that the concern of LEO excessive force is vastly over-represented in the psyche of the nation.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> When "in the moment" is defined as "in the midst of being arrested," then yes.  Trying to physically fight the cops while they are trying to arrest you is simply not an effective way of trying to prevent cops from using excessive force while trying to arrest you.  Suggesting "they're just going to hurt me anyway" is both a fallacy and also ineffective at preventing the use of excessive force.  The simple fact is that physically fighting cops while they're trying arrest you can only increase the odds of a "bad apple" (however you want to define that) using excessive force.  It's all down-sides, no up.
> 
> Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.  About half of the people on Planet Earth currently genuinely believe in Creationism and the other half genuinly believe in Evolution.  One half of them are wrong, despite what they genuinely believe.
> 
> ...


did you read (or even skim) the report I shared by the NCCIS?  If not, do so and then respond.

From the report:  "Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force. 

The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups. 

Lack of training and lack of funding for training leave officers and the public at risk. Critical training areas include tactical training, de-escalation techniques, understanding cultural differences and anti-bias mechanisms, as well as strategies for encounters with individuals with physical and mental disabilities.

Repeated and highly publicized incidents of police use of force against persons of color and people with disabilities, combined with a lack of accurate data, lack of transparency about policies and practices in place governing use of force, and lack of accountability for noncompliance foster a perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe."

The report covers definitions of excessive use of force, the use of force continuum, and a number of other relevant issues.  It also covers the lack of data, where that lack of data comes from, some transparency initiatives that might help going forward, and some recommendations for addressing the issues.

"Despite technological advancements in case management and data reporting capabilities, many police departments fail to report on the number of police-involved killings within their jurisdictions in a given year. Some jurisdictions do not have reliable data on use of force cases because many departments do not have an objective measure for “use of force,” thus officers are not reporting the incidents. Other departments attach force incidents to police reports, whereas others may keep separate databases, and others may only record data on paper. When the Justice Department surveyed police departments nationwide in 2013, they found that about one-fifth refused to comment on how they kept their data. Moreover, they found that in many departments, even in large jurisdictions such as New York City, Houston, Baltimore, and Detroit, law enforcement officials either refused to answer the question altogether or answered that they did not know how many times their officers used force. Further, in private conversations, some police officials told the Justice Department that they were reluctant to turn over data that the department could use to vilify them."

Frankly, that you're focusing on "contacts" is ridiculous.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> did you read (or even skim) the report I shared by the NCCIS?  If not, do so and then respond.


It's 230 pages.  Did you read it, or just skim?  You could tell me that you actually read and digested those 230 pages.  And I'd have no real way of saying you did or did not.

It's going to take time.  I took the time to read the DoJ paper on Pepper Spray and Tasers but it took a while too.  It's why I now think Tasers are too unreliable and Pepper Spray is remarkably effective and amazingly safe, the safest of all "less lethal" use of force tools, beating even "soft hands."



> From the report:  "Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force.
> 
> The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups.
> 
> ...


Frankly, it's the only metric that is available.  I caught that on the skim.  I find it amusing that the paper starts off with "Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force" and it is then followed with a lot of guesswork and findings which conclude that "the best available evidence" which appears to be mostly unsubstantiated claims and "too many communities are not confident in that expectation and do not trust fair police-community interactions" because, apparently, how people feel is admissible evidence.

I'll take the time over the next few days to try to go through this, but, honestly, I've read books which were shorter.

Until that time, and likely after, I maintain that if you want to minimize your chances of having LEO excessive force used against you while being arrested, DON'T FIGHT.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> It's 230 pages.  Did you read it, or just skim?  You could tell me that you actually read and digested those 230 pages.  And I'd have no real way of saying you did or did not.


I read it several months ago, and skimmed it again this morning.  It's a thoughtful and detailed report.  If it helps, the report is organized well, and the last 60 or so pages are actually more of an open letter/rebuttals than part of the report. 

Also, if it helps, most of the pages are half filled with citations.  

I didn't mean that comment to sound as snarky as it probably did.  What I meant was, if you haven't read or at least skimmed the report, we're not remotely on the same page.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> IUntil that time, and likely after, I maintain that if you want to minimize your chances of having LEO excessive force used against you while being arrested, DON'T FIGHT.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


You know, I missed this the first time.  Would you give this same advice to a woman who reasonably believes she's going to be raped?   Or a person who reasonably believes he's going to be assaulted or worse?  I mean, really, if that's the case, I don't want to hear any more BS about teaching folks self defense.  Because self defense just boils down to crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.  

Again, why is this relevant?  Because there are a lot of folks in our country who don't trust the police officers and who literally, reasonably fear for their lives whether they are armed or not, cooperative or not. 

_"A unique conversation is occurring in the black community, in part because of the media coverage of police use of force against African Americans. Black parents are having “the talk” with their children about how to behave if they encounter a police officer.886 At the heart of this talk is a deep distrust of law enforcement officers. The talk is rooted in parents’ warranted concern that a police encounter could result in the arrest or death of their child. While this conversation has occurred in one form or another privately for a long time, its existence has been revealed to the public because of the deaths of unarmed black men in recent years. The talk is important because it is one African Americans’ only defenses to combat their perception of an excessive use of force against communities of color. While debate exists as to the effectiveness of “the talk” in addressing excessive use of force, there is no doubt that its mere existence and representation in the public sphere speaks to the trust issues within the Black community around police interactions."_


----------



## jobo (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> When "in the moment" is defined as "in the midst of being arrested," then yes.  Trying to physically fight the cops while they are trying to arrest you is simply not an effective way of trying to prevent cops from using excessive force while trying to arrest you.  Suggesting "they're just going to hurt me anyway" is both a fallacy and also ineffective at preventing the use of excessive force.  The simple fact is that physically fighting cops while they're trying arrest you can only increase the odds of a "bad apple" (however you want to define that) using excessive force.  It's all down-sides, no up.
> 
> Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.  About half of the people on Planet Earth currently genuinely believe in Creationism and the other half genuinly believe in Evolution.  One half of them are wrong, despite what they genuinely believe.
> 
> ...


thread swerve, there is no reason at all why both creationist and evolutionist cant both be largely correct, or both a little bit wrong, dependent on how you look at it


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 27, 2020)

Keep in mind this is not a site to discuss political views. If you wish to do so, there are multiple other forums available for that. A quick google search and you'll find them almost instantly.

