# The law concering self defense and use of force without guns



## PhotonGuy (Aug 20, 2013)

I would like to discuss and learn more about the law regarding self defense and the use of force in confrontations. There is much talk about such stuff but usually, most of the discussions and articles I see about such stuff has to do with guns and if you use a gun in self defense. I am interested in discussing issues of self defense and force that don't involve guns. For instance, if you incapacitate a perpetrator with your bare hands. It's very important to know about when you can resort to such action and how to avoid getting in trouble if you do take such action.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 20, 2013)

The law will be different from country to country, or possibly from state to state, so it is hard to make blanket statements about what is "acceptable" under the law. Following is Canada's criminal justice code on self defense, your country or state's version may differ.
*Self-defence against unprovoked assault*
 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
*Extent of justification*
 (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
*Self-defence in case of aggression*
 35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if (a) he uses the force (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
*Provocation*
 36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
*Preventing assault*
 37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
*Extent of justification*
 (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 20, 2013)

Well even with all the stuff you posted, the law itself is very shady in some areas. For instance, where it says that a defender is justified in using force to a certain extent but no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or repetition of it. Now, when you incapacitate an attacker so that they're no longer a threat, if you continue to beat on them after they're down and no longer capable of attacking than that is no longer a case of self defense and you will get in trouble. You cannot beat an attacker after they're no longer a threat and that's quite cut and dry. Now, lets say you're faced with an attacker and you land just one punch and it hurts the attacker really badly to the point where they have to be hospitalized or even if you manage to kill an attacker with one punch which sometimes does happen. My concern is, could that be considered excessive? The courts might say that you used excessive force with just that one punch because you hurt the attacker much more than was necessary and much more than was needed to stop the assault. They might say you should've pulled your punch. Personally I think that's ridiculous but I've heard of stuff like that.


----------



## Carol (Aug 20, 2013)

Consult with a qualified defense attorney in your state that is familiar with self-defense issues.  Many offer consults for very reasonable rates, plus it gives you a relationship should your self-defense needs change in the future.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 21, 2013)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well even with all the stuff you posted, the law itself is very shady in some areas. For instance, where it says that a defender is justified in using force to a certain extent but no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or repetition of it. Now, when you incapacitate an attacker so that they're no longer a threat, if you continue to beat on them after they're down and no longer capable of attacking than that is no longer a case of self defense and you will get in trouble. You cannot beat an attacker after they're no longer a threat and that's quite cut and dry. Now, lets say you're faced with an attacker and you land just one punch and it hurts the attacker really badly to the point where they have to be hospitalized or even if you manage to kill an attacker with one punch which sometimes does happen. My concern is, could that be considered excessive? The courts might say that you used excessive force with just that one punch because you hurt the attacker much more than was necessary and much more than was needed to stop the assault. They might say you should've pulled your punch. Personally I think that's ridiculous but I've heard of stuff like that.



Both Carol and myself have suggested that you check your local laws for the most relevant information to yourself. Most self defense is based around a "reasonable man" concept. Is it reasonable to expect that you could kill a man with one punch? Was your intention to kill?

Please explain how you think anyone could be expected to pull a punch. Is there some limit of force you are aware of that is safe to hit someone with, to go beyond that amount is excessive? In your scenario, a reasonable man has done whatever is necessary to avoid a fight(that could be a long drawn out process, or it could be as simple as a flinch or a block of an incoming blow),he strikes once to defend himself. Has he become the aggressor? No. Is he kicking the spine of a downed opponent? No. Is the attacker still a potential threat? Probably, unless your one punch miraclously killed him.

You've heard of stuff like that? Was it from the cousin of a brother of a friend of yours who went to school with the uncle of the guy it happened to, or was it in the newspaper, where someone was charged with 2nd degree murder for defending himself with his hands?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 21, 2013)

The general principle, in the US, is quite simple.  *You may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.* 

Sounds simple.  Let's look at the words.



Force:  any means of imposing your will on someone.  That includes simply being there (usually for cops or security more so than a private individual -- but it can apply if that private citizen involves themselves in someone else's problem) or saying no, up to any means of causing grievous bodily harm or death.  Lethal force ain't limited to guns; it includes knives, baseball bats, choke holds, punches to the throat, throws on hard concrete... anything that is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.
Necessary: Key issues here are Intent, Means, Opportunity, and the oft neglected Preclusion.
[*=1]Intent: Did the attacker intend to do you harm?  Assuming a decent self defense scenario, this is often a given.  But you have to take it into account, because if they lacked the intent to do you harm, you can't do anything to them without becoming an assailant yourself.  And it applies in a Monkey Dance -- because in some cases, the last thing the players actually want is to fight.  They're just putting on a show for their friends and the crowd.
[*=1]Means: An actual capability to do harm.  Weapons, including unarmed weapons like fists and feet.  Again -- most self defense situations, this is generally a given.  They've shown a weapon, or they've grabbed you...  but you need to be able to articulate how they were going to carry out their intent to do you harm.  You can't shoot someone 15 yards away who says he's going to shoot you if he doesn't have a gun and you have no reason to believe he has one.
[*=1]Opportunity: Are they in a position to do what they threaten?  Someone threatening to choke you to death from a couple hundred yards away lacks the opportunity to carry out their threat (unless, of course, they're Darth Vader).   Yep, again, in a good self defense situation, this is given.
[*=1]Preclusion: Your use of force was the only option available to you that would likely have ended the situation safely.  Especially important in lethal force.  Stand your ground laws shift this a little -- but you still have to be able to say that you were in the right and didn't create the situation.
Reasonable:  Would that mythical creature, the reasonable person, conclude that your force was appropriate and proportional to the threat presented?  Can you show why you needed to hit, kick, lock, or shoot that person -- and that other options wouldn't have been likely to resolve the situation effectively?  (Yeah, some overlap here with preclusion.)  You can write books about reasonableness -- but generally speaking, if the force you use is about the same or a little more than was being threatened or used, you're likely to be in the right neighborhood.  You can likely punch someone who's grabbing you -- but need to explain more if you shoot them.  If they get a weapon, you're almost certainly OK (assuming you were in the right in the first place) getting one of your own.  But if you shoot someone waving a Nerf sword?
Safely resolve:  What's your role?  My job as a cop means that "safely resolve" typically means subdue and arrest.  For a private individual, your role in self defense is to escape and get help -- not effect an arrest.  Generally, "safely resolve" means get out of there without any more injury than you sustained in the initial attack.  Not get even with the bad guy.


Cases of one punch kills, or freak incidents where a guy falls and hits his head on a rock tie into one other principle:  You take your victim as you find them.  Unknown to anyone, the guy has a dissecting aorta, and your punch is the final straw...  You might be charged with some class of homicide.  Same thing if he falls and hits his head.

Oh... yeah...  Charges.  Depending on what happens, you may do everything "right" in defending yourself, but may still find yourself arrested.  Especially if you kill someone.  That's when you go back to that local attorney you consulted, as was advised by Carol and frank raud, and you hire him.  Unless you've learned of a better attorney to hire.  Then you hire that guy.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

With gun..without gun...it's no different. I know of no use of force law that differentiates between weapon types. Only the use of force.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 21, 2013)

A couple other places you can look for guidance.  Rory Miller has addressed these issues in several of his books.  So has Mark MacYoung.  And several others that I don't feel like digging up at the moment -- though Massad Ayoob springs to mind.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 22, 2013)

As others have said, talk to a LOCAL attorney who knows how that county's DA/PA interprets and looks at the law.

Another thing to consider is that the concept of "self-defense" is a legal defense for the charge of assault/battery.  Chances are great that you will still have to go to court to answer for the charge based on other witness statements etc.  Police agencies do NOT have legal immunity.  Only the Prosecutor/District Attorney does.  This means that the police will take the report and turn over a warrant request to the Pros. Office for them to review and decide if it was self-defense or not.  The police may or may not arrest you on the spot, it depends on their dept. policy and how much discretion they have.  Some places/officers just arrest both parties and submit the report to let the PA/DA sort it out.

You can "google" your own state's laws regarding self-defense and get a general idea what it has.  Some states have a "stand your ground" clause and others still have a "duty to retreat" clause in it.  If your state has a "duty to retreat", then you must show that you attempted to leave the situation in someway, or why you couldn't safely leave and did not do anything to cause the situation to turn violent.  For example, two people getting into a verbal argument at a bar and both parties are calling each other names and throwing threats back and forth.  One person pushes the other and that person then punches the guy out and claims "self-defense" because the other guy pushed him.  NOT going to fly as "self-defense" because both parties were willing participants and neither made an attempt to leave or de-escalate.


----------



## Nighthawk (Aug 25, 2013)

One of my good friends is a SWAT team officer in Colorado. Here is what he had to say on the subject:

My understanding is that in self-defense, or  defense of another, a person is allowed to use the minimum force  necessary to accomplish that defense.  Once the threat has stopped, been  eliminated or removed, the use of force must stop, except for that  force necessary to maintain custody or control of a suspect if they're  being held for law enforcement.
So you and Jackie are out at  dinner, a person beings assaulting you or someone nearby.  If you  perceive there is imminent danger to the "victim", you may use the  minimum force to stop that assault..it can be just your walking up and  telling them to stop, that the police are on the way, all the way up to a  strike that could kill them, depending on your skill, their skill, any  weapons they might have,etc.  Once the attack stops, such as they run  away, they're on the ground, or you have them in a control hold, you  cannot continue to beat them.  You can use the minimum force to keep  them there if the police are on the way, or you can just let them go...


----------



## DavidMoreland (Aug 26, 2013)

Nighthawk said:


> One of my good friends is a SWAT team officer in Colorado. Here is what he had to say on the subject:
> 
> My understanding is that in self-defense, or  defense of another, a person is allowed to use the minimum force  necessary to accomplish that defense.  Once the threat has stopped, been  eliminated or removed, the use of force must stop, except for that  force necessary to maintain custody or control of a suspect if they're  being held for law enforcement.
> So you and Jackie are out at  dinner, a person beings assaulting you or someone nearby.  If you  perceive there is imminent danger to the "victim", you may use the  minimum force to stop that assault..it can be just your walking up and  telling them to stop, that the police are on the way, all the way up to a  strike that could kill them, depending on your skill, their skill, any  weapons they might have,etc.  Once the attack stops, such as they run  away, they're on the ground, or you have them in a control hold, you  cannot continue to beat them.  You can use the minimum force to keep  them there if the police are on the way, or you can just let them go...




