Martial sacrilege (part 4)

[skribs]

I hear an ol MAist give an opinion, on that, and it has stayed with me for ages.

He said (not verbatim, long ago) - if me and a guy sized each other up, in a doorway, the "peaceful" thing for me to do would be step aside. But what if I knew he was walking through that door to kill the people in that room? Facing a predator is the same for me, could I give a mugger a couple quick shots and get away? Probably, but what about his next victim? A woman, an elderly person? If fate crossed his path with mine, I have a responsibility to make sure he hurts no one else. To me, that is part of the Warrior's Code.

Or something to that effect.

The problem is, for the most part, legally you're allowed to defend yourself to stop the attack. Once the attack is stopped, anything you do after that is considered assault (or worse). Once you are safe, anything else you do to stop the person from committing crimes in the future, outside of the law, is called vigilantism.

I would say that a choke is a lethal technique, because if you apply the hold correctly to get someone to tap out or pass out, you are applying the hold correctly to kill them. It will just take more time. With a punch, yes I can keep punching, but I have to keep connecting. With a choke, once I've gotten control, it's over.

 

[Saheim]

The problem is, for the most part, legally you're allowed to defend yourself to stop the attack. Once the attack is stopped, anything you do after that is considered assault (or worse). Once you are safe, anything else you do to stop the person from committing crimes in the future, outside of the law, is called vigilantism.

I would say that a choke is a lethal technique, because if you apply the hold correctly to get someone to tap out or pass out, you are applying the hold correctly to kill them. It will just take more time. With a punch, yes I can keep punching, but I have to keep connecting. With a choke, once I've gotten control, it's over.

I understand that, I've worked in criminal justice for many years. I think the idda (he was conveying) was - once the decision to use force has been made, unless you are stomping on an unconscious attacker's head, how much was "prudent" or necessary is gonna be debatable. ESPECIALLY, if it was an attack that warranted deadly force (any forcible felony that puts you in fear of being killed or seriously injured).

 

[skribs]

I understand that, I've worked in criminal justice for many years. I think the idda (he was conveying) was - once the decision to use force has been made, unless you are stomping on an unconscious attacker's head, how much was "prudent" or necessary is gonna be debatable. ESPECIALLY, if it was an attack that warranted deadly force (any forcible felony that puts you in fear of being killed or seriously injured).

I definitely get that. My line of thinking is that a punch can be just as deadly as a weapon. Especially if there's a lot of them. So if someone wishes violence upon me, no matter what they are armed with, I have a right to defend myself with whatever means necessary. If that means he's unarmed, I have no problem drawing a weapon.

This comes with two major caveats: 1) as mentioned above, when the attack stops, I stop. 2) that I must be diligent to not provoke a fight, because if I do then it's myself that's responsible for what happens.

My firm belief is that whoever is the aggressor or instigator is responsible for any violence as a result of those actions. That by attacking another person, you forfeit your right to safety until you cease your attack.

How well these beliefs stack up with the actual law varies by locality, but I think it's a good rule of thumb, at the very least.

 

[BrendanF]

The sword that takes life, the sword that gives life
The Japanese sword was never a mere ribbon of polished and sharpened steel. In the juxtaposition of blade and scabbard, there exists an emblem of the dynamic interplay of male and female, penetration and containment, power dependent as much upon its reserve as its expression. The sword itself was the embodiment of the principle of law founded upon hierarchy, the ruling warriors' power rooted in their submission to a web of obligations and loyalties to superiors, their weapons instruments of service rather than of freedom. In religious iconography, the Taoist sword cuts through undifferentiated chaos, introducing delineation into the universe, creating darkness and light, yin and yang, positive and negative and from this duality, the birth of the myriad forms of the universe. The Buddhist sword is the sword that cuts through illusion, the bright cold edge of mindful consciousness which requires one to face reality with open eyes and courageous heart.

Setsuninto (the sword that takes life) and katsujinken (the sword that gives life) are concepts which attempt to differentiate between the use of the sword for murderous ends as opposed to its use to protect people or to preserve the order of society.

