# Justified Force..?



## Draven (Dec 5, 2009)

I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.

To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.

Against an unarmed attacker?
An armed mugger?
A drunken/drugged out friend with a knife I intent to to harm you?


----------



## K-man (Dec 6, 2009)

In most countries you can use whatever force is necessary to ensure your safety, or the safety of others. However, you must be sure that you do not use inappropriate or unnecessary force, or continue to use force when the threat is past. If the attacker is injured, regardless to who is in the right, you may in fact be charged with an offence. It is then up to the court to decide if your actions were justified.
In fact, most people using self defence are not charged, but keep in the back of your mind that that could happen. If it does, and the court is told of your martial art background, or that you have been charged before with a similar offence, then the court may not come out on your side if there is the hint of unreasonable force, even though the attacker was clearly the aggressor. :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Dec 6, 2009)

The ideal seems to be to use enough force to protect one's self but, as little as possible.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 6, 2009)

Draven said:


> I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.
> 
> To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.
> 
> ...



In general, my opinion seems to be much like yours.  Morally speaking, I feel that when one person sets out to victimize another--to violate their rights--they deserve whatever they get.  If more of them got what they deserve, there'd be fewer of them to victimize the innocent.
Legally speaking "only enough to stop the threat...blah, blah, blah."

As far as the specific scenarios you mentioned, if they're armed it's a deadly force situation.  I will respond in kind.
If they're unarmed, it depends on whether or not I feel that I can neutralize the threat with empty-hand techniques.  If it turns out that I feel that I can't, due to a disparity of force (size, strength, numbers, etc.), then we're back to "whatever it takes" up to and including deadly force.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler (Dec 6, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> In general, my opinion seems to be much like yours.  Morally speaking, I feel that when one person sets out to victimize another--to violate their rights--they deserve whatever they get.  If more of them got what they deserve, there'd be fewer of them to victimize the innocent.
> Legally speaking "only enough to stop the threat...blah, blah, blah."
> 
> As far as the specific scenarios you mentioned, if they're armed it's a deadly force situation.  I will respond in kind.
> If they're unarmed, it depends on whether or not I feel that I can neutralize the threat with empty-hand techniques.  If it turns out that I feel that I can't, due to a disparity of force (size, strength, numbers, etc.), then we're back to "whatever it takes" up to and including deadly force.



My thinking on this is inline with you KenpoTex.

We all have a right to be safe, you violate that right I will violate you.  If I feel I can take you or at least change your mind on thinking I am a victim then I'll do it.  If I have to convince you, or your group of friends, in a much stronger sense, so be it.

Occupational hazard is what it will be considered.


----------



## Guardian (Dec 6, 2009)

Most states have laws that say minimal amount of force necessary to nuetralize the threat (now what is minimal is the question) especially depending on what the threat is.

I agree with the rest, I'm going to do what it takes to defend myself and basically go home afterwards.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 6, 2009)

Draven said:


> I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.
> 
> To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.
> 
> ...


If it's something that is already under litigation -- you might be wiser not to post about it.  Or even hypotheticals that are close to it.  Lawyers are looking on the web more and more, and something you say here could come back and bit you...


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Dec 6, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> If it's something that is already under litigation -- you might be wiser not to post about it. Or even hypotheticals that are close to it. Lawyers are looking on the web more and more, and something you say here could come back and bit you...


 

 Sad but true, your own opinions will hang you in this suppossedly free country.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 6, 2009)

In the state of Georgia one is justified in using as much force against an attacker as is percieved as being used against them. 

Of course, "percieved" leaves a lot of room for interpretation but I'm still more comfortable with our laws than those of many other states. 

An LE buddy of mine was telling me how a fella got upset about getting his butt handed to him even though he didn't physically attack anyone. Fact was, he said (and was overheard saying) some pretty bad things to this fella's wife in public and so the fella rocked his jaw. Guess who my LE buddy cuffed and stuffed. It wasn't the fella that did the rocking, it was the fella that needed a lesson in manners. 