Your friend is right and we have to think about thesituation from practical aspect and don't become a superhero in the abovesituation and one need to avoid gun during self defense because it may alsoharm you so its better to take the help of cops in uncontrollable situations.


----------



## chinto (Sep 3, 2013)

in many states including the one i live in, have the "Reasonable Man" doctrin.  this refers to what a "reasonable man would think was ok in that situation.  that said some states have "duty to retreat" laws, resulting in some of them passing "stand your ground" laws... so the answer is contact an attorney about your state and country's laws!  not doing so could result in prison time because of ignorance of some law or technicalities!!


----------



## lklawson (Sep 3, 2013)

tgace said:


> with gun..without gun...it's no different. I know of no use of force law that differentiates between weapon types. Only the use of force.


^ THIS!

Legally speaking, Deadly Force is Deadly Force, regardless of how it is applied.

However, the truth is that political correctness and social "sensibilities" make the use of Deadly Force, when applied by some weapons, more unpalatable and vulnerable to suspicion and scrutiny than others.  Using a firearm often falls in this category these days.   Everyone remember the hysteria over 'chucks a few decades ago?  Yeah, like that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 3, 2013)

From the rec.martial-arts Newbie's Guide to Self Defense:

------------------------------

Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum

In the words of Jim Keating:"To have a defensible self-defense case you need several
        factors in your favor. They are simple and they must be
        present or you are going to jail for a long time. These
        factors are this:
​


[*=1]Opportunity 
[*=1]Imminent Jeopardy 
[*=1]Ability 
[*=1]Preclusion 

        Leave out one or more of these factors and you lose. Have
        these aspects present and provable and it's much more likely
        that you'll win."​ 

[Elements of Legitimate Self Defense]
As noted above, it's canonical that there are four elements of
legitimate Self Defense.

Ability:
This is the physical capability to kill or seriously injure.
Sometimes this means a weapon such as a knife, club, or gun.  It can
also mean "Disparity of Force."  Disparity of Force in this context is
when there is a large enough difference between the attacker and the
attacked that raw physical capability alone is enough to be recognized
as Deadly Force.  The typical examples are a group attack, though
unarmed, against a single individual, or the proverbial attack by a
300 pound enraged linebacker against a 90 year old fragile boned
grandmother.

Opportunity:
Opportunity is similar to Ability, in that it reflects a raw ability
to inflict grievous harm.  However, Opportunity is more often linked
to physical proximity.  If the attacker is not within range to perform
the attack then there is no threat.  An attacker with a knife 30 feet
away is no attacker at all.  On the other hand, an attacker with a
firearm 30 feet away is most certainly within range to inflict bodily
harm.  An attacker must have the "Opportunity" to use his "Ability"
for the attack to be credible.

Imminent Jeopardy:
This means that the threat is immediate and that a "Reasonable Man"
would believe, based on what information is available at the time,
that the aggressor's intent is to cause severe physical harm or death.
Threats by the aggressor of some future attack do not satisfy Imminent
Jeopardy while threats or actions that indicate an immediate intention
do.  

Preclusion:
This means that all other options preceding Deadly Force were either 
exhausted or were not viable.  Some places have a Duty to Retreat law
or legal precedent.  Essentially these address the same issue.
Legally and morally the individual must reasonably eliminate all other
methods to stop an attack before resorting to Deadly Force.  This does
not mean that the individual must first "try, fail, discard, and then
try another" to eliminate all other option.  Many options are
eliminated by immediacy of the threat.  As an example, one simply does
not have time to call the police and report a burglar when an
aggressor is in the process of pounding you into jelly.

[The Force Continuum]
The Force Continuum is a concept of escalating Force responses to
match the level of threat or appropriate response.  The primary
audience for the Force Continuum is Law Enforcement, Security, or
others who may have to respond to complex force justification
situations.  Its application to civilian Self Defense in our ever
more litigious society is somewhat obvious.

The Force Continuum is generally represented by six "levels" with non-
verbal "presence" on one end of the scale and lethal responses at the
other end.

Level 1: Presence
Hostile (or criminal) activity is deterred simply by being seen.
Criminals usually don't want witnesses and may cease simply by being
observed.  This may be facilitated by adopting an "Authoritative" or
"Assertive," but not aggressive, posture or bearing.

Level 2: Verbal Commands
Assertive, well selected, commands to "stop" or "move away" can
sometimes be sufficient though Verbal Commands can range up through
shouting.  Presence and Verbal Commands are most often used in
conjunction with each other and, together, offer the lowest level of
"force" response possible.  The Verbal Commands level is also the
appropriate level to attempt verbal de-escalation.

Level 3: Restraint
This level includes holds, locks, controls, and restraint devices such
as "come-along" holds, "submission" holds, and hand-cuffs.  Sometimes
this level is referred to as "Soft Hands" meaning that the hands are
not formed as fists for the purpose of striking to cause permanent
damage.

Level 4: Non-Lethal Weapons
This level is meant to include devices that are generally considered 
"non-lethal" such as pepper spray, and other chemical agents, and
electronic stun devices.

Level 5: Impact Weapons
Sometimes called "Hard Hands" to imply the use of fists to inflict
more serious, but not necessarily lethal, injury, this level is
intended to represent temporary physical incapacitation.  It includes
use of impact weapons such as batons and fists with the goal of
"injuring to stop" but not killing.  For most Law Enforcement this
means that high vulnerability targets such as the head are off limits.
Arms, legs, joints, and nerves and "pressure points" are generally the
targets of choice.

Level 6: Deadly Force
This level is universally known as "Deadly Force."  As the name
indicates, it includes all methods generally accepted to be deadly.
This includes firearms, knives, and blunt instruments targeted at the
head.  This level may also legally include choke holds inclusive of
both "strangulation" chokes as well as the infamous "sleeper"
blood-choke.

Then intention of the Force Continuum is to lay out an escalation of
force appropriate to the situation.  To quote one Internet author:

   "'Never shoot what you can baton; never baton what you can spray;
   never spray what you can punch; never punch what you can walk away
   from.' Less is best."
   -Sly, _The psychology of self defense and the force continuum_

Sometimes it can be difficult to know where you are at on the Force
Continuum, to understand what level of response is appropriate.
Again, let me quote, this time from North Carolina Wesleyan College
chart intended for Law Enforcement Officers:

                     THE CONTINUUM OF FORCE

Suspect's Resistance Level:Officer's Level:1. Suspect presence1. Interview stance2. Verbal resistance2. Verbal commands3. Passive resistance3. Passive techniques (handcuffs)4. Defensive resistance4. Chemical agents5. Active physical resistance5. Physical tactics/impact weapons6. Firearms/deadly force6. Firearms/deadly force

- http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect03.htm


----------



## lklawson (Sep 3, 2013)

------------------------------

Subject: 11 - Guns And Other Weapons

This is a subject that makes people nervous.  People often have strong
opinions on the subject of weapons in general and firearms in
particular.

The basic power of a weapon, whether used in Self Defense or in
unjustified attack, is that it is a "Force Multiplier."  This means
that by using a weapon a person is able to increase the potential
damage they may inflict.  By using a weapon a smaller person can
"elevate" their damage potential to that of a much larger unarmed
person, or even exceed it.

It has been said, "God made man.  Sam Colt made him equal."  Sam Colt
invented a popular pistol; the Single Action Army revolver, which, in
its various iterations, is equated with the essential "Cowboy Gun."

What you need to understand is that a weapon can "even the odds" in a
"Disparity of Force" situation (see Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the
Force Continuum).

[Is a Weapon Appropriate For You?]
Before you decide to use any weapon as a Self Defense tool, you need
to understand the requirements for and consequences of using that
weapon, legal, moral, and ethical.  Even if completely legally
justified, could you bring yourself to actually use a weapon in Self
Defense knowing that it could kill or permanently maim another person,
even though that person is an attacker?  If you can, is that weapon 
legal to own?  Are there any restrictions on how, where and when you 
can carry it?  Is it a practical weapon for you?

As far as firearms in particular; Whatever your political views about
gun ownership, you will also need some basic familiarity with firearms
if this is knowledge you don't already have. We live in the 21st
century, not the 15th, and anyone who wants to know about how to
defend themselves against real-life threats is going to have to know
how to deal with firearms - handguns at a minimum, rifle and shotgun
if you can. Most martial arts schools will not address this, or
address it in a way that will more than likely get you killed, so get
this information from people who know what they are talking about:  go
to a local pistol range, and ask about introductory classes (usually
they will have something like a day or half day beginners class for
$50-$100, and well worth it).  No point in trying to defend yourself
against a weapon you don't understand.

[Won't It Just Be Taken Away and Used Against You?]
The short answer is "no."

On the subject of Self Defense and Weapons, firearms in particular, I
regularly see claims that "Statistics show a weapon will most likely
just be taken away and used against you."  I have yet to ever actually
see the alleged source statistic or study for this claim.  I've asked,
point blank, for the source when I've seen it stated but have never
been given one.  Yet, though they can not produce a source for the
claim, propagators of this myth categorically refuse to retract the
statement.  This is because they want the statement to be true even if
they have no proof of it, even though there are valid, peer reviewed,
studies and countless anecdotal evidence which contradict the
statement.  When pushed for evidence, they can not even come up with
anecdotal stories to support their claims.  The claim is false.
There are no studies that show a weapon used for Self Defense,
particularly firearms, will just be taken away and used against the
defender.

The long answer is that in order for a weapon to be a deterrent to an
attacker, the attacker must believe, first, that the weapon is capable
of injuring him, and second, that the person with the weapon will
actually use it.  Though there are many cases where simply showing or
brandishing a weapon has scared away attackers, this is not a sure
route to follow.  If you present a weapon for Self Defense you must be
prepared to use it.  If you are not prepared to use it and the attacker
calls your bluff, then surely the otherwise unjustified fears of "the
weapon will only be taken away and used against you" will be fulfilled!

