BJJ self-defense is TKD self-defense

[wab25]

I haven't seen anyone argue against researching the law.

No, no one has said "do not research the law. But they have said stuff like:

I have never gotten in trouble for sitting on people in self defence.

That may be true. But, it is also true that things could have gone differently. In most of the US, you can use self defense when the other guy is attacking you with deadly force (which includes great bodily injury). However, when the threat is gone, you no longer have the right to self defense. When the guy holds you up at knife point you can shoot him.... once he is running away, you cannot shoot him in self defense, as the imminent threat is gone. But where exactly is that line in each situation? That is where understanding the local law is important.

Are you suggesting that getting to a dominant position with minimal risk of injury is a more risky legal strategy than using full force and causing significant injury to your opponent to finish the fight?

If the other guy attacked you, you have the right to self defense. Once you decide to control him to the ground and pin him, you need to know when you are legally considered to be entering mutual combat. Once you enter into mutual combat, your case for self defense is gone, unless something changes. Putting the other guy on the ground, and establishing a dominant position where you can injure him, but he cannot injure you changes things. The disparity of force is now in your favor, and he can now claim self defense. If he has some kind of underlying condition and dies.... the question will be asked (most likely in court) would he have still died, had you not been on top of him?

Lets say he does not die, but you are on top of him. Since he is pinned to the ground, he can use lethal force to defend himself. In the ensuing struggle, you break his arm or slam his head into the ground. Because you were on top, controlling him, the disparity of force was in your favor. It would be really important to know at what point you were legally considered the victim of an attack, a mutual combatant, a co aggressor and or the aggressor. These distinctions will determine any criminal case and civil case against you.

If you are in a Duty to Retreat state, and you tell the cops the guy attacked me and I took him down.... you may be in trouble right there, because of your duty to retreat. Simply stating from the beginning that you tried to retreat, changes things. Understanding the law, specifically about when you do not have to retreat, in a duty to retreat state, can also help out. Being able to state that the guy was too close when he lunged, that you could not safely retreat or stating that you were there with you family and needed to protect them, changes things, in regard to your duty to retreat.

These are the kinds of things that I think people should be taking time to learn about. When are you a victim? When are you justified in using force? When are you justified in using lethal force? What is considered lethal force? When are you entering mutual combat? When do you become a co aggressor? When to you become the aggressor? When do things move from self defense to assault? These are the kinds of things people should be encouraged to learn. The answers will vary by location and by person. (your age and abilities will very much factor into this, and will change.... as you get older, your abilities change)

Relying on over simplified "I'll just do this..." type thinking is the same.... whether you are saying "I will just kick the guy in the groin....", "I will just eye gouge him...." or "I will just claim self defense...." and "I will just take him down and control him..." They are all greatly over simplified.

 

[dunc]

No, no one has said "do not research the law. But they have said stuff like:


That may be true. But, it is also true that things could have gone differently. In most of the US, you can use self defense when the other guy is attacking you with deadly force (which includes great bodily injury). However, when the threat is gone, you no longer have the right to self defense. When the guy holds you up at knife point you can shoot him.... once he is running away, you cannot shoot him in self defense, as the imminent threat is gone. But where exactly is that line in each situation? That is where understanding the local law is important.



If the other guy attacked you, you have the right to self defense. Once you decide to control him to the ground and pin him, you need to know when you are legally considered to be entering mutual combat. Once you enter into mutual combat, your case for self defense is gone, unless something changes. Putting the other guy on the ground, and establishing a dominant position where you can injure him, but he cannot injure you changes things. The disparity of force is now in your favor, and he can now claim self defense. If he has some kind of underlying condition and dies.... the question will be asked (most likely in court) would he have still died, had you not been on top of him?

Lets say he does not die, but you are on top of him. Since he is pinned to the ground, he can use lethal force to defend himself. In the ensuing struggle, you break his arm or slam his head into the ground. Because you were on top, controlling him, the disparity of force was in your favor. It would be really important to know at what point you were legally considered the victim of an attack, a mutual combatant, a co aggressor and or the aggressor. These distinctions will determine any criminal case and civil case against you.

If you are in a Duty to Retreat state, and you tell the cops the guy attacked me and I took him down.... you may be in trouble right there, because of your duty to retreat. Simply stating from the beginning that you tried to retreat, changes things. Understanding the law, specifically about when you do not have to retreat, in a duty to retreat state, can also help out. Being able to state that the guy was too close when he lunged, that you could not safely retreat or stating that you were there with you family and needed to protect them, changes things, in regard to your duty to retreat.

