# Legality of Martial Arts



## Highlander (Jun 7, 2019)

The Empty Cup Podcast: The Legal Ramifications of Defending Yourself: Interview With Jason Korol

This file has some audio issues. Gets better towards the middle. Worth the listen.
Especially for non traditional artists


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 7, 2019)

Didnt care for it.

Neither one seemed like they new much about the legalities of self defense.


----------



## Buka (Jun 7, 2019)

I think people have false worry about self defense legalities. However, if you are a person who gets into a lot of self defense situations you should worry ......about a lot of things, more than we'll address here, like "what the hell is wrong with you?". 

But if you're just a regular person you shouldn't worry, just live your life, train, be a good person and don't restomp the groin.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 7, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think people have false worry about self defense legalities. However, if you are a person who gets into a lot of self defense situations you should worry ......about a lot of things, more than we'll address here, like "what the hell is wrong with you?".
> 
> But if you're just a regular person you shouldn't worry, just live your life, train, be a good person and don't restomp the groin.



It just makes me cringe a little when people start giving legal advice without a lot of knowledge about the actual legal side of it.  Creates a lot of misconceptions on what is legal and what is not.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 7, 2019)

Yeah...not much on the legalities of self defense. Lot on opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 7, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> It just makes me cringe a little when people start giving legal advice without a lot of knowledge about the actual legal side of it.  Creates a lot of misconceptions on what is legal and what is not.


I think - especially within the self-defense oriented world - there's a lot of bits and pieces passed around and rebroadcast by folks who don't really understand them.


----------



## Buka (Jun 7, 2019)

Maybe I'm just being naive, I don't know, but in nearly fifty years nobody I've ever trained, in fact nobody I actually know, ever had a problem concerning the legalities of self defense. And it's not like I don't get out a lot. 

But now I'm curious. Any of you guys know of anyone who had that problem?  Maybe I'll ask other guys I know who've been around forever, and in the arts as long or longer than me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 7, 2019)

Buka said:


> Maybe I'm just being naive, I don't know, but in nearly fifty years nobody I've ever trained, in fact nobody I actually know, ever had a problem concerning the legalities of self defense. And it's not like I don't get out a lot.
> 
> But now I'm curious. Any of you guys know of anyone who had that problem?  Maybe I'll ask other guys I know who've been around forever, and in the arts as long or longer than me.


I can't think of anyone who's run into any legal issues, except some folks being idiots (so not really self-defense).


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 7, 2019)

I remember being threated with legal action a several times when I was at the PD and still teaching. It never happened though. Usually someone who was pissed off in the moment and was going to sue everybody. I see no greater risk of litigation just because a person is proficient in MA. Quite the opposite I think. 
I do remember being quizzed about my "credentials" several times in the courtroom. Never amounted to anything however.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 7, 2019)

One of my students got attacked by a guy with a machete. A guy got road rage followed him to his home and attacked him with a machete. My student swept him to the ground by his throat and punched him a few times and his head hit the pavement. The guy went to the ICU and eventually filed a civil lawsuit. Ended up getting dismissed because he filed a suit against the attacker first. My dude's dad was an undercover cop and a student of my dad for a long time. Suit ended up getting dropped. Just because you're in the right doesnt mean you wont get screw in the end.

The reason I like this pod is because they talk about the fights worth getting into vs the fights not worth getting into. The fights that you can walk away from should never happen. Also liked how they discussed how self defense can easily swap from one side to the other. Personally think they have good convo and gave solid advice


----------



## Highlander (Jun 7, 2019)

Just wondering. For you guys who didnt like the podcast. Did you listen to the whole thing?


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 7, 2019)

Highlander said:


> Also liked how they discussed how self defense can easily swap from one side to the other.



But that is a misconception.  In most states, you can not claim self defense in the commission of a crime.

If you attack someone unprovoked....your claim of self defense goes out the window.

There was just to many misconceptions about what is legal and how to handle reporting it.  They should of just stuck to discussing about staying out of fights.


----------



## thanson02 (Jun 7, 2019)

Buka said:


> Maybe I'm just being naive, I don't know, but in nearly fifty years nobody I've ever trained, in fact nobody I actually know, ever had a problem concerning the legalities of self defense. And it's not like I don't get out a lot.
> 
> But now I'm curious. Any of you guys know of anyone who had that problem?  Maybe I'll ask other guys I know who've been around forever, and in the arts as long or longer than me.



