# Martial Arts and The Law



## MJS (Feb 1, 2007)

In another thread, there is discussion about knife techniques in the FMAs.  The question came up of using the knife in a self defense situation.  I wanted to start this thread to hear everyones opinions on the use of weapons and Martial Arts in general in a SD situation and whether or not you're up to date on the SD laws in your state.  

IMO, this is an area that is often overlooked, but yet its probably one of the most important areas of training.  Do you know your use of force laws and is this something that is covered at your school? 

Mike


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 1, 2007)

Great thread!  Thank you for starting this!  I would rep you, but gotta share the joy some more...


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

Here were my statements in the other thread...



> *#2. The idea that knives are acceptable tools to carry for self-defense.*
> 
> Most knife programs and the knife industry propigates knives as tools that can be carried for self-defense purposes. I disagree with this completely. Here is in excerp from a "legalities" article that we hand out in some of our programs:[/b]
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

And here was the thread this all spun from for those interested in the background:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45080


----------



## searcher (Feb 2, 2007)

With the new CCW and use of force laws in our state I am not as up to date as I need to be.   The changes are still confusing and I am going to have to read into them some more.   That is where I am at.


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 2, 2007)

Yes, I cover the laws at my school, and I try to stay up to date, but the main advice I give is to be "reasonable" in your response.  Laws are designed to regulate behavior, and punish those who behave inappropriately.  However, it is the court's interpretation of the law, and the judge's assessment of your actions that is the final word.

No one can truly second guess you in a real-life situation by using hindsight in looking back on how you responded.  All you need to do is be sure that you don't verbally threaten or harass anyone, and any time you respond with physical force, make sure the situation warrants physical action, and that the amount of force you use is necessary to protect yourself or others from harm.

There are many details of law to consider, and each student should become aware of them, not only in their own state and local jurisdiction, but as you travel, what is allowed or not allowed in those areas.  Common sense, a level head, and rational responses keep you out of trouble in most cases.  Also, being sober or not on drugs goes a long way for the decision making process!  Remember, your reputation is your best character witness, or your worst enemy in a court of law.  Getting into fights on a regular basis tends to show a predilection for violence.

[note: the above is not to be construed as legal advice.  Consult with an attorney for legal matters!]

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

Oh yea... and my posts don't constitute as legal advice either!  (I had a statement on my article regarding that as well..)


----------



## Adept (Feb 2, 2007)

Once again, this isn't something I have to worry about. Carrying any kind of weapon, let alone using one against an assailant, is illegal in Australia.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2007)

I heartily recomm-- I urge all-- That's not right, either.

OK. I darned near get down on my knees and beg anyone with a serious interest in this to take Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 Judicious Use of Deadly Force. The second half is twenty hours of really good handgun instruction. The first half is solid gold. It's twenty hours of the legal and ethical parameters of the use of deadly force. It will tell you what is important, go through the legal issues, tell you a lot about why, help you through The Decision, tell you some of the personal issues to expect if you're in a deadly force situation. It will also keep you from doing yourself in legally with a Biblical weapon - the jawbone of an ***. 

Take it if you possibly can. It is the best single investment you can make in self defense.


----------



## Carol (Feb 2, 2007)

In my state, kicking someone with a shod foot (a foot with a shoe on it) can be sufficient for a charge to be escalated from Simple Assault to Assault with a Deadly Weapon.  If convicted, a Simple Assault conviction does not get reported in a background check and does not need to be disclosed if asked.   An Assault with a Deadly Weapon conviction does get reported on a background check and must be disclosed if asked.

There is a world of difference between those two charges and Massachusetts is not the only state that will bring Assault with a Deadly Weapons charges against someone using a shod foot in a fight.

Empty hand martial arts techniques may not be fighting "without weapons" in the eyes of one's state law.  

Defense attorneys do more than defend criminals in court, they also help law-abiding citizens stay on the good side of the law.  They also take legal responsibility for the advise they give you.   Its cheap insurance.