These are the kinds of things that I think people should be taking time to learn about. When are you a victim? When are you justified in using force? When are you justified in using lethal force? What is considered lethal force? When are you entering mutual combat? When do you become a co aggressor? When to you become the aggressor? When do things move from self defense to assault? These are the kinds of things people should be encouraged to learn. The answers will vary by location and by person. (your age and abilities will very much factor into this, and will change.... as you get older, your abilities change)

Relying on over simplified "I'll just do this..." type thinking is the same.... whether you are saying "I will just kick the guy in the groin....", "I will just eye gouge him...." or "I will just claim self defense...." and "I will just take him down and control him..." They are all greatly over simplified.

These are great points and I agree 100% that understanding the legal context is important

Reiterating that, in my view, a) the average BJJ academy's self defence curriculum is somewhat underdeveloped, b) BJJ can play a role in someone's broader self defence strategy by providing the ability to control an opponent whilst minimising the likelihood of their being injured and c) that I disagree with proponents on this thread of taking a "maximal force approach to self defence" both on legal and ethical grounds

 

[wab25]

BJJ can play a role in someone's broader self defence strategy by providing the ability to control an opponent whilst minimising the likelihood of their being injured

I agree with this. I just advocate understanding the legal context in which you will be applying these skills.

that I disagree with proponents on this thread of taking a "maximal force approach to self defence" both on legal and ethical grounds

To clarify, I am not a proponent of a "maximal force approach to self defense." I was showing an inconsistency in the narrative. This inconsistency has been pointed out to me by multiple law enforcement officers that I have trained with and by multiple lawyers that I have talked to.

If an untrained, average person were attacked... and their story was that they were afraid for their life, so they grabbed the nearest weapon of opportunity and used it with all their force.... that makes logical sense. They really were so afraid that they were going to be killed, that they did everything in their power to stop it.

If the story comes out as "I was afraid for my life, so I gently controlled him to the ground, and maintained a dominant position until..." Both lawyers and law enforcement will question if you were really "afraid for your life."

I also wanted to make people aware that being in that dominant position, after taking someone down, can create a disparity of force, in your favor. Having training in martial arts can create a disparity of force in your favor. This of course, depends on the legal context.... which is why I suggest people research that.

If you read enough of my previous posts here on this forum.... I am very consistent in my view of how an incident should be handled. You should get to the point where you can run away safely, then run away.... when you are safe, you call the police and report what happened. So, if the bigger guy attacks you, you can gently control him to the ground... then roll him face down and run away. Once you are at a safe location, call the police. Now your story is consistent... I was afraid for my life, I put him on the ground and I got away before he could come at me again. Further, by reporting, hopefully first, I get to set the narrative that the police are responding to. Again, even in this, you need to understand the legal context... do I have a duty to retreat....?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with this. I just advocate understanding the legal context in which you will be applying these skills.


To clarify, I am not a proponent of a "maximal force approach to self defense." I was showing an inconsistency in the narrative. This inconsistency has been pointed out to me by multiple law enforcement officers that I have trained with and by multiple lawyers that I have talked to.

If an untrained, average person were attacked... and their story was that they were afraid for their life, so they grabbed the nearest weapon of opportunity and used it with all their force.... that makes logical sense. They really were so afraid that they were going to be killed, that they did everything in their power to stop it.

If the story comes out as "I was afraid for my life, so I gently controlled him to the ground, and maintained a dominant position until..." Both lawyers and law enforcement will question if you were really "afraid for your life."

I also wanted to make people aware that being in that dominant position, after taking someone down, can create a disparity of force, in your favor. Having training in martial arts can create a disparity of force in your favor. This of course, depends on the legal context.... which is why I suggest people research that.

If you read enough of my previous posts here on this forum.... I am very consistent in my view of how an incident should be handled. You should get to the point where you can run away safely, then run away.... when you are safe, you call the police and report what happened. So, if the bigger guy attacks you, you can gently control him to the ground... then roll him face down and run away. Once you are at a safe location, call the police. Now your story is consistent... I was afraid for my life, I put him on the ground and I got away before he could come at me again. Further, by reporting, hopefully first, I get to set the narrative that the police are responding to. Again, even in this, you need to understand the legal context... do I have a duty to retreat....?

I still think you're painting this too black-and-white. First, there's no need in any jurisdiction I'm aware of that an individual fear for their life in order to claim self-defense. And the description need never sound like "I gently".

It could be much more in the middle: "I feared for my safety, so I responded by taking him to the ground and keeping him in a position where I could maintain my safety. He continued to threaten, and I feared that if I released him, he would attack again."

 

[wab25]

First, there's no need in any jurisdiction I'm aware of that an individual fear for their life in order to claim self-defense.

