Honor or Freedom

[Disco]

The idea for this thread came from the Kenpo section, were the story of someone defending themselves from an aggressor and the aggressor was killed as the result of this defense. No weapons were involved. The person who was defending themselves was an upstanding citizen and still received a jail sentence. I'm sure around the country, there have been news reports dealing with similar occurences. I know in Florida, within the last year, there have been 2 cases of a similar nature. People were killed from a blow/punch to the head. Both times, stiff sentences were handed out. In fact, one was even charged with murder, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, it just seems that the judical system is ????????? can't think of a clean word to describe it.

So here is the question. Knowing how the system looks to be totally indifferent of late. If you were involved in an altercation (both parties unarmed) and you seriously injured or killed your opponent/attacker, would you attempt to influence your position, If you were able, by introducing/planting a weapon or would you just trust the system.

 

[loki09789]

The idea for this thread came from the Kenpo section, were the story of someone defending themselves from an aggressor and the aggressor was killed as the result of this defense. No weapons were involved. The person who was defending themselves was an upstanding citizen and still received a jail sentence. I'm sure around the country, there have been news reports dealing with similar occurences. I know in Florida, within the last year, there have been 2 cases of a similar nature. People were killed from a blow/punch to the head. Both times, stiff sentences were handed out. In fact, one was even charged with murder, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, it just seems that the judical system is ????????? can't think of a clean word to describe it.

So here is the question. Knowing how the system looks to be totally indifferent of late. If you were involved in an altercation (both parties unarmed) and you seriously injured or killed your opponent/attacker, would you attempt to influence your position, If you were able, by introducing/planting a weapon or would you just trust the system.

The judicial system isn't as ?????? as the those in martial arts who know martial codes from the way long past (when warriors were warriors...type of mentallity) and don't have a clue about use of force/deadly force laws in the current day. Look, we are training to basically respond to threats with minimal to maximal force which could lead to maiming and death. Study the law, know force continuums and know how to report and communicate these events so you don't come off as some nut case.

In the eyes of the courts, you will be presented as a guy/gal who was just looking for a chance to break someone up, why else you would train so long in a violent endeavor?.... Hopefully it isn't true. The point is you are already behind the 8 ball in the eyes of the prosecutor if you are being charged. If you study force continuums and other more 'verbal judo' and awareness skills along with the kicking and punching stuff, you have a bigger tool box, and might avoid jail time.

 

[MJS]

The idea for this thread came from the Kenpo section, were the story of someone defending themselves from an aggressor and the aggressor was killed as the result of this defense. No weapons were involved. The person who was defending themselves was an upstanding citizen and still received a jail sentence. I'm sure around the country, there have been news reports dealing with similar occurences. I know in Florida, within the last year, there have been 2 cases of a similar nature. People were killed from a blow/punch to the head. Both times, stiff sentences were handed out. In fact, one was even charged with murder, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, it just seems that the judical system is ????????? can't think of a clean word to describe it.

Yeah, I hear you on how messed up the system is. I can't think of a clean word either!

So here is the question. Knowing how the system looks to be totally indifferent of late. If you were involved in an altercation (both parties unarmed) and you seriously injured or killed your opponent/attacker, would you attempt to influence your position, If you were able, by introducing/planting a weapon or would you just trust the system.

Would I plant a weapon? As tempting as it may be, no, I would not. Seeing as how we all know that the system is (insert word of choice here), why would I want to take the chance that my planting a weapon would be discovered during the trial? I would think, that the only time that killing the attacker would come to mind, would be if he had a weapon. If the guy is unarmed and this has been determined, then using as much force as he's using against you would probably be your best bet.

Mike

 

[MJS]

In the eyes of the courts, you will be presented as a guy/gal who was just looking for a chance to break someone up, why else you would train so long in a violent endeavor?.... Hopefully it isn't true. The point is you are already behind the 8 ball in the eyes of the prosecutor if you are being charged. If you study force continuums and other more 'verbal judo' and awareness skills along with the kicking and punching stuff, you have a bigger tool box, and might avoid jail time.