----------



## kachi (Feb 2, 2007)

Adept said:


> Once again, this isn't something I have to worry about. Carrying any kind of weapon, let alone using one against an assailant, is illegal in Australia.


Isn't that cause to worry though? Knowing that I'm not allowed to walk around (especially the bad parts of town) without any way of defending myself besides the use of my own body just concerns me a bit. And even though we're not allowed to carry weapons it doesn't stop the mugger or  the druggie carrying one which can leave you at a considerable disadvantage.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2007)

Carrying weapons may well be illegal in Australia, just like it is in the UK. Are you sure that using one in legitimate self defense is illegal? F'rinstance suppose you are being attacked by several large armed people who say they want to rape, rob and kill you and aren't terribly picky about the order. Is it actually a crime to pick up something and hit, slice or (if the gun is legal) shoot them with it? Even Britain allows you to use deadly force with weapons under certain circumstances.


----------



## kachi (Feb 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> Carrying weapons may well be illegal in Australia, just like it is in the UK. Are you sure that using one in legitimate self defense is illegal? F'rinstance suppose you are being attacked by several large armed people who say they want to rape, rob and kill you and aren't terribly picky about the order. Is it actually a crime to pick up something and hit, slice or (if the gun is legal) shoot them with it? Even Britain allows you to use deadly force with weapons under certain circumstances.



I'd say improvised weapons would be ok (not 100% sure). But i'd still rather have the assurance of being able to carry something with me... Anyting. And guns are a definite NO. I think we're very much similar to the UK in terms of weapons laws.


----------



## Adept (Feb 2, 2007)

kachi said:


> Isn't that cause to worry though? Knowing that I'm not allowed to walk around (especially the bad parts of town) without any way of defending myself besides the use of my own body just concerns me a bit. And even though we're not allowed to carry weapons it doesn't stop the mugger or  the druggie carrying one which can leave you at a considerable disadvantage.



Oh, absolutely. I think the restrictions on weapons are frankly stupid, and have done nothing to reduce violent crime. However, I tolerate them in order to live where I do because, on the whole, I like my life in this country. I would like to be able to carry a concealed handgun, but I'm not going to move to the USA for that reason alone.


----------



## Adept (Feb 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> Carrying weapons may well be illegal in Australia, just like it is in the UK. Are you sure that using one in legitimate self defense is illegal? F'rinstance suppose you are being attacked by several large armed people who say they want to rape, rob and kill you and aren't terribly picky about the order. Is it actually a crime to pick up something and hit, slice or (if the gun is legal) shoot them with it? Even Britain allows you to use deadly force with weapons under certain circumstances.



You can certainly use a weapon if you have one to hand and the situation requires it, but you cannot legally have on on you. It would literally have to be a matter of convenience that there was a weapon (Improvised or not) in the vicinity when you were attacked.


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> I heartily recomm-- I urge all-- That's not right, either.
> 
> OK. I darned near get down on my knees and beg anyone with a serious interest in this to take Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 Judicious Use of Deadly Force. The second half is twenty hours of really good handgun instruction. The first half is solid gold. It's twenty hours of the legal and ethical parameters of the use of deadly force. It will tell you what is important, go through the legal issues, tell you a lot about why, help you through The Decision, tell you some of the personal issues to expect if you're in a deadly force situation. It will also keep you from doing yourself in legally with a Biblical weapon - the jawbone of an ***.
> 
> Take it if you possibly can. It is the best single investment you can make in self defense.


 
Thanks for the tip, my fellow Orygunion. I did some research on carrying weapons in our state and to my understanding you can carry a gun (with a permit, of course) or a blunt weapon but not a edged weapon. To the best of your knowledge, is this info correct?


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 2, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Thanks for the tip, my fellow Orygunion. I did some research on carrying weapons in our state and to my understanding you can carry a gun (with a permit, of course) or a blunt weapon but not a edged weapon. To the best of your knowledge, is this info correct?


