# 'Reasonable' Self Defense



## Deaf Smith (Nov 13, 2008)

At the website, "Of Arms and the Law" there is an article on Self Defense (a PDF download) entitled "*SELF-DEFENSE: REASONABLE BELIEFS OR*
*REASONABLE SELF-CONTROL?" *by_Kenneth W. Simons_*​ 

http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Selfdefense.pdf

According to the article in Germany a person under criminal attack is not required to use only a reasonable amount of force, but rather is allowed to use force unless it is grossly disproportionate to the attack.

I find that very interesting since in many contries they try to limit you to use force preportionate to the attack presented, and they are the ones to judge what is 'preportionate'.

Here in Texas one uses enough force to stop the attack... but just what is 'enough', or to much, is what the jury would decide.

Deaf


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 14, 2008)

this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about. 

I was wondering to...

Say I got in an altercation at the bar. Some guy think Im hitting on his girlfriend or whatever you want it to be. He cocks back to swing at me what are my options:

Most people would do the sensible thing and only use physical actions as a last resort but when that moment comes what do you do?

personally I want to end it quickly. Im not going to hit a guy in the face and hope that stops him. Im going for his throat or groin or some other weaker area to end it quickly, but is that considered to much force? What if I decide to strke only to the stomach or face and he gets the better of me? Would this change my decision in the future?

sorry for the long post

B


----------



## zDom (Nov 14, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.
> 
> I was wondering to...
> 
> ...



To me, that is one of the benefits of continuing to hone my skills:

The better I am, the less drastic I need to be in defending myself.

Do we REALLY need to crush a windpipe or a testicle to avoid getting sucker punched by a drunk?

The last time I had to defend myself against a guy winding up a haymaker, a single punch to the philtrim (upper lip under the nose) was all it took to end it. He dropped like a felled tree.

I think our response should be tailored to fit how much danger we are really in.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 14, 2008)

Thats a good point. Ill have to think on my response

B


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 14, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.
> 
> I was wondering to...
> 
> ...


The laws on use of force to defend yourself vary greatly from state to state and country to country.  I can't provide legal counsel, since I'm not a lawyer, and nothing written here should be taken as such.  For legal counsel, you need to contact a lawyer licensed in your state with experience in defending the use of force.

Self defense is really an affirmative defense; you're admitting you did something that would ordinarily be a crime (batter someone), but you were justified in doing so because they were attacking you.  As a very loose rule, you don't need to wait to be hit; you can act as soon as you realize that the attack is imminent, and will likely occur if you don't act.  This is generally more than someone saying "I'm gonna smash you!", but not necessarily as late as the punch being on the way.  Things that will be looked at will likely include the threat presented (an 80 year old with a cane threatening to hit you isn't the same apparent threat as a 20 year old college boxer), whether it can reasonably be carried out (I can threaten to punch you all day on the computer, without knowing where you are... not likely to succeed, am I?  But that guy on the bar stool next to you?  Yeah, he can do it!), and what options you had to escape without using force.

How much force you can use is also complicated.  The general rule in the US is that you can only use force that is reasonable in light of the attack.  Someone punching you probably won't justify your breaking their neck -- but you'd probably be OK punching them back.  There are quite a few threads on this, and I'm not even going to try to rehash them because it's a very complicated determination; just read them for yourself.  Just remember that you can't do greatly more harm to them than they were going to do to you.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 14, 2008)

When the courts decide what was justifiable for defense we have to realize that none of them where there and they can never understand all that was happening.  It is a shame that if you put an attacker to the ground with a controlled move then hit him to make sure he will not attack once again you become the attacker.  Keeping an aggressor down so they will not escalate should be considered but often it is not because of some slick talking attorney


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 14, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> The laws on use of force to defend yourself vary greatly from state to state and country to country.  I can't provide legal counsel, since I'm not a lawyer, and nothing written here should be taken as such.  For legal counsel, you need to contact a lawyer licensed in your state with experience in defending the use of force.
> 
> Self defense is really an affirmative defense; you're admitting you did something that would ordinarily be a crime (batter someone), but you were justified in doing so because they were attacking you.  As a very loose rule, you don't need to wait to be hit; you can act as soon as you realize that the attack is imminent, and will likely occur if you don't act.  This is generally more than someone saying "I'm gonna smash you!", but not necessarily as late as the punch being on the way.  Things that will be looked at will likely include the threat presented (an 80 year old with a cane threatening to hit you isn't the same apparent threat as a 20 year old college boxer), whether it can reasonably be carried out (I can threaten to punch you all day on the computer, without knowing where you are... not likely to succeed, am I?  But that guy on the bar stool next to you?  Yeah, he can do it!), and what options you had to escape without using force.
> 
> How much force you can use is also complicated.  The general rule in the US is that you can only use force that is reasonable in light of the attack.  Someone punching you probably won't justify your breaking their neck -- but you'd probably be OK punching them back.  There are quite a few threads on this, and I'm not even going to try to rehash them because it's a very complicated determination; just read them for yourself.  Just remember that you can't do greatly more harm to them than they were going to do to you.