You're right on that one! The prosecuter and probably a few others will probably look at the martial artist as already being a violent person, due to the training that the MA has. Obviously, they need know or should know a little about the arts themselves before they cast a judgement like that anyway. I wonder if they look at people who carry a gun in the same light?

Definately, by all means, doing everything that you can to get out of the situation before using force is always the best option. Talking your way out, walking away, etc. unfortunately, that does not always work, so you're forced to used force. Using a controlling method, such as a lock or submission should be the next step. As the situation unfolds, bring your force level up if necessary. Even a cop has more options to use before he draws his gun. With the lawsuits, even they want to defuse a situation as quickly as they can and with the least amount of force.

Mike

 

[Disco]

using as much force as he's using against you would probably be your best bet.

Therein lies the problem. A punch for a punch - even amount of force - yet someone dies. A simple judo hip throw, not life threatening unto itself, does in fact terminate a life (outside influence, head hits curb). Now if there was no doubt, that you would get away with planting/protecting yourself, would you do it?

To quote loki, were behind the 8 ball already

 

[loki09789]

using as much force as he's using against you would probably be your best bet.

Therein lies the problem. A punch for a punch - even amount of force - yet someone dies. A simple judo hip throw, not life threatening unto itself, does in fact terminate a life (outside influence, head hits curb). Now if there was no doubt, that you would get away with planting/protecting yourself, would you do it?

Integrity is doing the right thing when you know you could get away with the wrong thing, when no one is looking or you don't think there will be any consequences.... no, I wouldn't have to resort to such behavior because I have endeavored to study justified use of force and deadly force in my area, understand where the lines are and am willing to walk away before it gets to that point if possible.

BTW, I wouldn' tell the LEO taking reports that you were only responding with teh same level of force that was being used on you. That equates to mutual combat. The idea, in self defense, is to use the amount of force necessary to stop the person from posing a threat to you. At the point where he/she no longer poses a threat AND that retreat/escape doesn't put you in further jeapordy you do it. There is no rule about what types of techniques have to be used, only the amount of force and whether it could be deemd 'excessive' under reasonable scrutiny.

It is helpful to have an attorney in your corner who is familiar or participating in martial arts to make a decent presentation of yourself.

Guns? Yeah, in court, there is just as much 'caution' about the person who defended themselves with a gun as there is with martial arts. The problem with martial arts, unlike firearms, is the lack of regulatory licensing and safety courses that makes all kinds of assumptions easier to make for the uninitiated.

 

[MJS]

using as much force as he's using against you would probably be your best bet.

Therein lies the problem. A punch for a punch - even amount of force - yet someone dies. A simple judo hip throw, not life threatening unto itself, does in fact terminate a life (outside influence, head hits curb).

Good point! So its no different than the cop that uses pepperspray on suspect one. Suspect one drops to the ground, eyes burning, coughing, complies with officer. Suspect two- same as #1 except he eventually goes into resp. arrest because he cant breath, hes very keyed up, and has a history of heart problems? Is the cop at fault for killing him? How did the cop know that he had a med. history? I guess I was just going on how the jury might view what you do.

Option 1- using a controlling method and in the course of that, he hits his head.

Option 2- "Well your Honor, I saw this guy coming at me, so I picked up a knife because I feared for my life, and stabbed him to death."

Now if there was no doubt, that you would get away with planting/protecting yourself, would you do it?

Still dont think that it would be a wise move to do.

Mike

 

[MJS]

BTW, I wouldn' tell the LEO taking reports that you were only responding with teh same level of force that was being used on you. That equates to mutual combat. The idea, in self defense, is to use the amount of force necessary to stop the person from posing a threat to you. At the point where he/she no longer poses a threat AND that retreat/escape doesn't put you in further jeapordy you do it. There is no rule about what types of techniques have to be used, only the amount of force and whether it could be deemd 'excessive' under reasonable scrutiny.

