# What does the law in your country say about punching first?



## Yew (Feb 21, 2009)

From what I've seen on Youtube, it seems that if you raise your hands up saying you don't want any trouble, but  if the person still walks forward and invades your personal space, you can punch them first.

All the people in these videos sound American so I guess in U.S.A the law let's you hit first. Which I think is logical since we do not know how fast or how strong he will be if he hits first. If he is both faster and stronger, then waiting for him to hit first and then only deflecting will be too late.

Does the United States law allow that?
What about European law or Australian law?

As for my country's law,it's hard to tell since the authorities  are so chaotic. :duh: :lfao:


----------



## Drac (Feb 21, 2009)

Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 21, 2009)

Was told by a LEO that if someone so much as makes a threatening move towards me, even after a series of threatening verbal assaults that I am in a position to defend myself. Saying "I'm gonna kick your ***" with a string of expletives placed before during and after the statement is enough to warrant "self-defense". 
Also (he winked) someone has to SEE you throw the first punch, otherwise you can still claim that THEY threw the first punch/kick. But then that was in the days where there wasn't a camera around every 20 feet (exaggerating-- a little) or in someone's hand via their phone. Still, I wouldn't throw a first punch unless I felt it absolutely necessary. Of all the altercations I've been in that happened only once. All others I either blocked or ducked or simply got the hell out of Dodge.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 21, 2009)

Drac said:


> Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...


What he said.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 21, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Was told by a LEO that if someone so much as makes a threatening move towards me, even after a series of threatening verbal assaults that I am in a position to defend myself. Saying "I'm gonna kick your ***" with a string of expletives placed before during and after the statement is enough to warrant "self-defense".
> Also (he winked) someone has to SEE you throw the first punch, otherwise you can still claim that THEY threw the first punch/kick. But then that was in the days where there wasn't a camera around every 20 feet (exaggerating-- a little) or in someone's hand via their phone. Still, I wouldn't throw a first punch unless I felt it absolutely necessary. Of all the altercations I've been in that happened only once. All others I either blocked or ducked or simply got the hell out of Dodge.


Not exactly...

I can sit here, states away, and tell you I'm going to kill you.  I have no way to actually carry out the threat, so you can't lob a SCUD missile on my head.  Extreme -- but the principle applies.  A five year old kid threatening to beat me up won't justify the same response as a 25 year old college athlete...

When they show intent to harm you, you can prepare to act.  When actually carrying out that intent becomes imminent, you can act.  You don't generally have to wait to get punched.

Note that this is a general principle, and that you really need legal guidance from an attorney for specific legal advice.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 21, 2009)

Drac said:


> Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...


 
That about sums it up right there. 
This whole issue is such a grey area. Ask different legal eagles and the answer will be different from each one. At the end of the day, it comes down to circumstances and who your judge/jury/magistrates are sat in front of you listening to your side. If you are concerned, then maybe take up an art that teaches you evasion and locking/trapping techs to give you room for escape from the situation, then run. You should never have to punch someone necessarily. 
Also, if you do do something to your attacker, don't report it. Keep your mouth shut and hope your attacker doesn't pursue charges against you.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 21, 2009)

In the Uk you are allowed to punch first as long as you believe that your life and safety are at risk. We are allowed to use reasonable force to defend ourselves and our families/friends etc.
Despite what is the common perception people who defend themselves here aren't prosecuted.


----------



## Wishbone (Feb 21, 2009)

Yew said:


> From what I've seen on Youtube, it seems that if you raise your hands up saying you don't want any trouble, but if the person still walks forward and invades your personal space, you can punch them first.
> 
> All the people in these videos sound American so I guess in U.S.A the law let's you hit first. Which I think is logical since we do not know how fast or how strong he will be if he hits first. If he is both faster and stronger, then waiting for him to hit first and then only deflecting will be too late.
> 
> ...


 
I wouldn't use youtube videos of fights as a reference for presumptions about United States law.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 21, 2009)




----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 21, 2009)

If the assailant has the *ability* and *opportunity* to attack you and you feel that you are in *jeopardy* (i.e. he has the intent to hurt you) you are authorized to take whatever action is necessary to protect yourself.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2009)

In the US, the law varies depending on jurisdiction.  Federal law does not speak to self-defense rights except in the larger sense of civil liberties.