@Monkey Turned Wolf
William Hollwedel
MartialTalk Moderator


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Until that time, and likely after, I maintain that if you want to minimize your chances of having LEO excessive force used against you while being arrested, DON'T FIGHT.



But people are going to fight. That is why we have cops.

So you set up the cops to handle that without having to go buck wild on a guy.

It is almost as if this idea gets lost somewhere. Same with bouncing. The ratio is one guy for fifty patrons. That doesn't take in to account that I may have to drag a guy out.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> You know, I missed this the first time.  Would you give this same advice to a woman who reasonably believes she's going to be raped?


I don't see it as even remotely the same.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> But people are going to fight. That is why we have cops.
> 
> So you set up the cops to handle that without having to go buck wild on a guy.
> 
> It is almost as if this idea gets lost somewhere. Same with bouncing. The ratio is one guy for fifty patrons. That doesn't take in to account that I may have to drag a guy out.


You haven't been following.  Didn't even read the three posts preceding the one you replied to.  The advice I'm giving is not "don't fight anyone," as you seem to be thinking.  The advice is "Don't fight the cops who are trying to arrest you; don't resist arrest."


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> thread swerve, there is no reason at all why both creationist and evolutionist cant both be largely correct, or both a little bit wrong, dependent on how you look at it


Fair enough.  I guess you could apply the False Dilemma Fallacy / Fallacy of Insufficient Options.  I've met more than one Theistic Evolutionist.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I don't see it as even remotely the same.


Self defense from a cop is still self defense. 

A few years ago I asked a question along the lines that if a cop initiates a physical altercation, that cannot be considered self defense.  The general consensus, though I still disagree, is that it is self defense even if the cop created the situation entirely.  So, if a bad cop, a bad apple, is threatening your life, how is that different from anyone else threatening your life?  How is your advice any different?  I mean, just go with it and you might survive to see them in court.  Right? 

Also in that report I'm pretty sure it says that 99% of police killings are not prosecuted.  I don't recall the number of excessive use of force complaints, but I'd guess very few.  So the idea you might see anyone in court as you advise is a long shot, particularly if you are a person of color (black and native american specifically)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting folks resist arrest.  I'm pointing out that you can't always tell the 9 good cops from the 1 bad cop, and that your advice seems to be given from a position of relative safety. It's easy to kibitz from the sideline if you have no stake in the situation.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 27, 2020)

I'd like to just point out that just because **** isn't reported doesn't mean that **** isn't happening. George Floyd's death wouldn't have been reported if there weren't video cameras all over the place documenting what happened. Cops tend to lie when it comes to covering their own asses. It's sobering to think how many people were murdered by cops and we never hear about it because the event wasn't recorded.


----------



## jobo (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.  I guess you could apply the False Dilemma Fallacy / Fallacy of Insufficient Options.  I've met more than one Theistic Evolutionist.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


yes its a false dilemma,  as they are not all in opposition,  evolution is completly silent on the matter of creation, in fact it has very little to day about abiogenases 

they even stole the name from the bible

religion, doesnt concern its self, with how life evolved, only to the extent that god did caused it to happen, 5hough some of the time scales are a bit iffy,, they are more or less in the correct sequence


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 27, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> Did you actually read the article?  There was no "fight" and this was no self-defense situation, he sucker punched the guy and broke both sides of his jaw.  Yes, being a trained fighter and knowing HOW to inflict damage and also being skilled enough to know when and how to use your skills should hold you to a higher standard when you abuse it.
> 
> He should be held accountable.


He should get in trouble but he should get in no more trouble than if he d have any experience in the martial arts.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Courts holding "trained martial artists" to a higher standard is a common theme in many nations, including the U.S.


Before the court can hold you to a higher standard because you're a "trained martial artist," they would have to know that you're a "trained martial artist" in the first place.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2020)

lklawson said:


> You haven't been following.  Didn't even read the three posts preceding the one you replied to.  The advice I'm giving is not "don't fight anyone," as you seem to be thinking.  The advice is "Don't fight the cops who are trying to arrest you; don't resist arrest."



But people are going to resist arrest.

If people did what they were told you wouldn't need to arrest them.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 27, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> He should get in trouble but he should get in no more trouble than if he d have any experience in the martial arts.



I disagree with this.  He was TRAINED to compete in a set of rules (MMA) that have to be followed.  So he knows "when" and "what" he can do in an MMA competition and follows those guidelines.  He was TRAINED as a bouncer to follow certain policy and procedures.  So he knows "when" and "what" he can do legally when escorting a person out.  Next, he is trained on how to throw effective punches to take out a skilled and equally heavy opponent.  He had even posted videos on how to knock people out.  

He knew full well exactly what he was doing and what he was capable of.  Training should hold people to a higher standard in all cases.  

Courts hold many different "classes" of people to a higher standard and have stiffer penalties when they betray or abuse it.  For example, a teacher having an inappropriate relationship with a student is given a harsher penalty because of that violation.  Why should a trained fighter be any different?  Again, this was NOT a case where they were both fighting and the injury ocurred.  He flat out ASSAULTED the guy and sucker punched him!


