# United States: What Are The Safest States?



## Brian R. VanCise (May 23, 2015)

Here is a link to my blog which has an article showing which
states are the safest:

The Instinctive Edge


----------



## Tames D (May 23, 2015)

#25 here.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2015)

I don't know how helpful these kinds of lists are.  I mean, each one of our states is about the size of a country in Europe.   City or at least county level stats seem more to the point.


----------



## K-man (May 23, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here is a link to my blog which has an article showing which
> states are the safest:
> 
> The Instinctive Edge


Which pretty much puts the whole of Australia on par with New Hampshire from that perspective. You'll be safe with us.


----------



## elder999 (May 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> I don't know how helpful these kinds of lists are.  I mean, each one of our states is about the size of a country in Europe.   City or at least county level stats seem more to the point.



Unless yer in Wyoming, which has a smaller population than the city of Albuquerque............


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> I don't know how helpful these kinds of lists are.  I mean, each one of our states is about the size of a country in Europe.   City or at least county level stats seem more to the point.



Hey Steve,

Absolutely city and county statistics specialize more and are even more relevant to your everyday living.  Still State and Nationwide stats give us perspective as well!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 23, 2015)

K-man said:


> Which pretty much puts the whole of Australia on par with New Hampshire from that perspective. You'll be safe with us.



Really looking forward to it!


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> I don't know how helpful these kinds of lists are.  I mean, each one of our states is about the size of a country in Europe.   City or at least county level stats seem more to the point.


And one city like Detroit or Chicago and your WHOLE State becomes "unsafe"?


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2015)

Tgace said:


> And one city like Detroit or Chicago and your WHOLE State becomes "unsafe"?


Exactly.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 23, 2015)

One city can certainly skew statistics and yet if we take a closer look at Michigan you will find multiple cities have issues:

These Are The 10 Most Dangerous Places In Michigan - Movoto

As you can see Detroit is third.  What is interesting is that Saginaw is not on this list as that was as dangerous as anywhere for a long time and probably still is.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 23, 2015)

Mind you I have either lived or worked in four of those cities.  So like with any city you need to know where to be, how to behave and most importantly where to avoid.  I lived in Detroit for four years and mostly loved it.  Lots of super fond memories but...... I do have interesting stories about it as well.


----------



## BMhadoken (May 24, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Unless yer in Wyoming, which has a smaller population than the city of Albuquerque............


I have a little theory that nobody actually lives in Wyoming. Met guys from 49 states working in the oil patch in ND. Hell, even ran into a guy I went to highschool with. Never met one guy from Wyoming.



Tgace said:


> And one city like Detroit or Chicago and your WHOLE State becomes "unsafe"?


To be fair, some of my soldier buddies who've been to Detroit had nicer things to say about Afghanistan.


----------



## PhotonGuy (May 24, 2015)

K-man said:


> Which pretty much puts the whole of Australia on par with New Hampshire from that perspective. You'll be safe with us.



Well from the impression I've got of Australia from some of the people on this board who claim to be from there, in Australia you aren't allowed to use weapons against an attacker but you can pound an attacker as if you're putting down a zombie from one of those horror movies/video games as long as you do it with your bare hands. 

New York State rates as very unsafe. Im not surprised, in New York State you practically aren't allowed to use any level of force against an attacker in self defense. Therefore troublemakers are able to get away with victimizing innocent people because the innocent people aren't allowed to fight back.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well from the impression I've got of Australia from some of the people on this board who claim to be from there, in Australia you aren't allowed to use weapons against an attacker but you can pound an attacker as if you're putting down a zombie from one of those horror movies/video games as long as you do it with your bare hands.
> 
> New York State rates as very unsafe. Im not surprised, in New York State you practically aren't allowed to use any level of force against an attacker in self defense. Therefore troublemakers are able to get away with victimizing innocent people because the innocent people aren't allowed to fight back.


As a NYS LEO I can say that you have little knowledge of our self-defense law.