 
Not necessarily.  You can carry a knife, concealed or unconcealed, in Oregon:

http://www.thehighroad.org/library/blades/knifelaws.html

A good quality folding, lockback knife, such as a Spyderco Delica, Spyderco Endura, or Spyderco Police (my favorite), should be fine.  

For those who do a lot of travelling between states, though, the 2 7/8" blade of the Spyderco Delica is pretty much OK in almost all states.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Thanks for the tip, my fellow Orygunion. I did some research on carrying weapons in our state and to my understanding you can carry a gun (with a permit, of course) or a blunt weapon but not a edged weapon. To the best of your knowledge, is this info correct?


 
Read my posts here and on the FMA knife thread regarding knife carry, though. You can carry an edged "tool" just not a "weapon." I don't want to see anyone get thrown under the bus for making the wrong decisions...


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 2, 2007)

I made a decision many years ago to stop carrying a knife.  this occasioned some rather surprised remarks from boith my MA friends and my Biker friends as I was (still am) a vocal proponent of the the 'ole "Tried by 12 / carried by six" sentiment.

Even though I can easily justify my knife as a tool for roadside repairs, etc. the fact was my very good friend and lawyer pointed out to me that I as both a MAist AND a biker put me in the worst light should I ever use one.  Plus, my training with a knife is rather brutal - I don't believe in disarming with a knife and controlling the assailent.  I trained to strike vital organs before they could strike mine.  

I don't *want* to kill anybody!  So I stopped carrying.  I trust myself to survive most encounters with empty hands or found weapons (cause my knife won't help me much against a gun anyway...)

But just to be devils advocate here:

Good lawyers are better than the best understanding of the law.

The point is my friend is an excellent lawyer, and he has time and again proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lawyers, not "facts",  win or lose court cases.  When this guy told me I was in deep stuff if I ever harmed a guy with my knife, I listened.

But for others, just because a piece of paper says you can't doesn't mean a good lawyer won't "prove" you can.  That grey area between tool and weapon can be interpreted differently for each individual case.

The real important thing is to decide what you can live with and be realistic about what it means to use a weapon - you might kill someone.


----------



## Infinite (Feb 2, 2007)

Ok just a general point,

Law is not fact nor is it fixed it is in fact SUBJECTIVE.

The layers interpret their version of the law. They present their facts to support it. Then the judge decides if those facts are within legal guidelines which is again his interpretation of the law. Then the jury decides how they feel about it and how it pertains to what they think the law is.

This is why in law you hear so much about presidents these are opinions on how the law should be interpreted to guide future people.

So for example if you get pulled over the cop asks to search your car. He finds something he thinks is illegal he calls backup you get arrested. When it comes court time its you and the cops perceptions of the events that will lead you to guilty or innocent.

This is why I would if asked if they could search simply reply in the negative. I don't want one mans perception to be the basis of a legal battle on my behalf. If they find a reason to justify a search then they really don't have to ask me. So if they did ask it means they don't and I shouldn't really encourage them to try 

--Infy


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2007)

Oregon laws are an interesting hodge-podge. I'm not giving legal advice. I don't even play one on TV. Here's what I understand from talking to the DA's office and a number of self defense-friendly lawyers:

*Firearm concealed without a permit *- not good, very bad except for certain special cases like hunting
*Fixed blade knives carried concealed* - not good, very bad
*Automatic knives, saps, billies, brass knuckles and a number of others carried concealed* - not good, very bad.
*
Firearm carried openly* - technically OK, great way to fail the all-important Police Attitude Test. Not clear if pre-emption covers various county and city ordinances against it.
*
Firearm carried concealed with permit* - Stay inside the legal guidelines and its fine
*Folding knife carried openly* - Cool
*Fixed blade knife carried openly *- Cool (with certain restrictions)
*Automatic knife carried openly* - Cool, but for the tentacled love of Great Cthulhu don't get on a C-Tran bus and end up in Vancouver
*Saps, billies, brass knuckles and a number of others carried openly* - Cool. A lot of it has to do with some wrangling during the fight over CCW and Multnomah County's attempt to ban assault weapons. One of the results, at least it appears that way, was that weapons legal and available back in the days when Oregon became a state would have to be allowed, but the state could regulate the manner in which they were carried.

