# Self Defense Self Incrimination



## MarkBarlow (May 5, 2009)

Much in the same way that most LEOs go their entire careers without having to fire their guns in the line of duty, the vast majority of martial artists will never need to use their training to deal with a violent attack.  On the other hand, should the need arise and we do inflict harm on someone in self defense, there is an excellent chance that our training and experience will be used against us in court.

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that everyone think twice about posting "what I'd do".  Whether we're talking empty hand or with a weapon, discussing how you would violently deal with an attacker smacks of premeditation. In this litigious society, it's a sure bet that the assailant's legal defense will do a background check on you and them being able to present prior discussions you have had online about beating/killing/harming/stomping anyone for any reason will not help your case.

Think twice about what you post, both the content and the tone.  It's easy to have online cojones but difficult to explain later that you didn't really mean it when you said you'd rip someone's head off.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 5, 2009)

Yep. I've recommended before that people not talk online about how they lied to the police in an incident report or how they'd break federal law with regards to firearms ownership, and people occasionally call me paranoid.

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Keep it under your hat.


-Rob


----------



## K-man (May 5, 2009)

It's a fine line. Do you teach your students the real applications of the techniques they are learning? As soon as you say, "be carefull, that neck crank could actually break the neck", you have then demonstrated knowledge that could later be used against you. 
I sometimes wonder if we might be better off as a civilisation without our 'learned collegues'. 


> and people occasionally call me paranoid.


Rightly so. But just coz everyone is out to get me, doesn't mean I'm paranoid too. :erg:


----------



## Thesemindz (May 5, 2009)

K-man said:


> It's a fine line. Do you teach your students the real applications of the techniques they are learning? As soon as you say, "be carefull, that neck crank could actually break the neck", you have then demonstrated knowledge that could later be used against you.


 
There's a difference between making a comment in class and posting a comment on a website. One is hearsay evidence at a trial, the other is _documented_ evidence at a trial.


-Rob


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 6, 2009)

I've posted it before, but here it is: my rule no1 when it comes to dealing with internet, email or any other kind of message exchange.

*Rule number 1 when posting anything on the net (or via email):
Do not write anything down that you wouldn't want your partner, kids, family, employer, banker, district attorney, worst enemy or anyone else to find out. *

It really is that simple. What you post on the net can be around for decades. Until recently, I could still find the very first message I left on a message board, back in 1996 I think. Anyone looking for specific things will be able to turn up anything you posted. Your own words can turn a 'possible but unlikely conviction' into a 'slam dunk'.

Whether you realize it or not: this is self-defense, as much as learning to fight. If you don't want it used against you, then don't post it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 6, 2009)

What I'd do if attacked in the street is to run away crying because I can't fight and am a pacifist anyway! I have no knowledge of any techniques that might be considered fighting and no interest or knowledge in weapons whatsoever..


----------



## seasoned (May 6, 2009)

What she said.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> What I'd do if attacked in the street is to run away crying because I can't fight and am a pacifist anyway! I have no knowledge of any techniques that might be considered fighting and no interest or knowledge in weapons whatsoever..



But regardless of that. A woman defending herself against a man is not likely to get in trouble. If anything, the man will be made fun of because he was beat by a woman.

Otoh, if a guy were to hurt a woman in the process of defending himself, he is still liable to get into trouble, because he 'beat up a woman'.


----------



## MJS (May 6, 2009)

MarkBarlow said:


> Much in the same way that most LEOs go their entire careers without having to fire their guns in the line of duty, the vast majority of martial artists will never need to use their training to deal with a violent attack. On the other hand, should the need arise and we do inflict harm on someone in self defense, there is an excellent chance that our training and experience will be used against us in court.
> 
> With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that everyone think twice about posting "what I'd do". Whether we're talking empty hand or with a weapon, discussing how you would violently deal with an attacker smacks of premeditation. In this litigious society, it's a sure bet that the assailant's legal defense will do a background check on you and them being able to present prior discussions you have had online about beating/killing/harming/stomping anyone for any reason will not help your case.
> 
> Think twice about what you post, both the content and the tone. It's easy to have online cojones but difficult to explain later that you didn't really mean it when you said you'd rip someone's head off.