Why not? A cop does it. Do you think that if hes faced with a suspect with a knife, that hes going to use spray? I would tend to lean more towards him using his gun! Let me clear up what I'm saying here. If faced with a knife, I'm not saying that I would take out a knife also and use it on him. But if during the course of the disarm, I 'happened' to break his arm, then oh well! Did I have to break his arm? Nope. Did I use too much force? IMO, not at all!

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Why not? A cop does it. Do you think that if hes faced with a suspect with a knife, that hes going to use spray? I would tend to lean more towards him using his gun! Let me clear up what I'm saying here. If faced with a knife, I'm not saying that I would take out a knife also and use it on him. But if during the course of the disarm, I 'happened' to break his arm, then oh well! Did I have to break his arm? Nope. Did I use too much force? IMO, not at all!

Mike

Do you want to be quoted in a report for saying "he was trying to kill me so I was trying to kill him",

Three parts of what you will be judged on by the law:

1. What you did before the incident
*This includes martial arts training, military training....past police record ALONG WITH your actions just before the violent incident.


2. What you did during the indcident
*"He was trying to kill me, so I was trying to kill him", When you stopped fighting back (I prefer 'defending yourself'), Did you stay to gloat ("Mess with me will ya!")

3. What you did after the incident
*Report immediately, seek medical attention, both of those, contact your lawyer right away (Good Idea no matter what), ....

Three arenas of the self defense battlefield:

1. Inside yourself (fear, anger, control..)
2. The street (attackers, environment...)
3. The court system (words, reporting, perception, case law precedence, penal law.....)

know how to 'win' in each of these arenas and you won't have to cheat to win.

 

[Disco]

Lets not go mixing apples and oranges here by bringing the police in as an example. A police officer is tasked to confront, as a civilian we are mandated to remove ourselves from a threat, if possible. Totally different venues. As for the cop who sprays someone and they die, it's happened as we all know, he is not held responsible under the law, for again he is tasked to confront. But if you as a civilian spray someone and they die..................???? Again, were back to the "it wasen't life threatening unto itself", but he died.

 

[Nightingale]

I'd just trust the system.

The way science is now, they can usually tell if you plant a weapon. It just makes you look guilty.

 

[MJS]

Do you want to be quoted in a report for saying "he was trying to kill me so I was trying to kill him",

Nope, and I never said that either. Let me explain again. If someone was attacking me with a knife, I never said that I'd grab a knife too. Of course, I'm going to grab something and use it. Now, if I pick up a stick and hit his hand causing him to drop the knife, then my goal was acheived. If I am able to do a disarm, and during the course of that his arm gets broken..oh well! Your force should move up at the same level. If you're dealing with a drunk at a club or party, taking his eye is NOT the best choice, compared to a lock. Now, if this guy still isnt getting the hint, then maybe taking him to the ground with that lock will get the point across. If he gets up and takes a swing at me and I hit him and break his nose, I'm still meeting his force with something equal.

Three parts of what you will be judged on by the law:

1. What you did before the incident
*This includes martial arts training, military training....past police record ALONG WITH your actions just before the violent incident.

My actions before the incident?? Sleeping in my house at 2am when his *** decides to break in! My 17+ yrs of training is going to be held against me?? And I have no police record.

2. What you did during the indcident
*"He was trying to kill me, so I was trying to kill him", When you stopped fighting back (I prefer 'defending yourself'), Did you stay to gloat ("Mess with me will ya!")

2 different situations here. Stay and gloat?? Ok, if Im at home, then of course I'm gonna stay cuz the cops will be on their way. If I'm walking to my car at 12am with my wife after a movie and someone tries to mug me, would I stay?? Probably not, but that depends on the situation. Are there other people around? If they see me drive away, one can only imagine what they'll be thinking. Every situation is different. We can sit here all day and come up with different ones, but we'll never get anywhere!