While our firearms restrictions are downright stupid, our self-defense law is actually not as restrictive as many believe.

article 35 the things worth believing in


----------



## elder999 (May 24, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> I have a little theory that nobody actually lives in Wyoming. Met guys from 49 states working in the oil patch in ND. Hell, even ran into a guy I went to highschool with. Never met one guy from Wyoming.



My mom's from Wyoming. I have an uncle (her brother)who lives in Wyoming still, and grew up there and went to H.S. with Dick Cheney, who's from....Wyoming. (Know what my uncle says about Dick Cheney? _Dick Cheney......*before he Dicks you!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*) _I also have a few other relatives-like an entire Indian reservation's worth, *really*-that live in Wyoming.
_


PhotonGuy said:



			New York State rates as very unsafe. Im not surprised, in New York State you practically aren't allowed to use any level of force against an attacker in self defense. Therefore troublemakers are able to get away with victimizing innocent people because the innocent people aren't allowed to fight back.
		
Click to expand...

_


New York has no statute for "self-defense," as far as I know, and follows the reasonable and prudent doctrine in such cases.....what would a "reasonable person" do, under those circumstances, what was a "prudent action" for them to respond with.......35 years ago, without my even spending a minute in court, a D.A. and some other people decided it was "reasonable and prudent" for me to defend myself against a knife attack by inserting a pen into my assailant's neck.....repeatedly...killing him.

Pretty sure I'd have at least been charged with something in California back then....maybe in New York (*city*) now.....


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

In most states (all of them as far as I know..) self-defense as a matter of law is a "defense". Which in simple terms means "Yes..I did something that would normally be illegal (killing a person), but I was legally justified in doing it because...".

-or in other defenses like insanity-"I did it but I can't be held criminally liable because..."

But as it's all a matter of "law" I don't bother splitting hairs.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

A little known fact about NY "Self-defense law" is that in NY Justification is an "ordinary defense" vs an "affirmative defense". This means that the State has to prove you didn't act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. An affirmative defense State makes you have to prove you acted in self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

This is a point of confusion for some people when they say NY needs a "Castle Doctrine". NY doesn't need one. 

Only a state where deadly use of force in self defense is considered an affirmative defense has the necessary leverage for Castle Doctrine. It's pretty much the same here for Stand Your Ground Laws. Don't need it.

http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanstudy/state/ny/Ch08_NewYork.pdf

*



			BURDEN OF PROOF
		
Click to expand...

*


> New York is one of the jurisdictions in the United States where the prosecution retains the burden of persuasion. Justification is an ordinary, rather than affirmative, defense. The defendant has the burden of production, but does not have the burden of establishing his defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, if the defendant’s burden of production is met, then the State must disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the judge has the duty to instruct the jury on the law of justification whenever the defendant presents evidence of justification in the case.6


----------



## K-man (May 24, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well from the impression I've got of Australia from some of the people on this board who claim to be from there, in Australia you aren't allowed to use weapons against an attacker but you can pound an attacker as if you're putting down a zombie from one of those horror movies/video games as long as you do it with your bare hands.
> 
> New York State rates as very unsafe. Im not surprised, in New York State you practically aren't allowed to use any level of force against an attacker in self defense. Therefore troublemakers are able to get away with victimizing innocent people because the innocent people aren't allowed to fight back.


For starters, I don't know why you would say 'claim to be from Australia'. I have trained with Chris, there is also on of his students here, another is the student of another friend of mine and DB has said enough to convince me he is from Australia. I think that just about covers us all.

As for not using weapons against an attacker. Well yes and no. People have defended themselves with a firearm, even an illegal, one and not been charged with an offence. As to your other claim that you can pound an attacker as if you're putting down a zombie, well that's just plain stupid. You can't.

In Australia you can't possess a weapon for the purpose of self defence but many people still have legal firearms. In terms of self defence you can use whatever weapon you can get your hands on and you can use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself or others and to a lessor extent property. The relevant term is 'proportionate' force and you can only use such force while the threat exists. I think you will find that is similar to most other places in world. 

I'm surprised that you would claim that innocent people aren't allowed to fight back to defend themselves. Perhaps someone with less clouded views could enlighten us on that one.