 
Funny you should post this, especially after I was reading some comments from another member, in another thread. But, you're absolutley correct. I would say that a very large percent of the population is totally clueless when it comes to anything martial arts related. They go off of these half baked Bruce Lee wannabe movies, and assume that all martial arts are like that. 

That being said, imagine sitting on the stand, and all 12 of the jurors are those clueless folks that I mention. Yes, I know, I've said it before....I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but this is also why I always say that is very important to assess each situation. As tempting as it may be to take a few more shots at the bad guy when he's down, its stuff like that, that'll be frowned upon. 

I often look back on some of my Kenpo techs. and think, "Man, I'm going to break/dislocate/hyper extend this guys arm, take his eyes, and hit his neck.......all for a lapel grab??????" 

If we always have to resort to things like that, the martial arts world is in a sad, sad state of affairs. If thats what it takes to win, then IMHO, I seriously think that many should re-evaluate their marital arts training.  Then again, I also don't feel that one should have to be victimized, or live with that constant fear that if we do do something, that we may get sued.  That was actually the topic of a thread that I started a while ago....the fear of defending yourself.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

MarkBarlow said:


> Much in the same way that most LEOs go their entire careers without having to fire their guns in the line of duty, the vast majority of martial artists will never need to use their training to deal with a violent attack.  On the other hand, should the need arise and we do inflict harm on someone in self defense, there is an excellent chance that our training and experience will be used against us in court.
> 
> With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that everyone think twice about posting "what I'd do".  Whether we're talking empty hand or with a weapon, discussing how you would violently deal with an attacker smacks of premeditation. In this litigious society, it's a sure bet that the assailant's legal defense will do a background check on you and them being able to present prior discussions you have had online about beating/killing/harming/stomping anyone for any reason will not help your case.
> 
> Think twice about what you post, both the content and the tone.  It's easy to have online cojones but difficult to explain later that you didn't really mean it when you said you'd rip someone's head off.


 I think folks in this society are way to afraid of lawyers.......now if you were a wealthy celebrity, that might justify the paranoia.  But attorney's don't waste the tens of thousands of dollars it would take to track your internet traffic by private investigators and other experts in order to collect a judgment against someone who makes $40,000 or $50,000 a year.

A little paranoia is fine, but the idea that you're going to attacked AND then lawyers are going to wade through your entire internet history is right up there with getting attacked by a band of ninjas......

With attorneys it ALWAYS comes down to cost/benefit..........and if you do get sued, COUNTER SUE!  Sue everyone involved.......sue the private investigators for invasion of privacy, sue the attorneys, sue the plaintiff!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Yep. I've recommended before that people not talk online about how they lied to the police in an incident report or how they'd break federal law with regards to firearms ownership, and people occasionally call me paranoid.
> 
> Anything you say can and will be used against you.
> 
> ...


 Admitting the commission of a crime is an entirely different story.  But the notion that one shouldn't share 'What if' scenarios, which are a very good training tool, out of fear of NINJA LAWYERS is a whole different level of paranoia.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> There's a difference between making a comment in class and posting a comment on a website. One is hearsay evidence at a trial, the other is _documented_ evidence at a trial.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 You actually have it backwards.......the evidence from CLASS is far more damning........you are actually selling yourself as an expert, and actual WITNESSES observed the statements, which are in question, and are not hearsay if they are the issue at hand.

Post made on the internet, even if the account can be traced back to you, can't be proven to be yours beyond a reasonable doubt........as hacking does occur, people do steal other people's internet identities all the time.

In a criminal proceeding you might find yourself in trouble........but a criminal proceeding would require your statements to have been evidence of a crime, not merely a disposition toward defending yourself......that would only be an issue in a civil court.

And finally, in Missouri where I live, state law has granted IMMUNITY from civil liability to anyone who has used force in lawful self defense (Meaning that no criminal charges are applicable) with the PLAINTIFF being liable for ALL fees involved with any attempt at litigation.......pretty much negating any bottom feeder attorney fishing expeditions.


----------



## MarkBarlow (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Admitting the commission of a crime is an entirely different story.  But the notion that one shouldn't share 'What if' scenarios, which are a very good training tool, out of fear of NINJA LAWYERS is a whole different level of paranoia.



Obviously, I disagree but that's the beauty of these discussion rooms, lots of ideas, lots of opinions.