[Training]
Self Defense weapons tend to be simple to operate, deploy, and
understand.  When it comes right down to it, knowing how to operate a
firearm or a knife is a great deal less complicated than knowing how
to operate a car.  For this reason many people choose to carry weapons
for Self Defense without seeking any training in their use.  This is a
strategy that can and has worked quite successfully for many who, in
an emergency, used a weapon for Self Defense for which they had no
training whatsoever.  However, that aside, you should seek training
from a competent instructor for whatever weapons you select to carry
for Self Defense.  Though most weapons used for Self Defense are
comparatively easy to use, a competent instructor will be able to show
you the best ways to employ the weapon for maximum Self Defense effect,
how to avoid common mistakes which could lower your chance of
successful Self Defense or even place you or innocent bystanders at
risk, and teach you how to best integrate your selected weapons into a
coherent Self Defense Strategy.

[The Right Tool for the Job]
If you've concluded that you will carry a weapon for Self Defense, the
next step is to decide exactly what weapon or weapons.  There are a
number of tools designed for Self Defense, from Firearms to "Personal
Alarms."  Take a little bit of time to identify your options,
requirements, and restrictions to decide what weapons are appropriate.
Things that you should consider are:

- Can you physically use the weapon; is it too heavy or too bulky for
  you to effectively use?

- Can you obtain competent instruction for the weapon?

- Can you take weapon with you where you need to go?

- Are there legal restrictions on where or when you can carry the 
  weapon?

- Are you emotionally prepared to carry and use the weapon?

- Can you obtain the weapon; is it legal to own, can you afford to
  purchase and maintain the weapon?

[Is the Weapon Legal]
Particularly in reference to firearms, but also for knives, batons,
and "Less Lethal" devices, you must know if it is legal for you to
possess the weapon.  In the Unites States, it's legal in most places
for an adult (someone 18 years or older) to own and store a firearm in
their home.  However, this is not so for all places.  There are many
places, such as Washington D.C. or New York, where it is effectively
illegal for an adult citizen in good standing to own and store a
firearm in the home.  Internationally, this is even less of a
certainty.  Many developed nations have significant restrictions on
ownership and storage of firearms and indeed any "weapon."  The
answer is, of course, to check with your local authorities before you
purchase.

The same is true of carrying a weapon on your person.  In most places
it is not legal for a person conceal upon his or her person a weapon
for the express purpose of Self Defense.  This is most particularly
true of firearms but also to some degree or another can extend to
generally any other device that can be considered a weapon.  Knives
and Batons are the primary targets however items such as Pepper Spray
are also often included.  In the U.S. one may usually carry a folding,
locking blade knife at or below 4 inches in length in a pants pocket
(generally considered "concealed").  Again, this is not a hard, fast
rule.  Knives are "banned" in many specific places.  Further,
internationally, the common knife suffers nearly as much as the
firearm.  Locking blade, folding knives are essentially banned from
personal carry in Great Britain.  Any knife is banned within certain
designated confines of the Airline industry.  The answer is, again,
check with your local authorities before carrying a knife. Further,
it is your responsibility to know what designated areas are "no carry
zones" and to simply not carry in those areas.

This general rule applies to any weapon.  Check first with your local
authorities to determine legality, restrictions, and/or training and
licensing requirements.

[Legal and Moral Ramifications]
This is not a short topic, nor can a simple Guide of this type do the
subject justice.  Briefly however, if you choose to carry a weapon for
Self Defense you will have certain legal and moral obligations of 
appropriate use.  There may be restrictions on when you can even let
someone accidentally catch a glimpse of your weapon to say nothing of
when you can actually deploy it.  There are obligations for safe carry
to prevent accidental deployment or discharge.  If you ever do have to
deploy or use your weapon in Self Defense there almost certainly will
be legal consequences, perhaps only that the police wish to question
you but potentially as serious as arrest and charges of a crime.  But
most importantly to the topic, you will have an obligation to ensure
that your carry or use of a weapon does not needlessly or recklessly
endanger or injure an innocent third party.  You will be, and _should_
be held to a higher standard because of the enhanced capacity for harm
your weapon provides.

["Less Lethal" Weapons]
Less Lethal, or sometimes "Less than Lethal" weapons describe a class
of weapons designed to incapacitate an attacker or remove his desire
to be aggressive.  The three most popular items in this category are
Pepper Sprays, Stun Guns, and Personal Alarms.

[Pepper Spray]
Pepper Sprays are made from a naturally occurring chemical in Cayenne
peppers called oleoresin capsicum or OC.  OC is different from Tear
Gas or mace, which are irritants, in that OC is an Inflammatory
Agent; it causes inflammation and swelling in affected areas.  This
can include the eye's, skin, and bronchiole areas of the lungs.  The
effects can include temporary blindness, tearing, swelling of
affected areas, difficulty breathing or constricted breathing, and
pain and irritation of the skin.  These effects are temporary and
will usually last from ten minutes to one hour.  The effects are non-
lethal on the vast majority of the population however, some people
can have adverse reactions due to medical conditions such as Asthma,
severe allergic reactions or due to other factors.

Commercial Pepper Spray contains between 10% and 20% OC however, raw
OC percentages should not be the determining factor in your purchase.
How "hot" an OC/Pepper Spray is rated in Scoville Heat Units or SHU.
SHU can vary from product to product and is not necessarily directly
related to OC percentage.  Check the product literature for SHU
rating.  The higher the SHU rating, the more effective Pepper Spray,
generally.  2 million SHU seems to be about the average starting
range for Self Defense products.

You should also know that not everyone is equally affected by Pepper
Sprays.  Some people seem to have greater tolerance to its effects
than others though most experts agree that the vast majority of
people are strongly affected by OC.

Like other weapons, using Pepper Spray has some advantages and
disadvantages unique to it and competent instruction should be sought.
To encourage you to seek competent instruction, one example of a
common mistake is to simply try to "hose down" the target; i.e.
depressing the trigger switch until the can is empty.  Experts tell
me that this will actually dilute the amount of OC that is deposited
upon the target with the carrier material and that Pepper Spray
should be dispersed in brief, half-second, bursts.

Finally, you should know that Pepper Spray degrades over time.  Most
have a shelf-life of one to two years.  You should plan on replacing
your spray periodically, even if you have not used it.

[Stun Guns]
Stun Guns are electronic devices which use pulsing or alternating
electric shocks to incapacitate and cause pain.  Manufacturers of
Stun Guns often make a lot of claims about exactly what they do and
how they work, using impressive and scientific sounding claims
including frequency and Megahertz or making  claims about tuning the
device to specific sympathetic nervous system targets and the like.
These claims, though they may or may not be true, are largely
unsupported by independent research.  At the basics, Stun Guns work by
pulsing electric current which causes muscles to contract.  These
contractions are very strong and can potentially "tire" the affected
muscles with fatigue.  The frequency at which the pulses operate can
also often make the affected muscles seem to be "locked."  Finally,
these pulses cause a great deal of pain. This appears to be the
primary effect.

There are two general form factors of Stun Guns.  The first, and most
common, is the traditional "brick."  Ranging from the size of a small
cell phone (which they are sometimes shaped to resemble) up to about
that of a red brick, these are "contact" devices.  The electric
contacts, which look like probes or metal nubs, must be in contact
with the target in order for the electric current to effect the
target.  This necessitates close contact with a potential attacker.
The second, and best known, is the "gun" type.  These devices use a
charge of compressed gas to propel barbed darts over a distance into
the target.  These darts are attached to the device, which still
provides the electrical power, by trailing wire.  This allows a safer
distance between potential attackers and you.  However, as with any
projectile type weapon, it is still possible to miss the target.
Further, these devices suffer from a very low "ammunition" capacity;
often "one shot."

Not all Stun Guns are created equal.  Some have lower voltages or 
other limitations due to either design weaknesses or specific design
reductions.  Stun Guns marketed to Police usually have higher ratings
on voltage and other specification.  The undisputed leader in Stun Gun
technology is held by "Taser."  This is the brand name that most
Police seem to carry.

Stun Guns do most of their "work" with high voltage but very low
amperage.  The amperage used in Stun Guns is far below the amperage
level generally needed to kill a person, thus Stun Guns are generally
considered safe and non-lethal.  However, some people may still have
adverse reactions to being shocked with a Stun Gun based on any number
of medical pre-conditions such as a weak heart or reduced cardio
capacity because of over stimulation due to drugs.

You should know that not everyone is affected equally by Stun Guns.
Some people seem to be able to shake off the effects or, depending on
the area of the target's body affected, may be able to simply ignore
the effects.  This in combination with the varying quality of products
can make the use of Stun Guns, as with Pepper Spray, somewhat chancy
though, again, experts generally agree that Stun Guns are usually
effective across most of the population.

Two facts that has always bothered me abut Stun Guns are, first, the
misnomer of "Stun Gun."  These electronic devices usually do not
"stun" people.  Though they're usually perceived to be just like
Captain Kirk's Phaser set to "STUN" by most people, they are not.
There is no painless slipping into sleep.  Secondly I am bothered by
the fact that criminals do not seem to use these to any significant
degree (if at all).  If "Stun Guns" are so effective at incapacitating
determined, even violent, resistance, why do not muggers and related
criminals use them with regularity and frequency?  Some of these
devices cost as little as $20 and are easily as accessible as
firearms, which criminals seem to much prefer to "Stun Guns."

Most Stun Guns do not wear out however batteries can become weak and
spent cartridges of "dart" style Stun Guns will need replaced.  The
manufacturer will sell replacement cartridges and most "brick" style
Stun Guns have a second set of probes that you can use to ensure the
device is functioning by hitting the test button and watching
electricity arc from probe to probe.

For a more detailed description of how Stun Guns work, 
howstuffworks.com has a good description: 
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun1.htm

[Personal Alarms]
Sometimes called "Screamers," Personal Alarms emit a loud noise such
as a siren, horn, or electronic screech when triggered.  The desired
effect is to call unwanted attention to an attack and frighten the
attacker away.