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 27, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Before the court can hold you to a higher standard because you're a "trained martial artist," they would have to know that you're a "trained martial artist" in the first place.



Oh, you mean like being a professional fighter and making your living by fighting people and also posting "how to" videos on punching people to knock them out?


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> I disagree with this.  He was TRAINED to compete in a set of rules (MMA) that have to be followed.  So he knows "when" and "what" he can do in an MMA competition and follows those guidelines.  He was TRAINED as a bouncer to follow certain policy and procedures.  So he knows "when" and "what" he can do legally when escorting a person out.  Next, he is trained on how to throw effective punches to take out a skilled and equally heavy opponent.  He had even posted videos on how to knock people out.
> 
> He knew full well exactly what he was doing and what he was capable of.  Training should hold people to a higher standard in all cases.
> 
> Courts hold many different "classes" of people to a higher standard and have stiffer penalties when they betray or abuse it.  For example, a teacher having an inappropriate relationship with a student is given a harsher penalty because of that violation.  Why should a trained fighter be any different?  Again, this was NOT a case where they were both fighting and the injury ocurred.  He flat out ASSAULTED the guy and sucker punched him!


So, then where does qualified immunity fit in with this?  We are holding bouncers and martial artists in general to a higher standard because of their training, but not cops because they're civil servants?  How does that make sense?  Are not cops trained to a higher standard?  I mean, if one then why not the other?


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> So, then where does qualified immunity fit in with this?  We are holding bouncers and martial artists in general to a higher standard because of their training, but not cops because they're civil servants?  How does that make sense?  Are not cops trained to a higher standard?  I mean, if one then why not the other?



I will answer this question based on the exact scenario that occurred in this instance for alike comparisons.  If a police officer would have done this, they also could've been charged with assault causing great bodily harm (each state usually calls it something different).  In this case, the person was only being verbally non-compliant and running his mouth and was being escorted out.  In most use of force polices, the level of force that would be appropriate would be pressure points used in conjunction with a "come along" technique or joint locking to escort.  Up until this point, Sosoli is good to go.  Where he went wrong is, he got fed up with the man running his mouth and then just sucker punched him.  A police officer acting in the same manner as Sosoli would NOT have qualified immunity because he would be violating policy and Supreme Court cases dictating police officers legal authority to use force (Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v. Garner for a couple big ones).  This is one of the key components to having the qualified immunity, the officer must not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".  

Now back to police use of force vs. civilians.  This is going to be a very general comparison, there are always the totality of circumstances that come into play on both sides, but these comparisons hold up in the majority of cases.

Police are authorized by law to use force to subdue and restrain a suspect or protect themselves or others and are required to make arrests as part of their job, outside of some VERY specific circumstances civilians are not authorized to use force and are never required to arrest someone.  
Police do NOT have a duty to retreat, civilians do (not talking about inside your own home and the "castle doctrine").  This is why "self-defense" as a legal claim is an affirmative defense.  You are admitting that you broke the law, but that circumstances were such that it was justified.  
Police are allowed to use unequal amounts of force (commonly called a +1 theory), civilians are not.  In layman's terms, as a civilian you can only use the same level of force or equivalent used against you to protect yourself.  So if someone pushes you and you can't retreat (one of the requirements to claim self-defense) you can't kick them and tear out their knee, it is an unequal use of force to the threat.  Because police HAVE to use force many times and have to do it quickly to minimize risk to both them and the suspect, they will go one level higher than what is used to gain immediate control and then de-escalate.

So, with Sosoli, he did not have any legal authority to use force as part of his job as a police officer would have.  Sosoli would have been bound by the same laws (at least in many states here in the US) as any other civilian using "self-defense" to protect themselves.

Now on the other side of things.  At least in my county, I have seen police officers (and former police officers) get into off-duty things and have been charged higher because of their training and the violation of community trust.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> But people are going to resist arrest.
> 
> If people did what they were told you wouldn't need to arrest them.


Those people aren't really worried about police use of force.  They're using force against the police and expect police to use force against them.  It's 3rd parties who are concerned about police use of force.  For them, if they're worried about it, don't resist arrest.  Really.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 28, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Those people aren't really worried about police use of force.  They're using force against the police and expect police to use force against them.  It's 3rd parties who are concerned about police use of force.  For them, if they're worried about it, don't resist arrest.  Really.



Everyone is concerned about police using reasonable and proportionate force as a direct response to the threat they face.

To say a criminal uses force so a cop uses force is misleading.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> To say a criminal uses force so a cop uses force is misleading.


You already admitted that it's a requirement; "But people are going to resist arrest. If people did what they were told you wouldn't need to arrest them."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 28, 2020)

lklawson said:


> You already admitted that it's a requirement; "But people are going to resist arrest. If people did what they were told you wouldn't need to arrest them."



It is a misleading statement on your part. I doubt anyone is suggesting cops shouldn't use force on criminals. That is not even the discussion.

It is life threatening misuse of force and suggesting that the defence to misuse of force is compliance and hopes and prayers.

That is the discussion.

Proportionate use of force should be part of a police officers tool set. Because people will actively resist police.

People shouldn't fall over and hurt themselves. But we still have ambulances if they do.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It is a misleading statement on your part. I doubt anyone is suggesting cops shouldn't use force on criminals. That is not even the discussion.
> 
> It is life threatening misuse of force and suggesting that the defence to misuse of force is compliance and hopes and prayers.


Fortunately, I wasn't suggesting that at all.


----------



## Steve (Oct 28, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Those people aren't really worried about police use of force.  They're using force against the police and expect police to use force against them.  It's 3rd parties who are concerned about police use of force.  For them, if they're worried about it, don't resist arrest.  Really.