I've actually walked down the street with a flat sap and a (locally made) Benchmade automatic knife sticking out of my pockets. Don't ask. It was a strange set of circumstances. Walked right by a couple police officers. No hassles.

*Taser* - Legal to own. Legal to carry. Is it like the flat sap or brass knuckles that must be carried openly? Is it like a firearm which must be carried concealed with a permit? It doesn't run on gunpowder. I talked to the DA's office. They put me on hold for twenty minutes. When they came back they said they didn't know. Neither did the Assistant Police Chief or the senior cops. They said it was probably best to carry it concealed so as not to alarm people.


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> Oregon laws are an interesting hodge-podge.


 
Indeed. Thanks for the great info (you as well Cruentus).


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

To add too Tellner's post, be careful regarding "reasonableness" no matter what the law says you can carry. As people mentioned already, the legal game can be very subjective. It may be legal to carry something, but if the general public and the courts wouldn't consider it to be reasonable to carry such an item for self-defense, then I wouldn't carry it, or I would have a different reason for carrying rather then self-defense.

In other words, it may be legal to have brass knuckles on you, but I am wondering how well it would go over if after using them on someone you claimed, "Oh, I carry brass knuckles for self-defense."


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2007)

Like so much else it depends on you, the first officer on the scene, the investigating officers, the political aspirations of the prosecutor, what the judge had for lunch, whether the Grand Jury had its coffee...

The important thing is always "Know what you did and why you did it. Be able to explain and defend it to people who are not your friends. Don't tick off the police," and (always) "Samson slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ***. Every day thousands of people do themselves in with the same weapon."

If it's a "bad shoot" it won't matter what you were carrying around. If it's a good shoot it might. If you fail the P.A.T. you are going to have problems no matter what. Carrying a knife? It depends. A Spyderco-style folder isn't going to raise any eyebrows with law enforcement these days around here. A two-foot Wahabite jambiya will get their undivided attention. But yes, in the eyes of popular culture Honest G-d-fearing White Tax-Paying Christians carry revolvers like Jesus(pbuh) and Col. Colt intended. Primitive Africans and degenerate brown-skinned people have razors and knives. It's racist. It's still the psychological reality you have to deal with


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 4, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Yes, I cover the laws at my school, and I try to stay up to date, but the main advice I give is to be "reasonable" in your response.  Laws are designed to regulate behavior, and punish those who behave inappropriately.  However, it is the court's interpretation of the law, and the judge's assessment of your actions that is the final word.
> 
> No one can truly second guess you in a real-life situation by using hindsight in looking back on how you responded.  All you need to do is be sure that you don't verbally threaten or harass anyone, and any time you respond with physical force, make sure the situation warrants physical action, and that the amount of force you use is necessary to protect yourself or others from harm.
> 
> ...



Just a caveat to begin...  I'm not an attorney, and I am not providing legal advice or guidance.  And I'm sure that some of this will have already been addressed by others along the way.  

As said above -- the REASONABLENESS of your response is generally the key to winning a defense of self defense.  Remember -- this is saying, in essence, "I did kill/maim/injure another person, but I was JUSTIFIED in doing so by..." so if your response wasn't reasonable in light of the threat, you've got problems.  Reasonable is not an objective standard; it will take into account your relative condition (injury, age, fitness), what other options you had and used or attempted to use (could you run?), training, experience and more.  In other words, a 22-year old karate school owner is going to be viewed different than a 62-year old grandmother.

Unarmed defensive techniques will generally be judged by their intent and the relative likeliness to cause serious bodily harm or death.  A choke hold is almost certainly lethal force; a submission arm bar is probably not.  (But if you do that, and he submits... what next?  Remember -- self defense is about getting out with your hide intact, not restraining the bad guy!)  Strikes and kicks will depend on the target, probably the intent (it's different to kick someone in the stomach to get them away compared to kicking them in the throat or in the head while their down...), and possibly whether or not the person doing the strike had any martial arts training or experience.  Joe Blow who's only martial arts experience is watching every Chuck Norris & Steven Seagal movie isn't going to be judged the same way that Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal would be!