----------



## K-man (May 24, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> , in New York State you practically aren't allowed to use any level of force against an attacker in self defense.


Having just read *Tgace*'s post and attachment it is plain to see you are wrong.


----------



## PhotonGuy (May 24, 2015)

Tgace said:


> As a NYS LEO I can say that you have little knowledge of our self-defense law.
> 
> While our firearms restrictions are downright stupid, our self-defense law is actually not as restrictive as many believe.


I could be wrong but I heard in NYS if somebody attacks you, if you fight back and they end up being hurt worse than you, you will get in trouble even if they took the first punch or attacked you first.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> I could be wrong but I heard in NYS if somebody attacks you, if you fight back and they end up being hurt worse than you, you will get in trouble even if they took the first punch or attacked you first.



You are falling into the all too common trap of trying to take a complex situation and then boil it down to a legal IF-THEN. Real life situations are typically more complicated than good guy-bad guy scenarios.

Like Elder said upthread, SD law is really about "reasonableness". If some drunk takes a swing at you cause you looked at his girlfriend and you curb stomp him into a coma..yeah..you are gonna be in trouble. This would be the case in ANY state.

If you simply respond with a counterpunch and he falls down and strikes his head and goes into a coma that's an entirely different situation. You MAY wind up in court, but you would likely not be found CRIMINALLY liable (civil suits are different matters). Again, this would be likely in almost all States.


----------



## PhotonGuy (May 24, 2015)

Tgace said:


> You are falling into the all too common trap of trying to take a complex situation and then boil it down to a legal IF-THEN. Real life situations are typically more complicated than good guy-bad guy scenarios.
> 
> Like Elder said upthread, SD law is really about "reasonableness". If some drunk takes a swing at you cause you looked at his girlfriend and you curb stomp him into a coma..yeah..you are gonna be in trouble. This would be the case in ANY state.
> 
> If you simply respond with a counterpunch and he falls down and strikes his head and goes into a coma that's an entirely different situation. You MAY wind up in court, but you would likely not be found CRIMINALLY liable (civil suits are different matters). Again, this would be likely in almost all States.


Well if you just throw one counterpunch and it puts him out of commission than that is clearly self defense. If you continue to beat on him after he's down and curb stop him into a coma as you put it, that is not self defense because he is no longer a threat after you landed the first punch. But if you just punch him once and it ends the fight but the result is that he's hurt worse than you, even though you shouldn't get in trouble for that, I heard in New York State you can get in trouble and I would like to be wrong about this as that would not be right to get in trouble for using self defense.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

If during the course of a "bar fight"...while everyone is on the pavement and still swinging.. you decide to stand up and stomp on the guys head to win the fight. That's going to probably land you in trouble....

If it's deemed reasonable to punch you in a given situation, the damage resulting from that (single) punch isn't really the legal issue in terms of Article 35 in NY.

There is nothing in NY law that supports what you "heard". You would have to show me the incident/case being referred to to get a better answer.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2015)

Tgace said:


> If during the course of a "bar fight"...while everyone is on the pavement and still swinging.. you decide to stand up and stomp on the guys head to win the fight. That's going to probably land you in trouble....
> 
> If it's deemed reasonable to punch you in a given situation, the damage resulting from that (single) punch isn't really the legal issue in terms of Article 35 in NY.
> 
> There is nothing in NY law that supports what you "heard". You would have to show me the incident/case being referred to to get a better answer.


This sounds very reasonable and about as clear can be.   Can anyone help me understand how the strategy described by Kman below fits in with the reality of self defense above?  The strategy below seems to hinge on complete incapacitation, which doesn't seem likely to appear reasonable.  Doesn't really make sense to me.  Game over doesn't strike me as being reasonable.  