None that I know of.  In the US, self-defense laws are different from state-to-state.  In Wisconsin (where I live), you have to do some digging and talk to people in law enforcement to get a clear picture on how the laws work and even then they will give you the run-around because they don't want people going out and using the grey areas of the laws to get into fights.  I didn't get any strait answers until I started working hospital security and they felt I needed to know the details for my job.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> But that is a misconception.  In most states, you can not claim self defense in the commission of a crime.
> 
> If you attack someone unprovoked....your claim of self defense goes out the window.
> 
> There was just to many misconceptions about what is legal and how to handle reporting it.  They should of just stuck to discussing about staying out of fights.


Yes but if the guy you attacked gets on top of you and starts pounding you're head in because you punched him. Now you fear for your life and could use a force multiplier with a solid legal defense.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> There was just to many misconceptions about what is legal and how to handle reporting it.


What misconceptions did you hear. This would be a great topic worth discussing


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

Buka said:


> But now I'm curious. Any of you guys know of anyone who had that problem?  Maybe I'll ask other guys I know who've been around forever, and in the arts as long or longer than me.


They give a couples examples of this in the podcast. Summary- 2 friends went into friends room during party. Random dude was in there with a chick. Tried to punch home owner when asked to get out. Home owners friend stopped the punch and chain punched him back. Guy left went to the cops and got the friend arrested for "jumping him". Ended up settling out of court to save money


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 8, 2019)

I am not sure, why it takes 1 hour and 17 min to debate, if a person punches me, I am entitled to stop and restrain, or punch them back, I am not entitled to stop restrain ,then punch them 20 times, snap their arm, or break a leg, any actions other than reasonable actions, you have to be prepared to convince 12 people of your actions


----------



## JP3 (Jun 8, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think - especially within the self-defense oriented world - there's a lot of bits and pieces passed around and rebroadcast by folks who don't really understand them.


That method of "gaining knowledge" isn't limited to the SD arena,. It is quite prevalent all over the place, I've found.


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 8, 2019)

Highlander said:


> One of my students got attacked by a guy with a machete. A guy got road rage followed him to his home and attacked him with a machete. My student swept him to the ground by his throat and punched him a few times and his head hit the pavement. The guy went to the ICU and eventually filed a civil lawsuit. Ended up getting dismissed because he filed a suit against the attacker first. My dude's dad was an undercover cop and a student of my dad for a long time. Suit ended up getting dropped. Just because you're in the right doesnt mean you wont get screw in the end.
> 
> The reason I like this pod is because they talk about the fights worth getting into vs the fights not worth getting into. The fights that you can walk away from should never happen. Also liked how they discussed how self defense can easily swap from one side to the other. Personally think they have good convo and gave solid advice


Did this happen in KY? I live in TN. The ease to video things now-a-days MAY make me think twice about an outright strike to someone unless they attacked first. A restraint or takedown I would not hesitate. Not very sure how sound that logic is however.  
My wife is an attorney and she has often said TN is the patron saint of the counter-suit. That a counter-suit usually carries more clout than who files first.  Sad that it has to be that way.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

Highlander said:


> Yes but if the guy you attacked gets on top of you and starts pounding you're head in because you punched him. Now you fear for your life and could use a force multiplier with a solid legal defense.



No....that would be Manslaughter or Aggravated Battery


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

Highlander said:


> Summary- 2 friends went into friends room during party. Random dude was in there with a chick. Tried to punch home owner when asked to get out. Home owners friend stopped the punch and chain punched him back. Guy left went to the cops and got the friend arrested for "jumping him". Ended up settling out of court to save money



But he only has one side of the story...his friends...it is not 1st hand info and he has not verified any facts of the scenario.  His friend was charged with a felony which leads me to believe the friend left some vital information out.  Chances are his friend was doing more than just defending his friend and helps create the misconception that even though he was only defending someone he was still charged.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2019)

Buka said:


> Maybe I'm just being naive, I don't know, but in nearly fifty years nobody I've ever trained, in fact nobody I actually know, ever had a problem concerning the legalities of self defense. And it's not like I don't get out a lot.
> 
> But now I'm curious. Any of you guys know of anyone who had that problem?  Maybe I'll ask other guys I know who've been around forever, and in the arts as long or longer than me.