3. What you did after the incident
*Report immediately, seek medical attention, both of those, contact your lawyer right away (Good Idea no matter what), ....

First and foremost, call the cops and make sure that myself and my family are ok. The guy laying on the floor...well his condition is going to be a distant 3rd. Again, I did not tell this guy to enter my home at night!!!!

Mike

 

[MJS]

Lets not go mixing apples and oranges here by bringing the police in as an example. A police officer is tasked to confront, as a civilian we are mandated to remove ourselves from a threat, if possible. Totally different venues. As for the cop who sprays someone and they die, it's happened as we all know, he is not held responsible under the law, for again he is tasked to confront. But if you as a civilian spray someone and they die..................???? Again, were back to the "it wasen't life threatening unto itself", but he died.

I did that in response to Loki and his post regarding what I said. I see what you're saying. All I'm saying is, if I sprayed the attacker, its not my job to know his history either. Spray in and of itself is not lethal! Regardless, a police officer still has to watch what they do, or they can find themselves as well as the dept. in a big lawsuit.

As for removing ourselves from the threat..... I'm not removing myself from my own house. I simply stated when talking about a knife, that using equal force is important. If his arm gets broke then it gets broke. Personally, at that moment I'm going to be thinking about defending myself, not whether or not his arm is breaking.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Nope, and I never said that either. Let me explain again. If someone was attacking me with a knife, I never said that I'd grab a knife too. Of course, I'm going to grab something and use it. Now, if I pick up a stick and hit his hand causing him to drop the knife, then my goal was acheived. If I am able to do a disarm, and during the course of that his arm gets broken..oh well! Your force should move up at the same level. If you're dealing with a drunk at a club or party, taking his eye is NOT the best choice, compared to a lock. Now, if this guy still isnt getting the hint, then maybe taking him to the ground with that lock will get the point across. If he gets up and takes a swing at me and I hit him and break his nose, I'm still meeting his force with something equal.

Three parts of what you will be judged on by the law:



My actions before the incident?? Sleeping in my house at 2am when his *** decides to break in! My 17+ yrs of training is going to be held against me?? And I have no police record.




2 different situations here. Stay and gloat?? Ok, if Im at home, then of course I'm gonna stay cuz the cops will be on their way. If I'm walking to my car at 12am with my wife after a movie and someone tries to mug me, would I stay?? Probably not, but that depends on the situation. Are there other people around? If they see me drive away, one can only imagine what they'll be thinking. Every situation is different. We can sit here all day and come up with different ones, but we'll never get anywhere!



First and foremost, call the cops and make sure that myself and my family are ok. The guy laying on the floor...well his condition is going to be a distant 3rd. Again, I did not tell this guy to enter my home at night!!!!

Mike

Mike,

We tend to get into these battles of specifics when in the end we end up coming from and heading to the same place. Yes, all those general category factors will come into play when the situation is examined: you and the attacker are being taken into consideration, judged or investigated. In your sleeping at home scenario, it is pretty cut and dry as long as you don't parade the burnt corpse through the streets, but the three areas apply to any situation.

My post was a general view that I use, along with examples of things that could be bad to say or do in each. It was not a specific incident attack on you. Relax on the 'being attacked' mentallity.

Even if the language in the arena of the legal battle is softer and simply "I used lethal/deadly force in response to a lethal/deadly attack" It could come back to bite you in the butski in court. My point is that mentally and verbally, focusing on your response to said attack as "I responded with the appropriate level of force to stop him from hurting/killing me" but not specifying what level you applied verbally is harder to spin into "mutual combat" or "so you were waiting 17 years to kills someone and this was your chance?" statements in a courtroom with a jury.

 

[MJS]

Mike,

We tend to get into these battles of specifics when in the end we end up coming from and heading to the same place. Yes, all those general category factors will come into play when the situation is examined: you and the attacker are being taken into consideration, judged or investigated. In your sleeping at home scenario, it is pretty cut and dry as long as you don't parade the burnt corpse through the streets, but the three areas apply to any situation.