K-man said:


> Can I just clarify. Many of the styles teach a sequence of moves that you might perform in a particular scenario. The simplest of these might be 360 defence of Krav and the other end, the bunkai of a kata like Suparenpei.
> 
> So, the first move in Krav to defend against a downward slash with a weapon is 'bursting' or a simultaneous strike to the wrist and neck. If you connect it's game over. If it fails, you overhook the arm and drive the knee repeatedly into the lower abdomen. If that connects it's likely game over but if it fails and we need more we start hitting the back of the neck, assuming he has bent over from the knees. Strikes to the back of the neck or skull with the forearm are likely to knock him down but if they haven't I'll give him a knee in the face. He is a real tough sucker if he hasn't gone down by now but I'm up to the arm lock and disarm at this point. If that fails I'll take him to the ground and kick to the back of the neck.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

An attack with a weapon is a deadly-force situation. What you can reasonably do there is going to be different from what you could do otherwise. 

Could you clarify the question a bit Steve?


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2015)

Sure.  I'm not sure I can, but I'll try.  If you have a defense strategy that is based upon the complete elimination of the threat, it seems out of sync with the legality of self defense hinging upon reasonably defending oneself from harm. 

I guess I just don't know that I understand what "game over" means in the progression that K-man describes.  What is "game over?"  Or, asked another way, if the chain of techniques ends with curb stomping a guy into unconsciousness, and each step along the way is measured against the bad guy's ability to do some harm (do anything at all?), is anything along the way reasonable?  

Can you guys with more experience with the legal system share how this works out?  Let's say I start by exploding on the guy with simultaneous strikes to his wrsit and his throat.  What would "game over" look like with this technique?  Would "game over" be reasonable self defense?  What about the multiple knees to the abdomen, followed by repeated strikes to the back of the neck and head?  Game over looks like what?  Is that likely to be viewed as "reasonable?"


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

Well..I would hesitate to believe or state that a martial arts response to an attack is so formulaic that you HAVE to carry through with a technique even if it becomes obvious that the opponent is incapacitated or that you can depart the scene in safety. If it's not obvious that the opponent is no longer a deadly threat to you than you continue until the opponent IS no longer a threat, or you believe you can depart in COMPLETE safety.

You shouldn't believe that you "have to complete your technique with a head stomp" because...well...that's the technique.

While defending yourself against a deadly force threat means you can use deadly force in return, I would be careful to avoid giving the impression that your training strategy is "to kill" in any situation where you are threatened. IMO it's sort of a semantic legal game, but it's one you have to play if you want to "win" the legal post-confrontation event.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2015)

Tgace said:


> Well..I would hesitate to believe or state that a martial arts response to an attack is so formulaic that you HAVE to carry through with a technique even if it becomes obvious that the opponent is incapacitated or that you can depart the scene in safety. If it's not obvious that the opponent is no longer a deadly threat to you than you continue until the opponent IS no longer a threat, or you believe you can depart in COMPLETE safety.
> 
> You shouldn't believe that you "have to complete your technique with a head stomp" because...well...that's the technique.
> 
> While defending yourself against a deadly force threat means you can use deadly force in return, I would be careful to avoid giving the impression that your training strategy is "to kill" in any situation where you are threatened. IMO it's sort of a semantic legal game, but it's one you have to play if you want to "win" the legal post-confrontation event.


Totally understand.  And maybe this belongs over in the self defense pillars thread.  In that thread, a common theme is about mindset being critical in self defense.  I'm not talking just about the techniques.  It's the mentality.  "I do this, and it's likely to be "game over" for the bad guy.  But if not, I do this... and then it's game over.  But if it's not, I do this."  There's a mentality being taught here, along with an overt strategy that stops when the bad guy is... what?  Because "game over" speaks to a degree of finality in my mind.  

And, I'm not trying to suggest that people are idiotic robots who can't apply discretion in the heat of the moment.  I'm just struck by the incongruity between stopping when the bad guy is "game over" and what we're discussing as likely to lead to criminal liability.  The two sound a lot alike, to my untrained ear.   As described, each technique is designed to take the bad guy out.  Punches to the throat, elbows to the back of the head and neck, stomping on the ground.  Add other techniques intended to kill or maim (eye gouges, etc), and there's a disconnect here.  Isn't there?