Thats some good info. 

Ive read a lot of those threads (and started a couple i believe). 

There was an article in BB Magazine covering this very topic. 

Either way its a screwed up system and no matter what you do the outcome is never going to be good.

B


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.
> 
> I was wondering to...
> 
> ...


 
Subject to the usual legal disclaimers lol, over here it's acceptable to defend yourself even if you knocked him out. If you used only as much force as was needed that's fine, what wouldn't be is if you continued to strike him once he was no threat ie 'to teach him a lesson'.
If he were drunk and just swung at you, you give him a tap ( that always make me laugh when my instructor says that!) that's fine but don't then go in with knees, kicks elbows etc. If it's an attacker with murder in mind you can however then strike first 'being in fear of your life' and use whatever you have to survive.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Subject to the usual legal disclaimers lol, over here it's acceptable to defend yourself even if you knocked him out. If you used only as much force as was needed that's fine, what wouldn't be is if you continued to strike him once he was no threat ie 'to teach him a lesson'.
> If he were drunk and just swung at you, you give him a tap ( that always make me laugh when my instructor says that!) that's fine but don't then go in with knees, kicks elbows etc. If it's an attacker with murder in mind you can however then strike first 'being in fear of your life' and use whatever you have to survive.


see thats the way it should be over hear, but with our laws (and the prejudice towards MA'ist in general) id probably get slapped with a huge law suit and/fine and/or time. if you are trained its almost better to take the hit and do nothing (at least it seems that way)

Am I crazy for thinking that?

B


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> The laws on use of force to defend yourself vary greatly from state to state and country to country. I can't provide legal counsel, since I'm not a lawyer, and nothing written here should be taken as such. For legal counsel, you need to contact a lawyer licensed in your state with experience in defending the use of force.
> 
> Self defense is really an affirmative defense; you're admitting you did something that would ordinarily be a crime (batter someone), but you were justified in doing so because they were attacking you. As a very loose rule, you don't need to wait to be hit; you can act as soon as you realize that the attack is imminent, and will likely occur if you don't act. This is generally more than someone saying "I'm gonna smash you!", but not necessarily as late as the punch being on the way. Things that will be looked at will likely include the threat presented (an 80 year old with a cane threatening to hit you isn't the same apparent threat as a 20 year old college boxer), whether it can reasonably be carried out (I can threaten to punch you all day on the computer, without knowing where you are... not likely to succeed, am I? But that guy on the bar stool next to you? Yeah, he can do it!), and what options you had to escape without using force.
> 
> How much force you can use is also complicated. The general rule in the US is that you can only use force that is reasonable in light of the attack. Someone punching you probably won't justify your breaking their neck -- but you'd probably be OK punching them back. There are quite a few threads on this, and I'm not even going to try to rehash them because it's a very complicated determination; just read them for yourself. Just remember that you can't do greatly more harm to them than they were going to do to you.


 

Yes please contact a local lawyer for legal advise. 

As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.

"You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."

Or

"You do not have the right nor the responsibility to defend someone else. After they hit the person you can get involved if their life is at danger. But before hand I can tell you that YOU cannot make that call."


While Striking first even on someone swinging on you, or blocking or passing or steeping out of the way and striking means you have made first contact. The law could state that you were able to pass or block, why not continue until the other guy decided to stop. 

So understand no matter where you are, no matter what you do, the situation will be taken in the worse possible light. At least that is my experience. With time and money one can usually defend oneself with reports to the detectives and their further follow up. But the first responder has to make a call the best they can, and if the other guy is bleeding or bruised and you are not and their are witnesses (* assume all the other guys friends who may have not seen a thing in reality *) will say that you started it you made first contact. 

As in the movie "War Games" The only winning move is not to play.


----------



## zDom (Nov 14, 2008)

And, on the other side of the coin (the EXTREME other side...)

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html

Here, you need to show that you had an honest belief you were in fear of your life and you acted instinctively without sitting planning your attack. You can attack first to defend yourself and others. The police will of course look at your statement because they obviously cannot take at face value that it was self defence but if genuine you'll be fine. 
The second link I put up has a very valid point about the media and self defence here. We had a high profile case where someone was jailed for shooting intruders leaving his house but the view was skewed by the press, he shot them as they were leaving, it was also a premeditated act as he was never threatened, he didn't even meet them in the house, he had had ample time to call the police so it was unreasonable force to kill someone in that way. If they'd broken in and he was defending himself it would have been different.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

zDom said:


> And, on the other side of the coin (the EXTREME other side...)
> 
> "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


 
Each person makes their own decision.