This is correct. However, see the video in post #31 of this thread. The issue is whether you can use deadly force. Generally, you can use deadly force if a reasonable person would fear for their life or fear great bodily injury. This means that we should understand what is considered "deadly force." A disparity of force can be considered the same as being armed with a weapon. So, understanding how a disparity of force can be achieved in your specific legal context would be important.

If someone attacks you, knowing whether that attack were legally considered deadly force, or not, would be good. If the other guy is not using deadly force and you are, you may have a problem. Understanding whether your training in martial arts means you are using deadly force, whether being on top of a grounded opponent is considered deadly force.... Also understanding how these distinctions change during the incident, will be very good to understand.

Go back to that video and listen to gun in a restaurant scenario. If a guy pulls a gun on you in a restaurant, you can pull yours and shoot him... self defense. If the guy instead, tells you that he is going to his truck to get his gun and shoot you... when he comes back with the gun, and you shoot him.... that is no longer self defense... because you had the option to leave, but chose to stay... and it could even be considered premeditated, because you sat there the entire time waiting for him to come back. Both are the same situation, a guy points a gun at you in a restaurant and you shoot him.... but very different outcomes, depending on other parts of the incident. Learning how these things are looked at legally is all I am trying to get across.

You think I am being too black and white. A good lawyer does not need things to be so black and white, to find inconsistencies. These inconsistencies could be the difference between jail time or not and millions of dollars of restitution or not.

We can all find cases in recent history, where we disagree with the rulings.... with who goes to jail and who gets off. But, do we take the time to examine the details and learn why the courts ruled as they did? What were the details that the courts valued that led them to the ruling they made? When we are involved in an incident.... I doubt the courts will only look at the details we personally feel are important and ignore the rest. I just think trying to understand what the legal system looks at and how that effects the process is important. In my experience, the courts look at these things very differently than we do.... which is why we get so upset when the court rules "the wrong way."

 

[BobY777]

In the kid's BJJ class yesterday, my Professor did self-defense before getting into the lesson. The attack the uke was simulating was a haymaker punch, the defense was a basic knife-hand block, hook the arm into a head-and-arm throw.

The exact take-down was different than I've typically done in TKD class, but the rest of it (including the uke's attack and the style of the drill) was pretty much the same as punch defense in TKD.

I just think its funny after doing TKD for years and reading how inferior it is to BJJ, then we go and do the exact same stuff.

I've done tkd, defendo,karate, hapkido and capoera and I noticed the same stuff would Come up. Like if learned a Block in tkd on tuesday, I would learn an application for it in hapkido on wednesday.. I learn a choke in karate on thursday and then apply it in defendo on friday..

 

[Dirty Dog]

The more you learn, the more you realize that there's little or nothing that is unique to any art. TKD grapples. Aikido kicks. It's more a matter of WHEN you learn something and how much it's emphasized. You'll learn kicking sooner and focus on them more in TKD. You'll learn joint locks and throws sooner and focus on them more in Aikido. But you'll still learn them all.

 

[marvin8]

That may be true. But, it is also true that things could have gone differently. In most of the US, you can use self defense when the other guy is attacking you with deadly force (which includes great bodily injury).

You can use self defense when the other guy is attacking you with deadly or non-deadly force.

If the other guy attacked you, you have the right to self defense. Once you decide to control him to the ground and pin him, you need to know when you are legally considered to be entering mutual combat. Once you enter into mutual combat, your case for self defense is gone, unless something changes.

If the other guy attacked you, they are the initial aggressor. You have the right to self defense.

You legally enter mutual combat only when parties consensually agree to engage in a fair fight.

Putting the other guy on the ground, and establishing a dominant position where you can injure him, but he cannot injure you changes things. The disparity of force is now in your favor, and he can now claim self defense.

Lets say he does not die, but you are on top of him. Since he is pinned to the ground, he can use lethal force to defend himself.

Only being in a dominate position, does not give him the right to use lethal force against you. A deadly threat is not imminent unless there is also jeopardy—you intend to do grave bodily harm to him from that position.

In the ensuing struggle, you break his arm or slam his head into the ground. Because you were on top, controlling him, the disparity of force was in your favor. It would be really important to know at what point you were legally considered the victim of an attack, a mutual combatant, a co aggressor and or the aggressor. These distinctions will determine any criminal case and civil case against you.

If you are in a dominant position and he is unarmed, it's illegal to create grave bodily harm or death. Because, you are escalating from a non-lethal situation to using lethal force .

From a non-dominant position, it can be legal for you to break his arm or slam his head into the ground if he attacks you.

 

[wab25]

You can use self defense when the other guy is attacking you with deadly or non-deadly force.