I always endorse being familiar with your local and state laws regarding self defense and assualt and battery. 

These laws are public record and there's no excuse not to be familiar with them beforehand. 

Personally, I'm with you. I believe in personal responsibilty and accepting consequences for one's actions. If one freely chooses to commit unprovoked harm onto another then the negative repercussions are also freely chosen IMHO. It doesn't matter or not whether they were considered or not by the one causing harm. In short, you made your bed now lie in it.


----------



## still learning (Dec 6, 2009)

Hello, If there are witness around...you must do your best to act like you do not want to fight!  ..you are not esclations the situtions...

Must be innocent as possible to the people watching..!

Laws are to protect the criminals first ...NOT us!    They can beat the "****" of you...get off with probations or very short jail time...to do it all over again..

If we go to jail we lose our jobs, get a criminal record for life!  ...those bad guys do not care about themselves...they already HAVE no life!

Know the laws in your state..each is different...and in your own home...the situtions of the laws changes here too...Best to learn your rights first...

Every martial arts...teaches..."awareness and avoidness" ...many do NOT teach the art of verbal descalationals.....BEST learn on you own...for proper verbal langange and Body langanges!

Purpose of Maritial arts is self improvements, self confidentance...and learn to be smarter....avoidance and awareness...

If you can escape or walk awalk away ..without a fight?  ...You win all the time..!

OFF course there will be a few times...ONE must fight back? ...learn the laws!

Aloha,


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2009)

Draven said:


> I won't go into details the case is still pending, but something that always gets me is use of force laws. Now I'll honestly tell everyone I think that when an attacker violates my rights or threatens and/or actually assaults me they give up their right to live via their own choice. I know it's "Cowboy Justice." Now dispite my personal feelings I try to obey the law as best I can.
> 
> To put it another way, I think the end justifies the means if I am attacked and I do whatever I have to to survive its justified. I don't go about hitting or robbing people & I'd like for them to not do the same to me. Seems simple enough, so now I'm curious as to what others think is the justified use of force.
> 
> ...


 
KT pretty much echoed my thoughts.  I dont look for trouble, I do my best to avoid it, and stay out of areas that tend to breed trouble.  That being said, I also dont believe in being someones punching bag.  So, to answer your questions:

Unarmed:  Adapt to whats being presented at the moment.  Responding with enough force to end the altercation.  I will most likely not use a weapon offensively in this case.  

Armed mugger:  All bets are off.  I'm not standing around, waiting to see what happens.  In other words, instead of complying first and then if that fails, act, I'm going to act first.  Way too many cases of the person complying and getting killed.  As soon as the opportunity presents itself, I'm acting.  A weapon is being used, so deadly force, if need be would be used.

Armed friend intending to hurt me:  Same as the 2nd case, but if at all possible, I'd do my best to avoid the death of that person.  Its very possible that were they not under the influence of something, the intent to kill me may not be there.  However, that doesnt mean that I wouldn't hurt the person.  

SD laws will vary from state to state, so IMHO, I think its best to be familiar with what you can/can't do.  OTOH, I'm not going to bind myself to them, so much to the point that I get injured.  Law or not, my safety and well being, as well as that of anyone with me, will not be comprimised.  That is #1 in my book. 

Hope that answered your questions. 

Mike


----------



## Draven (Dec 7, 2009)

Well my case is interesting in itself because WV has a Castle Docturine which says I have no duty to retreat in my home. I'll give you all the details at a later a date if I don't go to jail in January.

My interest is is based more on seeing a lot of crime & violent crime rising in statistics, yet laws seem to favor the criminal in use of force. Something I find both sad & amusing in a sick sort of way.