I have made up my mind and know how I react. 

I am not saying this is a bad idea. What I am saying is that people should understand both sides and not be surprised because they only heard the above.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 14, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.
> 
> "You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."
> 
> ...


 
First if the remark about not knowing if they might have stopped was true then lots of cops sure don't need to shoot people they 'thought' were going for a gun! The key to this, at least in Texas, is being in "fear of one's life" or the life of a third party. It does not matter if the attacker may or may not have thrown the punch or fired the gun, it's if you were in what a 'reasonable' person would have considered fear of their life or bodly harm.

Second, under criminal law here in Texas you can use force, or deadly force, to protect a third party (but under civil law you still can be sued, maybe not sucessfully, but they can try.)

Know your state laws, and if traveling to another state, or country, know those laws to!

Deaf


----------



## still learning (Nov 15, 2008)

Hello,  The rules of the law?   ....made by man......man is not perfect....so we will have many unperfect laws.

That being said:   Have you notice the "bad guys" are more protected by the laws than we are?

and only to have them release early..to do it again and again...again....

Reasonable ?    Do not apply to rapist or predertors...KNOWN FACT IS TIME IN JAIL?  ...HAS NEVER CURE THIS SICKNESS.....yet they are release on a regular basis all around the country!   ...they get to do it again and again...

What can we do for ourselfs?  ....awareness and voidance...skills that can be learn thru martial art classes if they teach them.

Aloha,


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 15, 2008)

still learning said:


> Hello,  The rules of the law?   ....made by man......man is not perfect....so we will have many unperfect laws.
> 
> That being said:   Have you notice the "bad guys" are more protected by the laws than we are?
> 
> ...


As frustrating as the rules can sometimes be, especially when they "protect" someone I'm "certain" is guilty...

They actually serve to protect us all; were the rules and rights and protections of the US not so strong on protecting the accused from the might of the government, we'd all have no defense against power of the State.


----------



## GBlues (Nov 18, 2008)

In the state of AZ it's just a matter of if you feel that your life is in danger you can take whateversteps you feel necassary to protect your life. Example: Guy comes at you with a baseball bat, and you pull out a .45 and shoot him dead! As long as you can prove that you were in fear for your life, you golden. Used to be however that you had to use the equal force. I.E. baseball bat vs. stick, bat, etc. Just think it's stupid. Everyone has a different point of view to when they feel their life is in danger you know.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 21, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> see thats the way it should be over hear, but *with our laws (and the prejudice towards MA'ist in general) id probably get slapped with a huge law suit and/fine and/or time.* if you are trained its almost better to take the hit and do nothing (at least it seems that way)
> 
> Am I crazy for thinking that?
> 
> B


 just curious...have you ever actually read your state's Use of Force statutes?



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.
> 
> "You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."
> 
> ...


Sometimes cops aren't the best sources of information on what's legal and what isn't.

just sayin...


----------



## seasoned (Nov 21, 2008)

Young and strong you will do what ever, and suffer the consequences later. Old and Seasoned you will try and buy time and elicit wittinesss while looking for the way out. If this person is bent on harming you it will stand out, so my advice is to get it over with as soon as possible and administer first aid soon after. It will look good in court. J


----------



## Carol (Nov 21, 2008)

Sucker punched by a drunk?  Wait a minute...doesn't anyone teach blocking anymore?  If someone is determined to do you some harm, they will go at you.  But for a random fool thats thinking right because he's half in the bag...he's going to punch at you expecting to be punched back.  He'll probably be telegraphing like hell and won't expect a parrie...it may even be enough for him to stop the shenanigans.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 21, 2008)

Good point Carol K, dont be where you are suppose to be when they thing you are not where you should have been. Angles, blocks and parries are all through the kata, and if trained consistently will become an automatic response with no thinking involved. kudos for blocks.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 21, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> just curious...have you ever actually read your state's Use of Force statutes?
> 
> 
> Sometimes cops aren't the best sources of information on what's legal and what isn't.
> ...


 
Tex,

I agree the police are not the best for Legal advice. 

But as they are the first responders. They have a way of handling issues, and being hand cuffed or not and put into a car to be taken down for questioning has a way of ruining how one can perceive life. 

I was just expressing that under some circumstances reacting first, may get you into trouble. 

I take the 5th on if I ever responded first. :idunno:


All I have to say is the following:

:lisafault:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 22, 2008)

seasoned said:


> Young and strong you will do what ever, and suffer the consequences later. Old and Seasoned you will try and buy time and elicit wittinesss while looking for the way out. If this person is bent on harming you it will stand out, so my advice is to get it over with as soon as possible and administer first aid soon after. It will look good in court. J


 

My instructor says the last move you should do in a SD situation is put your attacker in the recovery position!!  he's only half joking!!