To me, it's just an extension of preparedness.  We train for combat that few will ever see.  I avoid making statements that might be used against me.  All part of the same mindset.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

MarkBarlow said:


> Obviously, I disagree but that's the beauty of these discussion rooms, lots of ideas, lots of opinions.



Again, you're not only suggesting ONE unlikely scenario, the idea you admit as highly unlikely, that you will actually have to use force to defend yourself......but you're suggesting an even MORE unlikely scenario to follow, that you might become a test case for the fact that your entire case will hinge on some statement you made on an internet forum years before.

If we say that the likelihood of being forced to use serious force to defend ourselves is arguably very low.......then we HAVE to admit that the odd's of your scenario occurring are microscopic, requiring the first scenario to have actually come to past FIRST.

It may bear noting, but it certainly doesn't bare obsessing on.......as it is predicated by the idea that we will FIRST have to defend ourselves and survive.


----------



## Tez3 (May 6, 2009)

The law here allows for reasonable force and pre emptive strikes so I'd actually be pretty well covered anyway.


----------



## MarkBarlow (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Again, you're not only suggesting ONE unlikely scenario, the idea you admit as highly unlikely, that you will actually have to use force to defend yourself......but you're suggesting an even MORE unlikely scenario to follow, that you might become a test case for the fact that your entire case will hinge on some statement you made on an internet forum years before.
> 
> If we say that the likelihood of being forced to use serious force to defend ourselves is arguably very low.......then we HAVE to admit that the odd's of your scenario occurring are microscopic, requiring the first scenario to have actually come to past FIRST.



I think I've mentioned the unlikelihood of it ever being an issue.  Is that a reason to not proceed with caution?  

Again, if you feel differently, more power to you.  I see avoiding some types of discussion as prudent.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

MarkBarlow said:


> I think I've mentioned the unlikelihood of it ever being an issue.  Is that a reason to not proceed with caution?
> 
> Again, if you feel differently, more power to you.  I see avoiding some types of discussion as prudent.



Tell you what.......find me any example of a scenario you suggest ever happening and we'll call it 'plausible'.  And I don't mean someone admitting to a crime on line.  I mean where a hypothetical discussion months or years before, where the statements themselves were not criminal, that has been dragged in to court and somehow influenced the proceedings.

There's prudent, and then there's 'what if's' that have never occurred......if it has occurred, or is becoming quite common place, then i'll certainly acknowledge my error accordingly......at this point I mean no offense, but in my estimation this ranks up there with 'What if I was attacked by an al-Qaeda death squad while visiting Baskin Robbins'......yeah, it could happen.......but it's not something i'm going to dwell on.  IMHO.


----------



## MarkBarlow (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Tell you what.......find me any example of a scenario you suggest ever happening and we'll call it 'plausible'.  And I don't mean someone admitting to a crime on line.  I mean where a hypothetical discussion months or years before, where the statements themselves were not criminal, that has been dragged in to court and somehow influenced the proceedings.
> 
> There's prudent, and then there's 'what if's' that have never occurred......if it has occurred, or is becoming quite common place, then i'll certainly acknowledge my error accordingly......at this point I mean no offense, but in my estimation this ranks up there with 'What if I was attacked by an al-Qaeda death squad while visiting Baskin Robbins'......yeah, it could happen.......but it's not something i'm going to dwell on.  IMHO.



Call me a forward thinking paranoid if you like.  I'm perfectly content with you not seeing it as plausible.  Share what you want and say whatever you feel.  No harm, no foul...probably.  I choose to be more circumspect.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Tell you what.......find me any example of a scenario you suggest ever happening and we'll call it 'plausible'.  And I don't mean someone admitting to a crime on line.  I mean where a hypothetical discussion months or years before, where the statements themselves were not criminal, that has been dragged in to court and somehow influenced the proceedings.



Sure thing.

How about this one: a cop on facebook, referencing 'training day' as a tutorial on proper police procedure, and setting his facebook status to 'devious' some time before he arrested someone for illegal posession of a weapon.
The case got thrown out because his comments could be interpreted as the intention to plant the weapon on an innocent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/nyregion/11about.html?_r=3

That real enough for you?

Checking your requirements:
- He didn't admit to anything illegal.
- It happened before the facts.
- It has been dragged into court.
- It did significantly alter the proceedings.