----------



## DerekB (Dec 7, 2009)

Being a Canadian I have a much tighter guideline for what is selfdefence and how much force I can use too defend. When I was younger I delivered pizza for 5years, got me through college, let me tell you a very dangerous job. In that 5 years had 10 robbery attempts ranging from the stupid drunk too the serious intent on killing me type. Out of all 10 I was charged with assault and excessive force 7 times, all thrown out in court. The last guy even stabbed me from behind, I only hit him twice shattered both his wrist and jaw. If not for a witness I would have been in jail after hospital. Now I'm older wiser and practice Selfdefence techniques I have had less problems. Still have had too use force too defend myself or others, but according too the police "due force".
1 If attacker is empty handed I can't use a weapon unless there is a large size difference.
2 If attacker has a weapon, I can use as much force as it takes too disarm him and restrain.
These unfortunatly are the individual Leo's guidlines, and I will always fall back too the fact that I prefer too be tried by 12 then carried by6.


----------



## still learning (Dec 7, 2009)

Hello,  Most laws states you can use only enough force that they use on you?

Most laws protect the bad guys from getting more hurt from the good guys?

FBI stats...70% of crimes comes from repeat offenders.....and we know overcrowding and early release and paroles early ONLY MAKES THE MATTERS WORST!

Imagine all the innocent people murder,rape, etc...could have been prevented!

Only in America...criminals got it better...IN/OUT just like IN/OUT burgers...easy to order it!

Aloha,

Justified force?  ....we are suppose to hold back excess force...YET to survivie..one must go all out!


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Dec 8, 2009)

I'll stop hitting him once he stops moving.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2009)

In this country we have 'reasonable' force not justified force. That makes it an easy one, reasonable is KOing an attacker, unreasonable is beating the whasit out of him while he's unconcious. Reasonable is shooting him to stop him, unreasonable is kneecapping him first. Reasonable is disarming him of his weapon, unreasonable is cutting his arms off. You get the idea.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> In this country we have 'reasonable' force not justified force. That makes it an easy one, reasonable is KOing an attacker, unreasonable is beating the whasit out of him while he's unconcious. Reasonable is shooting him to stop him, unreasonable is kneecapping him first. Reasonable is disarming him of his weapon, unreasonable is cutting his arms off. You get the idea.



It's pretty much the same here.  Some of these guys are talking out their zippers.

General rule on self-defense:  That force which a reasonable and prudent man would feel is necessary to end the threat.  There is no such thing as force-matching, 'justified force' or anything like that.  I don't know where people come up with this stuff.

WikipediaSelf-defense 

One is permitted to defend oneself.  Once the threat is ended, then the right to use violence in self-defense ends as well.

Anyone interested in self-defense would be well-served to learn the law regarding self-defense in the state or country in which they live.  Different states in the USA have different laws regarding concepts such as the 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Duty to Retreat' versus 'Stand Your Ground'.  If a person does not know the law of their own state, and choses to engage in violence which they feel is self-defense, they're rolling the dice.


----------



## Draven (Dec 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> In this country we have 'reasonable' force not justified force. That makes it an easy one, reasonable is KOing an attacker, unreasonable is beating the whasit out of him while he's unconcious. Reasonable is shooting him to stop him, unreasonable is kneecapping him first. Reasonable is disarming him of his weapon, unreasonable is cutting his arms off. You get the idea.


 
Well you can call what you like, justified or reasonable force, I prefer justified since reasonable is based on what someone else (i.e. the courts find reasonable). Case law gets really scaetchy when this examined because in many cases, you can't defend yourself. They claim you have a duty to retreat under to pretext that LEOs will save you but its an established fact of law that LEOs & PDs have "no duty to protect individuals."


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Draven said:


> Well you can call what you like, justified or reasonable force, I prefer justified since reasonable is based on what someone else (i.e. the courts find reasonable). Case law gets really scaetchy when this examined because in many cases, you can't defend yourself. They claim you have a duty to retreat under to pretext that LEOs will save you but its an established fact of law that LEOs & PDs have "no duty to protect individuals."