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 22, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> this is a very good topic and something I was about to post about.
> 
> I was wondering to...
> 
> ...



talk yer way out if you can, wait for him to go to the can, take him out there, leave quickly


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 22, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> When the courts decide what was justifiable for defense we have to realize that none of them where there and they can never understand all that was happening.  It is a shame that if you put an attacker to the ground with a controlled move then hit him to make sure he will not attack once again you become the attacker.  Keeping an aggressor down so they will not escalate should be considered but often it is not because of some slick talking attorney



if you need to, hit n' run and quickly leave the area


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Dec 29, 2008)

Try to run.  Failing that take away his ability to hurt you then call him an ambulance.  You don't know if he has a knife, freinds or if he's a bruiser and you just got lucky.  Get names of witnesses if possible.  Use every reasonable exaggeration to protect yourself in court.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html
> http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html
> 
> Here, you need to show that you had an honest belief you were in fear of your life and you acted instinctively without sitting planning your attack. You can attack first to defend yourself and others. The police will of course look at your statement because they obviously cannot take at face value that it was self defence but if genuine you'll be fine.
> The second link I put up has a very valid point about the media and self defence here. We had a high profile case where someone was jailed for shooting intruders leaving his house but the view was skewed by the press, he shot them as they were leaving, it was also a premeditated act as he was never threatened, he didn't even meet them in the house, he had had ample time to call the police so it was unreasonable force to kill someone in that way. If they'd broken in and he was defending himself it would have been different.


Where I live we call that 'self-defense' and acquit the guy.....no joke, we've had similar cases, and juries find them 'Not Guilty'!  We really don't like burglars where I live.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> As frustrating as the rules can sometimes be, especially when they "protect" someone I'm "certain" is guilty...
> 
> They actually serve to protect us all; were the rules and rights and protections of the US not so strong on protecting the accused from the might of the government, we'd all have no defense against power of the State.


Protecting criminals from the power of government is one thing.....protecting them from other citizens is quite another.  To wit, passing laws designed to ensure that burglars are not unduly threatened is NOT serving the end of protecting us all from excesses of the state.

I'm libertarian in my out look......pass laws that balance the power toward homeowners, property owners and victims of crime, that give them the benefit of the doubt and WIDE LATITUDE in the face of an attack.

We have an attitude in this country as if 'This is the law, and there is nothing we can do about it'......well, We The People DO have a hand in making laws, and as is evidenced by the number of expanded Castle Doctrine laws and CCW laws over the past decade it's clear we CAN alter the law to fit our community standards.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> Sometimes cops aren't the best sources of information on what's legal and what isn't.
> 
> just sayin...


 That's generally correct.......and many cops if they know, don't want to be responsible for telling someone something and them acting on it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Sucker punched by a drunk?  Wait a minute...doesn't anyone teach blocking anymore?  If someone is determined to do you some harm, they will go at you.  But for a random fool thats thinking right because he's half in the bag...he's going to punch at you expecting to be punched back.  He'll probably be telegraphing like hell and won't expect a parrie...it may even be enough for him to stop the shenanigans.



While I can respect your opinion......There is a difference, however, subtle, between training a block in the dojo, and putting it in to practice in the street.  

You may be able to pull off blocking this guys assault, I won't question that.....for my part, i've always found (and I have been on the receiving end) that a good offense is the best defense.  With some guys, waiting for the actual attack is WAY TOO LATE!  I prefer to hit a guy just BEFORE he swings. 


Part of the issue is mindset.....anyone 'thinking' defensively is behind the power curve to begin with.  In some fights it takes an offensive viciousness to come out ahead.  In extreme circumstances aggression will save you when caution will not.


----------



## grydth (Dec 29, 2008)

Em MacIntosh said:


> Try to run.  Failing that take away his ability to hurt you then call him an ambulance.  You don't know if he has a knife, freinds or if he's a bruiser and you just got lucky.  Get names of witnesses if possible.  Use every reasonable exaggeration to protect yourself in court.



For the most part, my opinion would be great advice. Many times, you can see trouble coming - get out before the storm breaks. Other times you know a place, or a person, is trouble - stay away.

Finishing it quickly is always the best advice. Getting cute or complex is a good way to get leveled.

Stay away from "reasonable exaggeration" when dealing with police and courts..... they may well view it as simply telling a lie, and once a cop or a judge catches you in a lie, it is all downhill. They will look at it 180 degrees differently. If you choose to talk to the law, tell the truth. If uncertain, don't say anything until you talk with your ow lawyer.


----------



## searcher (Dec 29, 2008)

Here is KS we teach that you should continue until the BG is no longer a threat.   As Deaf stated, that is for the jury to decide.


"I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6."   Think about that phrase for a while, it may change how you look at a dangerous situation.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Jan 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> "I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6." Think about that phrase for a while, it may change how you look at a dangerous situation.