Again.... the issue is what kind of force can you respond with? If he attacks you with non-deadly force, and you respond with deadly force, you have a problem. Do you know specifically what constitutes deadly force, from a legal perspective? Thats one of the things I advocate that people should research.

If the other guy attacked you, they are the initial aggressor. You have the right to self defense.

You legally enter mutual combat only when parties consensually agree to engage in a fair fight.

You do realize that these roles can and do change as the incident progresses? Things that start as mutual combat can turn into self defense.... and things that start out as self defense can turn into mutual combat or the aggressor role can shift to the other guy. It would be good to educate yourself on how and why these roles can change.

Only being in a dominate position, does not give him the right to use lethal force against you. A deadly threat is not imminent unless there is also jeopardy—you intend to do grave bodily harm to him from that position.

Almost.... if a reasonable person would thinks that the person in the dominant position intends to do grave bodily damage, then he has jeopardy. The court knows what you thought.... but was your thinking that of a reasonable person? If you take the guy down, and then leave.... there is no jeopardy. But, if you take him down and maintain that dominant position, could he reasonably think he was in danger? If you are yelling at him, could those be considered threats, thus jeopardy? If you have a joint lock or choke hold on, could that be considered jeopardy? If he is trying to flea and you are restraining him, is that considered jeopardy? Note that the answers to these questions are not what you think the answers should be... but they are defined in the local law where this is taking place. And do you know all the details that the courts will be looking at?

If you are in a dominant position and he is unarmed, it's illegal to create grave bodily harm or death. Because, you are escalating from a non-lethal situation to using lethal force .

Correct. What if the guy has a pre-existing medical condition that you are unaware of, and he dies in a controlling hold that you have put hundreds of other, healthy, people into with no issue? What if he struggles and in the struggle you injure him from your dominant position? Had you got up and walked away, he would not have been struggling and therefore would not have gotten injured.

From a non-dominant position, it can be legal for you to break his arm or slam his head into the ground if he attacks you.

That sort of goes against what you said earlier.... "Only being in a dominate position, does not give him the right to use lethal force against you." You do realize that in most places, both breaking his arm and slamming his head into the ground are considered "lethal force" techniques? And, you are correct, that from the non-dominant position, you can have the right to respond with "lethal force." But, if you are in the dominant position, remember that the other guy is in this non-dominant position, and thus can have the right to use "lethal force."

Note: I am using the term "lethal force" to refer to both force that can kill and force that can cripple or otherwise cause great bodily damage... because that is the way the law usually describes these.

 

[marvin8]

Again.... the issue is what kind of force can you respond with?

Like force, deadly or non-deadly.

If he attacks you with non-deadly force, and you respond with deadly force, you have a problem. Do you know specifically what constitutes deadly force, from a legal perspective? Thats one of the things I advocate that people should research.

Legally, deadly force is more broadly defined than only force that kills. Force that can cause death is part of the definition, but deadly force also includes force that causes serious bodily injury, like maiming injuries, as well as rape.

Deadly force includes reasonably perceived weapons. Non-deadly force includes unarmed.

You do realize that these roles can and do change as the incident progresses? Things that start as mutual combat can turn into self defense.... and things that start out as self defense can turn into mutual combat or the aggressor role can shift to the other guy. It would be good to educate yourself on how and why these roles can change.

Yourself likewise, look up the definition. I brought it up, because you may have a misunderstanding of the term. The role will not change unless there is an agreement. Aggressor role can change, which has nothing to do with mutual combat. Again, "You legally enter mutual combat only when parties consensually agree to engage in a fair fight."

Almost.... if a reasonable person would thinks that the person in the dominant position intends to do grave bodily damage, then he has jeopardy. The court knows what you thought.... but was your thinking that of a reasonable person? If you take the guy down, and then leave.... there is no jeopardy. But, if you take him down and maintain that dominant position, could he reasonably think he was in danger? If you are yelling at him, could those be considered threats, thus jeopardy? If you have a joint lock or choke hold on, could that be considered jeopardy? If he is trying to flea and you are restraining him, is that considered jeopardy? Note that the answers to these questions are not what you think the answers should be... but they are defined in the local law where this is taking place. And do you know all the details that the courts will be looking at?

You are not arguing what I wrote. Again, just restraining someone is not lethal force. That alone does not give them the right to use lethal force against you. There needs to be jeopardy.

Correct. What if the guy has a pre-existing medical condition that you are unaware of, and he dies in a controlling hold that you have put hundreds of other, healthy, people into with no issue? What if he struggles and in the struggle you injure him from your dominant position? Had you got up and walked away, he would not have been struggling and therefore would not have gotten injured.

