BJJ self-defense is TKD self-defense

[marvin8]

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.

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.

It becomes mutual combat only when parties consensually agree to engage in a fair fight, either explicitly or implicitly. Meaning neither individual uses weapons and stops hitting when the other party disengages... By claiming the combat was initially mutual, you are sacrificing your ability to claim that you acted in self-defense in most cases.

Therefore, neither Jim nor Mike can claim mutual combat as a defense to avoid battery charges. In mutual combat, both parties are seen as initial aggressors and lose the claim to self-defense.

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."

No, both are initial aggressors in mutual combat and lose their right to claim self defense. It's only when he "withdraws [from the mutual combat] in good faith and communicates that intent to withdraw" does he get to claim self defense.

Genuine self-defense only happens when one party starts the fight against the wishes of the other.

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

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.

At that point, there is no mutual combat. Jim may have lost his right to claim self defense, as he is the initial aggressor.

Mike may have reasonably feared death or serious bodily harm from JIm's armed (deadly) and unarmed (non-deadly) attacks and legally defended himself. It may be found in court Jim started the fight, Mike legally defended himself and Jim murdered him.

 

[wab25]

No, both are initial aggressors in mutual combat and lose their right to claim self defense. It's only when he "withdraws [from the mutual combat] in good faith and communicates that intent to withdraw" does he get to claim self defense.

Genuine self-defense only happens when one party starts the fight against the wishes of the other.

Read your own source....

Is Mutual Combat a Defense Against Assault Charges in California?

California law says that if two people agree to fight in mutual combat, they are still committing battery —but charges are rare.

vistacriminallaw.com

Similarly, if you took things too far and continued to fight after the other person stopped fighting or you used deadly force, then you should contact a lawyer, even if witnesses agree the fight was mutual. If you used deadly force or caused the other person serious injuries, prosecutors are likely to believe you used excessive force regardless of what the other party and the witnesses say

When you use deadly force on someone else, they gain the right to self defense. A big enough disparity of force can be deadly force.

By claiming the combat was initially mutual, you are sacrificing your ability to claim that you acted in self-defense in most cases. However, if you clearly tried to stop fighting and the other party kept going, you can successfully argue that you used self-defense to protect yourself against further attacks.

Similarly, if the other party suddenly took out a knife or gun or threatened to use deadly force, you can claim you used deadly force in response in an attempt to defend yourself. A self-defense strategy can be particularly strong in cases where a fight left someone dead or hospitalized.

Your own source confirms, that a person engaged in mutual combat can regain the right to self defense, if they are faced with deadly force, either threatened or used.

Why is this important to us? (again from your source)

Regardless of whether the engagement was mutual, when one person is severely injured and the other isn’t, police often arrest the less injured party —and it is likely charges will be filed as well. These charges are often based on the fact that serious injuries typically only occur when someone continued to fight after the other person disengaged or when someone experienced with martial arts choose to use them against someone with minimal physical combat experience.

 

[Oily Dragon]

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

Ah, so it was written for police. That explains all the errors

I kid, I kid..

 

[Oily Dragon]

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.

All well and good, but you can do all the research you want, but things are always situational and you can't pre plan for most self defense situations, imho. They are chaotic and unpredictable. Heat of the moment, in danger, you probably won't even consider something you read online or were counseled on. Adrenaline is a powerful thing.

If you really train well, chances are your muscle memory is just gonna kick in and you're not gonna have your logic and careful thought available to you.

Which is why it's important, I think, to focus on functional training that maxes your safety level...defense. offensive stuff like ancient bone breaking techniques are best saved for worst case scenarios. Learn to take hits, roll with assault, and save the deadly hands stuff for last resort, "I'm a about to die" moments.

I think smarts will keep people out of most fights, and when that isn't possible, do the least amount of damage possible. If you need to really hurt someone or take a life, you're past the point of no return and your fate is set.

This is why I don't get into fights unless I am competing.

