Don't tell them you know martial arts

[Dirty Dog]

Back to the original topic...
The notion that you're somehow exposing yourself to risk by admitting to MA training is silly.
The fear is that a prosecutor will portray you as some sort of Superman and claim that you should have been able to magically subdue your attacker without effort.
Of course, a defense attorney will enjoy this, because it means they won't have to work very hard that day.

This video is aimed at concealed carry, but what he says applies equally well to walking around "armed" with MA training.

 

[Jaysonrd]

If you are in a self defence situation and you utilise your martial art skills, as long as you haven't stepped over the line between self defence and retaliation you shouldn't have any problem at all. You are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself.

If you are involved in a physical confrontation that is not involved in self defence you only have yourself to blame.

I agree completely with this. If you are in a self defense situation legally you have the right to defend yourself. Now once you have defended yourself and the attacker is on the ground and you go up and kick them in the head a few times because you are pissed they attacked you. Well, now you are the attacker and can be punished in court. So there is a self discipline and control component in regards to defending yourself in court and knowing that you won't get in trouble for properly defending yourself.

 

[K-man]

I agree completely with this. If you are in a self defense situation legally you have the right to defend yourself. Now once you have defended yourself and the attacker is on the ground and you go up and kick them in the head a few times because you are pissed they attacked you. Well, now you are the attacker and can be punished in court. So there is a self discipline and control component in regards to defending yourself in court and knowing that you won't get in trouble for properly defending yourself.

Welcome to MT.

 

[ballen0351]

Again getting a lawyer and doing what they tell you is the best advice however I can make the case where admitting you have training can be more helpful then harmful. I could see a defense atty bringing up and displaying your training as a positive. "ladies and gentlemen of the Jury my client is a 100th deg black belt in multiple arts and could have your his skills to kill his attacker in 1/10th of a second. BUT he didnt he use the minimum amount of his training and did the least amount of damage he could to save himself. So you see had my client not been the grand holy on high master of Karate jitz Fu he would have been forced to just smash his attackers head in with a flip flop until he was dead."

 

[PhotonGuy]

Back to the original topic...
The notion that you're somehow exposing yourself to risk by admitting to MA training is silly.
The fear is that a prosecutor will portray you as some sort of Superman and claim that you should have been able to magically subdue your attacker without effort.
Of course, a defense attorney will enjoy this, because it means they won't have to work very hard that day.

This video is aimed at concealed carry, but what he says applies equally well to walking around "armed" with MA training.

You're a fan of The Yankee Marshal?

 

[Dirty Dog]

You're a fan of The Yankee Marshal?

I enjoy his videos. I like how he brings a sense of humor to his subjects.

 

[Zero]

Say what you will of me, but don't speak ill of Murph. He looked out for me, trained me, in many ways he was like a father to me. My real father was a nebbish intellectual and was very disappointed in me for not following in his footsteps. But book learning was not for me. I chose another way, the way of the warrior.

Murph saw something in me and took me under his wing. He showed me the best way to de escalate a situation was to knock out the guy causing it. Sadly, Murph passed away a few years ago. But, each time I knock out some drunk punk with one hit, I know he's looking down on me from Heaven, smiling.

Say what you will about this, but I think you got something going here, is there any chance you could turn this into some kind of book or something? The story of a kid taken under the wing of an aging hard-man bouncer and the trials and tribulations they go through. Kind of like a Road House version 2.0.

 

[Zero]

Oh and give us murph's full name so as to make the public records search easy.

After all the hush money paid to keep this out of the press, I don't think Mad-Dog even has the authority to give more details.

 

[Zero]

No.

What you do is tell those murderers and rapists that the Mad Dog is waiting for them.

Mad-Dog, you seem far stronger than the other guys on this website, is there any chance you have, or could open, a school up so we can train with you? Some people would pay good money to learn real fighting skills passed down from old Murph.

 

[Zero]

Just watching the local news 5 minutes ago and a 'consensual fight' ended in the death of one of the participants. The 'winner' will now spend a considerable period of time away from his family. If you choose to fight you are stupid and deserve all you get.

K-man, I generally agree but sometimes you are not "stupid" if you choose to fight. I am definitely not at the Mad Dog's level but I have squared off for consensual non-sanctioned (ie outside of tournament) fights. You need to appreciate the risks, there is no umpire to jump in if you get clocked and the guy keeps stomping you or if you hit the guy and he lands badly etc, you can find yourself facing penal consequences.

Now I am older and have spent years going to tournaments I would generally avoid such things but I wouldn't rule it out.

It's certainly your opinion whether that is "stupid" but for others, who may be quite intelligent, that is their prerogative.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I enjoy his videos. I like how he brings a sense of humor to his subjects.

Considering the content of his videos, he doesn't seem like somebody you would take seriously, and some of the people, I don't remember if this includes you, didn't like what he says about Glocks.

 

[PhotonGuy]

If you're ever involved in a gunfight, what I heard is it can be described like this. Lets say you were to take out a hundred dollars and make a bet. If you lose you lose the $100. If you win you get to keep the $100 which was yours to begin with. Not the best deal. Another words, in a gunfight at the very best you just might walk away having lost nothing. At the very worst you can lose everything. Even if you manage to survive and stop the assailant then you've got to deal with criminal and civil charges in court. Even the most justified self defense shootings can ruin a person civilly and financially if not criminally. So, its best to avoid gunfights at all costs.