However, generally speaking, a person has the right to defend themselves if they are *reasonably in fear* for their safety.

Period.

There is no _'21 foot law'_ or _'if he raises his hand to you'_ rule, nothing like. * People who do not know what they are talking about* make that crap up.

The right to self defense is generally enumerated in state or municipal law.  And the most typical description is that it may be used according to the 'reasonable man' standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

Please click on the above link and refer to the section labeled _"Legal status of self-defense."_

Please note also that it is not a matter of what YOU consider a 'reasonable fear', the standard is what a mythical 'reasonable and prudent man' would be in fear from.

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

Nothing is cut and dried - cases are evaluated on their merits, and if you defend yourself with force, you may find that you have to defend your actions to a police officer, a DA, or in court.

Getting back to the original question - if you have the right to defend yourself in a given situation, you are under no obligation to wait until the other person actually hits you.

Bear in mind that the right to self defense may not be absolute.  Some states have a 'Castle Doctrine' or so-called 'Stand your ground' law that does not include a duty to retreat - some do not, and you are actually required to retreat to the extent that you are able before you can defend yourself legally.

Also, having the right to defend yourself generally means you are only allowed to use _'that force which is necessary'_ to end the danger.  Roughly speaking, that means you can't beat the guy with a baseball bat if you actually tower over him and can easily subdue him with empty hands.

Self defense also means you have to stop when the danger stops.

Self defense also means you can't 'revenge' for self defense.  If the danger is over, your right to defend yourself is over.

And of course, remember that martial artists may be held to a higher standard regarding minimum amount of force used - just so you know.

OK, summary:

You generally have the right to defend yourself against dangers that would make a reasonable and prudent man afraid for his safety.  If that is true, you do not have to wait until actually attacked.

The right to self defense attaches to the danger, not the actions taken against you.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 21, 2009)

Drac said:


> Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...


Yes, well, having never been on trial or even SEEN a for-real trial I wonder if it's anything like those seen in tv or movies where a prosecutor or defense attorney is asking questions and you start to say "well, no but I... " and they interrupt "just a simple yes or no will do!!" ... always hated that aspect. Answering a simple yes or no and not allowed to follow up with an explanation... 

But then I gather real trials aren't like that.... or are they? 

Either way, if I threw the first punch in any altercation and it gets tangled up with legal matters ... you betcha I'll have a good story to back it up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Yes, well, having never been on trial or even SEEN a for-real trial I wonder if it's anything like those seen in tv or movies where a prosecutor or defense attorney is asking questions and you start to say "well, no but I... " and they interrupt "just a simple yes or no will do!!" ... always hated that aspect. Answering a simple yes or no and not allowed to follow up with an explanation...



Been involved in more trials that I can count.  It's a little bit like what you see on TV, but in general - no.  Yes, attorney's sometimes want yes or no answers - it depends on if they want you to expound on your answer, or if they just want to get a yes or no for the jury.  If you're a defendant and the DA asks a yes or no question that your defense attorney thinks kept you from adequately explaining yourself, he or she will ask you the same question again and ask you to expound when they get their turn.



> But then I gather real trials aren't like that.... or are they?



They're often incredibly boring.



> Either way, if I threw the first punch in any altercation and it gets tangled up with legal matters ... you betcha I'll have a good story to back it up.



Self defense in general often gets tangled up.  It really doesn't matter who threw the first punch.  The cop doesn't care, the DA doesn't care, the judge and jury don't care.  The only thing that matters is whether or not you were reasonably in fear of your safety and what you did about it.  And that might play out on the scene, before trial, or at trial.  It just defends on whether or not the cop, DA, or a judge and jury believe you.

And don't forget about being sued.  An entirely different situation, and anybody can sue anybody.  Being found innocent at trial or not even being tried is not a defense against being sued.

Not that you should not defend yourself.  But be aware that self defense is not always a "punch the dirtbag and then it's over" proposition.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 21, 2009)

Drac said:


> Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...


 
And that's exactly what you do. Here  in Texas if you 'fear' for your life you can use force or deadly force to stop it. Even if they have not actually thrown a punch or swung a club.

BUT, you are going to have to convice a) the cops, b) the DA, and c) the grand jury, that what you did was reasonable. That will be the hard sell.

