Martial artist getting the extra squeeze by a judge for being a Martial artist.

[dvcochran]

Sure go ahead. I'll point out, again, that you misinterpreted what I wrote and have clarified and expounded several times now (you know "going in circles"). But don't let that stop you. You seem determined to believe that I wrote something else that you disagree with.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this dance.

Seriously? OK we've established a base number of 900,000,000 contacts but lets look at actual arrests. The current published numbers available for BJS deaths and arrests are from 2015 and are thus. In 2015, there were 10,797,088 arrests. During that year, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an estimated 1,216 people killed by police by "homicide" (either justified or unjustified, at 64% of the total, 18% were suicides and 11% were accidents), though some estimates actually put it at 900 total deaths by any means. Assuming the larger number of 1,216, that means that being killed for any reason (justified or not) when either in police custody or while being arrested comes in at 0.00112623%. 1/10th of 1%, including justified. Death by excessive force is a fraction of that, even when going by inflated media reporting.

So yes, I have data to support it, and it shows that the fears of being unjustifiably killed by bad cops is an exceptionally rare event. Just like I wrote several times now.

Being true is what makes it true.

Run the number of arrests again.

I agree. But it was your example, not mine.

Who cares? That's not part of the discussion. You're the one that brought self defense against a gaggle of ninjas it in.

To restate most of my major points:

• Bad cops using excessive force is actually pretty rare
• The best way to avoid giving a bad cop the excuse to use excessive force is to not resist arrest
• The best way to avoid a "not bad" cop going too far and using excessive force even if he didn't intend to is to not resist arrest
• The only morally justifiable time to try to physically fight the cops and resist arrest is when you are justifiably confident that unjustified force rising to the level of death or permanent debilitating injury will be used against you
• Regardless of whether or not you are morally justified in resisting the cops, doing so will almost certainly get you hurt or killed, whether it is reasonable or not, because there are more cops than there are you and they're better armed
• These things are true even if you think they're unfair

Nail on the head.

 

[Steve]

Sure go ahead. I'll point out, again, that you misinterpreted what I wrote and have clarified and expounded several times now (you know "going in circles"). But don't let that stop you. You seem determined to believe that I wrote something else that you disagree with.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this dance.

You're doing that thing you do where you go in circles and then blame the other guy for it. If you clarify something, but say the same thing, you are mistaking disagreement with misunderstanding. If we disagree on something, and you further clarify but we still disagree, yes... that's circular.

But to be clear, the structure of your argument is also circular, which is a formal fallacy.

Seriously? OK we've established a base number of 900,000,000 contacts but lets look at actual arrests. The current published numbers available for BJS deaths and arrests are from 2015 and are thus. In 2015, there were 10,797,088 arrests. During that year, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an estimated 1,216 people killed by police by "homicide" (either justified or unjustified, at 64% of the total, 18% were suicides and 11% were accidents), though some estimates actually put it at 900 total deaths by any means. Assuming the larger number of 1,216, that means that being killed for any reason (justified or not) when either in police custody or while being arrested comes in at 0.00112623%. 1/10th of 1%, including justified. Death by excessive force is a fraction of that, even when going by inflated media reporting.

did you read the article I posted, or even skim it?

So yes, I have data to support it, and it shows that the fears of being unjustifiably killed by bad cops is an exceptionally rare event. Just like I wrote several times now.

Errr... that's just not true. You have some data that has been shown to be unreliable.

Being true is what makes it true.

Run the number of arrests again.

I agree. But it was your example, not mine.

Who cares? That's not part of the discussion. You're the one that brought self defense against a gaggle of ninjas it in.

Sure, because you seem to believe that self defense isn't self defense, and are victim blaming. I tried to change the context to remove cops but to keep the rest intact to demonstrate to you how bogus your position is. FWIW, being bogus is what makes it bogus.

To restate most of my major points:

• Bad cops using excessive force is actually pretty rare

• Not as rare as you believe, and also it really depends on what is an acceptable rate of occurrence. You define it by looking at the totality of interactions, but I think that's an extremely generous and misleading train of logic. By your logic, all manner of criminals are not dangerous. Murderers aren't dangerous because they interact with countless people whom they do not harm, and in the universe of human interaction, only a very few people are actually murdered. Now, I think that's a stupid argument, and yet that argument is the one you use for law enforcement.

  [*]The best way to avoid giving a bad cop the excuse to use excessive force is to not resist arrest

  LOL. I thought it was an implicit point here that bad cops don't need an excuse beyond opportunity.

  [*]The best way to avoid a "not bad" cop going too far and using excessive force even if he didn't intend to is to not resist arrest

  By definition, if a cop is using EXCESSIVE force, he is a bad cop.