 

Well, I don't call it that, the law here calls it that and it works. No one has been done for using reasonable force in this country. Reasonable isn't hard to imagine to be honest and the police here understand that, it doesn't get to court. The police here would _prefer_ you not to be involved, for your own safety only but it's understood that if the situation arise you have to defend yourself and you will to the best of your ability. 
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

*"Public Perception of Self-Defence*

_There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned. _



_However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear: _

_an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others; _
_they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so; _
_the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and, _
_an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence"_
_ "The law as it stands offers very wide protection to those individuals who use violence to protect themselves or others. Such is the protection that an act which could otherwise have constituted a very serious offence becomes lawful. *Further, it is the stated intention of the CPS that individuals who act in this way should not even find themselves in court*." _


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 9, 2009)

Okay, this may just be the mood I'm in right now, but this is just sad. 

Draven, if you are getting into situations where you are in trouble with the law afterwards because you can't differentiate between what is and is not reasonable, you have real boundary and ego issues. You need to grow up. By the way, this is not just directed towards you, there are a number of others I have seen posting similar threads here and elsewhere, and it just really frustrates me. Listen to what Tez is saying, listen to what Bill is saying. They are steering you in the right direction.

If you need to ask what is reasonable, stop before you get there. If you can't get an idea of what it might be, then you have too much ego riding on the idea, and frankly will deserve whatever you get. Cold, I know. But hopefully it'll wake you up a bit. Too much ego will make you go into situations you don't need to. It'll make you stay when you should leave. It'll make you go overboard when you should stop. And it'll end up with you in jail, or worse. Drop the ego, and grow up. Then you won't have to worry about what the courts may think, as you will know that you were in the right.

Can't remember who said this, but "I'll stop hitting when they stop moving" is a classic example of this ego. It is either empty words (pride), or an indication of an immature mindset. Sorry guys, but it is.

Oh, and Bill, "talking out their zippers"? That has to be one of the most perfectly shaped phrases I have heard in a long time! I'm stealing it!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Defending yourself is fine in principle but one really needs to understand when it's time to run away. 
Chris, damn good post sir!


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's pretty much the same here. Some of these guys are talking out their zippers.
> 
> General rule on self-defense: That force which a reasonable and prudent man would feel is necessary to end the threat. There is no such thing as force-matching, 'justified force' or anything like that. I don't know where people come up with this stuff.
> 
> ...


 
Have to agree with you here Bill.   Personally, this thread is the first time that I've heard the term 'justified' force used before.  Reasonable yes, justified...nope.


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, this may just be the mood I'm in right now, but this is just sad.
> 
> Draven, if you are getting into situations where you are in trouble with the law afterwards because you can't differentiate between what is and is not reasonable, you have real boundary and ego issues. You need to grow up. By the way, this is not just directed towards you, there are a number of others I have seen posting similar threads here and elsewhere, and it just really frustrates me. Listen to what Tez is saying, listen to what Bill is saying. They are steering you in the right direction.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed.  Nice post!   I guess I'm just not following the thinking of some here.  Someone comes up to you and pushes you, and you turn around and knock their teeth out, bust their nose, take them down and proceed to use their ribs as a football...well, shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that that is a bit too much.  

IMO, theres a huge difference between someone giving you a push, vs. someone coming at you with a knife.  Despite my career, I do not claim to be a legal expert, and I take calls all the time, from people asking for 'legal' advice, to which I refer them to someone else.  That being said, I'm fortunate to know and train with people in the LEO field, so many times, I go to them with questions that I have.  As I said in my first post...I think its wise to talk to someone who knows the laws.  Last thing you want to do is get jammed up.