If there is an ovious disparancy of force, it's in a bad neighborhood, they made threats, etc... that's a good start. Just make sure you can explain all that to the cops (after you see your lawyer.)

Deaf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Just make sure you can explain all that to the cops (after you see your lawyer.)



I would suggest speaking to the police sans lawyer until and unless advised that you are a suspect and advised of your rights.  If you're Mirandized, ask for an attorney.  But the police need to investigate to decide whether or not to even lodge a charge or make an arrest.  Refusing to speak to them on the scene can lead to you being arrested until they can get your statement in the presence of an attorney - which may not make them altogether predisposed to see things your way.

But it's just an opinion.  To each their own.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 21, 2009)

Bill,

The hard part is this. Right after a self defense situation there is a very good chance you (or me) will be upset. It is very easy to get confused and have the sequence of events backwards or out of sequence. Or the cop may ask questions that are specific, and while you can't really remember, you still blurt out an answer (wrong one to) and he writes it down. Later as the facts come out they now say you are a liar.

That is what the lawyer is for.

You tell the cops the dynamics of the situation. That is, you are the good guy, they on the ground are the bad guys. Then point out any evidence before it disappears (people in crowds might take something or the cops miss it.) Then lastingly assure them you will co-operate 100 percent with the investigation... BUT only after you have time to calm down, collect your thoughts, and call your lawyer. 

Say that all to the cops politely. Look them in the eye and assure them you will co-operate 100 percent. Then ask for your lawyer.

Oh, and carry your lawyers card in your wallet (I do!) Never know when you may need that one phone call.

Deaf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Bill,
> 
> The hard part is this. Right after a self defense situation there is a very good chance you (or me) will be upset. It is very easy to get confused and have the sequence of events backwards or out of sequence. Or the cop may ask questions that are specific, and while you can't really remember you still blurt out an answer (wrong one to) and he writes it down. Later as the facts come out they now say you are a liar.
> 
> ...



Good points, all.  I tend to trust my ability to speak clearly, rationally, and give good expert witness.  But everyone should follow the ref's advice in boxing _"Protect yourself at all times."_  Including knowing when to speak to the attorney before speaking to the police - or anyone else.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 21, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Good points, all.  I tend to trust my ability to speak clearly, rationally, and give good expert witness.  But everyone should follow the ref's advice in boxing _"Protect yourself at all times."_  Including knowing when to speak to the attorney before speaking to the police - or anyone else.


Well I'm sure officers would appreciate the simple statement when asking you questions after an incident: "Officer, I am rather too upset at the moment to answer any questions and would appreciate the presence of my attorney." 

but then asking for an attorney implies guilt doesn't it? Still I think you DO have the right to have a few moments to "calm down" ... don't you?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Well I'm sure officers would appreciate the simple statement when asking you questions after an incident: "Officer, I am rather too upset at the moment to answer any questions and would appreciate the presence of my attorney."



No, officers don't appreciate anything that slows them down.  And the goal is not piss them off, trust me on this.



> but then asking for an attorney implies guilt doesn't it? Still I think you DO have the right to have a few moments to "calm down" ... don't you?



It's not that asking for an attorney implies guilt, but that it ticks them off.  Their evening just got a lot more complicated because you lawyered up.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, Deaf Smith was dead on accurate.  I'm saying it is something to consider.

An unwarned (meaning you have not been advised of your right to remain silent) statement is admissible in court if you issue a spontaneous confession, that sort of thing.  But generally, the first statements you are asked to make are the basic facts of the sitatuion.  Where were you, where was he, what did he say, what did you say, what happened then, what time was it, etc.  These things COULD get you into trouble, but generally not if you have done nothing wrong.  They're *supposed* to stop you and advise you of your rights if at any point they begin to suspect you of a crime.

There's a lot going to be going on behind the scenes you won't know about.  Criminal history on NCIC will be a biggie.  If you have no prior criminal history and no wants or warrants, and bad guy does, your story basically writes itself.  The cops won't much care if you beat the guy senseless because you didn't like his face and then claimed self defense.

I'm just saying.  Citizens who act like citizens generally don't get rousted.  The cops know the good guys from the bad most of the time.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 22, 2009)

Yew said:


> What about European law or Australian law?
> 
> As for my country's law,it's hard to tell since the authorities are so chaotic. :duh: :lfao:


 

Hi,

Well, for Australia, we have laws based on "escape at the first possible time", and that certainly allows for the first strike. Fortunately, our art is designed with very similar ideas in mind...