When you get into weapons -- it gets even hairier.  To begin with... If you're carrying a reasonable knife for self-defense, in many states there's at least a good chance you're also violating the laws on carrying a concealed weapon.  (In VA, see 18.2-308, 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.)  There's a good thread on that issue somewhere else that I'm not going to dig up; I posted heavily in it.  So -- let's skip that issue and get into the use of that knife...  

A knife is, by definition, a deadly weapon.  It's a weapon capable of causing serious bodily harm or death.  And if you're using it to defend yourself -- you need to be able to articulate exactly why you were in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death yourself.  Guns are the same...only more so!

Another issue that often gets overlooked is the question of when it stops being self-defense and becomes an assault...  Generally, if you can get away, and you either choose to remain or, even worse, re-engage the original attacker -- you're no longer defending yourself.  You need to be able to articulate VERY CLEARLY why you had to re-engage or remain.  I can come up with a few situations, generally involving immediate danger to someone else, that might pass muster -- but often, the best rule is to get out while the getting's good!

Again -- I'm not an attorney, this is not legal guidance, and if you're already in trouble -- the best self defense is hiring the best lawyer you can borrow enough money to pay!


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 4, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Defense attorneys do more than defend criminals in court, they also help law-abiding citizens stay on the good side of the law.  They also take legal responsibility for the advise they give you.   Its cheap insurance.



When you need an attorney -- especially if your liberty is on the line! -- don't settle for cheap.  Don't settle for "affordable."  Get the best lawyer you can beg, borrow or mortgage your firstborn for.  Just ask Orenthal Simpson...

I have no problem with honest & fair defense attorneys; they serve a vital role in protecting the rights of the accused.  I have major problems with the ones that rely on silly games or twisting technicalities to get their client's off.  That said -- if I'm charged with something, I want an attorney who's going to do anything and everything ethical to get me off!  (I'm presuming that I'm not guilty, of course!)


----------



## thetruth (Feb 5, 2007)

At the end of the day one has to think about the likely hood of being attacked with a knife.  If someone is just robbing you give them your stuff and they will be off.  Carrying a concealed weapon is totally unnecessary here in Australia.  There are no areas in Australia that are anywhere near as bad as those in the US and any that are bad you really don't have to go and visit anyway.  If I am going to carry a concealed weapon I may as well wear a helmet when I drive to protect my head as I am far more likely to have a car accident than be attacked with a knife.  I am also a believer that carrying a concealed weapon can only attract those sort of situations to you. I think ego plays a big part in carrying such things.  As for carrying a gun well unless you are in law enforcement or a similar field it's just stupid to carry one.

Just my opinion

Cheers
Sam


----------



## MJS (Feb 5, 2007)

thetruth said:


> At the end of the day one has to think about the likely hood of being attacked with a knife. If someone is just robbing you give them your stuff and they will be off. Carrying a concealed weapon is totally unnecessary here in Australia. There are no areas in Australia that are anywhere near as bad as those in the US and any that are bad you really don't have to go and visit anyway. If I am going to carry a concealed weapon I may as well wear a helmet when I drive to protect my head as I am far more likely to have a car accident than be attacked with a knife. I am also a believer that carrying a concealed weapon can only attract those sort of situations to you. I think ego plays a big part in carrying such things. As for carrying a gun well unless you are in law enforcement or a similar field it's just stupid to carry one.
> 
> Just my opinion
> 
> ...


 
If it were only that easy.  There have been many cases in which robberies have occurred, the store clerk or person getting mugged on the street gives up the money and jewelery and still gets shot or stabbed.  I hear people all the time say what you just did.  Believe me, if I honestly thought that handing my keys to the guy trying to carjack me, would ensure that the worst thing I had to deal with was the loss of my car, I'd be fine, but whats to stop him from blowing my head off?  This is why people are starting to fight back.  They figure, well, I just may die anyway, so I may as well fight back.  Look at the people on that flight that was hijacked on 9/11.  They were going to die anyway, as I don't think anyone on that plane knew how to fly, but they still saved the lives of many more that were in the bldg that plane was headed for.  