A mate of mine did two years for bouncing a guys head off the ground in a fight.

I think he got done for GBH.

He was working, tried to throw someone out. Got punched, deadlocked the guy and wound up riding him to the ground.

The dude lost some teeth.

Otherwise this was a place I used to work before I basically escaped because it was such a crap hole.

Memories of the night Joel Namoa died at Andergrove Tavern


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

Highlander said:


> What misconceptions did you hear. This would be a great topic worth discussing



The ability to claim self defense can switch from the individuals...isn't accurate

The story of his friend defending his friend but still being charged with a felony...sounds fishy and I'm wiling to bet lacks a lot of facts of the investigation.

That showing retreat is important in claiming self defense.....in stand your ground states, there is no requirement to retreat and not retreating cannot be held against you.

Admitting to training in Martial Arts or having fighting skills hurts your case....no state that I know of penalizes you for fighting skills or training.

Threatening someone with force if they touch you hurts your self defense claim....you can legally use threat of force to defend yourself if you feel in danger

Striking someone 1st hurts your self defense case....you just have to articulate that you were in fear of an imminent attack that you were defending against.

The story about the guy waiting until he was on the ground against multiple attackers before pulling his knife and cutting the guy once on his hand was bad.
      -He did not have to wait until he was down before pulling his knife.....in most places, he could have pulled the knife and used it as a threat of force to protect himself from attack.
      -The fact that he only cut one guy in the hand is moot.....most places he would have been justified using lethal force with three guys beating on him while he was on the ground.

And just ignoring that self defense laws vary from state to state....instead of advising to know your rights where you live.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2019)

The martial arts thing has weight in argument but isn't really a law.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

drop bear said:


> The martial arts thing has weight in argument but isn't really a law.



In the U.S. it doesn't carry any weight as long as the force is proportional.

The story about knocking out a much bigger assailant and claiming no training is silly.


And they really didn't explain proper proportional force very well.


----------



## JR 137 (Jun 8, 2019)

A member of my fraternity did a few years for assault and battery (not sure of the exact charges)...

He was walking home with a full bottle of vodka in his hand. A person he’s had words with many times in the past was walking by and said some very disrespectful things to his girlfriend. He confronted the guy, who punched him. My friend hit him in the head with the vodka bottle, knocking him down and hurting him pretty good, but nothing severe.

Had he stopped there, he most likely would’ve had a good self defense case.

Then he proceeded to repeatedly hit him with the bottle while he was down. The guy ended up with a fractured skull and lost an eye.

Self defense turned into assault and battery. Possibly with a deadly weapon? Again, I don’t know the exact charges nor how much time he served. I know he did at least 2 years and was sued for a lot of money. And honestly, he deserved it. He should’ve walked away initially, and worst case walked away after he dropped the guy. Now he’s a felon and working to pay a pretty big suit after he finished serving time because he couldn’t handle a guy repeatedly saying things to his girlfriend. And she dumped him when he first went in, so how’d that work out for everyone?

No one won that one.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 8, 2019)

The whole urban legend about martial artists hands being considered weapons in terms of legality has been around forever.

It's also some bee ess


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Did this happen in KY? I live in TN. The ease to video things now-a-days MAY make me think twice about an outright strike to someone unless they attacked first. A restraint or takedown I would not hesitate. Not very sure how sound that logic is however.
> My wife is an attorney and she has often said TN is the patron saint of the counter-suit. That a counter-suit usually carries more clout than who files first.  Sad that it has to be that way.