 

[drop bear]

The advantage of a very good lawyer.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/mackay/knife-attack-on-two-people/news-story/4bca10e2196cf06ae9b78b6bd8466338

 

[marvin8]

Read your own source....

Is Mutual Combat a Defense Against Assault Charges in California?

California law says that if two people agree to fight in mutual combat, they are still committing battery —but charges are rare.

vistacriminallaw.com

When you use deadly force on someone else, they gain the right to self defense. A big enough disparity of force can be deadly force.

When you (Mike) use deadly defensive force on someone (Jim) that has attacked you with deadly force, they (initial aggressor) may not "gain" the right to self-defense, regardless of disparity of force. Because, the initial aggressor (Jim) loses the right to argue self-defense.

Your own source confirms, that a person engaged in mutual combat can regain the right to self defense, if they are faced with deadly force, either threatened or used.

However again, Jim and Mike were not engaged in mutual combat (both initial aggressors). Jim (the only initial aggressor) attacked Mike with deadly force, while Jim was unarmed (disparity of force).

I believe you're still confused on some terms (e.g., mutual combat, initial aggressor, self-defense) and what others posted.

Jim (initial aggressor) attacked Mike twice, once with a pool cue (deadly force) and once with punches. Mike had the right to defend himself in both sequences. If Jim is found to be the initial aggressor, he loses the right to act in self-defense. This is the court default, before considering aggravating factors.

Why is this important to us? (again from your source)

Regardless of whether the engagement was mutual, when one person is severely injured and the other isn’t, police often arrest the less injured party —and it is likely charges will be filed as well. These charges are often based on the fact that serious injuries typically only occur when someone continued to fight after the other person disengaged or when someone experienced with martial arts choose to use them against someone with minimal physical combat experience.

Jim will be likely charged with murder, having been the initial aggressor using deadly force to start and finish the fight.

 

[punisher73]

Too many factors to give legal advice.

But, some important things to consider.

1) "Self-Defense" is a legal concept and is call and "affirmative defense". It means that you did something that would normally be considered a crime, but had a good reason to do it. It is up to the courts to decide if you met the criteria of how your state defines "self-defense".

2) Most courts look at self-defense differently than what you THINK should happen. This also varies greatly depending on where you live and how the Prosecuting/District Attorney wants to handle these types of cases. BUT, the vast majority of fights happen because both parties are smack talking back and forth prior to the incident and it escalates into force. Where I live, if you are both participating in running your mouths at each other and the other guy does something first and you respond, you still can't claim self-defense because you were both willingly participating in the situation in which it escalated. It is VERY rare in most cases that one party is clearly trying to separate and de-escalate the situation and trying to leave and a fight happens. You can't light the fuse and not expect the bomb to go off. This is also why most police will write the incident as mutual combat and charge both parties (again specific ordinance/law will vary. Our area has a specific "disorderly by fighting").

3) Induced Jeopardy: A legal concept which basically looks at HOW you arrived at the situation. Even if you were "justified" at the time you used force, they will look at the factors that led you there. Did you create the incident based on poor decisions and actions that led to the use of force? Again, going back to the previous scenario. You are both trash talking to each other and making threats, the other guy pushes you, so you punch him and knock him back and it escalates from there. The courts aren't going to JUST look at the incident when the force was used, they are going to also look at what got you there. This is a big one in LE use of force cases now, did the officer create the situation in which force had to be used. Courts understand that some people just keep pushing an issue to get a reaction out of somebody and then want to claim self-defense because they could goad the other person into doing something.

The ONLY advice I would give is to talk to a local attorney in your specific area and see what the laws/ordinances are and how the local prosecutor deals with them. Most areas have something similar to a "disorderly by fighting" ordinance on the books and it is much easier to plead and pay the fine than it is to pay for an attorney to defend yourself in court.