 You're entire premise is textbook victim blaming.  I can't tell if you seriously don't see it or if you're just screwing with me.  If you're worried about excessive force, just don't resist arrest.  Right?  If you didn't want to be raped, you shouldn't have dressed like a slut / gone on that date / flirted with him at work / drank so much at the party.  It's very simple. Right?  If you're worried about being mugged, just don't wear nice shoes or hang out with your friends at the club or go downtown at night.  Shoot, if you don't want your house to get robbed, just move to a nicer neighborhood.  So simple.   

Jesus christ, man.  You seriously don't see how screwed up your premise is?  The entire point here is that excessive use of force is, by definition, excessive.   And it occurs frequently enough, particularly within minority communities, that some folks distrust law enforcement.  And there is mounting evidence that excessive use of force occurs more frequently than has historically been reported.  And, on top of all that, law enforcement agencies have a notorious reputation for protecting their own, which is well documented. 

To be frank, I'm not sure what the "right" answer is here.  But I know it's not as simple as you believe it to be.  Your position only makes sense if cops don't break the rules.  But we know that some do.


----------



## Steve (Oct 28, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> I will answer this question based on the exact scenario that occurred in this instance for alike comparisons.  If a police officer would have done this, they also could've been charged with assault causing great bodily harm (each state usually calls it something different).  In this case, the person was only being verbally non-compliant and running his mouth and was being escorted out.  In most use of force polices, the level of force that would be appropriate would be pressure points used in conjunction with a "come along" technique or joint locking to escort.  Up until this point, Sosoli is good to go.  Where he went wrong is, he got fed up with the man running his mouth and then just sucker punched him.  A police officer acting in the same manner as Sosoli would NOT have qualified immunity because he would be violating policy and Supreme Court cases dictating police officers legal authority to use force (Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v. Garner for a couple big ones).  This is one of the key components to having the qualified immunity, the officer must not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".
> 
> Now back to police use of force vs. civilians.  This is going to be a very general comparison, there are always the totality of circumstances that come into play on both sides, but these comparisons hold up in the majority of cases.
> 
> ...


Very helpful.  As I said earlier, someone along the way described cops as vice grips.  This is pretty consistent with that, and a helpful explanation of how cops are trained to think.   





> So, with Sosoli, he did not have any legal authority to use force as part of his job as a police officer would have.  Sosoli would have been bound by the same laws (at least in many states here in the US) as any other civilian using "self-defense" to protect themselves.
> 
> Now on the other side of things.  At least in my county, I have seen police officers (and former police officers) get into off-duty things and have been charged higher because of their training and the violation of community trust.


This is a great point.  I don't honestly know about "higher" standards, but I have seen examples of officers being disciplined for doing bad things while off duty.  The Bellevue PD seemed to be in the news all the time a few years back.  I remember in 2012, a group of off duty Bellevue PD officers were very drunk at a Seahawks game, picking fights and tossing around a bunch of really vile, racial slurs.  The news says they were "disciplined."  We know one was demoted from corporal to officer only because a few years later he was picked up driving drunk, off duty in a city vehicle.  According to the article, he was taken off the bomb squad.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 29, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're entire premise is textbook victim blaming.


Absolutely not.

I'm saying if you don't want to get shot, don't pull a knife on the cops. I'm saying that if you don't want to get pepper sprayed, don't get into a fist fight with cops.  I'm saying that if you don't want tased, don't think take a swing or try to wrestle.  I'm saying that if you don't want to get tackled by two big guys, don't run and try to push them in the face.

Don't give them the excuse.

And, yes, I have conceded many times that there are (a small minority of) cops who are going to use inappropriate force.   AND THERE'S JACK SPIT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT WHEN IT'S HAPPENING.  Because they have dozens of friends, all armed better than you, some of them likely there on site with them, who are going to automatically fight against you, regardless of whether or not you think the bad cop is an ash-hole.

It's not victim blaming to recognize the freaking reality and recommend a course of action which minimizes the chances of bad things happening to you.  It's simple logic.

In the broader self defense community in the U.S. there is a common bit of advice, often shorthanded as "the rules of stupid."  If you want to increase your odds of staying safe don't go stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  What's the old saw, "Master, how can I make sure I never lose a bar fight? ...[reply] Don't go to bars."  Yes, you can go to bars.  How 'bout biker bars where you're obviously not welcome?  Sure, you can go.  It's legal.  While you're there you can also stare menacingly at the biggest, nastiest looking guy too, oggle his girl, then look back at him and snigger.  It's all legal.  But the results are predictable.

I'm recommending, urging, people to play the odds based on facts.  If you want to minimize the possibility of some bad cop thinking he has an excuse to use excessive force, if you want to minimize the possibility of some good or otherwise-borderline cop losing control and stepping over the line, then allow yourself to be peacfuly arrested.

It's not victim blaming.  It's being smart.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Absolutely not.


What else would you call it?  You're blaming the victim of excessive use of force by police for the excessive force.  Because, after all, if they hadn't resisted, it wouldn't have been necessary.  You also presume that a person who is the victim of excessive use of force will survive if they don't resist. We know that's not always true.  And lastly, you presume that a victim of excessive use of force can reasonably expect justice after the fact.  Which we know is unlikely.  

To be clear, we're not talking about most interactions with cops.  I think we all agree that most cops are doing or are trying to do the right thing.  We're talking about those bad apples.  Criminals who are also cops.   

As I said above, I don't know what the best thing to do is, but that's mostly because the bad guys in this scenario enjoy all of the protections (legal, tactical, administrative) that the good guys are afforded.  That's the dilemma.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 29, 2020)

Steve said:


> What else would you call it?


I accidentally hit post before I was done.  Re-read.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> I'm saying if you don't want to get shot, don't pull a knife on the cops. I'm saying that if you don't want to get pepper sprayed, don't get into a fist fight with cops.  I'm saying that if you don't want tased, don't think take a swing or try to wrestle.  I'm saying that if you don't want to get tackled by two big guys, don't run and try to push them in the face.
> 
> ...