These two phrases give rise to a variety of interpretations. At its most naive is the idea that, having power, one can choose to use it either to hurt others or lead them from evil paths. This is sometimes a fantasy of aikido devotees: that when attacked, the skillful practitioner, who could easily annihilate his or her attacker, moves in such a way that not only is the attack neutralized, but the attacker realizes the error of his ways and turns from violence. I call this naive because, even though it is sometimes possible, it presupposes that one's attacker will always be far inferior in skill, and even more unlikely, that being humbled and even shamed by one far superior, an attacker is likely to undergo a profound change of personality.

A second concept is that of surgical violence, one particularly common among the Japanese right wing,whose ideology, in many ways, is closest to those of the warrior class in pre-modern Japan. This is best shown in the phrase, "One life to save a thousand," which is used to explain various political assassinations. In this concept, not only murder, but also inaction which allows war or other disaster to develop, would be setsuninto. Katsujinken would be to "cut the head off the snake" so the war could not start....

Setsuninto--Katsujinken by Ellis Amdur

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I definitely get that. My line of thinking is that a punch can be just as deadly as a weapon. Especially if there's a lot of them. So if someone wishes violence upon me, no matter what they are armed with, I have a right to defend myself with whatever means necessary. If that means he's unarmed, I have no problem drawing a weapon.

This comes with two major caveats: 1) as mentioned above, when the attack stops, I stop. 2) that I must be diligent to not provoke a fight, because if I do then it's myself that's responsible for what happens.

My firm belief is that whoever is the aggressor or instigator is responsible for any violence as a result of those actions. That by attacking another person, you forfeit your right to safety until you cease your attack.

How well these beliefs stack up with the actual law varies by locality, but I think it's a good rule of thumb, at the very least.

In the UK any self defence cases will go in front of a jury of people who might not have the slightest clue about fighting or how easy it is to kill someone in a fight. This will work against you especially as they will probably treat you differently to an average person. A trained Martial Artist and/or fighter might be expected to show more restraint than an average person and be able to subdue an attacker without killing them.

 

[jobo]

In the UK any self defence cases will go in front of a jury of people who might not have the slightest clue about fighting or how easy it is to kill someone in a fight. This will work against you especially as they will probably treat you differently to an average person. A trained Martial Artist and/or fighter might be expected to show more restraint than an average person and be able to subdue an attacker without killing them.

no that's not right, " self defence," cases up to and including GBH with a weapon CAN be heared at the magistrates court with NO jury.

yes the prosicution could play on the fact your a highly skilled ma, but that has no actual bearing on if the forced use was reasonable. Reasonable force in this context is what you honestly believed was reasonable to the threat perceived,

but how on earth would the prosicution know you were a ma unless you are a) famous or b) you are stupid enough to tell them at interview?

 

[Saheim]

I definitely get that. My line of thinking is that a punch can be just as deadly as a weapon. Especially if there's a lot of them. So if someone wishes violence upon me, no matter what they are armed with, I have a right to defend myself with whatever means necessary. If that means he's unarmed, I have no problem drawing a weapon.

This comes with two major caveats: 1) as mentioned above, when the attack stops, I stop. 2) that I must be diligent to not provoke a fight, because if I do then it's myself that's responsible for what happens.

My firm belief is that whoever is the aggressor or instigator is responsible for any violence as a result of those actions. That by attacking another person, you forfeit your right to safety until you cease your attack.

How well these beliefs stack up with the actual law varies by locality, but I think it's a good rule of thumb, at the very least.

You nailed it with the "locality". I'e told my wife - there are places I flat will not ever live, no matter how good the money or weather is.

I stick to the more conservative areas where folks are kinda held accountable for their actions and common sense is prevalent.

Don't get me wrong. If I was chasing a man down the street with a machete and my "justification" was "he still hadn't dropped the knife he tried to rob me with..... 2 minutes ago", I'd most likely be charged, even here. But, for the most part, in places like the ones I live, the outcome pretty much falls on the person who created the situation.