The drawbacks of a Personal Alarm are first, that, much like most auto
alarms today, they might be simply ignored by potential assistance,
second, that you may be in an area in which no potential assistance is
available to come to your aid, and third, that the attacker may be
undeterred by the possibility of being caught or having aid arrive.

However, as part of an over all plan of resistance and self reliance,
i.e., in conjunction with a more conventional weapon for Self
Defense, a Personal Alarm to call attention to the situation as you
are employing other methods of defense is probably a worthwhile idea.
Despite this, you must weigh the disadvantages of one more piece of
gear to carry with you and learn to operate under stress against the
potential advantages of having a gadget do the yelling for you.

Most Personal Alarms on the market today are electronic and thus
require batteries.  You should test both the batteries and the alarm
periodically to ensure that both are sound.

[Kopo Sticks, Self Defense Keychains, and Tactical Flashlights]
At the risk of having to enumerate every Self Defense weapon in
existence I have decided to include a brief overview of few of the
more common Self Defense tools people carry.  The apparent motivation
for carrying these are that they are less lethal, more legal, or less
obviously a weapon than items such as knives, firearms, or Pepper
Spray.

Kubotan, Yawara, and Kopo sticks are essentially really short sticks.
Usually between 6 and 8 inches long and 1 to 1.5 inches thick and made
of hardwood, metal, or high-impact plastic, these are easy to conceal
and transport.  These sticks are intended to be primarily held in a
fist and to act as a combination fist-load and striking implement,
either from a hammer fist, or a "top-fist" strike.  Some have loops of
cord to thread through your fingers to prevent slipping or loss during
use while others have aggressive spikes designed to protrude from
between fingers or points at the ends of the sticks.

A variation of these "really short sticks" for our modern world is to
join them to a keychain.  Thus, if you have your keys, you have your
Self Defense tool.  It also gives the added advantage of being able to
use the keys as a flail while grasping the stick.

Like all other weapons, possession or carry of these "really short
sticks" is sometimes banned or restricted.  Check your local
ordinances.

A new variation of the "really short stick" is the marriage of modern,
high-intensity, flashlight technology with the "really short stick"
form factor.  While not a new idea to use a flashlight as a bludgeon,
technology has advanced to the point where brightness equal to or
exceeding a traditional 3 D Cell torch is now available in a device 6
inches or less long and as little as 1 inch in diameter.  Not all
Tactical Flashlights are created equal.  Light output ranges from
about 20 or 30 sight dazzling lumens, as an educated "minimum" for
Self Defense purposes, up to over a retina bleaching 120 lumens.  The
advantages should be obvious.  Not only can you still employ the
"really short stick" techniques but you can also temporarily blind
your assailant, all in an innocuous "it's just a flashlight, sir"
package.  Surefire is generally considered the leader in this highly
competitive market but other manufacturers include Streamlight and
Inova.  Prices for the top quality models range from about $50 at the
low end to well over $100 or more.  Tactical Flashlights usually use
either a high-intensity Xenon bulb, which typically burns quite hot,
or a high-intensity LED (Light Emitting Diode) "bulb," sometimes
several in an array configuration.  Xenon bulb lights are typically
less expensive but will use batteries much faster and will burn out
the bulbs while LED's are effectively "life time bulbs."

Most Tactical Flashlights have momentary "on" buttons on the tail-cap
and are designed to use two 123A type Lithium batteries.

It is possible to purchase Tactical Flashlights from Chinese
manufacturers at extremely inexpensive prices, sometimes as little as
$10 or $15.  These tend to have lower light output than the high-
priced competition, though often still within the "Self Defense"
lumens range and often are missing features available with their
higher priced brethren.  Further, quality on these low-priced bargains
can sometimes be hit or miss.  However, you sometimes can get a useful
Tactical Flashlight from bargain sources if the fates come together.
If you purchase one of these bargains from e-bay or the like, examine
it carefully first and put it through its paces before you decide to
depend on it.

Some quick links on use of "really short sticks" and Tactical 
Flashlights:
http://www.donrearic.com/koppostick.html
http://www.donrearic.com/yawara.html
http://www.4-site.co.uk/goshin/kubohtm.htm
http://www.yawara.com/YawaraStick.html
http://www.themartialist.com/1203/pocketstrike.htm
http://www.themartialist.com/nightcuttersd.htm

[Improvised Weapons]
A brief word about improvised weapons:  These are non-weapon items in
your environment impressed into service as make-shift weapons.  This
can be anything from the obvious such as a Kitchen Knife to the in-
obvious such as a telephone used as a bludgeon.  Keep your wits about
you and note what items are nearby that you may use as emergency
weapons.  Ashtrays, bottles of any sort, glasses, burning, irritating,
boiling chemicals or liquids, and any other creative "outside the box"
items could be used.  Many improvised weapons will fall into the
category of "bludgeons" and will require some room to swing and a bit
of strength.  Others could be instant slashing or stabbing weapons
such as a sharp pencil or ball point pen.  Whatever the case you
should know that Improvised Weapons invariably are poor seconds to
tools designed for the specific purpose of being weapons.  Yet,
Improvised Weapons can offer an advantage over being bare handed.  To
paraphrase Rex Applegate, a famous Military unarmed and "Combatives"
trainer from bygone days, "The reason you're fighting unarmed is
because you were foolish enough to be caught without a weapon."  Find
a weapon.

[Keeping Them Safe From "The Wrong Hands"]
A reasonable concern for most people is how to prevent unauthorized
people, usually children, from accessing Self Defense tools.  Usually
this is exclusively, but erroneously, applied to firearm.  Yes, you
should take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized people from
accessing firearms.  But you should extend this concept to all
dangerous items and tools about your home.  For most items such as
poisons, caustic chemicals, razor blades, kitchen knives, electrical
outlets and appliances, and medicines this is a multi-faceted approach
of access prevention by placing the items out of reach or behind
minimally locking doors such as those using Safety First's (tm)
"Child Proof Latch" along with demystification and training to avoid
dangerous items.

This is generally sufficient for all dangerous items, including
firearms.  Nevertheless, some people feel, or are required by law, to
keep firearms in a more secure condition.

You should be aware that any device that restricts access to a Self
Defense tool, firearm or otherwise, is going to make it more time
consuming and difficult for even authorized users, such as yourself,
to access the tool during high stress such as in a Home Invasion.  If
you intend to use an access restricting device to store your Self
Defense tools while at home you should adapt your training to include
the extra time and difficulties you will experience necessitated by
the extra step of gaining access through the device.

The two most common access control devices for firearms are Trigger
Locks and Gun Safes.  Trigger locks are, by far, the least expensive.
They are typically either a hard plastic or cast metal clam shell that
clamps over the trigger guard of a firearm and prevents the operation
of the trigger itself.  Most do not prevent the articulation of other
portions of the firearm such as the slide, bolt, safety, external
hammers, magazine release, etc.  Further, trigger locks are typically
either unlocked with a small key similar to that of a padlock or a
small combination dial like that on brief cases.  Both of these have
proven extremely difficult to operate under high stress and are,
frankly, poor choices for securing firearms intended for in-home
Defense.  Gun safes, on the other hand are typically much more
expensive but also much more secure.  They range in size from a large
shoe box size intended to house only one or two handguns to
refrigerator sized safes to custom installed "walk-in" rooms.  Gun
safes, like padlocks, are unlocked via key or combination.  There are
a number of safes being marketed now with a push-button combination
entry.  The idea is that you position your fingers over the four or
five buttons corresponding to your fingers and quickly "type" in the
combination to gain quick access.  The push-button entry safes have
shown themselves to be easier to operate under stress than either the
key lock or traditional combination style safes.

[Justifiable Use of Weapons]
The use of any clearly identifiable weapon, whether "Less Lethal,"
Improvised, or traditional will be subject to the laws and ethics
surrounding such items.  Before you carry any weapon for Self Defense,
familiarize yourself with the laws dealing with Justifiable Force in
your area and Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum.

------------------------------


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU (Apr 13, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> I would like to discuss and learn more about the law regarding self defense and the use of force in confrontations. There is much talk about such stuff but usually, most of the discussions and articles I see about such stuff has to do with guns and if you use a gun in self defense. I am interested in discussing issues of self defense and force that don't involve guns. For instance, if you incapacitate a perpetrator with your bare hands. It's very important to know about when you can resort to such action and how to avoid getting in trouble if you do take such action.


Well, I researched once long ago for my state of Washington. May not remember all, but in essence, some states let's you hold your ground and fight, the house intruder and some states say you have to keep backing up until you're out of your own house, which I don't like.
Each state is different when it comes using force. Some states demand that you keep backing up until you are pushed out of your home. I don't believe in that.
Can you use lethal force?  In Washington State, the short answer is NO.  If you beat him to death, that might be construed as too much force.  *So long as the force is not more than is necessary in order to expel the intruder from your home. If you beat him to a pulp in your own home, you might be the one going to jail. I know, not fair, but each state has its own rules.
At least in Washington state, I don't have to keep backing up till I'm out of my own home.

I*


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 13, 2022)

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> Well, I researched once long ago for my state of Washington. May not remember all, but in essence, some states let's you hold your ground and fight, the house intruder and some states say you have to keep backing up until you're out of your own house, which I don't like.
> Each state is different when it comes using force. Some states demand that you keep backing up until you are pushed out of your home. I don't believe in that.
> Can you use lethal force?  In Washington State, the short answer is NO.  If you beat him to death, that might be construed as too much force.  *So long as the force is not more than is necessary in order to expel the intruder from your home. If you beat him to a pulp in your own home, you might be the one going to jail. I know, not fair, but each state has its own rules.
> At least in Washington state, I don't have to keep backing up till I'm out of my own home.
> ...


Kind of a moot point. This thread was from nine years ago. I suspect the putative intruder has died of old age by now, so beating them is unnecessary.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2022)

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> Well, I researched once long ago for my state of Washington. May not remember all, but in essence, some states let's you hold your ground and fight, the house intruder and some states say you have to keep backing up until you're out of your own house, which I don't like.
> Each state is different when it comes using force. Some states demand that you keep backing up until you are pushed out of your home. I don't believe in that.
> Can you use lethal force?  In Washington State, the short answer is NO.  If you beat him to death, that might be construed as too much force.  *So long as the force is not more than is necessary in order to expel the intruder from your home. If you beat him to a pulp in your own home, you might be the one going to jail. I know, not fair, but each state has its own rules.
> At least in Washington state, I don't have to keep backing up till I'm out of my own home.
> ...