Let's say it's not cops.  You're walking down the road and are, for whatever reason, surrounded by a small group of angry ninja who are threatening you. They have dozens of friends, all armed better than you, on site with them, who are going to automatically fight against you, regardless of whether or not you think the bad cop is an ash-hole.  (aside... you think this is about cops being ash-holes? That's excatly the problem with this... we're talking about excessive use of force.  Key word being "excessive."  Not about being a jerk.)

Would your self defense advice to this person be "never resist... you'll survive and then you can take them to court."?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 29, 2020)

Steve said:


> Let's say it's not cops.  You're walking down the road and are, for whatever reason, surrounded by a small group of angry ninja who are threatening you. They have dozens of friends, all armed better than you, on site with them, who are going to automatically fight against you, regardless of whether or not you think the bad cop is an ash-hole.  (aside... you think this is about cops being ash-holes? That's excatly the problem with this... we're talking about excessive use of force.  Key word being "excessive."  Not about being a jerk.)
> 
> Would your self defense advice to this person be "never resist... you'll survive and then you can take them to court."?


Now let's make it more the same instead of this work.  You're surrounded by a dozen angry ninjas who want your wallet.  You're pretty sure that if you fight them they're going to beat you to death then take your wallet anyway.  OTOH, there's a pretty good chance that if you give them your wallet, they'll decide not to beat you to death and you can finger them in court later.

Do you give them your wallet?

That's the more accurate comparison.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Now let's make it more the same instead of this work.  You're surrounded by a dozen angry ninjas who want your wallet.  You're pretty sure that if you fight them they're going to beat you to death then take your wallet anyway.  OTOH, there's a pretty good chance that if you give them your wallet, they'll decide not to beat you to death and you can finger them in court later.
> 
> Do you give them your wallet?
> 
> That's the more accurate comparison.


Great.  This takes us back several posts, when I asked whether this was the advice you'd give to folks in a similar situation.  As I said then, it raises the question why you train to fight for self defense, if the best advice is "give them your wallet (i.e., don't resist) and take them to court?"  Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fighting is advised?  I wonder then, why self defense training often involves learning (ostensibly) to fight.  

As you say, there's a pretty good chance that the bad guy will let you go.  Heck, I've made that point many times, with statistics to back it up.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 29, 2020)

Steve said:


> Great.  This takes us back several posts, when I asked whether this was the advice you'd give to folks in a similar situation.  As I said then, it raises the question why you train to fight for self defense, if the best advice is "give them your wallet (i.e., don't resist) and take them to court?"


As always, it depends.  



> Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fighting is advised?


I don't think I've ever said that.



> I wonder then, why self defense training often involves learning (ostensibly) to fight.


I don't know why you'd wonder.  I've been pretty clear the whole time.



> As you say, there's a pretty good chance that the bad guy will let you go.  Heck, I've made that point many times, with statistics to back it up.


Of course.  I've said any number of times that stuff is just stuff.

What I've consistently said is that self defense is pretty much only worth it when you are in fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm (think "permanent disability" not "black eye").  

And the same thing would go with a "rogue cop."  The thing is, that the incidents of excessive force by a "rogue cop" are already rare and those incidents of excessive force rising to the level of death or permanent disability are exceptionally rare.  It's like winning the lottery or being hit by lighting.  So, yeah, if you're not resisting and get a black eye, well, yeah that sucks, is illegal, and is just plain wrong.  But it's not deadly and it's not going to make you limp for the rest of your life or cost you a kidney or testicle.  Document it and sue.  

So I stand by my statement, in the vast vast vast majority of instances, with the other side being statistical noise, don't fight the cops.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2020)

lklawson said:


> As always, it depends.
> 
> I don't think I've ever said that.


You're going in circles again.  Do we need to rehash the last several posts in which you said that folks should simply not resist?  





> I don't know why you'd wonder.  I've been pretty clear the whole time.


Saying things clearly is not the same as saying things that are internally consistent.  You speak clearly, but you just contradict yourself.  It's okay, though.  I'm not asking you to repeat yourself.  I think this has run its course.  


> Of course.  I've said any number of times that stuff is just stuff.
> 
> What I've consistently said is that self defense is pretty much only worth it when you are in fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm (think "permanent disability" not "black eye").
> 
> ...


Your entire argument is flawed in two very meaningful ways.  First, you assert as a fact that these incidents are rare, but have no data to support that.  You believe it to be true, and that's fine.  But that doesn't make it true, and as we learn more, and data is being reported more reliably, evidence suggests that you are actually mistaken.  

Second, as a percentage of the population, folks just aren't attacked that often by anyone, even criminals.  I mean, if the actual metric you're using is that cops don't use excessive force often, once again, we're into the arena where folks in general don't use excessive force on anyone very often.  I mean, your odds of being attacked by even a criminal are like winning the lottery or being hit by lightning. So, again, if that's the measure, then why do folks peddling self defense focus so much (or even at all) on physical fighting skills?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 29, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're going in circles again.  Do we need to rehash the last several posts in which you said that folks should simply not resist?  Saying things clearly is not the same as saying things that are internally consistent.  You speak clearly, but you just contradict yourself.  It's okay, though.  I'm not asking you to repeat yourself.  I think this has run its course.


Sure go ahead.  I'll point out, again, that you misinterpreted what I wrote and have clarified and expounded several times now (you know "going in circles").  But don't let that stop you.  You seem determined to believe that I wrote something else that you disagree with.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this dance.



> Your entire argument is flawed in two very meaningful ways.  First, you assert as a fact that these incidents are rare, but have no data to support that.