One last thing... BJJ might be highly effective, but one point to consider is that pain compliance rarely works to stop a fight in the street once you let go, they want to re-engage. Unless there are security personnel/bouncers/police right there, its not a good option. The submissions and chokes in BJJ are considered deadly force (something that can cause great bodily harm and/or death) in many areas. So, the fact that you are trying to armbar somebody would give them a legitimate legal reason to use deadly force against you. Remember that the law doesn't take into account what you thought about it, it is what the victim thought you intended to do. Honestly ask yourself, if someone is trying to armbar you in a fight are you going to think he is just trying to immobilize you or are you going to think he is trying to break your arm?

 

[dunc]

Too many factors to give legal advice.

But, some important things to consider.

1) "Self-Defense" is a legal concept and is call and "affirmative defense". It means that you did something that would normally be considered a crime, but had a good reason to do it. It is up to the courts to decide if you met the criteria of how your state defines "self-defense".

2) Most courts look at self-defense differently than what you THINK should happen. This also varies greatly depending on where you live and how the Prosecuting/District Attorney wants to handle these types of cases. BUT, the vast majority of fights happen because both parties are smack talking back and forth prior to the incident and it escalates into force. Where I live, if you are both participating in running your mouths at each other and the other guy does something first and you respond, you still can't claim self-defense because you were both willingly participating in the situation in which it escalated. It is VERY rare in most cases that one party is clearly trying to separate and de-escalate the situation and trying to leave and a fight happens. You can't light the fuse and not expect the bomb to go off. This is also why most police will write the incident as mutual combat and charge both parties (again specific ordinance/law will vary. Our area has a specific "disorderly by fighting").

3) Induced Jeopardy: A legal concept which basically looks at HOW you arrived at the situation. Even if you were "justified" at the time you used force, they will look at the factors that led you there. Did you create the incident based on poor decisions and actions that led to the use of force? Again, going back to the previous scenario. You are both trash talking to each other and making threats, the other guy pushes you, so you punch him and knock him back and it escalates from there. The courts aren't going to JUST look at the incident when the force was used, they are going to also look at what got you there. This is a big one in LE use of force cases now, did the officer create the situation in which force had to be used. Courts understand that some people just keep pushing an issue to get a reaction out of somebody and then want to claim self-defense because they could goad the other person into doing something.

The ONLY advice I would give is to talk to a local attorney in your specific area and see what the laws/ordinances are and how the local prosecutor deals with them. Most areas have something similar to a "disorderly by fighting" ordinance on the books and it is much easier to plead and pay the fine than it is to pay for an attorney to defend yourself in court.

Really interesting post - thanks

One last thing... BJJ might be highly effective, but one point to consider is that pain compliance rarely works to stop a fight in the street once you let go, they want to re-engage. Unless there are security personnel/bouncers/police right there, it’s not a good option. The submissions and chokes in BJJ are considered deadly force (something that can cause great bodily harm and/or death) in many areas. So, the fact that you are trying to armbar somebody would give them a legitimate legal reason to use deadly force against you. Remember that the law doesn't take into account what you thought about it, it is what the victim thought you intended to do. Honestly ask yourself, if someone is trying to armbar you in a fight are you going to think he is just trying to immobilize you or are you going to think he is trying to break your arm?

I think the value of BJJ (as an element of a broader self defence skill set) is being able to fully control someone before you apply a submission - it’s kinda the core principle of BJJ

So you can pretty much hold someone in position for extended periods of time without having to apply pain, breaks or chokes

BJJ clearly has its limitations, but nothing on this thread has suggested that this would not be a helpful skill to have in certain self defence situations

 

[punisher73]

Really interesting post - thanks


I think the value of BJJ (as an element of a broader self defence skill set) is being able to fully control someone before you apply a submission - it’s kinda the core principle of BJJ

So you can pretty much hold someone in position for extended periods of time without having to apply pain, breaks or chokes

BJJ clearly has its limitations, but nothing on this thread has suggested that this would not be a helpful skill to have in certain self defence situations

You can hold somebody for a period of time, which is why I mentioned security/police etc. being nearby. It just comes down to circumstances and environment.