Yeah it happened in KY.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> His friend was charged with a felon


No he wasn't? He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor because he couldn't afford the court cost.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

_The ability to claim self defense can switch from the individuals...isn't accurate
_
*If you punch me in the face and I defend myself buy pulling a knife start stabbing and slicing you up. Then you pull a gun and shoot me to stop me. Legally you'd be in the right. And that would be self defense switching sides, though it's an extreme *


_That showing retreat is important in claiming self defense.....in stand your ground states, there is no requirement to retreat and not retreating cannot be held against you.
_
*Stand your ground is definitely a solid point. And yes, you're not legal required to run. But if you can clearly show that you actively tried to avoid the situation you're going to have a stronger legal defense*

_Admitting to training in Martial Arts or having fighting skills hurts your case....no state that I know of penalizes you for fighting skills or training._

*The law won't penalize you. But it gives the other persons lawyer a weapon against you. The jury is who needs to be convinced*

_Threatening someone with force if they touch you hurts your self defense claim....you can legally use threat of force to defend yourself if you feel in danger
_
*Agreed. But it you threatening someone it could just egg them on.*

_Striking someone 1st hurts your self defense case....you just have to articulate that you were in fear of an imminent attack that you were defending against.
_
*It does hurt your case though. It doesnt make you wrong and it doesnt mean he wasn't gonna attack. Just makes it harder to prove. Again you have to prove it to a jury*

_The story about the guy waiting until he was on the ground against multiple attackers before pulling his knife and cutting the guy once on his hand was bad.
      -He did not have to wait until he was down before pulling his knife.....in most places, he could have pulled the knife and used it as a threat of force to protect himself from attack.
      -The fact that he only cut one guy in the hand is moot.....most places he would have been justified using lethal force with three guys beating on him while he was on the *ground*._

*Cops told the guy that the reason they weren't arresting him is because he didn't immediately pull the knife *



_And just ignoring that self defense laws vary from state to state....instead of advising to know your rights where you live._

*They said more then once that laws vary from state to state and everyone should look up their state laws.*


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

Highlander said:


> No he wasn't? He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor because he couldn't afford the court cost.



Listen again....he was charged with a felony and pled down to misdemeanor


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Listen again....he was charged with a felony and pled down to misdemeanor


The word felony is literally not mentioned in that story.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

Highlander said:


> If you punch me in the face and I defend myself buy pulling a knife start stabbing and slicing you up. Then you pull a gun and shoot me to stop me. Legally you'd be in the right. And that would be self defense switching sides, though it's an extreme



No that would be manslaughter.  The person committed an assault on someone that ended in a death.



Highlander said:


> Stand your ground is definitely a solid point. And yes, you're not legal required to run. But if you can clearly show that you actively tried to avoid the situation you're going to have a stronger legal defense



No, in stand your ground states that is moot.  Your sole defense rests on was you allowed legally to be there and was it reasonable to feel like you were in danger...that is the sole determining factor in self defense in stand your ground states.



Highlander said:


> The law won't penalize you. But it gives the other persons lawyer a weapon against you. The jury is who needs to be convinced



Forget civil court....Self Defense is about protecting yourself.  And most juries aren't swayed that much by training....that is a small hurdle to get past.  It is a myth that it hurts you in court.



Highlander said:


> Agreed. But it you threatening someone it could just egg them on.



Sure but it might stop them to....but still legally it doesn't hurt you.  If anything it shows that you were feeling threatened and warned them.



Highlander said:


> It does hurt your case though. It doesnt make you wrong and it doesnt mean he wasn't gonna attack. Just makes it harder to prove. Again you have to prove it to a jury



It does not hurt your case.  In self defense, what you have to prove is that it was reasonable to believe you were in danger...period.  If you can prove that....who struck first is moot.



Highlander said:


> *Cops told the guy that the reason they weren't arresting him is because he didn't immediately pull the knife *



Either he is embellishing or misunderstood because that is silly.  He is being threatened by multiple attackers and it would be more than reasonable to believe he was in danger of great bodily harm or death which justifies him pulling it.



Highlander said:


> They said more then once that laws vary from state to state and everyone should look up their state laws.



ok...I must have missed that and apologize.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

Highlander said:


> The word felony is literally not mentioned in that story.



Incorrect....towards the end of the podcast he goes back and clarifies that it was actually a felony but part of his plea changed it to a misdemeanor.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> And most juries aren't swayed that much by training....that is a small hurdle to get past. It is a myth that it hurts you in court.



And to clarify....training is mostly moot....as long as the force used was proportional to the threat.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Incorrect....towards the end of the podcast he goes back and clarifies that it was actually a felony but part of his plea changed it to a misdemeanor.