Basically, if you feel threatened, then you have the right to strike first, provided the opponent has what is called "present ability". Essentially, that means that if you feel threatened, and the opponent is capable of carrying out the percieved or actual threat, then you can strike first in order to create the opportunity to escape. But , of course, if you have to cross 30 feet of room to hit them, that's assault. And if someone threatens to run you over and you're indoors, that is not a viable threat (unless they're in a wheelchair, maybe?), so don't hit them... yet.

Within our schools we have a number of Australian Federal Police Officers, and they assist us in staying on top of assault laws, and this insight is used to help design our street defence programs. 

We also look to prepare students for the other side of the legal realities of an altercation, by giving them an understanding of what to expect, what to say, and how to present your story to the police.


----------



## thetruth (Feb 22, 2009)

Drac said:


> Ya better have a dammed good reason and the ability to articulate it to a judge and jury on why you threw the first punch...


Word!!   I was so scared and threatened etc etc etc   You better talk the talk for sure if you use a preemptive strike.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Drac (Feb 22, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Yes, well, having never been on trial or even SEEN a for-real trial I wonder if it's anything like those seen in tv or movies where a prosecutor or defense attorney is asking questions and you start to say "well, no but I... " and they interrupt "just a simple yes or no will do!!" ... always hated that aspect. Answering a simple yes or no and not allowed to follow up with an explanation...
> 
> But then I gather real trials aren't like that.... or are they?
> 
> Either way, if I threw the first punch in any altercation and it gets tangled up with legal matters ... you betcha I'll have a good story to back it up.


 
Sometimes the Plaintiffs lawyer will do that..But in all the times I was on the stand a simple Yes or No..Trials can be long and boring..Make sure you practice that story non-stop so YOU believe its the truth..The last thing you want or need is to be caught lying on the witness stand...Not good thing...So IF you're involved in an incident where you threw the first punch *CONTACT A LAWYER A.S.A.P...*


----------



## MJS (Feb 22, 2009)

Yew said:


> From what I've seen on Youtube, it seems that if you raise your hands up saying you don't want any trouble, but if the person still walks forward and invades your personal space, you can punch them first.
> 
> All the people in these videos sound American so I guess in U.S.A the law let's you hit first. Which I think is logical since we do not know how fast or how strong he will be if he hits first. If he is both faster and stronger, then waiting for him to hit first and then only deflecting will be too late.
> 
> ...


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

I'm no lawyer, but thats a quick link that I found.  I view it like this....each situation will need to be assessed one by one. If I can verbally defuse something, I'll try, however, there may be cases where that doesn't work, as well as ones where acting vs. talking would be a better option. Having yourself in a slightly bladed stance, hands up, open, palms facing the badguy, while saying things like, "Hey man, its cool, I don't want any problems." are all key, especially if there are witnesses in the area. 

Now, I can say that I'm not waiting until the punch is halfway to my head before I react. If the person gets into my personal space, then yes, at that point, I feel threatened and will respond with a pre-emptive strike. Some may frown upon that, and view it as me hitting first. IMO, thats not the case. I'd certainly challenge any jury to put themselves in the same situation. Anyone who says that they'd wait until they were hit is a fool IMO. I've given the BG more than enough of a chance to backoff. I felt that my life and safety was in danger.


----------



## MJS (Feb 22, 2009)

Wishbone said:


> I wouldn't use youtube videos of fights as a reference for presumptions about United States law.


 
I agree with this.  IMO, youtube tends to give the wrong impression about alot of things.


----------



## MJS (Feb 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would suggest speaking to the police sans lawyer until and unless advised that you are a suspect and advised of your rights. If you're Mirandized, ask for an attorney. But the police need to investigate to decide whether or not to even lodge a charge or make an arrest. Refusing to speak to them on the scene can lead to you being arrested until they can get your statement in the presence of an attorney - which may not make them altogether predisposed to see things your way.
> 
> But it's just an opinion. To each their own.