You have the right to self defense and can reasonably restrain someone against an attack. You are not held responsible for knowing their medical condition.

That sort of goes against what you said earlier.... "Only being in a dominate position, does not give him the right to use lethal force against you." You do realize that in most places, both breaking his arm and slamming his head into the ground are considered "lethal force" techniques?

No, it doesn't...

Just being in a dominate position or restraining someone is not using lethal force and is not the same as breaking someone's arm or head.

But, if you are in the dominant position, remember that the other guy is in this non-dominant position, and thus can have the right to use "lethal force."

No. He doesn't have that right without jeopardy. I believe you may misunderstand.

Note: I am using the term "lethal force" to refer to both force that can kill and force that can cripple or otherwise cause great bodily damage... because that is the way the law usually describes these.

I already included that, grave bodily harm.

I agree with you that it's important for MAists to understand self defense laws and consequences, discussion may help that.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with this. I just advocate understanding the legal context in which you will be applying these skills.


To clarify, I am not a proponent of a "maximal force approach to self defense." I was showing an inconsistency in the narrative. This inconsistency has been pointed out to me by multiple law enforcement officers that I have trained with and by multiple lawyers that I have talked to.

If an untrained, average person were attacked... and their story was that they were afraid for their life, so they grabbed the nearest weapon of opportunity and used it with all their force.... that makes logical sense. They really were so afraid that they were going to be killed, that they did everything in their power to stop it.

If the story comes out as "I was afraid for my life, so I gently controlled him to the ground, and maintained a dominant position until..." Both lawyers and law enforcement will question if you were really "afraid for your life."

I also wanted to make people aware that being in that dominant position, after taking someone down, can create a disparity of force, in your favor. Having training in martial arts can create a disparity of force in your favor. This of course, depends on the legal context.... which is why I suggest people research that.

If you read enough of my previous posts here on this forum.... I am very consistent in my view of how an incident should be handled. You should get to the point where you can run away safely, then run away.... when you are safe, you call the police and report what happened. So, if the bigger guy attacks you, you can gently control him to the ground... then roll him face down and run away. Once you are at a safe location, call the police. Now your story is consistent... I was afraid for my life, I put him on the ground and I got away before he could come at me again. Further, by reporting, hopefully first, I get to set the narrative that the police are responding to. Again, even in this, you need to understand the legal context... do I have a duty to retreat....?

So we are just going to throw out the whole reasonable and proportionate force, bit that most laws have?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is correct. However, see the video in post #31 of this thread. The issue is whether you can use deadly force. Generally, you can use deadly force if a reasonable person would fear for their life or fear great bodily injury. This means that we should understand what is considered "deadly force." A disparity of force can be considered the same as being armed with a weapon. So, understanding how a disparity of force can be achieved in your specific legal context would be important.

If someone attacks you, knowing whether that attack were legally considered deadly force, or not, would be good. If the other guy is not using deadly force and you are, you may have a problem. Understanding whether your training in martial arts means you are using deadly force, whether being on top of a grounded opponent is considered deadly force.... Also understanding how these distinctions change during the incident, will be very good to understand.

Go back to that video and listen to gun in a restaurant scenario. If a guy pulls a gun on you in a restaurant, you can pull yours and shoot him... self defense. If the guy instead, tells you that he is going to his truck to get his gun and shoot you... when he comes back with the gun, and you shoot him.... that is no longer self defense... because you had the option to leave, but chose to stay... and it could even be considered premeditated, because you sat there the entire time waiting for him to come back. Both are the same situation, a guy points a gun at you in a restaurant and you shoot him.... but very different outcomes, depending on other parts of the incident. Learning how these things are looked at legally is all I am trying to get across.

You think I am being too black and white. A good lawyer does not need things to be so black and white, to find inconsistencies. These inconsistencies could be the difference between jail time or not and millions of dollars of restitution or not.

We can all find cases in recent history, where we disagree with the rulings.... with who goes to jail and who gets off. But, do we take the time to examine the details and learn why the courts ruled as they did? What were the details that the courts valued that led them to the ruling they made? When we are involved in an incident.... I doubt the courts will only look at the details we personally feel are important and ignore the rest. I just think trying to understand what the legal system looks at and how that effects the process is important. In my experience, the courts look at these things very differently than we do.... which is why we get so upset when the court rules "the wrong way."

In your prior posts, you weren't talking about shooting people. You were talking about fearing for your life, and subduing someone gently.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again.... the issue is what kind of force can you respond with? If he attacks you with non-deadly force, and you respond with deadly force, you have a problem. Do you know specifically what constitutes deadly force, from a legal perspective? Thats one of the things I advocate that people should research.