 
It makes me think I'd rather avoid either scenario 
While there are situations where that level of force is required, the vast majority of them could be ended safely without resorting to it. I don't mean that we should ignore the possibility it could be required, thats just sticking your head under the blanket and hoping the bad men go away.
What I do feel is that an awful lot of martial artists seem to focus only on the part where either you hand your opponent flowers and heal his tortured soul with your love beams - or else the part where you bludgeon him to death with his own severed legs.
There's a large gap in between those that many arts and dojo's seem very determined to avoid.


----------



## tellner (Jan 6, 2009)

This is a really important topic, one where there's a lot of misinformation.

Remember that the whole point of self defense is to go home, have a beer and make love to your honey at the end of the day.

That means you have to make it home, be allowed to live in your home and have a honey who isn't going to beat you up. I'll assume that everyone here has enough training for the first part. If you're having trouble with #3 talk to me offline. There are plenty of resources for people dealing with domestic violence.

#2 is the sticky issue.

I'm not an expert. I'm certainly not a lawyer. If I were I still wouldn't be your lawyer. If you take legal advice from me you've made a real mistake. But I do know people who are experts.

Anyone who can scrape together the money really needs to take Massad Ayoob's LFI-1. He is an expert. He's been a prosecutor, run many many many successful legal defense teams in self-defense cases and is accepted as an expert witness by just about every courtroom where they don't actually play racquetball. 

Seriously. The guy knows more about it than just about anyone around, and he gives you pretty much everything a regular person would ever need to know. When I took the course a judge and a couple defense attorneys were there as students. They said they learned more in those twenty hours than they had ever learned in law school.

Anyhow, now that the unsolicited plug is over, let's get back to the discussion.

If you're serious about self defense you need to know how to stay on the right side of the Law so that the police and courts will let you go home to have that beer. 

You need to do the right thing.
You need to avoid doing the wrong thing.
You need to convince the people in authority that you did the right thing.

*The Right Thing*

The first thing you need here is information. What does the Law say you can do? 

A lot of martial arts teachers think they know. But unless they've had special training in the legal aspects of self defense they don't know anymore than you do. Maybe less. A lot of them have a bunch of myths and legends. A lot of those are self-serving ones that are designed to reinforce the idea that their martial arts are especially deadly. Some of ths stuff that I've been told by Black Belts would have put me in jail if I'd listened to them. 

So forget what your Sensei said unless he's a cop, a lawyer, a judge or has had something like the training from FAS, LFI, Modern Warrior or a similar well-respected place that has a track record of steering people in the right direction.

Cops know some things about the Law. But they're not judges or lawyers. Their job is to "uphold the peace and enforce the Law", to investigate crimes, to arrest suspects and to drink an amazing quantity of really bad coffee. More power to them. But they are generally only familiar with the little bits of the Law that directly concern their jobs, and even then a lot of them forgot the specifics as soon as they got out of the Academy. Their advice is better than most people's but it's not something to stake your freedom on.

There are people who have spent years and thousands of dollars learning what the Law is. They can tell you what it is, what it means and give you advice on how to stay on the right side of it. They are called attorneys. It doesn't cost much to go to a good defense attorney and ask him or her to look up the statutes and case law concerning self defense in the area where you live. It's well worth the investment. Besides, they remember people who have given them money. If you have to use force to defend yourself you know who to call and won't have to rely on an underpaid public defender.

The next thing to do is figure out your own definition of "reasonable", your own personal and ethical limits. That's a job for you and your conscience. I have answers which work for me. You have to develop answers which work for you. "Eat your enemies in secret" has a certain visceral appeal but probably won't get you many friends. I can't fully comprehend total pacifism, but some people live by it. 

*Never Point the Weapon at Anything You're Not Prepared to Destroy* *Buy*

Another thing to remember is that if you do use physical force let alone deadly force your standards for "reasonable self defense" are going to run right up against those of the police, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. You might not be charged with anything, but there's a good chance you will. And you will get involved with lawyers and billable hours. *Make sure that whatever you do is worth the $10,000+ it will take to extract yourself from the mess*.

Someone calls you names. Is giving him the ***-whipping he's begging for worth ten grand? Probably not.

Someone is trying to stick body parts normally covered by underwear into your personal areas without permission. Is keeping them out worth that much to you? A year's worth of AIDS medicine costs at least that much. Trauma counseling can cost even more. So, yes.

A guy with an "88HH Rahowa!" tattoo has pulled a knife on a friend because she wears a head scarf? As far as I'm convinced she can't be replaced. It's worth the legal fees to keep her alive.

*Who Says It's Reasonable?*

Unfortunately, when you're in front of a jury of your peers it's not a jury of MTalkers. It's a jury of twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty and probably don't get out much period. Their ideas about martial arts, self defense and your capabilities come from movies and television. If they knew anything about the subject they wouldn't be allowed on the jury.