Must of missed that


----------



## Highlander (Jun 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> moot.


You really enjoy that word lol.
I dont disagree with anything you're saying. Atleast not wholly. But I still think these guys gave solid moral and legal advice. Just my opinion of course


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 9, 2019)

Highlander said:


> You really enjoy that word lol.
> I dont disagree with anything you're saying. Atleast not wholly. But I still think these guys gave solid moral and legal advice. Just my opinion of course


Whether or not they offered solid moral advice is opinion. Whether the legal advice is solid or not is not opinion, it's fact. Not having listened to the podcast, just reading what you both have written here, it seems they were not basing their arguments on research in the laws regarding self defense (in any particular location), but instead hearsay of what they believe to be correct, which is a horrible way to distribute legal advice. If they were going to do a podcast on legality in self defense, and wanted it to be legitimate, they should have a lawyer that specializes in cases like these as a guest speaker.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 9, 2019)

Highlander said:


> You really enjoy that word lol.
> I dont disagree with anything you're saying. Atleast not wholly. But I still think these guys gave solid moral and legal advice. Just my opinion of course



I think they make a good point about controlling yourself and avoiding trouble but should stay away from what is legal.

When it comes to self defense....Keep it simple....

1)  Know the requirement of the law....duty to retreat or stand your ground
2)  When in danger....do what you need to do to protect yourself......worry about criminal and/or civil problems afterwards.....don't take unnecessary chances.
3)  When the threat is ended......STOP.
4)  When talking to police...be respectful and explain why you felt you were in danger and your actions....include that once you felt the threat was over you stopped.

P.S.  Dont try to hide or lie about your training or skills.........Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one, false in all)......it will just damage your credibility.

Also just repeating rehearsed legal phrases...."I was just defending myself"....is not gonna work.  You want the police to believe your justification explain....what you did and why.  You don't have to get technical with names of techniques.....but if you punched the guy say I punched the guy and this is why.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 9, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> No....that would be Manslaughter or Aggravated Battery


Those would be the charges, yes... depending on what the states penal code calls such acts. But, the self-defense affirmative defense would still exist to be pushed by the defense.

In the example, I agree with you CB on the probable outcome, though.  If a person is the initializing attacker, then it shifts the attacker-defender positions as the Defender gets the upper hand but continues the beat-down, and thus becomes the Aggressor... the now-Defender "could" go to the force multiplier and "could" say it was self-defense affirmative defense in court. The problem is that most judges and especially juries tend to see through that sort of thing and land on the initializing attacker because of the "You shouldn't have started it," thing.

If the force multiplier isn't used, and they get their butt beat by the now-Agressor, they may very well end up winning a ivil suit. It's a tricky dang business.

In the above example witht he student being attacked by a machete-wielding idiot.... granted that it sucks that machete boy was able tofile a suit, but I'd put down a pile of money that the student wins that lawsuit.

And I agree with the countersuit philosophy.  If a person is sued for some nonsense thing, you have to pushback. Strategically, it gives you many more options to get out of the suit unscathed (except for lawdog fees).

People are all over the place on these legality questions, and for good reason. The law is an imperfect tool with which to deal with this stuff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 9, 2019)

JP3 said:


> Those would be the charges, yes... depending on what the states penal code calls such acts. But, the self-defense affirmative defense would still exist to be pushed by the defense.
> 
> In the example, I agree with you CB on the probable outcome, though.  If a person is the initializing attacker, then it shifts the attacker-defender positions as the Defender gets the upper hand but continues the beat-down, and thus becomes the Aggressor... the now-Defender "could" go to the force multiplier and "could" say it was self-defense affirmative defense in court. The problem is that most judges and especially juries tend to see through that sort of thing and land on the initializing attacker because of the "You shouldn't have started it," thing.
> 
> ...


I think in most states an attacker who ends up having to defends has an incomplete self-defense claim. Basically, since they created the situation, their actions cannot be excused simply because it turned bad on them. IIRC (from lawyers' explanations), the incomplete SD is a mitigating factor, rather than an actual legal defense.

I think the same happens if someone does not intend to "strike the blow" (as in cases of accidental discharge).


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 9, 2019)

This is a long post to get to the topic. My apologies.