You do realize that these roles can and do change as the incident progresses? Things that start as mutual combat can turn into self defense.... and things that start out as self defense can turn into mutual combat or the aggressor role can shift to the other guy. It would be good to educate yourself on how and why these roles can change.


Almost.... if a reasonable person would thinks that the person in the dominant position intends to do grave bodily damage, then he has jeopardy. The court knows what you thought.... but was your thinking that of a reasonable person? If you take the guy down, and then leave.... there is no jeopardy. But, if you take him down and maintain that dominant position, could he reasonably think he was in danger? If you are yelling at him, could those be considered threats, thus jeopardy? If you have a joint lock or choke hold on, could that be considered jeopardy? If he is trying to flea and you are restraining him, is that considered jeopardy? Note that the answers to these questions are not what you think the answers should be... but they are defined in the local law where this is taking place. And do you know all the details that the courts will be looking at?


Correct. What if the guy has a pre-existing medical condition that you are unaware of, and he dies in a controlling hold that you have put hundreds of other, healthy, people into with no issue? What if he struggles and in the struggle you injure him from your dominant position? Had you got up and walked away, he would not have been struggling and therefore would not have gotten injured.


That sort of goes against what you said earlier.... "Only being in a dominate position, does not give him the right to use lethal force against you." You do realize that in most places, both breaking his arm and slamming his head into the ground are considered "lethal force" techniques? And, you are correct, that from the non-dominant position, you can have the right to respond with "lethal force." But, if you are in the dominant position, remember that the other guy is in this non-dominant position, and thus can have the right to use "lethal force."

Note: I am using the term "lethal force" to refer to both force that can kill and force that can cripple or otherwise cause great bodily damage... because that is the way the law usually describes these.

I'm not aware of a law that would cause the quick flip of aggressor-victim your post here (and others) seem to imply. If someone attacks you, they don't automatically become a victim (and able to claim self-defense) if you get a dominant position in order to control the situation and keep yourself safe.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I probably missed it but is anyone here actually a lawyer?

Whenever there are these SD debates I always wonder because martial artists love to debate legality but rarely seem to have a degree or bar exam.

I do happen to know two martial artist lawyers, so I can probably ask them to settle a question ..hopefully for free.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with this. I just advocate understanding the legal context in which you will be applying these skills.


To clarify, I am not a proponent of a "maximal force approach to self defense." I was showing an inconsistency in the narrative. This inconsistency has been pointed out to me by multiple law enforcement officers that I have trained with and by multiple lawyers that I have talked to.

If an untrained, average person were attacked... and their story was that they were afraid for their life, so they grabbed the nearest weapon of opportunity and used it with all their force.... that makes logical sense. They really were so afraid that they were going to be killed, that they did everything in their power to stop it.

If the story comes out as "I was afraid for my life, so I gently controlled him to the ground, and maintained a dominant position until..." Both lawyers and law enforcement will question if you were really "afraid for your life."

I also wanted to make people aware that being in that dominant position, after taking someone down, can create a disparity of force, in your favor. Having training in martial arts can create a disparity of force in your favor. This of course, depends on the legal context.... which is why I suggest people research that.

If you read enough of my previous posts here on this forum.... I am very consistent in my view of how an incident should be handled. You should get to the point where you can run away safely, then run away.... when you are safe, you call the police and report what happened. So, if the bigger guy attacks you, you can gently control him to the ground... then roll him face down and run away. Once you are at a safe location, call the police. Now your story is consistent... I was afraid for my life, I put him on the ground and I got away before he could come at me again. Further, by reporting, hopefully first, I get to set the narrative that the police are responding to. Again, even in this, you need to understand the legal context... do I have a duty to retreat....?

I literally did the I was afraid for my life and gently controlled him to the ground in a statement once.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I literally did the I was afraid for my life and gently controlled him to the ground in a statement once.View attachment 30287

It's "nocked"...not knocked. And "waist". I'm assuming your lawyer looked at this. I have mixed feelings about lawyers.

They are terrible at math and spelling which is why they often have to hire help. But they always assume they are the smartest in the room.

I almost went to law school once. I think I would have been great at that. Ended up a cook instead. Now I feed lawyers.

 

[drop bear]

It's "nocked"...not knocked. And "waist". I'm assuming your lawyer looked at this. I have mixed feelings about lawyers.

They are terrible at math and spelling which is why they often have to hire help. But they always assume they are the smartest in the room.

I almost went to law school once. I think I would have been great at that. Ended up a cook instead. Now I feed lawyers.

It was a police statement. I wasn't writing Shakespeare.