  [*]The only morally justifiable time to try to physically fight the cops and resist arrest is when you are justifiably confident that unjustified force rising to the level of death or permanent debilitating injury will be used against you

  I appreciate that you finally said this. Had you agreed with me on this in the beginning, this entire interaction wouldn't have been needed.

  [*]Regardless of whether or not you are morally justified in resisting the cops, doing so will almost certainly get you hurt or killed, whether it is reasonable or not, because there are more cops than there are you and they're better armed

  This is true, and yet some folks feel like they have no choice. I think that's incredibly sad and speaks to some serious issues that our good cops will need to fix. Start by purging the bad cops.

  [*]These things are true even if you think they're unfair

Totally agree, and as I said, particularly when you got to the latter bullets, you're saying what I said at the very beginning and you chose to argue against.

 

[lklawson]

Totally agree, and as I said, particularly when you got to the latter bullets, you're saying what I said at the very beginning and you chose to argue against.

I've been saying this for, quite literally, decades. I teach it in classes. I've written articles and have handouts on justifiable use of lethal force in personal defense. I've said it here on MT any number of times. The fact that you are unaware that I hold this position is not for the lack of me saying it.

 

[Steve]

I've been saying this for, quite literally, decades. I teach it in classes. I've written articles and have handouts on justifiable use of lethal force in personal defense. I've said it here on MT any number of times. The fact that you are unaware that I hold this position is not for the lack of me saying it.

Hey, I'm sorry, but I used all of my psychic energy up trying to predict the outcome of the upcoming general election. So, I had nothing in the tank when it came to reading your mind. While you may have said these things many times, your position in this thread, in response to my post, was that if folks don't want to experience excessive force by cops, they just simply shouldn't resist arrest. Which, I still believe to be a circular argument that only works if the victim is at fault for the excessive force.

it begs the question, if you agree with me and hold this position, why you would disagree with me in this thread. Peculiar.

 

[KenpoMaster805]

Well it depends on the situation or whose fault is it i don't think Martial Art is a Disadvantage you should explained to the court that he hit me 1st and i had to defend my self not unless you hit him 1st then thats a different story

 

[Rusty B]

Not sure whether or not the question has been answered, but... if your "victim" (for lack of a better term - they're the ALLEGED victim anyway) does not know that you're a martial artist, then how does the police officer or judge know that you're a martial artist without you disclosing that information yourself?

Without out a way of finding out from third parties, it seems to see me that keeping your mouth shut about your martial arts training would make this a non-issue.

 

[lklawson]

Not sure whether or not the question has been answered, but... if your "victim" (for lack of a better term - they're the ALLEGED victim anyway) does not know that you're a martial artist, then how does the police officer or judge know that you're a martial artist without you disclosing that information yourself?

Without out a way of finding out from third parties, it seems to see me that keeping your mouth shut about your martial arts training would make this a non-issue.

That's the thing. They're going to find out. They'll scrape your "social media," look at your bills, search your house, seize your computer. Talk to everyone you know. They're gonna know.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Rusty B]

That's the thing. They're going to find out. They'll scrape your "social media," look at your bills, search your house, seize your computer. Talk to everyone you know. They're gonna know.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

If you're being charged with a felony, yes. But if you simply won a fight in the Walmart parking lot and you're being charged with a misdemeanor... they're not doing all that.

 

[lklawson]

If you're being charged with a felony, yes. But if you simply won a fight in the Walmart parking lot and you're being charged with a misdemeanor... they're not doing all that.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether or not the cops think you deserve to be arrested. If you kill or seriously injure someone, even if justified, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get arrested, varying for your jurisdiction.

It is incumbent, absolutely critical, upon the person acting in self defense to ensure that they ONLY use serious or deadly force when they are in immediate fear of unavoidable serious injury or death, and you can articulate that to others (a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty) so that they will agree with you.

The "Higher Standard" being discussed really isn't "giving someone a fat lip." It's how you will be judged if you seriously injure someone else, or worse.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[dvcochran]

You're doing that thing you do where you go in circles and then blame the other guy for it. If you clarify something, but say the same thing, you are mistaking disagreement with misunderstanding. If we disagree on something, and you further clarify but we still disagree, yes... that's circular.

But to be clear, the structure of your argument is also circular, which is a formal fallacy.
did you read the article I posted, or even skim it? Errr... that's just not true. You have some data that has been shown to be unreliable. Sure, because you seem to believe that self defense isn't self defense, and are victim blaming. I tried to change the context to remove cops but to keep the rest intact to demonstrate to you how bogus your position is. FWIW, being bogus is what makes it bogus.