In L.E. we were trained to "attack the threat until there is no threat". The person creating the threat was not our target, the threat was. If the threat was gone, because he dropped the weapon and put up his hands, great! If the threat was gone because the top half of his noggin was, that works too. My stance is this - don' risk your safety to check, after every step, to see if more force is needed. I' not gonna do one thing, evaluate, then see if more is necessary. I'm gonna turn the dial all the way to the right and, when I notice the threat is gone, I'll stop.

I had a MUCH bigger responsibility, in regards to my attacker's well being, back when I was still a cop. Now, it is not a concern.

 

[skribs]

In the UK any self defence cases will go in front of a jury of people who might not have the slightest clue about fighting or how easy it is to kill someone in a fight. This will work against you especially as they will probably treat you differently to an average person. A trained Martial Artist and/or fighter might be expected to show more restraint than an average person and be able to subdue an attacker without killing them.

I've heard this a lot on gun forums, the idea that "if you modify your gun in any way, it will make it look like you tried to make your gun more lethal and the prosecution will use that to prove it was premeditated murder instead of self defense." Basically, if I choose sights that are easier to use, if I choose bullets designed for home defense, if I use any of the features that gun-grabbers like to ban (like a pistol grip or a removable magazine), that it proves I am "out to kill" to an ignorant jury.

Of course, I've seen this argument thousands of times and never seen any evidence that it's actually been used in a case against someone who defended themselves.

no that's not right, " self defence," cases up to and including GBH with a weapon CAN be heared at the magistrates court with NO jury.

yes the prosicution could play on the fact your a highly skilled ma, but that has no actual bearing on if the forced use was reasonable. Reasonable force in this context is what you honestly believed was reasonable to the threat perceived,

but how on earth would the prosicution know you were a ma unless you are a) famous or b) you are stupid enough to tell them at interview?

What does GBH stand for?

You nailed it with the "locality". I'e told my wife - there are places I flat will not ever live, no matter how good the money or weather is.

I stick to the more conservative areas where folks are kinda held accountable for their actions and common sense is prevalent.

Don't get me wrong. If I was chasing a man down the street with a machete and my "justification" was "he still hadn't dropped the knife he tried to rob me with..... 2 minutes ago", I'd most likely be charged, even here. But, for the most part, in places like the ones I live, the outcome pretty much falls on the person who created the situation.

In L.E. we were trained to "attack the threat until there is no threat". The person creating the threat was not our target, the threat was. If the threat was gone, because he dropped the weapon and put up his hands, great! If the threat was gone because the top half of his noggin was, that works too. My stance is this - don' risk your safety to check, after every step, to see if more force is needed. I' not gonna do one thing, evaluate, then see if more is necessary. I'm gonna turn the dial all the way to the right and, when I notice the threat is gone, I'll stop.

I had a MUCH bigger responsibility, in regards to my attacker's well being, back when I was still a cop. Now, it is not a concern.

I particularly like the bit about "the person wasn't the target, the threat was." Even in those liberal areas, I'd rather risk prison than risk death. Of course, once there is no more risk to myself or those around me, there's no justification to continue to defend myself.

 

[drop bear]

Of course, I've seen this argument thousands of times and never seen any evidence that it's actually been used in a case against someone who defended themselves.

The travon martin case. The prosecutor argued that Zimmermans gun was modified for extra killing. Or a specific gun for killing people or something.

 

[jobo]

I've heard this a lot on gun forums, the idea that "if you modify your gun in any way, it will make it look like you tried to make your gun more lethal and the prosecution will use that to prove it was premeditated murder instead of self defense." Basically, if I choose sights that are easier to use, if I choose bullets designed for home defense, if I use any of the features that gun-grabbers like to ban (like a pistol grip or a removable magazine), that it proves I am "out to kill" to an ignorant jury.

