Toning Down The Techniques

[Matt]

I don't want to kill anyone - I don't even want to hurt anyone. I just want to live.

I think that sums it up better than anything I might add.

 

[MJS]

I'm not really sure why there's a problem. All MAs were, originally, systems of effective self-defense against a violent, dangerous attacker. They have been used in this way repeatedly as far back as we have any records for; certainly, their use in military combatives suggests that there are plenty of highly skilled practitioners who are nonetheless quite capable of using them to terminate an attack in the absolute minimum of time. Once you're under attack, your life is definitely in jeopardy, and you are well-advised to do what you need to do to preserve it at minimum risk to yourself—which means, ending the attack, on your terms, in the shortest possible time.

I cannot understand how taking this approach to a conflict represents a lack of martial skills. The whole point of Okinawan karate—the rootstock of Shotokan and other Japanese systems, of Kenpo, of Taekwondo—was maximum damage to an attacker in minimum time with minimum risk. Is efficiency in executing the techs of a skill set evidence of a lack of skill? Or are we looking at some artificial 'æsthetic' criterion, like the conceit in knife-fighting that terminating your opponent's attack with the edge of the blade is 'more elegant' than using a stabbing thrust for that effect? This sounds akin to the view that a pretty six-move forced mate in chess is somehow more skillful than a blunt-force three move forced mate. I don't know where such an idea might have come from, but it sounds like a personal taste issue, having nothing to do with the actual skill level of the practitioner.

Excess force is always to be avoided, but that doesn't sound to me like the issue. If you look at effective bunkai for karate and TKD forms, they involve extreme damage—hard strikes to temple and throat, neck twists, eye strikes. Why is the ability to impose these decisively terminal countermeasures on a dangerous attacker not evidence of skill, if the practitioner can do it at will in the face of an all-out physical assault? I don't get it....

Well, yes, thats what I thought as well. I mean, aside from something like TaiChi, pretty much every art out there involves destruction.

 

[MJS]

You need appropriate levels of force. If a drunk buddy at your Christmas party is a little agitated and grabs your suit lapel, do you think violently breaking his arm is going to endear you to the boss and other co-workers? Now if a drunk outside of a bar grabs your shirt and he has a beer bottle in his other hand, then you have the tools to break the grabbing arm as you move offline and then strike to the throat to end it.

If all you have in your tool box is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...

Right, but it's not clear that that's exactly what Doc was saying:



It looks to me as though the idea here is that regardless of the context of the punch, Doc is saying that an eye-strike indicates minimal levels of skill. If the punch is thrown in the context of a surprise attack in an otherwise empty parking garage at 10:45 Wednesday night, you'd better do whatever you have to to terminate the fight favorably, and fast. Eye strikes are highly effective, and there are plenty of eye-strike-applicable movements in classical katas and hyung motions derived from those katas. Chotoku Kyan was notorious for all kinds of horrific attacks on the face of his adversaries... would we say that he wasn't taught any MA skills?

You can argue about whether excessive force was involved or not, but it seems to me that what's at issue in Mike's post is something different: whether these simple, brutal techniques are regarded in some quarters as evidence of lack of technical skill. Since the point of the MAs is to give you a maximum margin of safety when you're under physical assault, though, I don't see the basis for that kind of complaint. The karate-based arts are all about striking—that's their strategic plan. Controlling moves to set up a finishing strike or take the attacker down, sure... but you've still got to deal with him once he's down, or he'll be back at you once he gets up; at least, you have to assume that, eh? In a genuinely dangerous situation, you really don't have much choice but to inflict enough damage to incapacite your attack as quickly as you can—the longer the fight goes on, the more chance you have of getting hurt. Given all that, what on earth is wrong with eye strikes or comparably damaging techs? How do they count as 'low skill' techniques, when the whole point is to get a dangerous attacker out of the fight?
__________________

Yes, Exile read my mind with this post. I certainly think that we, as MAists, need to be able to adapt to the situation, but as he said, I got the impression that ANY brutal strike would mean that the person executing it doesn't have any skill. And yes, the post in question from the link wasn't clear.

 

[MJS]

I think you are right. Many of the traditional applications involve "soft tissue" strikes to the throat, eyes, etc. They were designed in a time when you didn't have to worry about getting arrested for "excessive force" when some bandit mugged you on a country road. You only had to worry about getting away with your life. The applications and lessons that are taught fit the culture and the times they were created for.

Doc's viewpoint is not from a TMA, but a CMA influenced approach through SGM Parker's kenpo. Ed Parker created his version of kenpo to fit into an american style of fighting and framework. Doc has written about this before and as he made his kenpo more available to the masses SGM Parker knew that he couldn't control the quality of that information so he put in lower level applications to give people a viable means as they sought out and learned better ways to control and end the fight. If you look at many of the techniques found in SGM Parker's kenpo (the commercial side of it) you will see a disportionate response to the attack. For example, in the yellow belt techniques there is "Sword and Hammer", a new student learns that when someone grabs your right shoulder, how to strike them in the throat with a knifehand strike ( the sword) and then follow it up with a hammer to the groin.