Seriously?  OK we've established a base number of 900,000,000 contacts but lets look at actual arrests.  The current published numbers available for BJS deaths and arrests are from 2015 and are thus.  In 2015, there were 10,797,088 arrests.  During that year, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an estimated 1,216 people killed by police by "homicide" (either justified or unjustified, at 64% of the total, 18% were suicides and 11% were accidents), though some estimates actually put it at 900 total deaths by any means.   Assuming the larger number of 1,216, that means that being killed for any reason (justified or not) when either in police custody or while being arrested comes in at  0.00112623%.  1/10th of 1%, including justified.  Death by excessive force is a fraction of that, even when going by inflated media reporting.

So yes, I have data to support it, and it shows that the fears of being unjustifiably killed by bad cops is an *exceptionally* rare event.  Just like I wrote several times now.



> You believe it to be true, and that's fine.  But that doesn't make it true


Being true is what makes it true.



> , and as we learn more, and data is being reported more reliably, evidence suggests that you are actually mistaken.


Run the number of arrests again.



> Second, as a percentage of the population, folks just aren't attacked that often by anyone, even criminals.


I agree.  But it was your example, not mine.



> I mean, if the actual metric you're using is that cops don't use excessive force often, once again, we're into the arena where folks in general don't use excessive force on anyone very often.  I mean, your odds of being attacked by even a criminal are like winning the lottery or being hit by lightning. So, again, if that's the measure, then why do folks peddling self defense focus so much (or even at all) on physical fighting skills?


Who cares?  That's not part of the discussion.  You're the one that brought self defense against a gaggle of ninjas it in.

To restate most of my major points:

Bad cops using excessive force is actually pretty rare
The best way to avoid giving a bad cop the excuse to use excessive force is to not resist arrest
The best way to avoid a "not bad" cop going too far and using excessive force even if he didn't intend to is to not resist arrest
The only morally justifiable time to try to physically fight the cops and resist arrest is when you are justifiably confident that unjustified force rising to the level of death or permanent debilitating injury will be used against you
Regardless of whether or not you are morally justified in resisting the cops, doing so will almost certainly get you hurt or killed, whether it is reasonable or not, because there are more cops than there are you and they're better armed
These things are true even if you think they're unfair


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 29, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Sure go ahead.  I'll point out, again, that you misinterpreted what I wrote and have clarified and expounded several times now (you know "going in circles").  But don't let that stop you.  You seem determined to believe that I wrote something else that you disagree with.
> 
> Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this dance.
> 
> ...


Nail on the head.


----------



## Steve (Oct 30, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Sure go ahead.  I'll point out, again, that you misinterpreted what I wrote and have clarified and expounded several times now (you know "going in circles").  But don't let that stop you.  You seem determined to believe that I wrote something else that you disagree with.
> 
> Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this dance.


You're doing that thing you do where you go in circles and then blame the other guy for it.  If you clarify something, but say the same thing, you are mistaking disagreement with misunderstanding.  If we disagree on something, and you further clarify but we still disagree, yes... that's circular.

But to be clear, the structure of your argument is also circular, which is a formal fallacy.  


> Seriously?  OK we've established a base number of 900,000,000 contacts but lets look at actual arrests.  The current published numbers available for BJS deaths and arrests are from 2015 and are thus.  In 2015, there were 10,797,088 arrests.  During that year, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an estimated 1,216 people killed by police by "homicide" (either justified or unjustified, at 64% of the total, 18% were suicides and 11% were accidents), though some estimates actually put it at 900 total deaths by any means.   Assuming the larger number of 1,216, that means that being killed for any reason (justified or not) when either in police custody or while being arrested comes in at  0.00112623%.  1/10th of 1%, including justified.  Death by excessive force is a fraction of that, even when going by inflated media reporting.


did you read the article I posted, or even skim it?  





> So yes, I have data to support it, and it shows that the fears of being unjustifiably killed by bad cops is an *exceptionally* rare event.  Just like I wrote several times now.


Errr...  that's just not true.  You have some data that has been shown to be unreliable.  





> Being true is what makes it true.
> 
> Run the number of arrests again.
> 
> ...


Sure, because you seem to believe that self defense isn't self defense, and are victim blaming.  I tried to change the context to remove cops but to keep the rest intact to demonstrate to you how bogus your position is.  FWIW, being bogus is what makes it bogus.   





> To restate most of my major points:
> 
> Bad cops using excessive force is actually pretty rare



Not as rare as you believe, and also it really depends on what is an acceptable rate of occurrence.  You define it by looking at the totality of interactions, but I think that's an extremely generous and misleading train of logic.  By your logic, all manner of criminals are not dangerous.  Murderers aren't dangerous because they interact with countless people whom they do not harm, and in the universe of human interaction, only a very few people are actually murdered.  Now, I think that's a stupid argument, and yet that argument is the one you use for law enforcement.  





> [*]The best way to avoid giving a bad cop the excuse to use excessive force is to not resist arrest


LOL.  I thought it was an implicit point here that bad cops don't need an excuse beyond opportunity.  





> [*]The best way to avoid a "not bad" cop going too far and using excessive force even if he didn't intend to is to not resist arrest


By definition, if a cop is using EXCESSIVE force, he is a bad cop.  





> [*]The only morally justifiable time to try to physically fight the cops and resist arrest is when you are justifiably confident that unjustified force rising to the level of death or permanent debilitating injury will be used against you


I appreciate that you finally said this.  Had you agreed with me on this in the beginning, this entire interaction wouldn't have been needed.   





> [*]Regardless of whether or not you are morally justified in resisting the cops, doing so will almost certainly get you hurt or killed, whether it is reasonable or not, because there are more cops than there are you and they're better armed


This is true, and yet some folks feel like they have no choice.  I think that's incredibly sad and speaks to some serious issues that our good cops will need to fix.  Start by purging the bad cops.  