Of course, I've seen this argument thousands of times and never seen any evidence that it's actually been used in a case against someone who defended themselves.



What does GBH stand for?



I particularly like the bit about "the person wasn't the target, the threat was." Even in those liberal areas, I'd rather risk prison than risk death. Of course, once there is no more risk to myself or those around me, there's no justification to continue to defend myself.

grievous bodily harm.

the levels are assault,/ actual bodily harm , GBH and dead

 

[skribs]

The travon martin case. The prosecutor argued that Zimmermans gun was modified for extra killing. Or a specific gun for killing people or something.

On the one hand, I've not heard that statement being made. On the other hand, he was acquitted, so it didn't seem to affect his outcome.

 

[Saheim]

On the one hand, I've not heard that statement being made. On the other hand, he was acquitted, so it didn't seem to affect his outcome.

I've always had mixed opinion on this one. Part of me believes - a good shoot is a good shoot and a bad shoot is a bad shoot and folks are turning an unrealistic paranoia into a wide spread belief. The other part of me believes - jurors are comprised of people, people have emotions, emotions can be manipulated.

A good case to look at is - Harold Fish of Coconino County Arizona. He shot a man, in self defense, and was convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. Many believe this was (partly) due to his handgun and ammo choice.

But then you have the kid who killed a burglar with a katana and had no problems.

I guess jurors are like a box of chocolates, ya never know what yer gonna get.

 

[JR 137]

I've always had mixed opinion on this one. Part of me believes - a good shoot is a good shoot and a bad shoot is a bad shoot and folks are turning an unrealistic paranoia into a wide spread belief. The other part of me believes - jurors are comprised of people, people have emotions, emotions can be manipulated.

A good case to look at is - Harold Fish of Coconino County Arizona. He shot a man, in self defense, and was convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. Many believe this was (partly) due to his handgun and ammo choice.

But then you have the kid who killed a burglar with a katana and had no problems.

I guess jurors are like a box of chocolates, ya never know what yer gonna get.

I’d assume in general a lot also depends on the how the defense and prosecution present their case. Johnnie Cochran vs Marsha Clarke. Clarke was clearly outclassed in what was pretty much an open and shut case. Jurors were a big part, but also keep in mind who selects the jury.

 

[CB Jones]

A good case to look at is - Harold Fish of Coconino County Arizona. He shot a man, in self defense, and was convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. Many believe this was (partly) due to his handgun and ammo choice.

I guess jurors are like a box of chocolates, ya never know what yer gonna get.

Actually they brought the gun and ammo up but the main problem was the medical examiner report and some inconsistencies in Fish’s story.

Also the judge gave improper instructions to the jury and would not let the defense bring up specific acts of aggression in the victims past to show he had an aggressive violent nature which caused the conviction to be overturned.

But you are right about not ever knowing what you are going to get with a jury.

 

[Buka]

I pray my life and future will never fall into the hands of folks who couldn't get out of Jury Duty. As for Johnnie Cochran vs Marsha Clarke - keep in mind what some of the jurors admitted to after the case was over.

Former Simpson trial juror Carrie Bess was interviewed for the ESPN documentary OJ: Made in America, where she bluntly stated that she felt "that the overwhelming majority of the jury reached a not guilty verdict as payback for the beating of Rodney King and subsequent acquittal by the officers involved in the highly publicized and racially motivated incident back in 1992."

That's some scary stuff, right there.

 

[Flying Crane]

I pray my life and future will never fall into the hands of folks who couldn't get out of Jury Duty. As for Johnnie Cochran vs Marsha Clarke - keep in mind what some of the jurors admitted to after the case was over.

Former Simpson trial juror Carrie Bess was interviewed for the ESPN documentary OJ: Made in America, where she bluntly stated that she felt "that the overwhelming majority of the jury reached a not guilty verdict as payback for the beating of Rodney King and subsequent acquittal by the officers involved in the highly publicized and racially motivated incident back in 1992."

That's some scary stuff, right there.

Kind of amazing how actions can have consequences.