This sounds right.  There is no duty to retreat in Washington State, but you can't just kill a person if you don't believe you are in imminent danger.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> This sounds right.  There is no duty to retreat in Washington State, but you can't just kill a person if you don't believe you are in imminent danger.


In California there is something called legal presumption when defending oneself in the home. If the perpetrators forcibly enter the home, the legal presumption is that they entered with intent to commit rape, robbery, murder, or mayhem. All of which are defensible with lethal force. There is no requirement to retreat when one is inside their own home. This presumption must first be overcome before the home defender can even be charged with a crime. This legal presumption does not apply if the intruder was a ever a cohabitant of the defender. None of this would protect one from civil suit by the intruder, or their relatives in the case of a deceased intruder.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> In California there is something called legal presumption when defending oneself in the home. If the perpetrators forcibly enter the home, the legal presumption is that they entered with intent to commit rape, robbery, murder, or mayhem. All of which are defensible with lethal force. There is no requirement to retreat when one is inside their own home. This presumption must first be overcome before the home defender can even be charged with a crime. This legal presumption does not apply if the intruder was a ever a cohabitant of the defender. None of this would protect one from civil suit by the intruder, or their relatives in the case of a deceased intruder.


Sounds good to me.  I am certainly no expert on this. 

In Washington State, per this guy (who seems credible), "Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another"."


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> Sounds good to me.  I am certainly no expert on this.
> 
> In Washington State, per this guy (who seems credible), "Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another"."


It is a good idea to know what the law says and what the reality might be depending on all kinds of things…I have a security system, I lock doors, I have dogs, and my wife is really, really mean if you interrupt her sleep. Most of my home defense plans have to do with saving the intruder’s life.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> Sounds good to me.  I am certainly no expert on this.
> 
> In Washington State, per this guy (who seems credible), "Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another"."


Easy enough to look up castle law or doctrine. Things are different in public.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Steve said:


> Sounds good to me.  I am certainly no expert on this.
> 
> In Washington State, per this guy (who seems credible), "Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another"."



The thing is if you kill a guy you have a much harder time justifying it than if you don't.

Even if you are legally justified in doing so.

Which means if you kill a guy and win the court battle and clear your name. You have still spent a lot more time and effort than if you hadn't.

Which is why I quite often would just slap a criminal and send him on his way rather than arrest them. Just not worth my time and effort.

Also if they have money and a good lawyer. You are at fault. Regardless what the written law says.

The focus on written law overlooks the hair pulling insanity that can occur in a court room. And I think leads people to a false sense of security when it comes to defending themselves.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> The thing is if you kill a guy you have a much harder time justifying it than if you don't.
> 
> Even if you are legally justified in doing so.
> 
> ...


That’s fine in Australia, we have door kicking, shotgun wielding home invaders in parts of the U.S. Slapping won’t be an option for them. It doesn’t happen as much here since weed prices are down and it’s recreationally legal. It was pretty frequent for a while 15 or 20 years ago. Sheriff response times are as long as 45 minutes in some parts of the county. One has to be aware and able. Several of these robbers got the wrong house, so just because you aren’t involved doesn’t mean you won’t be.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That’s fine in Australia, we have door kicking, shotgun wielding home invaders in parts of the U.S. Slapping won’t be an option for them. It doesn’t happen as much here since weed prices are down and it’s recreationally legal. It was pretty frequent for a while 15 or 20 years ago. Sheriff response times are as long as 45 minutes in some parts of the county. One has to be aware and able. Several of these robbers got the wrong house, so just because you aren’t involved doesn’t mean you won’t be.



And you are going to get in to a shoot out with those guys rather than say just run out the back door?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> And you are going to get in to a shoot out with those guys rather than say just run out the back door?


Maybe. It depends. Am I alone? Or would running out the back door leave the intruder in the house with some of my family? If circumstances warrant, you can be assured I will shoot them.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Maybe. It depends. Am I alone? Or would running out the back door leave the intruder in the house with some of my family? If circumstances warrant, you can be assured I will shoot them.



Are you in any way set up to take on a trained crack team of home invaders? Or would that be a hopes and prayers scenario? 

The thing is when these discussions come up. We always create these super specific hypotheticals that justify our preconceived ideas. 

So I want to shoot people. Translates to home invaders that are enough threat to warrant lethal force. But not so much threat that they will just murder me if I attempted that.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Are you in any way set up to take on a trained crack team of home invaders? Or would that be a hopes and prayers scenario?
> 
> The thing is when these discussions come up. We always create these super specific hypotheticals that justify our preconceived ideas.
> 
> So I want to shoot people. Translates to home invaders that are enough threat to warrant lethal force. But not so much threat that they will just murder me if I attempted that.


Dirty dog answered for me. Would you expect me to abandon my dogs and wife? I have no desire to shoot people. I have more firearms experience than my 25 years of martial arts experience. Most home invaders are not skilled at clearing rooms and using corners, I am. Most home invaders don’t have years of firearms training that includes kinetic and situational shooting, I do. Most home invaders aren’t going to be willing to die to win the gunfight. I, most certainly and sincerely am. Let me be perfectly clear, if there is an alternative to a gunfight, I am 100% going to attempt that first. These types of situations develop in the space of a breath, just like any fight. The chances of this occurring to me in my home are incredibly small, it is so unlikely that it really isn’t worth planning for or talking about at all. I shoot regularly and my skills at this point in my life are reflexive but shooting in a dynamic environment is a perishable skill that must be practiced to be maintained, it is not riding a bike. I certainly don’t practice with home invasion defense as a goal, that really only comes up when some one with very little firearms experience, or someone who is anti gun asks about it.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Dirty dog answered for me. Would you expect me to abandon my dogs and wife? I have no desire to shoot people. I have more firearms experience than my 25 years of martial arts experience. Most home invaders are not skilled at clearing rooms and using corners, I am. Most home invaders don’t have years of firearms training that includes kinetic and situational shooting, I do. Most home invaders aren’t going to be willing to die to win the gunfight. I, most certainly and sincerely am. Let me be perfectly clear, if there is an alternative to a gunfight, I am 100% going to attempt that first. These types of situations develop in the space of a breath, just like any fight. The chances of this occurring to me in my home are incredibly small, it is so unlikely that it really isn’t worth planning for or talking about at all. I shoot regularly and my skills at this point in my life are reflexive but shooting in a dynamic environment is a perishable skill that must be practiced to be maintained, it is not riding a bike. I certainly don’t practice with home invasion defense as a goal, that really only comes up when some one with very little firearms experience, or someone who is anti gun asks about it.



Yeah. Here we go. So the reason I can take on a crack unit of home invaders is...............

Look. If you want to own a gun. Own one. I don't care one way or another. 

You don't have to create an 80s action movie to justify it. 

They thought it was just another robbery. They thought he was an easy mark. What they didn't count on was the house they picked belongs to an ex navy special forces band member.

This summer stay tuned for Wing Woo Gar justice.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)




----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Here we go. So the reason I can take on a crack unit of home invaders is...............
> 
> Look. If you want to own a gun. Own one. I don't care one way or another.
> 
> ...


 Please do me the courtesy of rereading my words. Certainly, you as an Australian must admit that outside of a possible military career, or a rare hunting license you have next to nothing in the way of firearms experience. Also, if you have reread my post you would see that this exceedingly rare event is not something I believe can/will happen to me. I swim in the ocean despite the existence of sharks and I go out in rainstorms despite lightning.  If you read farther, you saw that I never want to be put in that situation, and would choose any other course. If you continued to read you would see that i don’t train with that in mind or as a goal. What I also said was that my commitment to protecting my wife, and secondarily my pets was paramount in any decision I might make in that regard. Please dont try to paint me as a paranoid gun nut, it isn’t true, and it isn’t fair considering what I wrote.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Here we go. So the reason I can take on a crack unit of home invaders is...............
> 
> Look. If you want to own a gun. Own one. I don't care one way or another.
> 
> ...


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Please do me the courtesy of rereading my words. Certainly, you as an Australian must admit that outside of a possible military career, or a rare hunting license you have next to nothing in the way of firearms experience. Also, if you have reread my post you would see that this exceedingly rare event is not something I believe can/will happen to me. I swim in the ocean despite the existence of sharks and I go out in rainstorms despite lightning.  If you read farther, you saw that I never want to be put in that situation, and would choose any other course. If you continued to read you would see that i don’t train with that in mind or as a goal. What I also said was that my commitment to protecting my wife, and secondarily my pets was paramount in any decision I might make in that regard. Please dont try to paint me as a paranoid gun nut, it isn’t true, and it isn’t fair considering what I wrote.



And by firearms experience. You mean experience fighting off home invaders with firearms? Or do you mean shooting a bunch of paper invaders at a club somewhere.

And by the way. Stating that you may not want to hurt anyone but you know you are trained so should the time come you could kill everyone in the room. Is still super cringe. In an 80s action hero kind of way.

I mean I get it. Because everyone says it and all your friends agree with it. Then you think it sounds normal. But it is kind of hilarious for me.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> And by firearms experience. You mean experience fighting off home invaders with firearms? Or do you mean shooting a bunch of paper invaders at a club somewhere.
> 
> Look I do Airsoft.(or the Australian version) I don't have to justify that by suggesting I am training to stop home invaders. I just enjoy doing it.
> 
> ...



Oh. And I was in the reserves for three years. I was a sapper.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

By the way. My biggest issue with" I got trained in guns" apart from that people always have to tell you (see vegans)

Is that it is everything that is wrong with martial arts. So we have a teacher who hasn't shot people, taught by a teacher who hasn't shot people teaching hypothetical solutions to hypothetical problems by doing dead drills, role play and telling stories.

Taught to train people in a situation that they will never get in to and therefore will never actually matter if the teaching is good bad or indifferent.

And yet done with so much serious conviction of its own self importance because of their perceived amazing mastery over life and death. That it literally sucks any actual fun out of the experience.