----------



## KELLYG (Dec 9, 2009)

Good thread,

Talking out their zippers (priceless).   This thread at least got me curious enough to look up the self defense laws for my State.  Interesting stuff.  We have Castle and stand your ground, as well as protection of not getting sued if you were attacked and had to defend yourself.  This was very helpful indeed!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 9, 2009)

MJS said:


> I guess I'm just not following the thinking of some here.  Someone comes up to you and pushes you, and you turn around and knock their teeth out, bust their nose, take them down and proceed to use their ribs as a football...well, shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that that is a bit too much.
> 
> IMO, theres a huge difference between someone giving you a push, vs. someone coming at you with a knife.  Despite my career, I do not claim to be a legal expert, and I take calls all the time, from people asking for 'legal' advice, to which I refer them to someone else.  That being said, I'm fortunate to know and train with people in the LEO field, so many times, I go to them with questions that I have.  As I said in my first post...I think its wise to talk to someone who knows the laws.  Last thing you want to do is get jammed up.



The problem with self-defense discussions is that they tend to get specific, and there aren't any specifics.  So somebody says,  _"This guy came up to me and punched me in the nose, I didn't even know him, so I hit him in the etc, etc, etc, and then I jumped up and down on his etc, and what do you think, was that too much?"_

The only answer to questions like that is _"it depends."_

*It is not what you do, but the context in which you do it.  *

If a person draws back to punch me and I rip his eyeballs out and shove them up his nose, it might be lawful self-defense - and it might not.  It depends on the situation and the laws of the state or country in which I am located.

Generally speaking, one is permitted to defend oneself from violence, even before the violence is committed.  One is generally permitted to apply THAT FORCE REASONABLY NECESSARY to end the threat to oneself.

What is _'that force reasonably necessary'_?  Again, it depends.  No one is going to find it in a book of laws or even a book on self-defense.  It's that force with a 'reasonable and prudent man' (a legal term of art) would find reasonable.  

If a person who was 6-5 and wearing biker garb and who had just dismembered another person with his bare hands in front of me drew back to punch me and I ripped his eyeballs out instinctively, well, a reasonable and prudent man might find that perfectly understandable.  On the other hand, if a 9-year-old kid having a temper tantrum drew back to punch me and I ripped his eyeballs out, that might strike a reasonable and prudent man as a tad excessive.

Context is the key.  The threat is the driving force.  Presuming that the threat is 'reasonable', then the force required to end the threat is the 'reasonable' amount you can use.  And when the threat ends, so does your right to use force.

In states which have a _'Duty to Retreat'_ law, if one is confronted with violence and one CAN withdraw, then one has the legal obligation to withdraw.  That generally means running away.  If you can't, then you can't.  But if you can and you just decided that it would harm your ego to do so, then it's not self-defense in the eyes of the law.

In states which have _'Stand Your Ground'_ laws, then one does not have a duty to first attempt to withdraw, and one may use force to end a threat immediately - and again, only until the threat is ended.

_'Castle'_ laws generally refer to the old saying that _"a man's home is his castle,"_ meaning the law will presume that any person who invades a private residence unlawfully is there to commit great bodily harm; if the resident applies deadly force preemptively, the law will not question it, and the resident may also be immune to civil law suits too.  But one must know the law in their state or country before presuming that they can _'get away with it'._

Most self-defense laws are pretty basic and easy to understand, though.  If you have the right to self-defense, and most of us do, then you can do what you have to do to end the threat, as long as a) a _'reasonable and prudent man'_ would agree that it was a reasonable response and b) you stop when the threat stops.  It's not that hard, really.

Comments about hitting a person until they stop moving?  I would hesitate to say such things, especially on a public forum.  Not only would such behavior probably NOT be lawful self-defense, but it could theoretically be used against a person who said such things if they ever did find themselves in a legal jam for doing just that.


----------



## Carol (Dec 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Defending yourself is fine in principle but one really needs to understand when it's time to run away.
> Chris, damn good post sir!



S/he who fights and runs away, lives to fight and run away another day. 

+2 on the damn good post, Chris.