 

[wab25]

Yourself likewise, look up the definition. I brought it up, because you may have a misunderstanding of the term. The role will not change unless there is an agreement. Aggressor role can change, which has nothing to do with mutual combat. Again, "You legally enter mutual combat only when parties consensually agree to engage in a fair fight."

Jim and Mike are in a club. Jim grabs a pool cue and attacks Mike. Mike knocks the pool cue out of Jim's hand and pushes him into a table. Jim gets up, Jim and Mike start throwing punches. Mike kicks Jim's knee, breaking it. Jim pulls a knife and kills Mike.

Jim starts as the initial aggressor, and has a disparity of force, the pool cue. This means that Mike has the right to self defense and can use lethal force to defend himself. Mike knocks the pool cue from Jim's hand and pushes him away into the tables, in self defense. When they both start punching, this is mutual combat, as both parties had the opportunity to walk away. Instead, they both consented to fight. When Jim's knee was broken, Mike now had a disparity of force. Now that Jim was facing a disparity of force, he is now entitled to the right of self defense and may use deadly force to protect himself.

CORE CRIMINAL LAW SUBJECTS: Defenses: Self-Defense

United States v. Behenna, 71 M.J. 228 (the standard for self-defense is set out in RCM 916(e)(1), which provides that if an individual apprehends on reasonable grounds that grievous bodily harm or death is about to be wrongfully inflicted to his or her person, then the individual may use such force as is appropriate for the circumstances, including deadly force).

(the right to act in self-defense is not absolute; initial aggressors and those involved in mutual combat lose the right to act in self-defense; however, an initial aggressor or a mutual combatant regains the right to act in self-defense if the other party escalates the degree of force, or if the initial aggressor or the mutual combatant withdraws in good faith and communicates that intent to withdraw).

CALCRIM No. 3471. Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor

Justia - California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2024) 3471. Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor - Free Legal Information - Laws, Blogs, Legal Services and More

www.justia.com

A person who (engages in mutual combat/ [or who] starts a fight) has a
right to self-defense only if:
1. (He/She) actually and in good faith tried to stop fighting;
[AND]
2. (He/She) indicated, by word or by conduct, to (his/her) opponent,
in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that (he/she)
wanted to stop fighting and that (he/she) had stopped fighting(;/.)
<Give element 3 in cases of mutual combat.>
[AND
3. (He/She) gave (his/her) opponent a chance to stop fighting.]
If the defendant meets these requirements, (he/she) then had a right to
self-defense if the opponent continued to fight.
[However, if the defendant used only non-deadly force, and the opponent
responded with such sudden and deadly force that the defendant could
not withdraw from the fight, then the defendant had the right to defend
(himself/herself) with deadly force and was not required to try to stop
fighting(,/ or) communicate the desire to stop to the opponent[, or give
the opponent a chance to stop fighting].]
[A fight is mutual combat when it began or continued by mutual consent
or agreement. That agreement may be expressly stated or implied and
must occur before the claim to self-defense arose.]

Interesting that preventing the other guy from withdrawing, even if they started the fight, can give that person the right to self defense and to the use of deadly force.

Back to Basics: Disparity of Force

armedcitizensnetwork.org

Where disparity of force is an issue, the most obvious element of ability, or means, is a deadly weapon, per se: a gun, a knife, a club – something of that nature.

The ostensibly unarmed attacker has ability if within the totality of circumstances his force to yours is so superior, is so likely to result in you being killed or crippled, that it becomes the equivalent of a deadly weapon. The certainty of damage therefore warrants your resort to a per se weapon – in this case your defensive firearm – to stop the attack.

Disparity of force can take any number of forms: the most obvious is force of numbers, a gang of assailants or just two. It could be, again obviously, a much larger, stronger person; interestingly not necessarily a younger person. While often you will find that with a younger attacker and an older victim, disparity of force exists, it is not the age that’s doing it; it is the common disabilities that come with age.

Disparity of force could be the handicapped attacked by the able-bodied, even if the handicap has taken place during the assault. Let’s say that you are attacked by a person of similar size and apparent abilities, but she starts the fight with a kick that breaks your kneecap. It is going to be all you can do to stay on your feet, let alone launch punches with body weight behind them, effectively block and evade, or throw a kick.

Another element of disparity of force is position of disadvantage. Maybe my student is 6’ 2’’ 220 pounds and a body builder, but they are seat belted into their car and in the road rage incident the attacker is punching them through the open window. That seat belt is going to act like an accomplice that is pinning your arms and holding you in place. You will not be able to get body weight behind a counter-punch, you certainly will not be able to kick, and you would be virtually unable to slip or evade a punch.