In other words do Airsoft.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 15, 2022)

drop bear said:


> And by firearms experience. You mean experience fighting off home invaders with firearms? Or do you mean shooting a bunch of paper invaders at a club somewhere.
> 
> And by the way. Stating that you may not want to hurt anyone but you know you are trained so should the time come you could kill everyone in the room. Is still super cringe. In an 80s action hero kind of way.
> 
> I mean I get it. Because everyone says it and all your friends agree with it. Then you think it sounds normal. But it is kind of hilarious for me.





drop bear said:


> And by firearms experience. You mean experience fighting off home invaders with firearms? Or do you mean shooting a bunch of paper invaders at a club somewhere.
> 
> And by the way. Stating that you may not want to hurt anyone but you know you are trained so should the time come you could kill everyone in the room. Is still super cringe. In an 80s action hero kind of way.
> 
> I mean I get it. Because everyone says it and all your friends agree with it. Then you think it sounds normal. But it is kind of hilarious for me.


I never said I can kill everyone in the room. No one I know says that. Most of my friends don’t own guns or shoot at all.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 15, 2022)

drop bear said:


> By the way. My biggest issue with" I got trained in guns" apart from that people always have to tell you (see vegans)
> 
> Is that it is everything that is wrong with martial arts. So we have a teacher who hasn't shot people, taught by a teacher who hasn't shot people teaching hypothetical solutions to hypothetical problems by doing dead drills, role play and telling stories.
> 
> ...


None of what you say here applies to me. You seem triggered over this( see what I did there). I can tell from your posts that it would not really matter what I tell you, you don’t read my actual words anyway. Your uninformed opinions and attacks mean nothing to me. You don’t seem capable of civil discourse, or reading comprehension for that matter. I feel a little bit sorry for you, you seem so upset about these fantasies you have been creating about me. Maybe a hug?  What others me most about the state of hugging today is that some people were never hugged as a child and then they go around teaching hugs to people, but they have never hugged in the street or hugged someone in a different weight class. Have you pressure tested your hugs? Do you compete in hugging? Do you have any trophies for hugging? I’m going to guess your training is not very good in this regard.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 15, 2022)

drop bear said:


> By the way. My biggest issue with" I got trained in guns" apart from that people always have to tell you (see vegans)
> 
> Is that it is everything that is wrong with martial arts. So we have a teacher who hasn't shot people, taught by a teacher who hasn't shot people teaching hypothetical solutions to hypothetical problems by doing dead drills, role play and telling stories.
> 
> ...


None of what you say here applies to me. You seem triggered over this( see what I did there). I can tell from your posts that it would not really matter what I tell you, you don’t read my actual words anyway. Your uninformed opinions and attacks mean nothing to me. You don’t seem capable of civil discourse, or reading comprehension for that matter. I feel a little bit sorry for you, you seem so upset about these fantasies you have been creating about me. Maybe a hug?  What others me most about the state of hugging today is that some people were never hugged as a child and then they go around teaching hugs to people, but they have never hugged in the street or hugged someone in a different weight class. Have you pressure tested your hugs? Do you compete in hugging? Do you have any trophies for hugging? I’m going to guess your training is not very good in this regard.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 17, 2022)

drop bear said:


> And by the way. Stating that you may not want to hurt anyone but you know you are trained so should the time come you could kill everyone in the room. Is still super cringe. In an 80s action hero kind of way.


Beautiful strawman.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Beautiful strawman.



The marketing these guys put out have more holes than Swiss cheese.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 17, 2022)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Strong opinions are a good thing. But don't let that degenerate into taking pot shots at one another. Keep the conversation polite, friendly, and professional.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 17, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> Strong opinions are a good thing. But don't let that degenerate into taking pot shots at one another. Keep the conversation polite, friendly, and professional.


If you read the whole thread you will see that @drop bear is slandering me. I asked him for the courtesy of a reread, he then made more unsubstantiated claims about me based on misquotes and complete fabrications. This isn’t the first time.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 17, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Beautiful strawman.


He doesn’t know what that means outside of the ironic analogy between the wizard of oz character and himself.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 17, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> If you read the whole thread you will see that @drop bear is slandering me. I asked him for the courtesy of a reread, he then made more unsubstantiated claims about me based on misquotes and complete fabrications. This isn’t the first time.


The point of that post was to get back on topic rather than continuing any slander-and does not state who is slandering here. 
Not to discuss where the slander is coming from; if you'd like to do that feel free to use the "report" button, rather than derailing the thread.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 17, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> The point of that post was to get back on topic rather than continuing any slander-and does not state who is slandering here.
> Not to discuss where the slander is coming from; if you'd like to do that feel free to use the "report" button, rather than derailing the thread.


Done with it.


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

jks9199 said:


> The general principle, in the US, is quite simple.  *You may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.*
> 
> Sounds simple.  Let's look at the words.
> 
> ...


  I luckily have not had an issue with the law for defending myself, but a story that I heard many years ago from another MA instructor. A instructor encountered a fight at a bar, he tried to break it up, and in that attempt a strike was thrown at him. The instructor out of reflects blocked the punch and countered with a punch, and he broke the guys jaw. The instructor got arrested and sued because he did not show his card indicating his hands are deadly. The court said he should of shown his card before trying to break up the fight, the court and the lawmakers do not seem to realize what would happen in that attempt.


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

punisher73 said:


> As others have said, talk to a LOCAL attorney who knows how that county's DA/PA interprets and looks at the law.
> 
> Another thing to consider is that the concept of "self-defense" is a legal defense for the charge of assault/battery.  Chances are great that you will still have to go to court to answer for the charge based on other witness statements etc.  Police agencies do NOT have legal immunity.  Only the Prosecutor/District Attorney does.  This means that the police will take the report and turn over a warrant request to the Pros. Office for them to review and decide if it was self-defense or not.  The police may or may not arrest you on the spot, it depends on their dept. policy and how much discretion they have.  Some places/officers just arrest both parties and submit the report to let the PA/DA sort it out.
> 
> You can "google" your own state's laws regarding self-defense and get a general idea what it has.  Some states have a "stand your ground" clause and others still have a "duty to retreat" clause in it.  If your state has a "duty to retreat", then you must show that you attempted to leave the situation in someway, or why you couldn't safely leave and did not do anything to cause the situation to turn violent.  For example, two people getting into a verbal argument at a bar and both parties are calling each other names and throwing threats back and forth.  One person pushes the other and that person then punches the guy out and claims "self-defense" because the other guy pushed him.  NOT going to fly as "self-defense" because both parties were willing participants and neither made an attempt to leave or de-escalate.


  Another law that I am sure many MA practitioners are aware of, is having to show your card, I can see in some situations that it is possible to show your card before a fight starts, but not always. I understand the reason for this law, but I find it little ridiculous, if a person has the mind set to attack someone, then they should be prepared for the consequences. Everybody knows that if you get into a fight you may lose, just as if you commit a crime, you will may go to jail. If one has to show their card before a fight, why don't the police have to show a card before someone commits a crime. I know this sounds ridiculous, but that's the point, an attacker knows they may lose a fight or seriously get hurt, just as a criminal knows they may go to jail for a short or long period of time. How do other MA's feel about this?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> The instructor got arrested and sued because he did not show his card indicating his hands are deadly.


That card doesn't exist.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> Another law that I am sure many MA practitioners are aware of, is having to show your card, I can see in some situations that it is possible to show your card before a fight starts, but not always. I understand the reason for this law, but I find it little ridiculous, if a person has the mind set to attack someone, then they should be prepared for the consequences. Everybody knows that if you get into a fight you may lose, just as if you commit a crime, you will may go to jail. If one has to show their card before a fight, why don't the police have to show a card before someone commits a crime. I know this sounds ridiculous, but that's the point, an attacker knows they may lose a fight or seriously get hurt, just as a criminal knows they may go to jail for a short or long period of time. How do other MA's feel about this?


Unless you live in Guam, this is not true at all. Even in Guam, there's no card, you are just supposed to register as a deadly weapon. No card is given out.

What's weird there is you register with the department of revenue and taxation, which seems like an odd place to do it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Unless you live in Guam, this is not true at all. Even in Guam, there's no card, you are just supposed to register as a deadly weapon. No card is given out.
> 
> What's weird there is you register with the department of revenue and taxation, which seems like an odd place to do it.


I hadn't heard that about guam. I wonder what their purpose actually is in that. Is there a badass tax?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 2, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I hadn't heard that about guam. I wonder what their purpose actually is in that. Is there a badass tax?


If you're curious, here's the official documentation: https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/...ion-3/chapter-62/chapter-62.pdf?ts=1580422412
There's a one-time registration fee, but that fee's only $5.00 (US). Not enough to be any sort of revenue fee.

Oh, and if you don't register, whether or not you then use said weapon, you're guilty of a misdemeanor for having an unregistered weapon.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> Another law that I am sure many MA practitioners are aware of, is having to show your card, I can see in some situations that it is possible to show your card before a fight starts, but not always. I understand the reason for this law, but I find it little ridiculous, if a person has the mind set to attack someone, then they should be prepared for the consequences. Everybody knows that if you get into a fight you may lose, just as if you commit a crime, you will may go to jail. If one has to show their card before a fight, why don't the police have to show a card before someone commits a crime. I know this sounds ridiculous, but that's the point, an attacker knows they may lose a fight or seriously get hurt, just as a criminal knows they may go to jail for a short or long period of time. How do other MA's feel about this?


What card? Can anyone produce a copy of this card?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 2, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> If you're curious, here's the official documentation: https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/...ion-3/chapter-62/chapter-62.pdf?ts=1580422412
> There's a one-time registration fee, but that fee's only $5.00 (US). Not enough to be any sort of revenue fee.
> 
> Oh, and if you don't register, whether or not you then use said weapon, you're guilty of a misdemeanor for having an unregistered weapon.


So only if you have a belt? This is so silly.


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Unless you live in Guam, this is not true at all. Even in Guam, there's no card, you are just supposed to register as a deadly weapon. No card is given out.
> 
> What's weird there is you register with the department of revenue and taxation, which seems like an odd place to do it.