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The problem with self-defense discussions is that they tend to get specific, and there aren't any specifics. So somebody says, _"This guy came up to me and punched me in the nose, I didn't even know him, so I hit him in the etc, etc, etc, and then I jumped up and down on his etc, and what do you think, was that too much?"_
> 
> The only answer to questions like that is _"it depends."_
> 
> ...


 
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

Found this, but nothing on duty to retreat, unless I missed it.  Regarding what you said in your post....you're right...its a fine line.  I found it interesting in my link, when it said:

"A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm."

So, regarding the underlined part...what I may feel is reasonable, 10 others could have varying opinions.  So, if this were to go to court, now I have to convince X number of people that what I did, I felt was reasonable.  

Regarding the duty to retreat..so, would an example of that be if you were being mugged, retreating could be defined as complying, ie: handing over your cash, and then running, vs. saying screw you, you're not taking my cash.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 9, 2009)

MJS said:


> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
> 
> Found this, but nothing on duty to retreat, unless I missed it.  Regarding what you said in your post....you're right...its a fine line.  I found it interesting in my link, when it said:
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person



> "The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances."



So yes, what you or I might consider 'reasonable' might not be considered 'reasonable' by others (including perhaps jurors or judges or police officers).  However, it is an attempt at a legal objective standard.  A 'reasonable person' would not expect to open a can of nuts and find it filled with live bees.  A 'reasonable person' would not think that a man offering his hand to shake was attacking him.  A 'reasonable person' would not still feel himself in danger after beating his attacker to a thin paste.

Frankly, I tend to feel that much of what is posted here in terms of what a person claims they would do to an attacker is hyperbole - they'd most likely exhibit a tad more common sense than that.  However, it encourages children and idiots, so I try to eschew it.



> Regarding the duty to retreat..so, would an example of that be if you were being mugged, retreating could be defined as complying, ie: handing over your cash, and then running, vs. saying screw you, you're not taking my cash.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

There is generally a difference between _'duty to retreat'_ when in public and when one is one's own home, even in states which have a _'duty to retreat'_ law instead of a _'stand your ground'_ law as part of their general self-defense laws.

However, some states actually do have a 'duty to retreat' law with regard to home invasions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#Duty-to-retreat

Duty to retreat means just that - you have to try to run away first.  Retreating would not be complying with a mugger's demands, because presumably, you would not then be hitting him.  If you tried to run from a mugger and he grabbed you up and then you had no choice but to comply with his demands and you chose to fight instead, you'd have performed your 'duty to retreat' - that is, in states which require such things.

As a side note: I did not know this before tonight, but I discovered that West Virginia (it seems like the only state that has this) has a 'proportionate' requirement as part of its self-defense law.  Very unusual:



> _§55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia_
> (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using *reasonable and proportionate force*, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.



That's new to me, I never knew any states to have such requirements.  In this, it seems WV is somewhat like similar laws in the UK.


----------



## MJS (Dec 10, 2009)

Good post Bill.  Thank you. 

IMO, in the end it comes down to common sense and knowing the laws of the state you reside in.  Do your best to avoid bad situations, do your best to talk your way out of things before resorting to physical actions.  I think (and this is just my opinion) that there've been enough documented cases that would show that those who did comply, retreat, etc., and were still attacked, killed, etc., that any court, with any amount of reasonable (theres that word again..lol) people, would not jam you up for defending your property or yourself.

As tempting as it may be to get in one last shot on someone, after they're down and/or the person is no longer a threat, would not be wise.


----------



## KELLYG (Dec 10, 2009)

I was wondering if a knowledge of Martial arts will reflect upon and individual that was attacked and had to defend themselves?   I feel that people with MA experience would  have to be very carefully of the force that they used because an "outsiders" opinion of the "Black Belt" martial artist is skewed.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 10, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> I was wondering if a knowledge of Martial arts will reflect upon and individual that was attacked and had to defend themselves?   I feel that people with MA experience would  have to be very carefully of the force that they used because an "outsiders" opinion of the "Black Belt" martial artist is skewed.  Any thoughts?