I didn't say that the skill set wasn't good to have or not effective. I was pointing out what many people don't recognize about their BJJ training when it comes to self-defense in lieu of people on this thread pointing out the "fear for your life" aspect and using deadly force. If you don't know the laws of your state, you could be doing something that would be considered deadly force. I would give the same advice to someone from the "eye gouge" "throat punch" crowd as well, that they may not understand the legal ramifications of what they are proposing.

 

[Oily Dragon]

But your h

Really interesting post - thanks


I think the value of BJJ (as an element of a broader self defence skill set) is being able to fully control someone before you apply a submission - it’s kinda the core principle of BJJ

So you can pretty much hold someone in position for extended periods of time without having to apply pain, breaks or chokes

BJJ clearly has its limitations, but nothing on this thread has suggested that this would not be a helpful skill to have in certain self defence situations

"But officer/your honor....he tired me out!!".

The best defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.


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.


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.

I was more debating the way you stayed it. Your post sounded as if you were saying those were facts, not that they may open to that interpretation in court.

 

[wab25]

When you (Mike) use deadly defensive force on someone (Jim) that has attacked you with deadly force, they (initial aggressor) may not "gain" the right to self-defense, regardless of disparity of force. Because, the initial aggressor (Jim) loses the right to argue self-defense.

I have presented expert witnesses, lawyers, instructions to a jury and case results, judgements in court.... that all state that the initial aggressor or mutual combatant can regain the right to self defense in certain circumstances.... one of those circumstances is an escalation of force, or the use of deadly force. Your statement that they cannot regain or gain the right to self defense goes against what these expert witnesses, lawyers and judges have said and ruled. Your own source also confirmed this fact.... but please continue to argue it anyway.

 

[wab25]

I was more debating the way you stayed it. Your post sounded as if you were saying those were facts, not that they may open to that interpretation in court.

My writing has much to be desired....

In court, their will be two sides, with two very different interpretations of what happened. To many people think that only their side, the right side, will be considered.

The ONLY advice I would give is to talk to a local attorney in your specific area and see what the laws/ordinances are and how the local prosecutor deals with them. Most areas have something similar to a "disorderly by fighting" ordinance on the books and it is much easier to plead and pay the fine than it is to pay for an attorney to defend yourself in court.

This is what I am getting at. Things are not black and white.... I think it would be important to be familiar with the details that will matter in court.

 

[marvin8]

When you (Mike) use deadly defensive force on someone (Jim) that has attacked you with deadly force, they (initial aggressor) may not "gain" the right to self-defense, regardless of disparity of force. Because, the initial aggressor (Jim) loses the right to argue self-defense.


However again, Jim and Mike were not engaged in mutual combat (both initial aggressors). Jim (the only initial aggressor) attacked Mike with deadly force, while Jim was unarmed (disparity of force).

I believe you're still confused on some terms (e.g., mutual combat, initial aggressor, self-defense) and what others posted.

Jim (initial aggressor) attacked Mike twice, once with a pool cue (deadly force) and once with punches. Mike had the right to defend himself in both sequences. If Jim is found to be the initial aggressor, he loses the right to act in self-defense. This is the court default, before considering aggravating factors.



Jim will be likely charged with murder, having been the initial aggressor using deadly force to start and finish the fight.

I have presented expert witnesses, lawyers, instructions to a jury and case results, judgements in court.... that all state that the initial aggressor or mutual combatant can regain the right to self defense in certain circumstances.... one of those circumstances is an escalation of force, or the use of deadly force. Your statement that they cannot regain or gain the right to self defense goes against what these expert witnesses, lawyers and judges have said and ruled. Your own source also confirmed this fact.... but please continue to argue it anyway.

That's not my statement.

My statement is Mike may not gain self defense given the circumstances. A court or jury may find that Mike is the initial aggressor using deadly force. They may find Jim first pushes, kicks Mike's knee in self-defense, then withdraws. They may find the kick (like a punch) is not deadly force, therefore not escalation. They may find Jim had the right to fear for his life, since Mike started the fight with deadly force. They may find Jim reasonably feared serious bodily harm.

The prosecution will try to disprove up to 5 elements in Mike's claim to self-defense including, innocence, imminence, proportionality and reasonableness.