  In my much younger years it did, as soon as you become a blackbelt, you needed to register your hands as deadly weapons. I know, sounds stupid, but some states were or still are like that.


----------



## J. Pickard (May 2, 2022)

Self defense laws vary country to country and state to state. Most states in the US have "stand your ground laws" and "castle doctrine" but a few have "duty to retreat" laws still in affect. Even in those there is so much variation there is no one standard. Take Florida for example; Zimmerman got away with killing an unarmed teen under the pretense of self defense, meanwhile Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years (later on plea deal reduced to 3 years) for firing a gun, and missing, at her soon to be ex-husband in self defense when he threatened to attack her. In both cases the same defense based on the Florida "stand your ground" laws were used but in the case of George Zimmerman, who actually killed someone, He was acquitted of all charges based on the law where as Marissa Alexander was prosecuted for Aggravated assault with a lethal weapon even though her husband was actively threatening her and nobody was injured. 

This is actually a HUGE topic of study in various fields of Social Sciences and Law and the definition of "self defense" is one that is constantly changing and being redefined to the point that even many lawyers will tell you it's hard to say for sure what is and what isn't self defense. We actually have a criminal lawyer that comes in when we do self-defense seminars and every time he says the same thing "There is no guarantee in a self-defense argument and it can vary from judge to judge and jury to jury, but here is the law in Michigan as written..." He then goes on to give case examples of successful self-defense claims and unsuccessful ones and it is surprisingly varied but gives people more knowledge to make the choice that is best for them.


----------



## Steve (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> In my much younger years it did, as soon as you become a blackbelt, you needed to register your hands as deadly weapons. I know, sounds stupid, but some states were or still are like that.


Tell me more?  Which states?  I'm very curious.


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

J. Pickard said:


> Self defense laws vary country to country and state to state. Most states in the US have "stand your ground laws" and "castle doctrine" but a few have "duty to retreat" laws still in affect. Even in those there is so much variation there is no one standard. Take Florida for example; Zimmerman got away with killing an unarmed teen under the pretense of self defense, meanwhile Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years (later on plea deal reduced to 3 years) for firing a gun, and missing, at her soon to be ex-husband in self defense when he threatened to attack her. In both cases the same defense based on the Florida "stand your ground" laws were used but in the case of George Zimmerman, who actually killed someone, He was acquitted of all charges based on the law where as Marissa Alexander was prosecuted for Aggravated assault with a lethal weapon even though her husband was actively threatening her and nobody was injured.
> 
> This is actually a HUGE topic of study in various fields of Social Sciences and Law and the definition of "self defense" is one that is constantly changing and being redefined to the point that even many lawyers will tell you it's hard to say for sure what is and what isn't self defense. We actually have a criminal lawyer that comes in when we do self-defense seminars and every time he says the same thing "There is no guarantee in a self-defense argument and it can vary from judge to judge and jury to jury, but here is the law in Michigan as written..." He then goes on to give case examples of successful self-defense claims and unsuccessful ones and it is surprisingly varied but gives people more knowledge to make the choice that is best for them.


  Well, that is pretty much the case with any court cases, it is not so much the law that matters, but the lawyer and court you have.


----------



## lklawson (May 2, 2022)

J. Pickard said:


> Self defense laws vary country to country and state to state. Most states in the US have "stand your ground laws" and "castle doctrine" but a few have "duty to retreat" laws still in affect. Even in those there is so much variation there is no one standard. Take Florida for example; Zimmerman got away with killing an unarmed teen under the pretense of self defense, meanwhile Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years (later on plea deal reduced to 3 years) for firing a gun, and missing, at her soon to be ex-husband in self defense when he threatened to attack her. In both cases the same defense based on the Florida "stand your ground" laws were used but in the case of George Zimmerman, who actually killed someone, He was acquitted of all charges based on the law where as Marissa Alexander was prosecuted for Aggravated assault with a lethal weapon even though her husband was actively threatening her and nobody was injured.


This is a very great misrepresentation of the Zimmerman case.  Among other things, Zimmerman never used "Stand Your Ground" defense.

There was a lot more to it as well that you are either ignoring or do not know about such as Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete, vowing to murder Zimmerman, and then trying to take Zimmerman's weapon.  These facts are a matter of court record.  That said, if you spend too much time on this, this thread will get locked.




J. Pickard said:


> "There is no guarantee in a self-defense argument and it can vary from judge to judge and jury to jury, but here is the law in Michigan as written..." He then goes on to give case examples of successful self-defense claims and unsuccessful ones and it is surprisingly varied but gives people more knowledge to make the choice that is best for them.


One self defense lawyer that I've read and watched likes to say that in any self defense case, no matter how justified, there is a non-zero chance that you will go to prison for the rest of your life.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> In my much younger years it did, as soon as you become a blackbelt, you needed to register your hands as deadly weapons. I know, sounds stupid, but some states were or still are like that.


No they weren't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

Steve said:


> Tell me more?  Which states?  I'm very curious.


  I did further research, it is only U.S. Gaum, and that is questionable. I was in young teens when I first heard about it, yes, a very long tome ago lol. It seemed it was a fad that started with boxers and that, but it was a false fad. I apologize to everyone for mistakenly remembering something from my much younger years, it sucks getting old lol.


----------



## Steve (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> I did further research, it is only U.S. Gaum, and that is questionable. I was in young teens when I first heard about it, yes, a very long tome ago lol. It seemed it was a fad that started with boxers and that, but it was a false fad. I apologize to everyone for mistakenly remembering something from my much younger years, it sucks getting old lol.


Happens to us all.  Thanks.


----------



## Steve (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> In my much younger years it did, as soon as you become a blackbelt, you needed to register your hands as deadly weapons. I know, sounds stupid, but some states were or still are like that.


This is something we've heard before.   But you know, I have an idea.  While you don't HAVE to register your hands as a deadly weapon, there is nothing that says you aren't ALLOWED to do so.  If you wanted to, you could create a document that certifies your hands are deadly weapons.  Make sure it meets the formatting and indexing requirements of your county recorder's office.  You could add whatever you like to it, get it notarized and then have it recorded at your county courthouse for a minimal fee.  

Would it do anything for you?  No.  Not a thing.  Well, maybe one thing.  You could then come to a website like this and say you did it, and then prove it.


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

Steve said:


> This is something we've heard before.   But you know, I have an idea.  While you don't HAVE to register your hands as a deadly weapon, there is nothing that says you aren't ALLOWED to do so.  If you wanted to, you could create a document that certifies your hands are deadly weapons.  Make sure it meets the formatting and indexing requirements of your county recorder's office.  You could add whatever you like to it, get it notarized and then have it recorded at your county courthouse for a minimal fee.
> 
> Would it do anything for you?  No.  Not a thing.  Well, maybe one thing.  You could then come to a website like this and say you did it, and then prove it.


  Yes, if you want that hype lol, I would rather get the hype that I am a sex god, but at 57 years old, not likely lol.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> I did further research, it is only U.S. Gaum, and that is questionable. I was in young teens when I first heard about it, yes, a very long tome ago lol. It seemed it was a fad that started with boxers and that, but it was a false fad. I apologize to everyone for mistakenly remembering something from my much younger years, it sucks getting old lol.


So this is going by my own memory, which can also be faulty, but I think I might know what you misremembered. 

I believe the WBA has (or had) a rule that boxers were not allowed to engage in fights with 'civilians', with the penalty being that you'd be kicked out of the organization and lose any rankings/titles/be unable to fight with them anymore. That could pretty easily turn into boxers saying that they're too dangerous to fight on the streets and I think is the start of a lot of those "martial artists hands are deadly weapons" rumors that existed. 

@lklawson who already commented in this thread may actually know more about if that was a rule and what happened (or didn't happen) to it.


----------



## lklawson (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> I did further research, it is only U.S. Gaum, and that is questionable. I was in young teens when I first heard about it, yes, a very long tome ago lol. It seemed it was a fad that started with boxers and that, but it was a false fad. I apologize to everyone for mistakenly remembering something from my much younger years, it sucks getting old lol.


It's true that this was an old wives tale in the Martial Arts community going back to at least the '70s.

That said, there's a kernel of honesty in it, in that "trained fighters" have been held to a higher standard in courts on various occasions.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 2, 2022)

lklawson said:


> It's true that this was an old wives tale in the Martial Arts community going back to at least the '70s.
> 
> That said, there's a kernel of honesty in it, in that "trained fighters" have been held to a higher standard in courts on various occasions.
> 
> ...


Here are two.  If you search you can find more, but this is a quick start.









						Fighter sentenced for hands being 'deadly weapons'
					

In an unusual case, an MMA fighter in Texas was handed a long sentence for aggravated assault because his hands were "deadly weapons" based on his skills in the sport.




					www.bloodyelbow.com
				












						Judge rules martial arts fighter's hands and feet are 'deadly weapons' in road rage attack
					

Judge John Hurley said given the specialised fight training of Fernando Rodrigues (pictured), his hands and feet were as lethal a gun or knife.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> Yes, if you want that hype lol, I would rather get the hype that I am a sex god, but at 57 years old, not likely lol.


I think I may have discovered my new side hustle... selling as a service certificates that formally "certify" people for various things.  Want to be a certified Dancing Queen?  What about a Sex God?  Perhaps you'd like to register yourself as a Self Defense Expert?  I got you.

Are you a member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame?  No?  I can fix that, for a nominal fee. 

Want to be the grandmaster of your own kombucha of bushido?  I can make it official.

Come on down to Steve's Certification Emporium, where I will ensure your certification is "officially" documented with the government.  In the spirit of Thorstein Veblen, "Your ceremonial adequacy IS the mission."


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

lklawson said:


> It's true that this was an old wives tale in the Martial Arts community going back to at least the '70s.
> 
> That said, there's a kernel of honesty in it, in that "trained fighters" have been held to a higher standard in courts on various occasions.
> 
> ...