The prosecutor is going to try and convince them that you are the love-child of Hitler and bin Laden. 

The judge spends his time as God Almighty in his courtroom. He has court officers to protect him. He is overworked and probably bored. If you're lucky you won't get one who practices pneumatic hobbies while he's presiding over your case.

The guiding principle here is:

*Know what you did and why you did it. Be able to explain it to a group of ignorant unfriendly people.*

Keep all that in mind. Internalize it. Live it. Avoid trouble where you can. And you might get to go home at the end of the day, have a beer and make love to your honey.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Part of the issue is mindset.....anyone 'thinking' defensively is behind the power curve to begin with.  In some fights it takes an offensive viciousness to come out ahead.  In extreme circumstances aggression will save you when caution will not.



I am not going to hash through the legal discussion only because it has been discussed so much in the past here on this forum that I am of the opinion that you will get almost everything you need to know simply by using the search function. From that point, you need to talk to an attorney that specializes in this area (preferably one that will defend you if you get in this sort of a circumstance) that will help you hash out the true info from the BS.

Ultimatily it will come down to who's attorney can beat up who's in the courtroom; and your behavior will help or hurt your attorney's ability to defend YOU.

But I quoted the above because I am an wholehearted agreement with the statement. This idea that your level of training will allow you to have superhuman control over your opponent(s) is a false one, and one that has gotten people killed. You need to respond appropriate to the circumstance and level of threat from an objective standpoint rather then thinking that because you are really experienced in the martial arts that you can avoid having to use an appropriate level of force (which may be lethal force depending on the circumstance).


----------



## Guardian (Jan 6, 2009)

Second, under criminal law here in Texas you can use force, or deadly force, to protect a third party (but under civil law you still can be sued, maybe not sucessfully, but they can try.)

Good point, but if I remember right under the Castle Doctrine or "Stand your Ground Law" here in Texas if you are not criminally charged, then you cannot be sued in civil court either, they wanted to cover both aspects just for that cause.

I'll have to recheck that just to make sure.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 6, 2009)

Guardian said:


> Good point, but if I remember right under the Castle Doctrine or "Stand your Ground Law" here in Texas if you are not criminally charged, then you cannot be sued in civil court either, they wanted to cover both aspects just for that cause.


 
It applies only in your home Guardian. The Castle Doctrine does cover lawsuits, but only in your home.

The 'Stand Your Ground Law" allows you to not have to retreat outside your home. But, it does not cover civil remedies. So, yes, you can be sued.

Deaf


----------



## Guardian (Jan 7, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> It applies only in your home Guardian. The Castle Doctrine does cover lawsuits, but only in your home.
> 
> The 'Stand Your Ground Law" allows you to not have to retreat outside your home. But, it does not cover civil remedies. So, yes, you can be sued.
> 
> Deaf


 
Sorry wrong date and it was a double entry


----------



## Guardian (Jan 7, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> It applies only in your home Guardian. The Castle Doctrine does cover lawsuits, but only in your home.
> 
> The 'Stand Your Ground Law" allows you to not have to retreat outside your home. But, it does not cover civil remedies. So, yes, you can be sued.
> 
> Deaf


 
Ok, help me out Deaf, this is the new law effective 
1 Sep 2007 as far as I read it or have found and it reversed that from the old law.

It presumes you are reasonable in using deadly force if someone  illegally and with force  enters or is attempting to enter your occupied home, car or workplace. You are not given this presumption if you provoked the person or were engaged in a crime. 
It removes your obligation to retreat if possible before using deadly force if you are anywhere you have a right to be. The previous law obliged you to retreat if a "reasonable person" would have, except in a situation where someone unlawfully entered your home. 
It gives you added protection from lawsuits by injured attackers or their families. The previous law granted this protection if someone illegally entered your home, but not in other situations. 

The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force.
Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 7, 2009)

Or I guess my question should be is this the law now?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 7, 2009)

searcher said:


> Here is KS we teach that you should continue until the BG is no longer a threat. As Deaf stated, that is for the jury to decide.
> 
> 
> "I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6." .


 

But it's a whole lot better if you can survive both( or all three since civil court almost ALWAYS follows on the heels of criminal).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

Cruentus said:


> I am not going to hash through the legal discussion only because it has been discussed so much in the past here on this forum that I am of the opinion that you will get almost everything you need to know simply by using the search function. From that point, you need to talk to an attorney that specializes in this area (preferably one that will defend you if you get in this sort of a circumstance) that will help you hash out the true info from the BS.
> 
> Ultimatily it will come down to who's attorney can beat up who's in the courtroom; and your behavior will help or hurt your attorney's ability to defend YOU.
> 
> But I quoted the above because I am an wholehearted agreement with the statement. This idea that your level of training will allow you to have superhuman control over your opponent(s) is a false one, and one that has gotten people killed. You need to respond appropriate to the circumstance and level of threat from an objective standpoint rather then thinking that because you are really experienced in the martial arts that you can avoid having to use an appropriate level of force (which may be lethal force depending on the circumstance).