_
"I am required to warn you that my hands are registered as deadly weapons!"_

Well, perhaps not.  However:

http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm

http://www.amazon.com/American-Trained-Fighter-Carl-Brown/dp/0897500911


----------



## MJS (Dec 10, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> I was wondering if a knowledge of Martial arts will reflect upon and individual that was attacked and had to defend themselves? I feel that people with MA experience would have to be very carefully of the force that they used because an "outsiders" opinion of the "Black Belt" martial artist is skewed. Any thoughts?


 
Definately.  A MAist will certainly be under the microscope moreso than the average Joe, due to their heightened skills.  This is why, should you find yourself on the stand, choose your wording very carefully.  OTOH, depending on the circumstances, I may not hang around long enough afterwards, should I need to defend myself.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 10, 2009)

Some years ago, a significant ranking (black belt definitely, brown belt probably) or significant years of training would definitely have been a factor in evaluating a person's use of force.  Today -- I suspect not, though you really would need to ask a lawyer (and pay for their opinion).  Enough people have trained in enough martial arts that I suspect there's more leeway than their once was to be called a "trained fighter."  

These issues are very complicated and depend on a lot of particular details of the incident.  Martial arts training in an attacker is definitely something that could justify using more force to protect yourself -- and, as a martial artist, you could be expected to be able to use less force than an untrained person to defend yourself from an attack.  A lot would come down to how and what you articulate about what you did and why you did it.


----------



## K-man (Dec 10, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> I was wondering if a knowledge of Martial arts will reflect upon and individual that was attacked and had to defend themselves? I feel that people with MA experience would have to be very carefully of the force that they used because an "outsiders" opinion of the "Black Belt" martial artist is skewed. Any thoughts?


If you have acted '_reasonably_' it is not an issue. If you have gone too far they will throw the book at you. Legally, you are an easier target than the _*poor*_ violent punk, who has been terrorising the neighbourhood, you have picked on.
If there are witnesses, try to yell out before you hit him. Things like, "Don't do it", "Leave me alone", "Get away", etc. Witnesses will recall and have the impression that the other guy was threatening or attacking, even if you took the pre-emptive route. Afterwards you can honestly testify "I asked him to stop". And as previously stated, be very careful of what you say. Something like "he sure picked the wrong guy, he won't do that again in a hurry", won't go down too well in court. On the other hand, "I really had no choice, I tried to get him to stop but he wouldn't listen. I didn't mean to hurt him but I was concerned for my safety", will appear that you adopted a reasonable and responsible response. :asian:


----------



## K-man (Dec 10, 2009)

Something my Aikido instructor often says. If you are involved in some sort of altercation and you beat the crap out if someone, he will harbour resentment (aspecially if he has had a couple of weeks in hospital to think about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





). In a small community you may not be always able to ensure you don't come across him again and next time he may have his mates with him. On the other hand, if you can handle the situation without causing damage, like just putting him easily to the ground and leaving, it makes him unsure and unlikely to pick you again, and highly unlikely he would look to seek revenge.
Obviously not applicable in every situation but worthy of consideration. :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> If it's something that is already under litigation -- you might be wiser not to post about it.  Or even hypotheticals that are close to it.  Lawyers are looking on the web more and more, and something you say here could come back and bit you...



Unfortunately you're right, lawyers are parasitical little fiends........if this is a civil suit, someone must have some money, because the blood-suckers don't come after those who are dry.*










*Just in case one the parasites does peruse the thread.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> _
> "I am required to warn you that my hands are registered as deadly weapons!"_
> 
> Well, perhaps not.  However:
> ...



You laugh but people do actually say that.........but most folks who say that in a fight are posers who are actually hoping to bluff their way out of a fight.......and most of them get their butts whipped shortly thereafter.


----------