Rule number 1, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> How about this one: a cop on facebook, referencing 'training day' as a tutorial on proper police procedure, and setting his facebook status to 'devious' some time before he arrested someone for illegal posession of a weapon.
> The case got thrown out because his comments could be interpreted as the intention to plant the weapon on an innocent.
> ...


 
You FAILED to make your point.....your example does not represent the concern of the above...he STATED he was going to commit an illegal act, and it was used to acquit SOMEONE ELSE of a crime.......many things are used by defense attorneys to get their clients acquitted, statements made by police officers about committing a criminal act are admissible.......that's not the premise of the author of this thread.

Your example DOES NOT illustrate an individual making self-defense statements in a discussion forum being used to prosecute them.......the standard is ENTIRELY different.......and the idea that what can be used to defend someone CAN ALSO be used to prosecute someone is based on watching TOO many episodes of 'Law and Order'. 


Let me break it down for you.....the whole PREMISE of this thread is the idea that statements about defending YOURSELF will be used against YOU in CRIMINAL proceedings to prosecute you or CIVIL proceedings to sue you..........when you find an example of either of those things, get back with me when you do........but since you probably googled like heck to find the above non-example, I imagine it's a difficult prospect. 

I'll still be waiting for an example of such a prosecution.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

MarkBarlow said:


> Call me a forward thinking paranoid if you like. I'm perfectly content with you not seeing it as plausible. Share what you want and say whatever you feel. No harm, no foul...probably. I choose to be more circumspect.


 
It's all about risk......and since no example of a scenario you describe, i.e. someone being prosecuted and convicted, with the decision hinging on some internet comment made months or years before about self-defense, i'm going to have to go with pretty darned remote odds, non-examples to the contrary.

Now i'll agree with you about not making statements about committing a criminal act.......but the notion of not discussing self-defense scenarios because we're afraid Lawyer Ninjas are going to jump out and get us is taking it too far.


----------



## MJS (May 6, 2009)

I'll say this....I can see people, probably LEOs, searching the facebook, myspace and other 'social networking' sites, for that kind of stuff, but a martial arts forum.....


----------



## MarkBarlow (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> It's all about risk......and since no example of a scenario you describe, i.e. someone being prosecuted and convicted, with the decision hinging on some internet comment made months or years before about self-defense, i'm going to have to go with pretty darned remote odds, non-examples to the contrary.
> 
> Now i'll agree with you about not making statements about committing a criminal act.......but the notion of not discussing self-defense scenarios because we're afraid Lawyer Ninjas are going to jump out and get us is taking it too far.



I'm sure we'll never agree on this and that's not a problem for me.  You say that because there is such a slim chance that it will ever be a problem, trash talk on the internet is O.K.  I believe that the mere possibility, however slim, that it might come back to haunt you is reason enough to avoid online machismo.  Good enough.  

We've both expressed our views and that's really all these posts are about, sharing viewpoints that sometimes differ.  Best of luck to you in your training.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> You FAILED to make your point.....your example does not represent the concern of the above...he STATED he was going to commit an illegal act, and it was used to acquit SOMEONE ELSE of a crime.......many things are used by defense attorneys to get their clients acquitted, statements made by police officers about committing a criminal act are admissible.......that's not the premise of the author of this thread.
> .



It's true that my example was not about a violent self defense situation.
But if I read the article correctly, he did not state he was going to commit a criminal act.

He just made statements that by themselves were innocent enough, but a defense attorney used them to make a difference.
This is the example that came to mind first. But the premise is valid.

Or how about Hans Reiser? His google searches combined with the fact that he had manuals on police procedures were not evidence of a crime. But they were used for building a succesfull case against him.
Ok he did it, and he could have been convicted without it, but it was a part of his case.

googling a name and some keywords takes only a couple of minutes, and if you find a potential jackpot (like participation in an MA forum or facebook) then it only takes another half hour to do more research.
Like it or not, this is happening. These days, many employers do a google search for their shortlist in order to see if skeletons come falling out of the closet.

EDIT: yes, I know, again not a self defense scenario. But even then it is not impossible.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

MJS said:


> I'll say this....I can see people, probably LEOs, searching the facebook, myspace and other 'social networking' sites, for that kind of stuff, but a martial arts forum.....