As for carrying a weapon...I'm not for it and I'm not against it.  I look at it like this.  If you carry it, make damn sure that you're going to be justified in using it. Make damn sure that you know how to use it.  And make damn sure that if you carry, that you can access it quickly.  

Mike


----------



## thetruth (Feb 5, 2007)

MJS said:


> If it were only that easy.  There have been many cases in which robberies have occurred, the store clerk or person getting mugged on the street gives up the money and jewelery and still gets shot or stabbed.  I hear people all the time say what you just did.  Believe me, if I honestly thought that handing my keys to the guy trying to carjack me, would ensure that the worst thing I had to deal with was the loss of my car, I'd be fine, but whats to stop him from blowing my head off?  This is why people are starting to fight back.  They figure, well, I just may die anyway, so I may as well fight back.  Look at the people on that flight that was hijacked on 9/11.  They were going to die anyway, as I don't think anyone on that plane knew how to fly, but they still saved the lives of many more that were in the bldg that plane was headed for.
> 
> As for carrying a weapon...I'm not for it and I'm not against it.  I look at it like this.  If you carry it, make damn sure that you're going to be justified in using it. Make damn sure that you know how to use it.  And make damn sure that if you carry, that you can access it quickly.



Perhaps I'm a little naive living in Australia and all.  I can't even recall hearing the word car jack on our news before.  Maybe it's different over there.  

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## MJS (Feb 5, 2007)

thetruth said:


> Perhaps I'm a little naive living in Australia and all. I can't even recall hearing the word car jack on our news before. Maybe it's different over there.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
No worries, and I wasn't hinting that you're naive.    I don't know the crime history over seas, so I'm sure each place is going to be different.  Unfortunately, some of the larger cities in the US can be pretty violent.  As an example:

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-merstab0205.artfeb05,0,3616067.story?coll=hc-headlines-local


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 5, 2007)

thetruth said:


> Perhaps I'm a little naive living in Australia and all. I can't even recall hearing the word car jack on our news before. Maybe it's different over there.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
It is different, but I wouldn't be caught in the illusion that it doesn't occur. For better or worse, your media isn't out trying to report every negative occurance and tragedy out there like ours is! I know people from the UK who didn't believe that gun crimes occured because they don't hear much about it on the news, and because guns are technically illegal. Opinions often change when I show the statistics! 

Here in the US, a lot of citizens carry guns legally. Yet, never do you hear, "Armed citizens went to the store, and then the park with their families. And no one died..." It happens all the time, yet it is more sensational and newsworthy to report something else.


----------



## thetruth (Feb 5, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> It is different, but I wouldn't be caught in the illusion that it doesn't occur. For better or worse, your media isn't out trying to report every negative occurance and tragedy out there like ours is! I know people from the UK who didn't believe that gun crimes occured because they don't hear much about it on the news, and because guns are technically illegal. Opinions often change when I show the statistics!
> 
> Here in the US, a lot of citizens carry guns legally. Yet, never do you hear, "Armed citizens went to the store, and then the park with their families. And no one died..." It happens all the time, yet it is more sensational and newsworthy to report something else.



I won't say this stuff doesn't happen here but it would be news worthy as it is a rare occurence.  Also violent crime in Melbourne where I live isn't high enough to arm yourself with anything other than an improvised weapon when the attack actually occurs.

Cheers
Sam


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2007)

Theres a sticky in this forum that may apply here.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17071

Although I would think you would have to combine your states weapons laws with its self defense laws to get an accurate answer to the question posed here. When it comes down to it I think its more important that you are justified in using force/deadly force than the weapon you use. I suppose you could still face a weapons charge while being justified in killing an attacker with that weapon. But thats where Id rather be sitting than the other way around.


----------