I had to get help with telling this story because it is part of my life that got erased by the accident (a different one). My wife re-read my testimony. This is a condensed version.
I was driving back to the office from a clients location in early afternoon rush hour traffic on a 6-lane bridge with no shoulder. We were all moving about 50 mph. A car (old blue Buick) 4 vehicles ahead of me had broke down and was smack in the right hand lane. A Range Rover SUV hit the car at speed in the rear end. The Rover spun clockwise and ended up pushing and pinning the Buick to the guard rail, blocking both drivers side doors. The 3rd car ahead of me took a hard left into the center lane and kept going. The car in front of me tried to do the same but got clipped by rearward-coming traffic and piled up. I had no where to go and very little room to stop. Braking hard I stopped 13' from the Buick. Of course all traffic stopped. The Buick and Rover had already started smoking. The people in the Rover and other cars got out and walked away from the accident, afraid of fire. I was totally freaked out and my adrenaline was maxed out. I had to climb over the pile of cars to get to the front of the Buick. It was very smoky in and around the car but I could see the driver struggling. I jumped on the hood of the car and started kicking the s*** out of the passenger side of the windshield. The rear of the car was really burning by now. I finally got the glass to cave in enough to start trying to peel it back. I looked at the driver and the flames had made it to them. I had about a 1/8 to 1/4 of the glass peeled back when there was a huge boom (I think a tire exploding in hindsight). Then the flames engulfed the driver. I just stood on the roof of the car for a few seconds. I had no idea there were actually three people in the car. My adrenaline was still maxed and I remember yelling at people asking why didn't they help me.
Within days (not weeks) I received the papers for a $3.5 million law suit against me. Eventually, anyone remotely involved with the accident, including the officers who worked the wreck, Metro Davidson County PD, TDOT, GM, etc... were sued by the family. 

This is where my wife praises State Farm as an insurance company. They have/had an attorney named David White who was fantastic. We talked at length several times and he was very thorough about physical things like times and distances.

The families attorneys tried two different angles at using my MA skills against me. 
First, as someone trained in MA, my reaction time would be such that I should have stopped sooner (I never touched another vehicle) and somehow that would have magically avoided the whole accident. 
Secondly, my MA training should have allowed me the ability to break out the glass, saving everyone in the car. In the very best scenario, where I walked up and literally unzipped the windshield, it was determined that the occupants would have still died. 

After a little over two years and a lot of litigation all claims against me were dropped. Much thanks to Mr. White. 

I realize this is, thankfully, way outside the norm. My point is knowing MA may be used against you in very vague and random ways. The manipulated extremes of exercising our freedoms may come at you in ways you never expected. I certainly never thought it would be used against me in this situation. 
Conversely, I had a great group of people consisting of former and current students, LEO and local attorney's, our counties leadership, school teachers and principals, family and friends who came together to speak on my behalf. A debt I will never be able to repay. Count All your friends as blessings.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 9, 2019)

JP3 said:


> Those would be the charges, yes... depending on what the states penal code calls such acts. But, the self-defense affirmative defense would still exist to be pushed by the defense.
> 
> In the example, I agree with you CB on the probable outcome, though.  If a person is the initializing attacker, then it shifts the attacker-defender positions as the Defender gets the upper hand but continues the beat-down, and thus becomes the Aggressor... the now-Defender "could" go to the force multiplier and "could" say it was self-defense affirmative defense in court. The problem is that most judges and especially juries tend to see through that sort of thing and land on the initializing attacker because of the "You shouldn't have started it," thing.
> 
> ...



Where I live you can not claim self defense due to this section of the self defense law:

Use of force or violence in defense:

C. A person who is *not* engaged in unlawful activity


----------



## Po! (Jun 11, 2019)

I'm new here so be easy on me with these responses LOL but as far as self-defense legalities as martial artist go I really don't see how any of us, if we're going to define ourselves as martial artists, should be worried about this because if it's not my life or the defense of a life of another human being then I need to leave because that's not what I'm here for.


----------



## Po! (Jun 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Did this happen in KY? I live in TN. The ease to video things now-a-days MAY make me think twice about an outright strike to someone unless they attacked first. A restraint or takedown I would not hesitate. Not very sure how sound that logic is however.
> My wife is an attorney and she has often said TN is the patron saint of the counter-suit. That a counter-suit usually carries more clout than who files first.  Sad that it has to be that way.