 

[marvin8]

The prosecution will try to disprove up to 5 elements in Mike's claim to self-defense including, innocence, imminence, proportionality and reasonableness.

As we speak...

 

[dunc]

Is there anything here that suggests that taking an aggressor down and sitting on him until help arrives, all done in a non-injurious way, is a bad idea?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Is there anything here that suggests that taking an aggressor down and sitting on him until help arrives, all done in a non-injurious way, is a bad idea?

I wouldn't think so. I do make a point when I'm discussing using pins in a self-defense context to remind my students that positional asphyxiation is a real thing and that they should be aware of it.

 

[wab25]

Is there anything here that suggests that taking an aggressor down and sitting on him until help arrives, all done in a non-injurious way, is a bad idea?

I would look at the sources I posted in #58. I posted the results of a case (the page has a few more results as well) and instructions to a criminal jury that explain the ways that the initial aggressor or mutual combatant can gain the right to self defense.

One way is if they try to stop fighting or try to withdraw. If they are not allowed to withdraw, then they could gain the right to self defense. I would research your local law to see how pinning someone would could be considered continuing a fight that the other guy is trying to withdraw from. We can argue here forever about where exactly that line is.... but the important part is where is that line drawn in the jurisdiction where the event takes place.

Another way the initial aggressor or mutual combatant can gain the right to self defense is if there is an escalation or introduction of deadly force. Disparity of force can be the equal of a deadly weapon. In many places, it can be achieved through a position of dominance and expertise in hand to hand combat can be a factor.

What you do not want is for something bad (positional asphyxiation...) to happen when you are legally perceived to be continuing a fight he is trying to withdraw from, and you are in a position of dominance and an expert in hand to hand combat, such that your disparity of force is equal to a deadly weapon.

All I am saying is that it would be worth looking into, how these things are interpreted in your area. Many times the law sees things differently than we do.... look at all the recent cases where the courts made the "wrong" decision. It is interesting to go back and look at exactly why those decisions were arrived at. What the law looks at is many times different than what we look at.

I am not saying to go for the most violent solution.... I am not saying don't look for the safest way to end a situation... I am saying research and learn how those situations are dealt with in your area. You may be able to save yourself a lot of time and money, by approaching things a little bit differently... especially how describe what you were doing and why.

 

[marvin8]

Is there anything here that suggests that taking an aggressor down and sitting on him until help arrives, all done in a non-injurious way, is a bad idea?

No, taking an initial aggressor down to a dominate controlling position using non-deadly force can be a good idea. However, you are in a vulnerable position from the chance that someone else attacks you. Submission holds (e.g., chokes, arm bars) are deadly force when taken to completion.

Excerpts from "Gracie University::"

Another way the initial aggressor or mutual combatant can gain the right to self defense is if there is an escalation or introduction of deadly force. Disparity of force can be the equal of a deadly weapon. In many places, it can be achieved through a position of dominance and expertise in hand to hand combat can be a factor.

Simply taking an aggressor down to "a position of dominance" without deadly force (e.g., unarmed) does not equal escalation or a disparity of force,

 

[wab25]

Simply taking an aggressor down to "a position of dominance" without deadly force (e.g., unarmed) does not equal a disparity of force,

This is the type of over simplification, black and white type statement, that many times is argued in court and many times does not come out with the "right" ruling.

This forum is not a political forum.... but I can list a number of recent cases, where these things were argued.... like: Who was the initial aggressor? Does a position of dominance equal a disparity of force that would grant the other party the right to use deadly force? I am going to say that in many of these decisions, there are very large groups of people that feel these decisions were wrong.... (thus, we do not discuss them here.... for the political content that would result....) The point is that the details that the courts looks at and how the court values and interpret certain details make a lot of difference.

In court, expect the other side to argue every single part of your sentence there. Who was the aggressor? What is simply taking someone down? What gave you the right to do so? What training did you have? What constitutes a position of dominance? Is that position a disparity of force? Who has the right of self defense?.......