  It is very true that courts held MA's at a higher standard as well other professional fighters. The courts feel that if you do not inform a possible attacker that you are a professional fighter and that you took the most passive way possible, then the courts will find you liable for any injury. You have to prove to the court that you did not instigate the fight and that you were as passive as you can be. I find this ridiculous to a degree, if your tooo passive, you could end up with the injuries, and you can not always prove your side.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 2, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think I may have discovered my new side hustle... selling as a service certificates that formally "certify" people for various things.  Want to be a certified Dancing Queen?  What about a Sex God?  Perhaps you'd like to register yourself as a Self Defense Expert?  I got you.
> 
> Are you a member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame?  No?  I can fix that, for a nominal fee.
> 
> ...


You could probably legitimately get money from that. It'd be more gag gifts than anything, but I could see people buying it.


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think I may have discovered my new side hustle... selling as a service certificates that formally "certify" people for various things.  Want to be a certified Dancing Queen?  What about a Sex God?  Perhaps you'd like to register yourself as a Self Defense Expert?  I got you.
> 
> Are you a member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame?  No?  I can fix that, for a nominal fee.
> 
> ...


  I would love a certificate that I am a sex god, but I think woman will still laugh at me, especially my wife lol. I have tried for 37 years to get her to call me lord and master, I can't even get her to call me master, not even my female students lol. OF course telling them to kneel before me and kiss my feet problem didn't help, but hey, an old man has to have his dreams lol.


----------



## lklawson (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> It is very true that courts held MA's at a higher standard as well other professional fighters. The courts feel that if you do not inform a possible attacker that you are a professional fighter and that you took the most passive way possible, then the courts will find you liable for any injury.


Well, no.  That's not how it works.



Yanli said:


> You have to prove to the court that you did not instigate the fight


That's true for anyone.  You can't be what's often legally defined as "The Initial Aggressor."



Yanli said:


> and that you were as passive as you can be.


Well, no.



Yanli said:


> I find this ridiculous to a degree, if your tooo passive, you could end up with the injuries, and you can not always prove your side.


No.  Courts have sometimes held "trained martial artists" to a higher standard or duty of care.  In those cases, they have found that the training should have meant that the martial artist (boxer, whatever) should have been able to mitigate their level of force enough to not kill.

There's a difference between that and "being forced to be as passive as possible."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 2, 2022)

You might find this one interesting. 



			https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=mslj
		


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Well, no.  That's not how it works.
> 
> 
> That's true for anyone.  You can't be what's often legally defined as "The Initial Aggressor."
> ...


  I was not speaking to the degree of killing, more to the degree of avoiding doing serious injury. The court will look at your skill level and try to determine what degree of force you should of only used, this can often be a very grey line.


----------



## J. Pickard (May 2, 2022)

lklawson said:


> This is a very great misrepresentation of the Zimmerman case. Among other things, Zimmerman never used "Stand Your Ground" defense.


I openly admit that this was an oversimplification but nothing I stated was false even if it was out of context, however the stand your ground laws were a big part of the Zimmerman case. As stated from this Washington Post article --
As a legal matter, Zimmerman’s attorney did not raise a “stand your ground” defense at the trial. But after the trial a juror acknowledged that jurors had discussed the self-defense law before finding Zimmerman not guilty. The law also changed the standard instructions to jurors in homicide cases, so that the judge said that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground if he felt threatened. (The law may have also played a role in the initial failure of the local police to prosecute Zimmerman.)


lklawson said:


> One self defense lawyer that I've read and watched likes to say that in any self defense case, no matter how justified, there is a non-zero chance that you will go to prison for the rest of your life.


This was my main point that I was trying to get across and its something that I personally believe should be addressed more if a school is claiming to teach a self-defense program.


----------



## Yanli (May 2, 2022)

J. Pickard said:


> I openly admit that this was an oversimplification but nothing I stated was false even if it was out of context, however the stand your ground laws were a big part of the Zimmerman case. As stated from this Washington Post article --
> As a legal matter, Zimmerman’s attorney did not raise a “stand your ground” defense at the trial. But after the trial a juror acknowledged that jurors had discussed the self-defense law before finding Zimmerman not guilty. The law also changed the standard instructions to jurors in homicide cases, so that the judge said that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground if he felt threatened. (The law may have also played a role in the initial failure of the local police to prosecute Zimmerman.)
> 
> This was my main point that I was trying to get across and its something that I personally believe should be addressed more if a school is claiming to teach a self-defense program.


  I do not know how most of today's schools teach, but I teach as I was taught, there are three forms of fighting "passive, passive aggressive, and aggressive", and we need to recognize which form is needed. I see so many skilled MA forget everything that they have learned, and revert back to street fighting.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> I luckily have not had an issue with the law for defending myself, but a story that I heard many years ago from another MA instructor. A instructor encountered a fight at a bar, he tried to break it up, and in that attempt a strike was thrown at him. The instructor out of reflects blocked the punch and countered with a punch, and he broke the guys jaw. The instructor got arrested and sued because he did not show his card indicating his hands are deadly. The court said he should of shown his card before trying to break up the fight, the court and the lawmakers do not seem to realize what would happen in that attempt.


Baloney.


----------



## jks9199 (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> I luckily have not had an issue with the law for defending myself, but a story that I heard many years ago from another MA instructor. A instructor encountered a fight at a bar, he tried to break it up, and in that attempt a strike was thrown at him. The instructor out of reflects blocked the punch and countered with a punch, and he broke the guys jaw. The instructor got arrested and sued because he did not show his card indicating his hands are deadly. The court said he should of shown his card before trying to break up the fight, the court and the lawmakers do not seem to realize what would happen in that attempt.


Tell me where this happened...  State and city.

I"ve never heard of any true "hand registration" anywhere.   Maybe in some other part of the world -- but not in the USA.  I know that if you walk into my station and try to register your hands...  Well, if you're lucky, the laughter will be gentle.  Being sued or arrested for sticking your nose into a fight?  That's quite possible, especially if you cause serious injury when you intervene.  You take your victim as you find him, and you'd better know who was in the right if you're going to jump into the battle.


----------



## jks9199 (May 2, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Unless you live in Guam, this is not true at all. Even in Guam, there's no card, you are just supposed to register as a deadly weapon. No card is given out.
> 
> What's weird there is you register with the department of revenue and taxation, which seems like an odd place to do it.


Interesting; I'd never heard of that in Guam.


----------



## jks9199 (May 2, 2022)

Yanli said:


> I was not speaking to the degree of killing, more to the degree of avoiding doing serious injury. The court will look at your skill level and try to determine what degree of force you should of only used, this can often be a very grey line.


No -- the court will assess whether the force you used was reasonably appropriate to the situation.  A judge or jury MAY hold a martial artist to a higher standard of control or response -- but the ultimate question is simply whether or not the force used was reasonably likely to safely end the situation without doing unnecessary or excessive harm.


----------



## J. Pickard (May 2, 2022)

jks9199 said:


> Tell me where this happened...  State and city.
> 
> I"ve never heard of any true "hand registration" anywhere.   Maybe in some other part of the world -- but not in the USA.  I know that if you walk into my station and try to register your hands...  Well, if you're lucky, the laughter will be gentle.  Being sued or arrested for sticking your nose into a fight?  That's quite possible, especially if you cause serious injury when you intervene.  You take your victim as you find him, and you'd better know who was in the right if you're going to jump into the battle.


Guam. It's an actual law on the books that has become sort of a gag. I'm pretty sure it started there because of the military base (could be wrong) and was basically used as another source of tax revenue.


----------



## _Simon_ (May 3, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> What card? Can anyone produce a copy of this card?


I'll sell you said card for $75.


----------



## lklawson (May 3, 2022)

J. Pickard said:


> I openly admit that this was an oversimplification but nothing I stated was false even if it was out of context, however the stand your ground laws were a big part of the Zimmerman case. As stated from this Washington Post article --
> As a legal matter, Zimmerman’s attorney did not raise a “stand your ground” defense at the trial. But after the trial a juror acknowledged that jurors had discussed the self-defense law before finding Zimmerman not guilty.


The Jury can discuss the National League playoffs.  The fact is that "Stand Your Ground" was never used as his defense.



J. Pickard said:


> The law also changed the standard instructions to jurors in homicide cases, so that the judge said that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground if he felt threatened. (The law may have also played a role in the initial failure of the local police to prosecute Zimmerman.)


Interviews with the cops indicate that they believed it was a valid self defense (aka "clean shoot") from the beginning.  

The decision to prosecute was declined by the local prosecutor.  It only happened when it became political and I strongly recommend you not pursue the politics in this thread.  It will cause the thread to be closed.



J. Pickard said:


> This was my main point that I was trying to get across and its something that I personally believe should be addressed more if a school is claiming to teach a self-defense program.


It's pretty standard in pretty much any firearms-for-self-defense class I've ever come across.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 3, 2022)

Yanli said:


> I do not know how most of today's schools teach, but I teach as I was taught, there are three forms of fighting "passive, passive aggressive, and aggressive", and we need to recognize which form is needed. I see so many skilled MA forget everything that they have learned, and revert back to street fighting.


I've never heard those terms applied in this way to self defense.  Care to expand a bit on this?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 3, 2022)

jks9199 said:


> Tell me where this happened...  State and city.
> 
> I"ve never heard of any true "hand registration" anywhere.   Maybe in some other part of the world -- but not in the USA.  I know that if you walk into my station and try to register your hands...  Well, if you're lucky, the laughter will be gentle.



You're missing an opportunity for revenue.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (May 3, 2022)

regarding Zimmerman, here’s a contemporaneous mega thread on it.  All sides of the discussion are well represented. 






						Unarmed Florida Teen Shot
					

I'm sure everyone has heard about this case.  There are numerous links, so I'll post a few.  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10766858-justice-department-fbi-to-probe-shooting-death-of-florida-teen-trayvon-martin  In the wake of spreading public outrage, the Justice Department and...



					www.martialtalk.com


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 3, 2022)

lklawson said:


> You're missing an opportunity for revenue.


Yeah, but since he's the senior staff member here, he already makes Bezos look like a pauper.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 3, 2022)

_Simon_ said:


> I'll sell you said card for $75.


Well I would like to see what kind of card stock you use.


----------



## jks9199 (May 3, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Yeah, but since he's the senior staff member here, he already makes Bezos look like a pauper.


Well, the exponential quadruple of my salary every year is quite a burden to deal with...  Not everyone can handle the riches as well as I can.


----------