Yes it was KY.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 11, 2019)

Po! said:


> I'm new here so be easy on me with these responses LOL but as far as self-defense legalities as martial artist go I really don't see how any of us, if we're going to define ourselves as martial artists, should be worried about this because if it's not my life or the defense of a life of another human being then I need to leave because that's not what I'm here for.


We still have to be worried about it, because we live in this world. We need to know when laws allow us to take action, should we deem it advisable. It's part of making an informed decision.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 11, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Where I live you can not claim self defense due to this section of the self defense law:
> 
> Use of force or violence in defense:
> 
> C. A person who is *not* engaged in unlawful activity


Nice sub-section, makes your point exactly. You're exactly right then for your jurisdiction.

Come to think on it... Hmmm. Google time.


----------



## Po! (Jun 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> We still have to be worried about it, because we live in this world. We need to know when laws allow us to take action, should we deem it advisable. It's part of making an informed decision.


Yes I do agree that we have to be worried about it I try to think of using my martial arts though as a life-or-death thing I'll swallow my pride and ego and run if I have to just so I don't have to go through any kind of Court deal.and I'm the student the Highlander was talking about I am the individual that was attacked with a machete so that's really my only basis for a response and using my martial arts outside of training is,
 a situation that was life or death


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 11, 2019)

Po! said:


> Yes I do agree that we have to be worried about it I try to think of using my martial arts though as a life-or-death thing I'll swallow my pride and ego and run if I have to just so I don't have to go through any kind of Court deal.and I'm the student the Highlander was talking about I am the individual that was attacked with a machete so that's really my only basis for a response and using my martial arts outside of training is,
> a situation that was life or death


Thank you for your strength and courage. It is a dirty shame you have had to go through such an encounter. Your wisdom and maturity shows up in this post. I hope you use this life lesson only for good. 
Yours in the Martial Spirit,


----------



## Po! (Jun 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Thank you for your strength and courage. It is a dirty shame you have had to go through such an encounter. Your wisdom and maturity shows up in this post. I hope you use this life lesson only for good.
> Yours in the Martial Spirit,


Thank you si-hing. I learned much from this encounter, and I will use my lessons learned for good, you have my word. I don't ever want to have to hurt another human like that again.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 11, 2019)

That was a very big part of this pod cast. If you can get away from the fight. Get away from it. Nothing is worth fighting over, so only fight when you have no other options. This was the main thing I got out of this episode. They were saying this just happens to give you a stronger legal defense aswell (see previous responses before commenting please).

One thing the guest said I like was when he was on another forum. And a guy said "I'd rather lose a fight then eye gouge someone" and he commented "clearly you're definition of a fight is different than mine"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

Highlander said:


> That was a very big part of this pod cast. If you can get away from the fight. Get away from it. Nothing is worth fighting over, so only fight when you have no other options. This was the main thing I got out of this episode. They were saying this just happens to give you a stronger legal defense aswell (see previous responses before commenting please).
> 
> One thing the guest said I like was when he was on another forum. And a guy said "I'd rather lose a fight then eye gouge someone" and he commented "clearly you're definition of a fight is different than mine"


I think sometimes in SD circles, there's too much hope placed in the ability to escape. I've seen SD instructors teach from the beginning that running is the best option. I actually disagree, unless you're a really good runner (so there's little chance they'll catch you). At 30, running was a realistic option for me. At 49, there are fewer things I can run from.

That means there are more situations where defending myself is more likely. It has been my experience that a subset of the SD-oriented world uses "run away" as their solution when they really don't have a good answer (there may not be one) and they don't want to admit that there are unwinnable situations.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think sometimes in SD circles, there's too much hope placed in the ability to escape. I've seen SD instructors teach from the beginning that running is the best option. I actually disagree, unless you're a really good runner (so there's little chance they'll catch you). At 30, running was a realistic option for me. At 49, there are fewer things I can run from.
> 
> That means there are more situations where defending myself is more likely. It has been my experience that a subset of the SD-oriented world uses "run away" as their solution when they really don't have a good answer (there may not be one) and they don't want to admit that there are unwinnable situations.