 Unless it's a statement about committing the specific criminal act alleged, it's not going to be admissible against a defendant anyway.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

MarkBarlow said:


> I'm sure we'll never agree on this and that's not a problem for me. You say that because there is such a slim chance that it will ever be a problem, trash talk on the internet is O.K. I believe that the mere possibility, however slim, that it might come back to haunt you is reason enough to avoid online machismo. Good enough.
> 
> We've both expressed our views and that's really all these posts are about, sharing viewpoints that sometimes differ. Best of luck to you in your training.


 There's a difference between 'trash talk' and 'machismo' and discussing what you plan to do in the context of a discussion on self-defense in a given scenario......it often boils down to one man's plan being another man's 'machismo' when he disagrees with it.


----------



## blindsage (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> There's prudent, and then there's 'what if's' that have never occurred......if it has occurred, or is becoming quite common place, then i'll certainly acknowledge my error accordingly......at this point I mean no offense, but in my estimation this ranks up there with 'What if I was attacked by an al-Qaeda death squad while visiting Baskin Robbins'......yeah, it could happen.......but it's not something i'm going to dwell on. IMHO.


But at Ben and Jerry's? I mean I'm always lookin' out for the al-Qaeda death squad's at Ben and Jerry's.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> It's true that my example was not about a violent self defense situation.
> But if I read the article correctly, he did not state he was going to commit a criminal act.
> 
> He just made statements that by themselves were innocent enough, but a defense attorney used them to make a difference.


 A defense attorney used them to create reasonable doubt on his own clients guilt........not remotely the same thing, or the concern of the average citizen when defending themselves.



Bruno@MT said:


> This is the example that came to mind first. But the premise is valid.


 
The premise doesn't become valid until we find an example of it actually happening......it's a hypothesis at this point.  It's like envisioning some strange particle in physics.  It's a great theory, it might even gain wide-ranging support.....but UNTIL at least one real world example is found, it's still just a hypothesis. 



Bruno@MT said:


> Or how about Hans Reiser? His google searches combined with the fact that he had manuals on police procedures were not evidence of a crime. But they were used for building a succesfull case against him.
> Ok he did it, and he could have been convicted without it, but it was a part of his case.


 And there's the rub.......he committed a criminal act.  What we are discussing is an online discussion turning a perfectly legitimate use of force SUDDENLY in to a criminal act........apples and handgrenades difference.



Bruno@MT said:


> googling a name and some keywords takes only a couple of minutes, and if you find a potential jackpot (like participation in an MA forum or facebook) then it only takes another half hour to do more research.
> Like it or not, this is happening. These days, many employers do a google search for their shortlist in order to see if skeletons come falling out of the closet.


 That may be the case, but it's certainly not frightening to me.  I don't say things in the context of this forum I wouldn't say to my boss.  

At the same time, I don't consider it credible that statements made in a forum such as this are any kind of reasonable threat in a criminal case, unless it's a confession of a crime or criminal act, of course.  I'll have to see at least ONE case of a hypothetical self-defense discussion on line turning in to a criminal case against someone before I consider anything other than 'what if?' fears.

EDIT: yes, I know, again not a self defense scenario. But even then it is not impossible.[/quote] I never said it was impossible.......I did want to see at least one example of same in this entire nation of 300 million plus people before I began considering it a valid threat.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

blindsage said:


> But at Ben and Jerry's? I mean I'm always lookin' out for the al-Qaeda death squad's at Ben and Jerry's.


 Well OF COURSE Ben and Jerry's.......they give that 'Jihad' discount!


----------



## MarkBarlow (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> There's a difference between 'trash talk' and 'machismo' and discussing what you plan to do in the context of a discussion on self-defense in a given scenario......it often boils down to one man's plan being another man's 'machismo' when he disagrees with it.



Please read my initial post.  I spoke specifically about chest beating and tough talk, not about discussing martial arts in general.

For whatever reason, you've decided to take this personal.  I choose not to play.  Again, good luck in your training.


----------



## tellner (May 6, 2009)

Gather ye right close and hear the Wisdom of the Ages as I first saw it mimeopgraphed and taped to the wall of an engineer's office:



> Samson slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ***.
> Every day thousands do themselves in with the same weapon.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Admitting the commission of a crime is an entirely different story. But the notion that one shouldn't share 'What if' scenarios, which are a very good training tool, out of fear of NINJA LAWYERS is a whole different level of paranoia.