Yes, and I agree. You're right though...things are said in so many different ways, but in the long run, we're saying the same!

My post was a general view that I use, along with examples of things that could be bad to say or do in each. It was not a specific incident attack on you. Relax on the 'being attacked' mentallity.

No offense taken my friend. :asian: I appologize if I came off that way. I never thought that you were making an 'attack'

Mike

 

[Disco]

This was the post from the kenpo section that prompted this thread. Perhaps it may lend itself to a broarder view/understanding of the question.

Couple years after I quit bouncing, a Judo black belt that I worked with, who used to train with the Olympic Team, was attacked by a road rager. Guy came at him with, unfortunately, empty hands and seized my old compadre. Judo-boy snaps into action, and bolts into a high hip throw, taking the guy up, over, and down onto his head...wear it hit the curb, killing him instantly. Since he was an upstanding citizen, he only recieved a 15 years sentence, of shich he served 8 prior to parole. Now, he gets to live daily with the stigma of having taken another life, with a SPORT art.

There are many scenarios that can be made up, but lets try to focus on the question and it's intent. Would you take the chance on trusting the system or would you attempt to safegard yourself from possible jail time?

 

[loki09789]

modified my last post for more clarity, hope it makes the point better.

 

[CanuckMA]

My actions before the incident?? Sleeping in my house at 2am when his *** decides to break in! My 17+ yrs of training is going to be held against me?? And I have no police record.

Mike

Actually, YES. Self-defence wording varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally boil down to
1) believing that you were in imminent physical danger.
2) using the minimum amount of force to safely disengage and retreat.

Training in any kind of combative art will raise the bar of physical danger, and advanced knowledge of striking means that it will be assumed that you have sufficient control to inflict whatever amount of damage you want.

It will come down to the idea that as a trained person, you should have known the result of the technique.

 

[MJS]

Ok, lets take a look at this. Its safe to assume that all of us here are martial artists. Now, I've said many times in the past, that we all train for different reasons, but i would think that one of the main ones, would be for SD. Ok, that being said, if the court, police, bystanders, etc. are going to be looking at us as 'killers" or 'violent people' because we 'defend' ourselves, why should we even bother to learn an art? I mean, if someone is seriously trying to cause us or a loved one serious bodily harm, we have to sit here and ponder the thought of defending ourselves, just because we might injure the guy that is trying to steal my car, take my wallet, shoot me, stab me, kidnap my kid, rape my wife?? And then you wonder why people say the things that they do about the "system" that we have to supposedly "protect" us!!!

Most of the people that commit crimes have a prior history of arrests. That being said, it goes to show that the time spent in jail/prison did nothing. They just get out and do the same thing over and over.

So back to the question. Why even bother to study an art? Its no different than spending thousands to go to Harvard to study law and then get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds!

Mike

 

[MJS]

Actually, YES. Self-defence wording varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally boil down to
1) believing that you were in imminent physical danger.
2) using the minimum amount of force to safely disengage and retreat.

Training in any kind of combative art will raise the bar of physical danger, and advanced knowledge of striking means that it will be assumed that you have sufficient control to inflict whatever amount of damage you want.

It will come down to the idea that as a trained person, you should have known the result of the technique.

Agreed. But, if what we're doing is not having an effect of the guy, then you pretty much have no choice to take it to the next level. For example, look at Aikido. A very defensive art, consisting of throws, locks, etc. Now, how long do you really want to stand there and re-direct this guy thats coming at you? 1 min? 5 min? If getting thrown to the ground over and over is not getting the point across, you're going to have to decide on something else to do. If faced with a weapon, you do your disarm. Ok...what did that do? All it did was get the weapon away from him, but hes still coming at you. Now what?? And if you look at every tech out there, if you stop and think about it, they are all deadly or dangerous to some extent.

Mike