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2015)

I think I see what you mean...it's somewhat analogous to the "the cops shot the guy *gasp* 10 times!!" meme. 

Sure any individual shot can be "lethal", but the reality is that you can't just fire one shot, wait to see if it works, then fire another...repeat..repeat. 

You shoot as long as the threat appears to continue to be a threat and you stop when the threat is gone. The number of shots required will vary widely.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2015)

Well, sort of the opposite of that.  If anything, the process as described by kman would be more analogous to, " I shoot him center mass, and that's likely game over.  But if not, I'll shoot him again and that's game over.  If not, I'll shoot him again."  In other words, while I agree with you that people are not automatons, there's a degree of analysis suggested in K-mans description that is opposite of the idea that you shoot 10 times because that's how you train.  Which is it?  Does the technical chain end with a head stomp or is there tactical analysis at work?  And by extension, is the gun fired until empty or is the person with the gun legally expected to shoot, determine whether ti's game over, and then shoot again?   

Really, I'm not sure there's a good answer, frankly.  I'm just interested in discussing the disconnect between training people to kill and teaching them that self defense is legally a matter of what is reasonable under the circumstances.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2015)

I posted this over in the sel defense pillars thread, where it's more on-topic.  Hopefully, it'll get some informative responses.


----------



## K-man (May 24, 2015)

Steve said:


> I guess I just don't know that I understand what "game over" means in the progression that K-man describes.  What is "game over?"  Or, asked another way, if the chain of techniques ends with curb stomping a guy into unconsciousness, and each step along the way is measured against the bad guy's ability to do some harm (do anything at all?), is anything along the way reasonable?


Perhaps if you have any friends with very young kids who play video games about what 'game over' means, but for the sake of completeness here it is a colloquial expression for 'the fight is finished'. I thought writing was meant to be your passion.



Steve said:


> Can you guys with more experience with the legal system share how this works out?  Let's say I start by exploding on the guy with simultaneous strikes to his wrsit and his throat.  What would "game over" look like with this technique?


Are you for real? A single strike to the carotid sinus causing your opponent to collapse to the ground looks to me like game over. If you do anything beyond that, the legal protection of self defence no longer applies and if you inflict further damage it falls under retaliation.
For a better picture ... Game Over ... the attacker is lying unconcious on the ground.



Steve said:


> Would "game over" be reasonable self defense?


 Unbelievable!



Steve said:


> What about the multiple knees to the abdomen, followed by repeated strikes to the back of the neck and head?  Game over looks like what?  Is that likely to be viewed as "reasonable?"


Good grief, I've seen the same technique done in the ring. The knees to the abdomen obviously cease if the guy falls to the ground, it's that simple! If he doesn't fall to the ground there is a good chance he will bend forward exposing his neck and back of head. One good strike should end it. If it doesn't he'll be hit again.

As soon as he can't continue to fight or be a threat it is 'game over'. You can't continue to hit or even stomp.

What part of that does not comply with the laws of reasonable force? OK, I'll give you an example of where it would not be appropriate. A five year old attacks you with his plastic sword. Do I need to continue?

Self defence is your legal defence to your use of physical force against someone who is a threat to you or others around you. If it is seen as unreasonable in the situation you will end up defending yourself in court, no different to unlawful use of a firearm.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2015)

K-man said:


> Perhaps if you have any friends with very young kids who play video games about what 'game over' means, but for the sake of completeness here it is a colloquial expression for 'the fight is finished'. I thought writing was meant to be your passion.
> 
> Are you for real? A single strike to the carotid sinus causing your opponent to collapse to the ground looks to me like game over. If you do anything beyond that, the legal protection of self defence no longer applies and if you inflict further damage it falls under retaliation.
> For a better picture ... Game Over ... the attacker is lying unconcious on the ground.
> ...


The personal insults you layer in are unnecessary.  I do write professionally and for fun.  I've never claimed to be a better writer than anyone around here.  

Regarding the rest, I'm just really tired of bickering with you, K-man.  I'm sure you have some terrific points in your post, but frankly, I just can't get past your overt hostility.


----------