> [*]These things are true even if you think they're unfair



Totally agree, and as I said, particularly when you got to the latter bullets, you're saying what I said at the very beginning and you chose to argue against.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 30, 2020)

Steve said:


> Totally agree, and as I said, particularly when you got to the latter bullets, you're saying what I said at the very beginning and you chose to argue against.


I've been saying this for, quite literally, decades.  I teach it in classes.  I've written articles and have handouts on justifiable use of lethal force in personal defense.  I've said it here on MT any number of times.  The fact that you are unaware that I hold this position is not for the lack of me saying it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 30, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I've been saying this for, quite literally, decades.  I teach it in classes.  I've written articles and have handouts on justifiable use of lethal force in personal defense.  I've said it here on MT any number of times.  The fact that you are unaware that I hold this position is not for the lack of me saying it.


Hey, I'm sorry, but I used all of my psychic energy up trying to predict the outcome of the upcoming general election.  So, I had nothing in the tank when it came to reading your mind.  While you may have said these things many times, your position in this thread, in response to my post, was that if folks don't want to experience excessive force by cops, they just simply shouldn't resist arrest.  Which, I still believe to be a circular argument that only works if the victim is at fault for the excessive force.

it begs the question, if you agree with me and hold this position, why you would disagree with me in this thread.  Peculiar.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Oct 30, 2020)

Well it depends on the situation or whose fault is it i don't think Martial Art is a Disadvantage you should explained to the court that he hit me 1st and i had to defend my self not unless you hit him 1st then thats a different story


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 30, 2020)

Not sure whether or not the question has been answered, but... if your "victim" (for lack of a better term - they're the ALLEGED victim anyway) does not know that you're a martial artist, then how does the police officer or judge know that you're a martial artist without you disclosing that information yourself?

Without out a way of finding out from third parties, it seems to see me that keeping your mouth shut about your martial arts training would make this a non-issue.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 30, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Not sure whether or not the question has been answered, but... if your "victim" (for lack of a better term - they're the ALLEGED victim anyway) does not know that you're a martial artist, then how does the police officer or judge know that you're a martial artist without you disclosing that information yourself?
> 
> Without out a way of finding out from third parties, it seems to see me that keeping your mouth shut about your martial arts training would make this a non-issue.


That's the thing.  They're going to find out.  They'll scrape your "social media," look at your bills, search your house, seize your computer.  Talk to everyone you know.  They're gonna know.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 30, 2020)

lklawson said:


> That's the thing.  They're going to find out.  They'll scrape your "social media," look at your bills, search your house, seize your computer.  Talk to everyone you know.  They're gonna know.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



If you're being charged with a felony, yes.  But if you simply won a fight in the Walmart parking lot and you're being charged with a misdemeanor... they're not doing all that.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 30, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> If you're being charged with a felony, yes.  But if you simply won a fight in the Walmart parking lot and you're being charged with a misdemeanor... they're not doing all that.


Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on whether or not the cops think you deserve to be arrested.  If you kill or seriously injure someone, even if justified, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get arrested, varying for your jurisdiction.  

It is incumbent, absolutely critical, upon the person acting in self defense to ensure that they ONLY use serious or deadly force when they are in immediate fear of unavoidable serious injury or death, and you can articulate that to others (a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty) so that they will agree with you.

The "Higher Standard" being discussed really isn't "giving someone a fat lip."  It's how you will be judged if you seriously injure someone else, or worse.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 30, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're doing that thing you do where you go in circles and then blame the other guy for it.  If you clarify something, but say the same thing, you are mistaking disagreement with misunderstanding.  If we disagree on something, and you further clarify but we still disagree, yes... that's circular.
> 
> But to be clear, the structure of your argument is also circular, which is a formal fallacy.
> did you read the article I posted, or even skim it?  Errr...  that's just not true.  You have some data that has been shown to be unreliable.  Sure, because you seem to believe that self defense isn't self defense, and are victim blaming.  I tried to change the context to remove cops but to keep the rest intact to demonstrate to you how bogus your position is.  FWIW, being bogus is what makes it bogus.
> ...



I realize I am jumping in the middle of your banter with lklawson but I feel it is worth saying. 
What lklawson has been saying throughout the thread is from a position of experience, cogent and supported at many points along the way. Your rebuttal has been personal, emotionally irrational and driven by your overt dislike for law enforcement and community management/protection. Your rebuttal has been nothing but circular, with the occasional manic tangents that are on the lunatic fringe. And I don't get it . In other comments you post wholesome remarks about your family. Then you go polar opposite with your extremist views. That is the bipolar dynamic. 
In a nut shell you are just picking a fight knowing there is no substance to finish it. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Just to what,  be TPOM? C'mon man, that is just sad.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 30, 2020)

Steve said:


> Hey, I'm sorry, but I used all of my psychic energy up trying to predict the outcome of the upcoming general election.  So, I had nothing in the tank when it came to reading your mind.  While you may have said these things many times, your position in this thread, in response to my post, was that if folks don't want to experience excessive force by cops, they just simply shouldn't resist arrest.  Which, I still believe to be a circular argument that only works if the victim is at fault for the excessive force.
> 
> it begs the question, if you agree with me and hold this position, why you would disagree with me in this thread.  Peculiar.


Let me make sure I understand. There is a position of authority. You advocate resisting this position of authority? Yes, if you do not want to experience excessive force do not give me, or I suspect you, or most sentient beings, or law enforcement at reason for it. And what is excessive force to you? A feather falling on your crown? 
Someone else is being circular? Yea, that is sadly hilarious.


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 30, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on whether or not the cops think you deserve to be arrested.  If you kill or seriously injure someone, even if justified, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get arrested, varying for your jurisdiction.