Anyway, what Im talking about in this thread is not gunfights. Im talking about if you take somebody down with your bare hands and you have a background in the martial arts, or even if you don't have a background in the martial arts the fact is you didn't use any weapons so its not the same as a gunfight. A gunfight is at a whole different level. Therefore I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it. This isn't gunfights we're talking about, this is fights where you don't use any weapons so the courts shouldn't go crazy and come down hard on you for stuff like this. You shouldn't even have to go to court in the first place. Self defense is a right and a right is something you can do without being punished, that's what makes it a right. You don't punish people for refusing to be victims.

 

[BMhadoken]

I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it.

Because the majority of the time you have good options available that don't involve beating someone back into diapers. If you can reasonably walk away from a confrontation and your ego demands you punch the guy instead, then you can sleep in the bed you made.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child

 

[PhotonGuy]

I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child

Exactly. Beating an opponent who is down or otherwise incapacitated is excessive force and thus not self defense by law, but punching somebody once to stop them is not excessive if they're coming at you.

 

[BMhadoken]

I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child

That's emotional monkey thinking. If you're punishing the guy, getting your licks in, or giving him "what he deserves," you are not practicing self defense or any kind of justifiable violence. Unless you're a judge, it is not your place to punish anyone.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Therefore I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it.

Being a bully is not the same as being a unavoidable threat. If the person is a bully, you walk away. Laying them out is not self defense. It's assault. And you should be punished in accordance with the law for that assault.
Don't drop the soap.

 

[jks9199]

Im talking about if you take somebody down with your bare hands and you have a background in the martial arts, or even if you don't have a background in the martial arts the fact is you didn't use any weapons so its not the same as a gunfight. A gunfight is at a whole different level.

No, it's not. The level of force is immaterial to the methodology. If I choke you out, hit you with a hammer, stab you, or shoot you, it's all lethal force. Self defense is a justification for the use of force which would otherwise be unlawful -- and it doesn't matter what method of force was used.

Therefore I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it. This isn't gunfights we're talking about, this is fights where you don't use any weapons so the courts shouldn't go crazy and come down hard on you for stuff like this. You shouldn't even have to go to court in the first place. Self defense is a right and a right is something you can do without being punished, that's what makes it a right. You don't punish people for refusing to be victims.

This is a childish and overly simplistic point of view. If you are not facing imminent harm -- you are not justified in using force, with a very few exceptions. As a culture/society/civilization, we've come to this crazy idea that we're not going to leave balancing things like this to the individual. We've passed laws and created societal means to address them. They range from purely social like versions of shaming and shunning (is a bully respected, even if they are feared?) as well as legal processes, both civil and criminal. And if you take it into your own hands -- you're violating them.

I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child

Formally -- this cannot happen. Informally -- prosecutors and the police have discretion. Judges and juries also have discretion and the duty to find guilt. But you'd better be damn sure the "bad guy" really deserved it, and that everyone else would agree...

 

[PhotonGuy]

No, it's not. The level of force is immaterial to the methodology. If I choke you out, hit you with a hammer, stab you, or shoot you, it's all lethal force. Self defense is a justification for the use of force which would otherwise be unlawful -- and it doesn't matter what method of force was used.

Shooting somebody or even stabbing them or hitting them with a hammer is much more likely to kill them than choking them out. Therefore I would think it would tip the scales much more in court if the defendant had shot or stabbed the assailant rather than if he had neutralized the assailant with his bare hands. If I was in court in such a situation I would say that I didn't use any weapons.

This is a childish and overly simplistic point of view. If you are not facing imminent harm -- you are not justified in using force, with a very few exceptions. As a culture/society/civilization, we've come to this crazy idea that we're not going to leave balancing things like this to the individual. We've passed laws and created societal means to address them. They range from purely social like versions of shaming and shunning (is a bully respected, even if they are feared?) as well as legal processes, both civil and criminal. And if you take it into your own hands -- you're violating them.

What's so childish about refusing to be a victim? This world would be a much safer place if people wouldn't get in trouble for using force against troublemakers who instigate. That way, people wouldn't instigate if they knew that their would be victim might be capable of, and allowed to, wipe the floor with them. I am not in favor of instigating or picking fights, I am in favor of using force to stop those that do. "You don't bother me, I don't bother you," is what I live by.

 

[Dirty Dog]

What's so childish about refusing to be a victim? This world would be a much safer place if people wouldn't get in trouble for using force against troublemakers who instigate. That way, people wouldn't instigate if they knew that their would be victim might be capable of, and allowed to, wipe the floor with them. I am not in favor of instigating or picking fights, I am in favor of using force to stop those that do. "You don't bother me, I don't bother you," is what I live by.

The law DOES exactly that, by defining what an instigator is. That would be a person or persons who pose an immediate physical threat. Not someone who says something you don't like. Under your proposed rules, YOU would be the instigator as far as I am concerned, since you're suggesting using physical force against someone who is not an avoidable physical threat.