Another element in disparity of force could be that the opponent has a known or obviously recognizable high-level skill in unarmed combat. You know he is a black belt. You know he was trained to kill with his hands in Special Forces and now he has turned bad. Maybe you have no idea who he is, but you just saw him kick a 6’ 2’’ 220-pound guy through a plate glass window while you were close enough to know that the guy you’re dealing with is not an average Joe.

I probably missed it but is anyone here actually a lawyer?

No I am not a lawyer. I never claimed to be. I am suggesting that people do more research and talk to a lawyer if possible. I am suggesting that these situations are not as black and white as we want them to be. I understand that you are the good guy and that whatever you did was in the best interest of the public.... but I am not the courts. I suggest looking at what the courts will look at and how they will interpret the different details.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Jim and Mike are in a club. Jim grabs a pool cue and attacks Mike. Mike knocks the pool cue out of Jim's hand and pushes him into a table. Jim gets up, Jim and Mike start throwing punches. Mike kicks Jim's knee, breaking it. Jim pulls a knife and kills Mike.

Jim starts as the initial aggressor, and has a disparity of force, the pool cue. This means that Mike has the right to self defense and can use lethal force to defend himself. Mike knocks the pool cue from Jim's hand and pushes him away into the tables, in self defense. When they both start punching, this is mutual combat, as both parties had the opportunity to walk away. Instead, they both consented to fight. When Jim's knee was broken, Mike now had a disparity of force. Now that Jim was facing a disparity of force, he is now entitled to the right of self defense and may use deadly force to protect himself.

CORE CRIMINAL LAW SUBJECTS: Defenses: Self-Defense

CALCRIM No. 3471. Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor

Justia - California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2024) 3471. Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor - Free Legal Information - Laws, Blogs, Legal Services and More

www.justia.com

Interesting that preventing the other guy from withdrawing, even if they started the fight, can give that person the right to self defense and to the use of deadly force.

Back to Basics: Disparity of Force

armedcitizensnetwork.org

No I am not a lawyer. I never claimed to be. I am suggesting that people do more research and talk to a lawyer if possible. I am suggesting that these situations are not as black and white as we want them to be. I understand that you are the good guy and that whatever you did was in the best interest of the public.... but I am not the courts. I suggest looking at what the courts will look at and how they will interpret the different details.

I don’t agree with your assessment of the legal distinctions in this situation. It doesn’t automatically become mutual combat simply because they are both fighting, and the description here doesn’t make it clear Mike had an opportunity to leave and chose to hang around and fight. And just because Jim is injured as a result of his attack on Mike, he doesn’t automatically have a right to defend himself.

Both of those things are possible under some conditions, but not so clearly in this situation as your post implies.

 

[wab25]

I don’t agree with your assessment of the legal distinctions in this situation.

That is fine. I am not asking you to agree with it. I am asking you to recognize that in court there will be different views on what happened and who is guilty. You are not going to agree with both. We can point to any number of recent cases where people vehemently disagree with the court verdicts. I feel it is important to gain an understanding what caused those courts to arrive at those verdicts. In court, there will be one for each side... in both the criminal and civil trials.

It doesn’t automatically become mutual combat simply because they are both fighting, and the description here doesn’t make it clear Mike had an opportunity to leave and chose to hang around and fight.

Correct. But, this is one of the points that will be argued in court. Understanding how a situation becomes mutual combat, in this location will help to determine whether they did or did not enter into mutual combat. I even posted California Criminal Jury instructions which state that the agreement to enter into mutual combat may be stated or implied. (even bolded that part above) I would expect this transition to be brought up in court or at least considered.

And just because Jim is injured as a result of his attack on Mike, he doesn’t automatically have a right to defend himself.

Automatically.... no, you are correct. However, as shown in my previous citations from expert witnesses, lawyers and cases... Both the initial aggressor and the participant in mutual combat can regain their right to self defense, if certain conditions are met. See the case I sourced above United State vs Behenna, "an initial aggressor or a mutual combatant regains the right to act in self-defense if the other party escalates the degree of force, or if the initial aggressor or the mutual combatant withdraws in good faith and communicates that intent to withdraw."

The expert witness further elaborates that disabling attack by one would put the other at severe risk of death or great bodily injury.... this difference can be so great, that it can be considered a deadly weapon.

Again, these are points that will be argued and or considered in court. I think it is worth researching and understanding the law. You don't get off scot free, just because it is you claiming it was all self defense.

Any way, I have made my point. Research the law and court cases in your area, to understand what people are looking for and what will be considered. I even suggest talking with lawyers and law enforcement, as well as reading up on the subject.