You're assuming they well chase you. If that's the case then fight. Because they're not giving you the choice. But if you can walk away...

Let me ask you this.. a man walks up to you on the street, pulls a knife and asks for your wallet. What are you gonna do ?
(Let's say you're alone)


----------



## pdg (Jun 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think sometimes in SD circles, there's too much hope placed in the ability to escape. I've seen SD instructors teach from the beginning that running is the best option. I actually disagree, unless you're a really good runner (so there's little chance they'll catch you). At 30, running was a realistic option for me. At 49, there are fewer things I can run from.
> 
> That means there are more situations where defending myself is more likely. It has been my experience that a subset of the SD-oriented world uses "run away" as their solution when they really don't have a good answer (there may not be one) and they don't want to admit that there are unwinnable situations.



I think an important distinction to make is that of "running away" Vs "getting away", and also how you actually interpret "run"

To me (and I have to assume a lot of others from what I've seen) running away is usually just that - actually running. At least when I hear others say it.

On the other hand, getting away may involve a bit of running, but it's just as likely to involve a gentle stroll in the other direction.

Running away? Not for me, I can't run for toffee.

Getting away? I have a much higher likelihood of pulling that off.


In other words, I'll happily run away from a fight (or from work), but it won't have any actual running going on


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

Highlander said:


> You're assuming they well chase you. If that's the case then fight. Because they're not giving you the choice. But if you can walk away...
> 
> Let me ask you this.. a man walks up to you on the street, pulls a knife and asks for your wallet. What are you gonna do ?
> (Let's say you're alone)


Assuming they won't is an unsafe assumption. Because if they do, they have your back and you're out of breath.

That's not a situation where I'll run. He can have my wallet, my phone, my car keys, whatever. But if I think there's imminent risk, I'm not giving him my back to stab.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> I think an important distinction to make is that of "running away" Vs "getting away", and also how you actually interpret "run"
> 
> To me (and I have to assume a lot of others from what I've seen) running away is usually just that - actually running. At least when I hear others say it.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Heck, I'll even actually run if I'm pretty sure that's a better option (say, the person is overweight or limping more than me). Or in cases where it's really better than fighting (like maybe if he has a gun and isn't stupid enough to play a SD gun-disarm scenario with me).

But I've literally seen a quite overweight instructor say, "If he has a knife, you're going to see this fat boy run." That just seems a really bad idea. If the guy isn't going to use the knife, then "getting away" shouldn't require running. If he is, then running won't result in getting away if you can't run fast.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2019)

Po! said:


> Thank you si-hing. I learned much from this encounter, and I will use my lessons learned for good, you have my word. I don't ever want to have to hurt another human like that again.



We have this theory called reasonable and proportionate.

So if I am attacked but they do an incredibly bad job of it. I could use a little bit of martial arts to stop that attack.

Rather than either running away or going full blast.


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think sometimes in SD circles, there's too much hope placed in the ability to escape. I've seen SD instructors teach from the beginning that running is the best option. I actually disagree, unless you're a really good runner (so there's little chance they'll catch you). At 30, running was a realistic option for me. At 49, there are fewer things I can run from.
> 
> That means there are more situations where defending myself is more likely. It has been my experience that a subset of the SD-oriented world uses "run away" as their solution when they really don't have a good answer (there may not be one) and they don't want to admit that there are unwinnable situations.


I teach "running away" but the context is different. You could just as easily say walk away, or step back, or step down, etc... If you are in a public place there is no point in actually running away but the option not to engage the other person is almost always your best choice. In the U.S. anyway, if you are somewhere where it is just you and the attacker you either put yourself in a very bad place or had some incredibly bad luck. I stress SA is the best and strongest kind of SD.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I teach "running away" but the context is different. You could just as easily say walk away, or step back, or step down, etc... If you are in a public place there is no point in actually running away but the option not to engage the other person is almost always your best choice. In the U.S. anyway, if you are somewhere where it is just you and the attacker you either put yourself in a very bad place or had some incredibly bad luck. I stress SA is the best and strongest kind of SD.


I agree - what you're talking about is that last stage of avoidance, the last chance to not engage. That's not so much escape, as I was using it, but it's a good point.


----------