 


Deaf Smith said:


> Bill,
> 
> The hard part is this. Right after a self defense situation there is a very good chance you (or me) will be upset. It is very easy to get confused and have the sequence of events backwards or out of sequence. Or the cop may ask questions that are specific, and while you can't really remember, you still blurt out an answer (wrong one to) and he writes it down. Later as the facts come out they now say you are a liar.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with Deaf.  Before I speak to anyone, I want to make damn sure I have my "I's" dotted and my "T's" crossed.  I don't think, given the nature of the traumatic situation, that its unreasonable to want some time to get your head straight.   Especially if the "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." comment holds true.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2009)

MJS said:


> I agree with Deaf.  Before I speak to anyone, I want to make damn sure I have my "I's" dotted and my "T's" crossed.  I don't think, given the nature of the traumatic situation, that its unreasonable to want some time to get your head straight.   Especially if the "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." comment holds true.



Well, the police typically do not advise you of your rights unless they consider you a suspect in a crime, and that's the key.  If they say, "What happened?" and have not advised you of your rights, you can answer without 'anything you may say will be used in court'.  In general, an unwarned statement that amounts to a confession can be used.  However, just telling the police what happened - if you're not making a confession - is not giving a statement that can later be used against you.

When you 'lawyer up', the police must cease all questioning.  If they have a report to write, and need to determine whom to arrest, they may either say the heck with it, here we have two uncooperative combatants and I'm just going to leave - or they may say the heck with it, I have work to do, and arrest you both.

Without your cooperation early on in the investigation, the only information the police officers will have will be the information provided by any witnesses and the assailant, if he's talking.  If you're the only guy not talking, you may find yourself arrested.  You'll get your attorney, but you may also now have to fight an assault charge that otherwise you could have walked away from.

Everyone has to make their own decisions, so I'm not offering advice here.  But imagine sitting the weekend in jail waiting for a judge to come in on Monday morning to set bail - sitting with the friends of the guy who tried to jack you in the county lockup, missing work on Monday morning, and definitely incurring a legal bill that will be all yours to pay.

Or, you could have said _"Officer, I was waiting for the bus and that man walked up to me and said he was going to kick my ***.  I could see that he was about to do it, so I defended myself."_  The cop runs your criminal history, sees none, runs bad guy's history, sees several priors for assault, puts the cuffs on him, takes your statement, and says good night.

The police are not your enemy if you are in the right, in circumstances like this.  They like citizens and they dislike criminals.  But they also dislike being inconvenienced by people who have seen too many cop shows on TV and decide to lawyer up.  I'm just saying.

It sounds easy to say _"I'm not giving a statement until I talk to my lawyer,"_ but consider all the things that may entail and decide if that's the route you want to take.


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 22, 2009)

It occurs to me that a lot of the abovementioned hassle could be avoided if one has the presence of mind to file assault charges on the BG first -- regardless of who actually threw the first strike.


----------



## Drac (Feb 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When you 'lawyer up', the police must cease all questioning. If they have a report to write, and need to determine whom to arrest, they may either say the heck with it, here we have two uncooperative combatants and I'm just going to leave - or they may say the heck with it, I have work to do, and arrest you both.


 
Playing the OUTRAGED citizen will usually get you arrested...




Bill Mattocks said:


> Everyone has to make their own decisions, so I'm not offering advice here. But imagine sitting the weekend in jail waiting for a judge to come in on Monday morning to set bail - sitting with the friends of the guy who tried to jack you in the county lockup, missing work on Monday morning, and definitely incurring a legal bill that will be all yours to pay.


 
or depending on housing availability you might wind up in the same cell with him and his friends



Bill Mattocks said:


> Or, you could have said _"Officer, I was waiting for the bus and that man walked up to me and said he was going to kick my ***. I could see that he was about to do it, so I defended myself."_ The cop runs your criminal history, sees none, runs bad guy's history, sees several priors for assault, puts the cuffs on him, takes your statement, and says good night.


 
But is AFTER you write a statement...




Bill Mattocks said:


> The police are not your enemy if you are in the right, in circumstances like this. They like citizens and they dislike criminals. But they also dislike being inconvenienced by people who have seen too many cop shows on TV and decide to lawyer up. I'm just saying.
> 
> It sounds easy to say _"I'm not giving a statement until I talk to my lawyer,"_ but consider all the things that may entail and decide if that's the route you want to take.


 
We love those that think they know everything because they watch COPS and Law and Order...


----------



## tellner (Feb 22, 2009)

I will give the best piece of advice on this thread:

Ask a lawyer legal questions. 