 One of course can't prove it, because they aren't here to tell us......but i'm convinced there are plenty of dead folks (especially cops) who waited too late and used too little force to deal with the situation out of fear of lawyers and litigation.

I try to tell folks.....one battle at a time.  Deal with the one in front of you, because if you don't survive that one, the rest is moot.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

Guardian said:


> Ok, help me out Deaf, this is the new law effective
> 1 Sep 2007 as far as I read it or have found and it reversed that from the old law.
> 
> It presumes you are reasonable in using deadly force if someone  illegally and with force  enters or is attempting to enter your occupied home, car or workplace. You are not given this presumption if you provoked the person or were engaged in a crime.
> ...


 Which is the way it should be.......if the criminal courts see nothing wrong with your actions, the civil trial parasites shouldn't be able to touch you!


----------



## tellner (Jan 7, 2009)

My point about getting legal advice from attorneys is proven by the Magic of the Intrawebs. Thanks, Intrawebs.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

tellner said:


> My point about getting legal advice from attorneys is proven by the Magic of the Intrawebs. Thanks, Intrawebs.


 I'd be careful which attorneys you go to for advice.....just because someone passed a bar, doesn't mean they aren't a moron.......you always have THAT attorney......you know, the one the clients hired because he was the 'cheapest'.


----------



## tellner (Jan 7, 2009)

True enough. But if they actually graduated from an accredited law school and passed the State Bar they're far ahead of the pack.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

tellner said:


> True enough. But if they actually graduated from an accredited law school and passed the State Bar they're far ahead of the pack.


 When it comes to use of force, the average attorney is so far behind the pack, they can't even smell it anymore. 

If someone wishes to seek out an attorney, try to find one that has worked criminal law and has prosecuted/defended use of force cases.....don't just think that because someone has a juris doctorate their an 'expert' on everything law.  Don't ask Joe the Divorce Lawyer, or Mike the Real Estate guy.

The point is if you have a heart problem you go see a cardiac specialist, not a pediatrist.......same goes with attorney's......there are those who specialize in these types of cases.

If someone finds themselves involved in a case of self-defense, seek an attorney that SPECIALIZES in defending police officers......they know the ends and outs of use of force law intimately!


----------



## tellner (Jan 7, 2009)

We're splitting hairs here, Sarge. Point is, a defense attorney is the person to talk to about things connected with Criminal Law and what it means to you. And your cop-idolizing tendencies notwithstanding there are many, many good ones who aren't feeding from the Municipal trough. Even a half-assed one can dig up the appropriate statutes and case law and explain the basic meaning to you.


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2009)

Heck, looking up statutes and explaining the law can be done by a 1L.  

But an attorney experienced with use of force or personal protection issues will likely give stronger advice that can reflect case law and precedent, especially if state law tends to be a bit on the vague side.

Example: Massachusetts does not have any statewide regulations on blade length.  There is a defense attorney recommended by a lot of the Mass. gun clubs that recommends a blade length.  Why?  Not because N inches is legal and N.25 or N.50 is not legal...he makes the recommendation based on his experience as to what will keep you on the good side of the law.

Kinda like engineering.  Many times the skill of the engineer depends not only on their background/training but also on what the engineer has seen before


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2009)

tellner said:


> We're splitting hairs here, Sarge. Point is, a defense attorney is the person to talk to about things connected with Criminal Law and what it means to you. And your cop-idolizing tendencies notwithstanding there are many, many good ones who aren't feeding from the Municipal trough. Even a half-assed one can dig up the appropriate statutes and case law and explain the basic meaning to you.


 Sure, if you want half-assed advice for $200.00 and hour, be my guest.......but if they have to 'research it' because they don't deal with it on a regular basis, it's going to be more than an hour.

And prison is full of people given advice by 'half-assed' defense attorneys......your idolizing of the high-priesthood of the law and anyone who managed to pass the bar notwithstanding. 

But that's why they call it 'practicing' law.....




And that point isn't just 'splitting hairs'.....anyone with a computer can tell you in 10 minutes, WITHOUT a juris doctorate, what their state statute says on use of force and self-defense......but even many attorney's couldn't explain to you what that means in PRACTICAL terms.......don't believe me?  Ask them the text book definition of 'Reasonable'.....and they'll give you something along the lines of 'What a reasonable person would believe/do in a given situation'........now ask him what would be considered 'Reasonable' if 4 armed gang members invaded your home in the middle of the night!  There we have may have a problem with his experience!  Questions of what constitutes 'Reasonable' self-defense CROSS disciplines......just any attorney, alone, using ONLY the legal holy books, CANNOT answer that question satisfactorily.  