• Not as rare as you believe, and also it really depends on what is an acceptable rate of occurrence. You define it by looking at the totality of interactions, but I think that's an extremely generous and misleading train of logic. By your logic, all manner of criminals are not dangerous. Murderers aren't dangerous because they interact with countless people whom they do not harm, and in the universe of human interaction, only a very few people are actually murdered. Now, I think that's a stupid argument, and yet that argument is the one you use for law enforcement. LOL. I thought it was an implicit point here that bad cops don't need an excuse beyond opportunity. By definition, if a cop is using EXCESSIVE force, he is a bad cop. I appreciate that you finally said this. Had you agreed with me on this in the beginning, this entire interaction wouldn't have been needed. This is true, and yet some folks feel like they have no choice. I think that's incredibly sad and speaks to some serious issues that our good cops will need to fix. Start by purging the bad cops.

Totally agree, and as I said, particularly when you got to the latter bullets, you're saying what I said at the very beginning and you chose to argue against.

I realize I am jumping in the middle of your banter with lklawson but I feel it is worth saying.
What lklawson has been saying throughout the thread is from a position of experience, cogent and supported at many points along the way. Your rebuttal has been personal, emotionally irrational and driven by your overt dislike for law enforcement and community management/protection. Your rebuttal has been nothing but circular, with the occasional manic tangents that are on the lunatic fringe. And I don't get it . In other comments you post wholesome remarks about your family. Then you go polar opposite with your extremist views. That is the bipolar dynamic.
In a nut shell you are just picking a fight knowing there is no substance to finish it. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Just to what, be TPOM? C'mon man, that is just sad.

 

[dvcochran]

Hey, I'm sorry, but I used all of my psychic energy up trying to predict the outcome of the upcoming general election. So, I had nothing in the tank when it came to reading your mind. While you may have said these things many times, your position in this thread, in response to my post, was that if folks don't want to experience excessive force by cops, they just simply shouldn't resist arrest. Which, I still believe to be a circular argument that only works if the victim is at fault for the excessive force.

it begs the question, if you agree with me and hold this position, why you would disagree with me in this thread. Peculiar.

Let me make sure I understand. There is a position of authority. You advocate resisting this position of authority? Yes, if you do not want to experience excessive force do not give me, or I suspect you, or most sentient beings, or law enforcement at reason for it. And what is excessive force to you? A feather falling on your crown?
Someone else is being circular? Yea, that is sadly hilarious.

 

[Rusty B]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether or not the cops think you deserve to be arrested. If you kill or seriously injure someone, even if justified, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get arrested, varying for your jurisdiction.

The question isn't so much about whether or not one is going to be arrested as (at least I'm under the impression that) this discussion is based on the presumption that you'll be arrested and that we're past that part... leaving the discussion to be about what's going to happen in court.

The "Higher Standard" being discussed really isn't "giving someone a fat lip." It's how you will be judged if you seriously injure someone else, or worse.

Generally speaking, the higher the level of the crime, the more resources (i.e., effort, time, and money) they're going to invest in order to secure a conviction.

I've had assault charges from when I was younger, and I know plenty of others who do as well (none felony, though). I've never, in my life, heard of investigators in three-piece suits with six-figure salaries along with a forensics team getting involved because Timmy punched Johnny in the face at the parking lot, and they need to find out if he's a martial artist.

Seriously, if the need to find out whether or not someone was a martial artist was that big a deal; I'm sure there would be some kind of nationwide or statewide database that martial arts school owners would be required to register all of their students in.

Again, if it's a felony... yeah, I can see them checking your social media. But as far as searching your house, seizing your computer, subpoena-ing your bank for account and credit card statements, etc... even if it's a felony, I can't see that happening unless you're AT MINIMUM being charged with manslaughter.

 

[dvcochran]

The question isn't so much about whether or not one is going to be arrested as (at least I'm under the impression that) this discussion is based on the presumption that you'll be arrested and that we're past that part... leaving the discussion to be about what's going to happen in court.



Generally speaking, the higher the level of the crime, the more resources (i.e., effort, time, and money) they're going to invest in order to secure a conviction.

I've had assault charges from when I was younger, and I know plenty of others who do as well (none felony, though). I've never, in my life, heard of investigators in three-piece suits with six-figure salaries along with a forensics team getting involved because Timmy punched Johnny in the face at the parking lot, and they need to find out if he's a martial artist.

Seriously, if the need to find out whether or not someone was a martial artist was that big a deal; I'm sure there would be some kind of nationwide or statewide database that martial arts school owners would be required to register all of their students in.

Again, if it's a felony... yeah, I can see them checking your social media. But as far as searching your house, seizing your computer, subpoena-ing your bank for account and credit card statements, etc... even if it's a felony, I can't see that happening unless you're AT MINIMUM being charged with manslaughter.

Agree, but to be fair I believe the OP was in regards to a known seasoned prize fighter. Not the 9 to 5 MA guy.

 

[drop bear]

Let me make sure I understand. There is a position of authority. You advocate resisting this position of authority? Yes, if you do not want to experience excessive force do not give me, or I suspect you, or most sentient beings, or law enforcement at reason for it. And what is excessive force to you? A feather falling on your crown?
Someone else is being circular? Yea, that is sadly hilarious.