 
I agree with your position here.

I'm not saying the likelihood of "ninger lawyas" is high. I'm saying don't put youself in compromision positions. Sometimes I see people say things like,

"I'd *never* turn over my guns."

"I'd kill anyone who broke into my home, and tell the cops it was self defense."

"When the cops got there, I told them it was an accident."

"I lie on my taxes, census report, federal audit etc. etc."

While I may sympathize with their thoughts, I wouldn't voice those thoughts where, god forbid, someone could print them off and use them against me in court.

Which is why I _always_ pay my taxes, comply with law enforcement in every concievable way, and am completely honest on all government forms.

Because if I end up in court, that's the only statement I want them to be able to introduce as evidence.


-Rob


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 7, 2009)

MarkBarlow said:


> Please read my initial post.  I spoke specifically about chest beating and tough talk, not about discussing martial arts in general.
> 
> For whatever reason, you've decided to take this personal.  I choose not to play.  Again, good luck in your training.


 You've gotten me all wrong......i'm not taking it personally.  I just disagreed with the premise.  No harm no foul.  I forget sometimes that some folks don't debate for sport, and mistake that for taking something personally.

I am curious as to what, specifically, you're referring to as chest beating and tough talk......given the threads proximity to the 'What would you do with a robber' thread, am I correct in assuming that was the primer?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 7, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I agree with your position here.
> 
> I'm not saying the likelihood of "ninger lawyas" is high. I'm saying don't put youself in compromision positions. Sometimes I see people say things like,


 Lets examine these.......



Thesemindz said:


> "I'd *never* turn over my guns."


 I personally wouldn't........nor would the founders.  That's why they drafted a 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights of this country........where's the 'tough talk'?  Would it be 'tough talk' to say 'I will never stop practicing my religion', 'I will never be silenced from using my free speech rights'?  I guess to a hopolophobe it might be considered 'bravado', but it's no different than the rest.



Thesemindz said:


> "I'd kill anyone who broke into my home, and tell the cops it was self defense."


 The State of Missouri, where I live, has put in statute that very notion.....that if someone breaks in to your home you may PRESUME they are there to harm you, and that it is, prime facie self defense.  Don't see the issue.




Thesemindz said:


> "When the cops got there, I told them it was an accident."


 'I told them it was an accident' presumes it's something that has already occured.......it's an admission of filing a false police report.  I've already addressed that.




Thesemindz said:


> "I lie on my taxes, census report, federal audit etc. etc."


 Again, admission of committing a criminal act.......apples and bowling balls.




Thesemindz said:


> While I may sympathize with their thoughts, I wouldn't voice those thoughts where, god forbid, someone could print them off and use them against me in court.


 You're intentionally mixing one kind of comment with other, admission of criminal act comments, for the purposes of lumping them all together.




Thesemindz said:


> Which is why I _always_ pay my taxes, comply with law enforcement in every concievable way, and am completely honest on all government forms.


 Again, irrelevant to the discussion.




Thesemindz said:


> Because if I end up in court, that's the only statement I want them to be able to introduce as evidence.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 Again, two of your examples of admissions of criminal acts.......the other two were nothing of the sort.......there is no comparison. 

My point this entire time is that I truly suspect that some folks find certain discussions unpalatable.....I think you've illustrated that with the reference to the 2nd Amendment and the reference to self defense against burglary.

As to the stated hypothesis........because i've yet to see an example of someone making a perfectly legal statement in this kind of forum being used against them in the pursuit of criminal or civil charges.......not one single example.  It's a lot like big foot........until one is captured, i'll continue to believe they don't exist............and until someone is prosecuted for speaking their mind freely, i'll continue to endorse the notion.


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Unless it's a statement about committing the specific criminal act alleged, it's not going to be admissible against a defendant anyway.


 
Good point, and I think its safe for me to say, that if a post like that was made on here, it would be dealt with by the mods.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 7, 2009)

MJS said:


> Good point, and I think its safe for me to say, that if a post like that was made on here, it would be dealt with by the mods.


 I got faith that mods would be all over that.


----------



## Guardian (May 7, 2009)

Thank you  SgtMac and anyone else who agree with him.