Those that specialize in these types of cases have done YEARS of specialized research, interviews, classes, talked to Use of Force Experts (who are usually police officers!), and based on THAT have an understanding of what is 'Reasonable' in a given situation.....and have developed the ability to argue that to juries!


----------



## seasoned (Jan 8, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> At the website, "Of Arms and the Law" there is an article on Self Defense (a PDF download) entitled "*SELF-DEFENSE: REASONABLE BELIEFS OR*
> *REASONABLE SELF-CONTROL?" *by_Kenneth W. Simons_*​
> 
> http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Selfdefense.pdf
> ...




There are always exceptions. Considering my age, back ground and life experiences, I never expect to find myself in a push shove situation. I practice what I preach in SD class all the time. Dont look for it, don/t agitate anyone, never be the aggressor, always apologize, if you feel you have done someone wrong, and above all, mind your own business. With this said, you have successfully eliminated 7/8 of all pointless confrontations. Remember the old adage sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. With all the above said, I have done more then my part. If at this point, I cant satisfy someone, then it is their problem. As for the other 1/8, this is what I train for, and I hope they dont cross my path. I am not big and bad, but I do draw the line. Dont put your hands on me, dont pray on the weak of our society, if I am around, and above all dont target one of my love ones. In self defense you want to fall into the category of what would a reasonable person do, in this situation. When need be, your training will take over, so my advise to you, is train properly.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 8, 2009)

It's a safe bet to determine from all the responses here that reasonable is a elusive word used in most laws to be just that way, elusive and vague, giving either you a way in or out of trouble should it come your way depending on the circumstances.  Overall the law written though gives us a way out in itself no matter the wording depending on the circumstances.  We can debate the word, but overall, it means a general individual to anyone layman (jury).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2009)

Guardian said:


> It's a safe bet to determine from all the responses here that reasonable is a elusive word used in most laws to be just that way, elusive and vague, giving either you a way in or out of trouble should it come your way depending on the circumstances.  Overall the law written though gives us a way out in itself no matter the wording depending on the circumstances.  We can debate the word, but overall, it means a general individual to anyone layman (jury).



EXACTLY!  Here's the rub, though.....that 'layman' will change much depending on where in this country you use force, and against who you are forced to use force.  

You can rest assured that in rural Missouri, or Texas, or in many rural areas in this country, if you shoot an intruder....a jury from that area WILL give you EVERY BENEFIT of the doubt and then some!  Most will ask why they're even there in the first place.

Urban juries are much trickier.....but at the end of the day, the LETTER of the law will only provide tone for the argument......the main thrust of the argument back and forth will be for the passions of the jury.


----------



## Zero (Jan 8, 2009)

*


Rich Parsons said:



			Yes please contact a local lawyer for legal advise.
		
Click to expand...

*


Rich Parsons said:


> *As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.*
> 
> *"You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."*
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jan 8, 2009)

The main focus of the aftermath of an altercation is that of the first responders, the police. However their report is written up, plays a vital role in how things can/will be dealt with in court, if it should go that far. Carefully choose your words and don't attempt to fabricate anything, for it can come back to bite you, if you should find yourself in cross examination.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 8, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> EXACTLY! Here's the rub, though.....that 'layman' will change much depending on where in this country you use force, and against who you are forced to use force.
> 
> You can rest assured that in rural Missouri, or Texas, or in many rural areas in this country, if you shoot an intruder....a jury from that area WILL give you EVERY BENEFIT of the doubt and then some! Most will ask why they're even there in the first place.
> 
> Urban juries are much trickier.....but at the end of the day, the LETTER of the law will only provide tone for the argument......the main thrust of the argument back and forth will be for the passions of the jury.


 
I year ya Sgtmac, urban juries are far trickier in this aspect.  Down here in Texas something like you described usually never even gets that far and if it does, we do wonder why the heck we are here LOL.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2009)

Guardian said:


> I year ya Sgtmac, urban juries are far trickier in this aspect.  Down here in Texas something like you described usually never even gets that far and if it does, we do wonder why the heck we are here LOL.



Exactly!  



> 'Your honor...instead of wasting the tax payers money any further.....how about we just find him Not Guilty right now, shake his hand, call it a day and take him out for a beer?'


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2009)

Brad Dunne said:


> The main focus of the aftermath of an altercation is that of the first responders, the police. However their report is written up, plays a vital role in how things can/will be dealt with in court, if it should go that far. Carefully choose your words and don't attempt to fabricate anything, for it can come back to bite you, if you should find yourself in cross examination.


 And when in doubt.....always remember you STILL have the right to say nothing at all!


----------