The question isn't so much about whether or not one is going to be arrested as (at least I'm under the impression that) this discussion is based on the presumption that you'll be arrested and that we're past that part... leaving the discussion to be about what's going to happen in court.



> The "Higher Standard" being discussed really isn't "giving someone a fat lip."  It's how you will be judged if you seriously injure someone else, or worse.



Generally speaking, the higher the level of the crime, the more resources (i.e., effort, time, and money) they're going to invest in order to secure a conviction.

I've had assault charges from when I was younger, and I know plenty of others who do as well (none felony, though).  I've never, in my life, heard of investigators in three-piece suits with six-figure salaries along with a forensics team getting involved because Timmy punched Johnny in the face at the parking lot, and they need to find out if he's a martial artist.

Seriously, if the need to find out whether or not someone was a martial artist was that big a deal; I'm sure there would be some kind of nationwide or statewide database that martial arts school owners would be required to register all of their students in.

Again, if it's a felony... yeah, I can see them checking your social media.  But as far as searching your house, seizing your computer, subpoena-ing your bank for account and credit card statements, etc... even if it's a felony, I can't see that happening unless you're AT MINIMUM being charged with manslaughter.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 30, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> The question isn't so much about whether or not one is going to be arrested as (at least I'm under the impression that) this discussion is based on the presumption that you'll be arrested and that we're past that part... leaving the discussion to be about what's going to happen in court.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agree, but to be fair I believe the OP was in regards to a known seasoned prize fighter. Not the 9 to 5 MA guy.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 30, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Let me make sure I understand. There is a position of authority. You advocate resisting this position of authority? Yes, if you do not want to experience excessive force do not give me, or I suspect you, or most sentient beings, or law enforcement at reason for it. And what is excessive force to you? A feather falling on your crown?
> Someone else is being circular? Yea, that is sadly hilarious.



You are actually allowed to resist authority though. They are not allowed to flog you for it.

What you are advocating is oppression.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 30, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Seriously? OK we've established a base number of 900,000,000 contacts but lets look at actual arrests. The current published numbers available for BJS deaths and arrests are from 2015 and are thus. In 2015, there were 10,797,088 arrests. During that year, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an estimated 1,216 people killed by police by "homicide" (either justified or unjustified, at 64% of the total, 18% were suicides and 11% were accidents), though some estimates actually put it at 900 total deaths by any means. Assuming the larger number of 1,216, that means that being killed for any reason (justified or not) when either in police custody or while being arrested comes in at 0.00112623%. 1/10th of 1%, including justified. Death by excessive force is a fraction of that, even when going by inflated media reporting.



I have bashed a bunch of people in my time. Mabye 50 or 60 that I really just beat up pretty badly.

But when compared to the entire population of Australia that number is so small as to really suggest I never bashed anybody.

Admittedly I was in a position of authority in that I could beat people up better than they could stop me. So technically they made the mistake in trying to defy me.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 31, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You are actually allowed to resist authority though. They are not allowed to flog you for it.
> 
> What you are advocating is oppression.


Not at all. All I am talking about if a functioning society. In the context we are talking about, things are given in the measure they are received. You make it sound as if every LEO encounter is bad. Very, very far from true.  I seem to be saying this more often these days; I do not like to like you to do a good job for you, and the inverse is true. Because you don't like a personality, have cultural differences, don't like the uniform they wear, hell just don't like them, that does not mean they cannot do a good job for you. Remember it is Their job so within reason they cannot deviate their tactics, even to make you feel 'warm and fuzzy' sometimes. It is the old "walk a mile in the other person's shoe" addage. 

So let's do this in pieces. Do you agree that there are people, average Joe's, who are bad or for whatever reason have done something bad. When I mean bad I mean criminal in societies eyes?  To endeavor a functioning a society, what do you do with these people?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Not at all. All I am talking about if a functioning society. In the context we are talking about, things are given in the measure they are received. You make it sound as if every LEO encounter is bad. Very, very far from true.  I seem to be saying this more often these days; I do not like to like you to do a good job for you, and the inverse is true. Because you don't like a personality, have cultural differences, don't like the uniform they wear, hell just don't like them, that does not mean they cannot do a good job for you. Remember it is Their job so within reason they cannot deviate their tactics, even to make you feel 'warm and fuzzy' sometimes. It is the old "walk a mile in the other person's shoe" addage.
> 
> So let's do this in pieces. Do you agree that there are people, average Joe's, who are bad or for whatever reason have done something bad. When I mean bad I mean criminal in societies eyes?  To endeavor a functioning a society, what do you do with these people?



Yeah police and criminal behaviour has been kept a bit vague in this discussion so that we can switch one way or the other.

All the cool kids are doing this. 

So that when we say police use of force we don't have to go in to proportionate force. 

And what we get instead is a statement like if a criminal uses force then a police officer should rightly use force to stop them. 

Which is a very vague way of making that statement. And is basically misinformation. Which I assume given the dodgy statistics uses is intentional.

Instead we need to suggest that the police can use reasonable and proportionate force. And the criminal can reasonably and proportionately resist. 

And this is essentially because the police are not in a role to punish criminals. That is for the courts. And so shouldn't use undue force to make arrests. 

So for example of a misuse of force. A shop lifter runs away and a police officer shoots him. Even though the shoplifter resisted and this hypothetical shoplifter is a hundred percent guilty of a crime. Ethnically I am going to say the police officer either needs to run faster or loose that arrest. 

So criminals can resist authority to a degree.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 1, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah police and criminal behaviour has been kept a bit vague in this discussion so that we can switch one way or the other.
> 
> All the cool kids are doing this.
> 
> ...


As if cops don't get this training.   

It's de rigueur.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 1, 2020)

*THREAD LOCKED
*
@Monkey Turned Wolf
William Hollwedel
MartialTalk Moderator


----------