Advice from random strangers on th' Intrawebs is worth what you pay for it. 

"A cop told me" is no better. Police officers learn what they have to to get through the Academy. They remember what they need to for their jobs, and that's generally it. Even then a lot of them are kind of sketchy because they don't get called on it very often. When they do they have layers of bureaucrats and lawyers running interference. You don't.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 22, 2009)

Guys I suggest any and all of you, if you can, take Massad Ayoobs LFI-1 class (Lethal Force Institute.)

It's 40 hours (actualy in my case it was 44 hours.) Over 1/2 is on law. Not must book law but what happens in the courtroom.

Mas has been around a bit (see below.)

It's a very enlighting course. This is where I get my information from as I'm a graduate of his course. Oh, and he is retired now. Lives in Florida.

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

Massad F. Ayoob (born July 20, 1948) is an internationally-known firearms and self-defense instructor. He is the Director of the Lethal Force Institute in Concord, New Hampshire, has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974, and has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and currently holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.

Massad Ayoob has authored several books and over one thousand articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense- and firearms-related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which airs on The Outdoor Channel in the United States.

While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney to ever hold this position. His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the US Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case. His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case" was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former President of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."

Ayoob remains an internationally prominent law enforcement officer training instructor. Since 1987, he has served as Chair of Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET).[dated info] He also serves on the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, and is an Instructor at the National Law Enforcement Training Center.

Critics of Ayoob, such as John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, a Massachusetts gun control organization, accuse him of preparing potential killers to be more lethal, despite screening processes which permit only law enforcement officers, Federal Firearms Licensees, holders of state-issued concealed handgun carry permits, or those having similar credentials to take his courses.

He has also written a few good books.


_Armed and Alive_ (1979)
_Ayoob Files: The Book_ (1995)
_Ayoob on Firearms_ (year unknown)
_Fundamentals of Modern Police Impact Weapons_ (1996)
_Gun Digest Book of SIG-Sauer: A Complete Look at SIG-Sauer Pistols_ (2004)
_Gunproof Your Children / Handgun Primer_ (1986)
_Handgun Primer_ (1986)
_Hit The White Part_ (1986) (on bowling pin shooting)
_In The Gravest Extreme_ (1980)
_LFI Handgun Safety_ (year unknown)
_Physio-Psychological Aspects of Violent Encounters_ (year unknown)
_Police Survival Shooting (How Close is too Close)_ (year unknown)
_Post Shooting Trauma_ (year unknown)
_The Complete Book of Handguns_ (19982001)
_The Experts Speak Out: The Police View of Gun Control_ (1981)
_The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery_ (with Chuck Taylor, 2002)
_The Semi-Automatic Pistol in Police Service and Self Defense_ (1987)
The _Stressfire_ series, three volumes: _Handgun_ (1986), _Shotgun_ (1992), _Rifle_ (year unknown)
_The Truth About Self-Protection_ (1983)
_The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry_ (2008)
Deaf


----------



## MJS (Feb 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, the police typically do not advise you of your rights unless they consider you a suspect in a crime, and that's the key. If they say, "What happened?" and have not advised you of your rights, you can answer without 'anything you may say will be used in court'. In general, an unwarned statement that amounts to a confession can be used. However, just telling the police what happened - if you're not making a confession - is not giving a statement that can later be used against you.
> 
> When you 'lawyer up', the police must cease all questioning. If they have a report to write, and need to determine whom to arrest, they may either say the heck with it, here we have two uncooperative combatants and I'm just going to leave - or they may say the heck with it, I have work to do, and arrest you both.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not advocating, and I hope my post didn't elude to that, that I'm against talking to the police.  I"m simply saying that given the nature of a traumatic, stressful situation, that its only normal to want a second to calm down, so you can talk, with somewhat of a clear head.  I don't want to say or not say something that I may regret later on.


----------



## MJS (Feb 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, officers don't appreciate anything that slows them down. And the goal is not piss them off, trust me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that asking for an attorney implies guilt, but that it ticks them off. Their evening just got a lot more complicated because you lawyered up.