If you afraid of what might come, you would almost have to shut this site down and the sites like it and go home and pray that your door is not approached.  That's ridiculous folks.  Thanks for pointing that out SgtMac, you beat me to it.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 8, 2009)

Guardian said:


> Thank you  SgtMac and anyone else who agree with him.
> 
> If you afraid of what might come, you would almost have to shut this site down and the sites like it and go home and pray that your door is not approached.  That's ridiculous folks.  Thanks for pointing that out SgtMac, you beat me to it.



That was not my point. I am not 'afraid'. I am 'careful'
For example: in the poll 'what would you do to a burglar', one of the options is 'kill him'. Now, it may be perfectly fine to do this if you live in texas, but there are many states and countries where the legality of such an action depends on the threat level and the context.

For example, in Belgium, deadly force is only allowed in certain circumstances. Unqualified statements like 'I'll kill any burglar that enters my house' can get you in trouble later on if you should actually kill the burglar and there is doubt about legal justification.

This has nothing to do with fear, but everything with reality and not taking unnecessary risks (no gain and easily avoided). Just because it is unlikely does not mean you shouldn't care. It doesn't cost you anything to be careful. You don't lose anything because of it. Even if none of the unlikely scenarios ever come to pass, you still haven't lost anything.

It's like wearing a seatbelt in-flight at cruising altitude. For most people it never makes a difference whether they wear it or not. But if ever something were to occur like temporary loss of lift (in some rare cases of turbulence, this happens) then it makes a huge difference. And even if you never needed it, it didn't hurt you the least to take the precaution.


----------



## Guardian (May 8, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> That was not my point. I am not 'afraid'. I am 'careful'
> For example: in the poll 'what would you do to a burglar', one of the options is 'kill him'. Now, it may be perfectly fine to do this if you live in texas, but there are many states and countries where the legality of such an action depends on the threat level and the context.
> 
> For example, in Belgium, deadly force is only allowed in certain circumstances. Unqualified statements like 'I'll kill any burglar that enters my house' can get you in trouble later on if you should actually kill the burglar and there is doubt about legal justification.
> ...


 
Answer me this question please?  Is is permissiable to kill an intruder in your home in Belgium?  If the answer is yes, then the rest of the conversation from their is almost a moot point is it not, for we have already met your certain circumstances.  If not, I'm very curious as to what circumstances you are speaking of, because if an intruder inside your house doesn't qualify, I'd be at a loss as to what would, but I would be curious if you don't mind.

The airplane point is not an appropriate analogy to use in defending why saying I would kill an intruder in my house is not a good thing to say on an internet, they don't meet the same circumstances in my view.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 8, 2009)

I am not a lawyer, but here is the layman's version as I understood it:

- You can kill an intruder if it is dark and he surprises you. If you hit someone on the head with a frying pan because he was sneaking up the stairs in the night, then that's fine.
- If someone actually threatens you or your family (or anyone in your care) then it's fine too. Although even then, the defense has to be proportionate to the threat.

That's it. If someone doesn't threaten you, or if he just turns and walks out with your vcr... you'd better not harm him because you're in a heap of trouble.

So suppose I was to say something like 'Hey, if someone is stealing my stuff, he is dead, no matter what'. Yep. Busted. Because if I was unlucky enough to ever end up in such a situation, and there is a confrontation and the burglar ends up dead, then it is uncertain what will happen.

If the DA believes that the burglar attacked me, or if he thinks that there was some sort of confrontation that went out of hand, then I am home free. But if he somehow finds my machismo talk, then I am in deep ****. Because then he can make a good case that I was already predetermined to kill that burglar, and that I initiated the confrontation with deadly intentions.
It's crazy, but I might end up paying compensation to the family of the poor dead burglar, on top of doing 10-30 year in prison.

Yes, it stinks.
No, I don't agree. My home should be my castle.
But it doesn't make a difference what I think. This is reality.
Btw, this is true in many other countries. Most European countries in any case.


----------



## MJS (May 8, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> I am not a lawyer, but here is the layman's version as I understood it:
> 
> - You can kill an intruder if it is dark and he surprises you. If you hit someone on the head with a frying pan because he was sneaking up the stairs in the night, then that's fine.
> - If someone actually threatens you or your family (or anyone in your care) then it's fine too. Although even then, the defense has to be proportionate to the threat.
> ...