You are actually allowed to resist authority though. They are not allowed to flog you for it.

What you are advocating is oppression.

 

[drop bear]

Seriously? OK we've established a base number of 900,000,000 contacts but lets look at actual arrests. The current published numbers available for BJS deaths and arrests are from 2015 and are thus. In 2015, there were 10,797,088 arrests. During that year, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an estimated 1,216 people killed by police by "homicide" (either justified or unjustified, at 64% of the total, 18% were suicides and 11% were accidents), though some estimates actually put it at 900 total deaths by any means. Assuming the larger number of 1,216, that means that being killed for any reason (justified or not) when either in police custody or while being arrested comes in at 0.00112623%. 1/10th of 1%, including justified. Death by excessive force is a fraction of that, even when going by inflated media reporting.

I have bashed a bunch of people in my time. Mabye 50 or 60 that I really just beat up pretty badly.

But when compared to the entire population of Australia that number is so small as to really suggest I never bashed anybody.

Admittedly I was in a position of authority in that I could beat people up better than they could stop me. So technically they made the mistake in trying to defy me.

 

[dvcochran]

You are actually allowed to resist authority though. They are not allowed to flog you for it.

What you are advocating is oppression.

Not at all. All I am talking about if a functioning society. In the context we are talking about, things are given in the measure they are received. You make it sound as if every LEO encounter is bad. Very, very far from true. I seem to be saying this more often these days; I do not like to like you to do a good job for you, and the inverse is true. Because you don't like a personality, have cultural differences, don't like the uniform they wear, hell just don't like them, that does not mean they cannot do a good job for you. Remember it is Their job so within reason they cannot deviate their tactics, even to make you feel 'warm and fuzzy' sometimes. It is the old "walk a mile in the other person's shoe" addage.

So let's do this in pieces. Do you agree that there are people, average Joe's, who are bad or for whatever reason have done something bad. When I mean bad I mean criminal in societies eyes? To endeavor a functioning a society, what do you do with these people?

 

[drop bear]

Not at all. All I am talking about if a functioning society. In the context we are talking about, things are given in the measure they are received. You make it sound as if every LEO encounter is bad. Very, very far from true. I seem to be saying this more often these days; I do not like to like you to do a good job for you, and the inverse is true. Because you don't like a personality, have cultural differences, don't like the uniform they wear, hell just don't like them, that does not mean they cannot do a good job for you. Remember it is Their job so within reason they cannot deviate their tactics, even to make you feel 'warm and fuzzy' sometimes. It is the old "walk a mile in the other person's shoe" addage.

So let's do this in pieces. Do you agree that there are people, average Joe's, who are bad or for whatever reason have done something bad. When I mean bad I mean criminal in societies eyes? To endeavor a functioning a society, what do you do with these people?

Yeah police and criminal behaviour has been kept a bit vague in this discussion so that we can switch one way or the other.

All the cool kids are doing this.

So that when we say police use of force we don't have to go in to proportionate force.

And what we get instead is a statement like if a criminal uses force then a police officer should rightly use force to stop them.

Which is a very vague way of making that statement. And is basically misinformation. Which I assume given the dodgy statistics uses is intentional.

Instead we need to suggest that the police can use reasonable and proportionate force. And the criminal can reasonably and proportionately resist.

And this is essentially because the police are not in a role to punish criminals. That is for the courts. And so shouldn't use undue force to make arrests.

So for example of a misuse of force. A shop lifter runs away and a police officer shoots him. Even though the shoplifter resisted and this hypothetical shoplifter is a hundred percent guilty of a crime. Ethnically I am going to say the police officer either needs to run faster or loose that arrest.

So criminals can resist authority to a degree.

 

[lklawson]

Yeah police and criminal behaviour has been kept a bit vague in this discussion so that we can switch one way or the other.

All the cool kids are doing this.

So that when we say police use of force we don't have to go in to proportionate force.

And what we get instead is a statement like if a criminal uses force then a police officer should rightly use force to stop them.

Which is a very vague way of making that statement. And is basically misinformation. Which I assume given the dodgy statistics uses is intentional.

Instead we need to suggest that the police can use reasonable and proportionate force. And the criminal can reasonably and proportionately resist.

And this is essentially because the police are not in a role to punish criminals. That is for the courts. And so shouldn't use undue force to make arrests.

So for example of a misuse of force. A shop lifter runs away and a police officer shoots him. Even though the shoplifter resisted and this hypothetical shoplifter is a hundred percent guilty of a crime. Ethnically I am going to say the police officer either needs to run faster or loose that arrest.

So criminals can resist authority to a degree.

As if cops don't get this training.

It's de rigueur.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

THREAD LOCKED

@Monkey Turned Wolf
William Hollwedel
MartialTalk Moderator