 
And paperwork is probably the #1 thing that is the biggest part of the job.  However, if I were involved, God forbid, in a serious crash with my wife in the car, and she is taken to the hospital, I can assure you, SHE will be my first priority.  Many times, the officers will have to follow up at a later time to get a statement.  Again, its not that I don't want to talk, but unless the cop has a heart made of stone, he/she would respect the fact that I may need a second or two to get my thoughts in order.  And if they can't understand that, they shouldn't be cops.  A huge part is interacting with people, and trust me when I say, some of the ones I know have crappy people skills.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2009)

MJS said:


> And paperwork is probably the #1 thing that is the biggest part of the job.  However, if I were involved, God forbid, in a serious crash with my wife in the car, and she is taken to the hospital, I can assure you, SHE will be my first priority.  Many times, the officers will have to follow up at a later time to get a statement.  Again, its not that I don't want to talk, but unless the cop has a heart made of stone, he/she would respect the fact that I may need a second or two to get my thoughts in order.  And if they can't understand that, they shouldn't be cops.  A huge part is interacting with people, and trust me when I say, some of the ones I know have crappy people skills.



Of course, if those were the circumstances.  However, I thought we were talking about a person defending themselves from an assault and the pros and cons of punching first.  Presuming both parties have stood down or the fight has otherwise stopped and the police have arrived, they will want statements.  Unless you're on the way to the hospital, my suggestion was simply that giving a brief statement of the who, what, when, why and where is fine, in my opinion.  That's a) assuming you did nothing wrong and b) feel free to ignore if you feel that remaining silent in the face of police questions about the incident will serve you best.


----------



## MJS (Feb 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course, if those were the circumstances. However, I thought we were talking about a person defending themselves from an assault and the pros and cons of punching first. Presuming both parties have stood down or the fight has otherwise stopped and the police have arrived, they will want statements. Unless you're on the way to the hospital, my suggestion was simply that giving a brief statement of the who, what, when, why and where is fine, in my opinion. That's a) assuming you did nothing wrong and b) feel free to ignore if you feel that remaining silent in the face of police questions about the incident will serve you best.


 
Absolutely.   I probably wouldn't have anything to worry about anyways, seeing that, a) I have no criminal record, b) do my best to avoid questionable places, and c) will do my best, depending on the situation, to always try to talk my way out of the fight.  If I can't and there are bystanders, I'll be sure to do my best to make sure that they hear me repeatedly say that I don't want to fight, and to present myself in that fashion as well.  

However, should none of this work, and the police get involved, I have no issues with talking but I'm not doing any of that until I've calmed down and collected my thoughts.  And if the officer can't understand that, I don't know what to tell ya.  If I'm expected to give a statement, I don't want to be accused later on, of changing my story.  I want to tell it like it happened, when I'm calm, so that I can remember things to the best of my ability.


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Feb 23, 2009)

If I feel threatened I'm going to hit first regardless.  It all comes down to your word against thier word if there are no witnesses around.  I have no prior arrest record so my word hopefully would be taken more serious than an attacker who probably has an arest record.  If you got a good lawyer than you shouldn't have any worries.  I have one of the best lawyers in my town on retainer at all times.  Plus he's a close family friend.  He's represented me on numerous cases for various things.  A little bar brawl would be a piece of cake for him to get my found inoscent.


----------



## chinto (Feb 24, 2009)

in my state if you are in fear of your life, and the person seems to have the means to take your life, then deadly force is justified. 

that said, the reasonable man doctrine is the rule, will the man or woman in the jury box feel that you were in danger of your life.  assault is to be put in fear of injury, assault and battery is the actual attack.  once under attack you may use any force needed to stop that attack.. including deadly force.. that is black letter law.


----------



## geezer (Feb 24, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> If I feel threatened I'm going to hit first regardless. It all comes down to your word against thier word if there are no witnesses around...


 
Except, now we all have this written statement that you posted. So when your name appears in the news, any one of us could sell this to the other guy's lawyer...Bwaaahaaahaaaa (evil laugh).


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Feb 24, 2009)

geezer said:


> Except, now we all have this written statement that you posted. So when your name appears in the news, any one of us could sell this to the other guy's lawyer...Bwaaahaaahaaaa (evil laugh).


 

Do you really think it would make national news if I fought someone? Also do you know my real name? Be kinda hard to rat me out don't you think? And if Iyou did rat me out then I would have to hunt you down and kill you. What do I have to loose if I'm already going to jail??? Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa (evil laugh).


----------