 
Someone comes into my house, uninvited, in the middle of the night, he gets whatever he gets. In other words, I dont know who this person is, is he armed, what his intentions are. Too many home invasions where the family ends up dead, and I'm not going to be a statistic if I can help it. If the cops, lawyer or anyone else, thinks that for one minute, that I'm going to leave my house so this guy can take my stuff or just let him walk out with my tv and computer, they're all nuts, because its not happening if I have anything to say about it. 

My actions will depend on his actions. If he's coming at me or my wife with a knife, then I can assure you I'll do what I have to do to survive. If its a toss up between him or I, I'm going to make damn sure its me that wins. 

A family here in Ct, was brutally attacked, the wife and one of the daughters raped, the mother and both daughters end up dead, with the only survivor being the husband, who was beaten pretty bad but managed to escape. Oh, did I mention that the 2 dirt bags lit the house on fire too. Now this guy has no family, no house, and 2 scumbags are to blame. Sorry, but I have no remorse or compassion for anyone like that. 

Problem is, is that there're too many bleeding hearts who run to the defense of the BG saying that he grew up without a dad, his mom was a crack addict, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but there're lots of people who have it rough growing up, and I doubt they all grow up to be **** bags.


----------



## MJS (May 8, 2009)

Just to add onto my above post....

I could spend all of 5-10 min on here, surfing various threads, and I'd be willing to bet anything that I could find countless posts where there are 'questionable' things that were said.  If someone were to post an article about a shopkeeper who defended himself with a gun during a robbery attempt, and the replies were praising the clerk for what he did, comments saying that if they were in his shoes, they'd do the same thing, etc., etc.  then by the logic on this thread, anyone who says anything like that is guilty and now has a target on their back.  But if we think about it, people say stuff like that all the time.

I have over 20,000 posts on this forum.  Are you saying that a lawyer is going to sift thru 20,000+ posts just to see my comments?  Let me say this in closing.  In the 35yrs of my life, the only run ins with the police have been very minor, the offenses being:

1) Supposedly going thru, or as he put it, blasting thru the stop sign.  Umm, yeah, in a 4cyl. car.  Dont think so. LOL.

2) Pulled over once by the State Police because I swerved.  There was something going on, on the other side of the highway, so like everyone else, I glanced over for a second.  It was after 12am, I was right at my exit, so no harm, no foul.

3) Pulled over by a town cop, again for swerving.  I was a few miles from home, had just got off a double shift, was tired.  Again, no harm, no foul, no ticket.

All that being said, if I were to face the need to defend myself, I'm sure my past, will come into play.  Not a criminal by any means, for a few simple things, which resulted in little to no action.  I have no police record, I work in a law enforcement environment, over all, I'm a pretty good upstanding guy.   Compared to the other guy who tried to mug me, who has 30 or more prior convictions for various crimes.  I think its a pretty safe bet that if this guy did take me to court for injuries he got during his attack on me, both him and his public defender would probably get laughed out of the court room.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 9, 2009)

What training??? 

what guns???


----------



## girlbug2 (May 9, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> And finally, in Missouri where I live, state law has granted IMMUNITY from civil liability to anyone who has used force in lawful self defense (Meaning that no criminal charges are applicable) with the PLAINTIFF being liable for ALL fees involved with any attempt at litigation.......pretty much negating any bottom feeder attorney fishing expeditions.


 
Missouri, here I come!


----------



## MJS (May 9, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> What training???
> 
> what guns???


 
So basically admit nothing.  Or as the saying goes..."Admit nothing, deny everything, and demand proof."


----------



## Kacey (May 9, 2009)

Here are the rules I was taught for self-defense:

1) Don't get into a situation in which you need to defend yourself.
2) If you do get into such a situation, run like hell.
3) If you can't run, do whatever is necessary to get free; see 2nd rule.

The key point of interpretation here, of course, is the word "necessary" - this is point at which each situation requires it's own response.

The problem with saying "If x, then y" is that every situation is different; the setting, the participants, levels of training, bystanders, circumstances, etc.  "What if" is a game that makes for good discussions - but it's meaningless until a situation occurs in which self-defense becomes meaningful.  No matter how well trained you are, no matter what your intent - until you need to defend yourself, you don't _know_, you _can't_ know, for certain, what you will should you need to, and the circumstances in which you find yourself will, to an extent, dictate your response.  To give absolutes is to limit yourself.


----------