It teaches certain applications and principles for the new student to apply, but it is NOT legal to use this technique as written. There is a higher level of knowledge that a student learns to control this without resorting to lethal force right off the bat. I think the point of this is, not to only rely on the eye strikes and throat strikes, but start to expand from there and come up with varying levels of response for the situation. Then if really needed you know what tool fits the job.

Yes, it has been said before that there is the version that is more in depth and the version that is designed for the commercial school, the latter being what the majority of schools teach. In other words, it was almost more for the quick fix, so to speak, instead of the SL4 version, where more time is taken to look at the less lethal side.

Of course, I have to wonder....you said that SGM Parker wouldn't be able to have the QC over what was being taught, why wasn't the non commercial or SL4 version taught to everyone? IMO, it seems to me that very few, or more appropriately 1 person has that version while everyone else has the commercial version. How could this be possible? Out of all of the students that he taught, only 1 has it different?

Please dont take this as me bashing or taking a shot at SL4 or anyone in particular, I'm just making an observation.

 

[MJS]

Regarding a few posts that mentioned the more skill you have, the less you should have to hurt someone. This goes right back to the vauge link. As it was said, I get the distinct impression that ANY use of a lethal tecnique means that the person doing it, doesn't have skill. So going on that, no matter what the attack is, the response should always be the same, which means it should be a less lethal one and there should be little to no injury on the attackers part.

I have to disagree with this. I think that we should base our response off of whats presented to us, however, if more force is needed, then we escalate from there. Much like a LEO....if they're faced with someone who is just being a jerk verbally, using a less lethal tool, ie: OC, instead of a gun of course is the better option. Put a gun in the badguys hand, and using anything less than your own gun would be foolish. This shouldn't imply that the LEO is less skilled because he's using his gun, but if we go by what the linked post implies, that is the impression it gives.

 

[Matt]

Well, yes, thats what I thought as well. I mean, aside from something like TaiChi, pretty much every art out there involves destruction.

I'm not sure about that - some of the nastiest tricks I know, I learned from Tai Chi.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Regarding a few posts that mentioned the more skill you have, the less you should have to hurt someone. This goes right back to the vague link. As it was said, I get the distinct impression that ANY use of a lethal technique means that the person doing it, doesn't have skill. So going on that, no matter what the attack is, the response should always be the same, which means it should be a less lethal one and there should be little to no injury on the attackers part.

I have to disagree with this. I think that we should base our response off of whats presented to us, however, if more force is needed, then we escalate from there. Much like a LEO....if they're faced with someone who is just being a jerk verbally, using a less lethal tool, ie: OC, instead of a gun of course is the better option. Put a gun in the badguys hand, and using anything less than your own gun would be foolish. This shouldn't imply that the LEO is less skilled because he's using his gun, but if we go by what the linked post implies, that is the impression it gives.

I disagree with that as well for multiple reasons. we are taught early in our training what the "soft targets" are and that very little force on our parts can bring someone down, thats why we are shown how and why to attack those targets. We also learn that appropriate force to the same targets can cause serious irreversible damage or even death. This shows us that these targets are not the ones we always go for unless we absolutely have or to diffuse a situation quickly.

Like you said MJS, the situation we are given dictates what response we use. The said part is that if you take a low ranked person and put them in a situation where they are get there purse or shopping bag snached, they hold on to it and apply force and techs they learned to defend themselves and break the guys for somehow. people will look at this person, learn what rank and how long they have been doing this and will praise them that they knew what they did and that no harm came to them.

On the flip side you have a 3-4 degree black belt, who is approached by 2-3 people in a park with knives, he/she defends him/herself and seriously injures 1 or 2 of the attackers. People are going to want to put this person on the chopping blocking and say they should have been able to exert enough contol not to cause any harm to the attackers.

Is this acurate? am I way out in left field on this? if im right WTF?

B

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The said part is that if you take a low ranked person and put them in a situation where they are get there purse or shopping bag snached, they hold on to it and apply force and techs they learned to defend themselves and break the guys for somehow. people will look at this person, learn what rank and how long they have been doing this and will praise them that they knew what they did and that no harm came to them.

On the flip side you have a 3-4 degree black belt, who is approached by 2-3 people in a park with knives, he/she defends him/herself and seriously injures 1 or 2 of the attackers. People are going to want to put this person on the chopping blocking and say they should have been able to exert enough contol not to cause any harm to the attackers.

Is this acurate? am I way out in left field on this? if im right WTF?

In the first example you gave, of a purse-snatching, the law regarding self-defense might not even apply - at least in Michigan, a person has to be reasonably and honestly in fear for their own life or safety, not protecting their purse or shopping bag. A person MIGHT be in fear of their life as well, depending on the circumstances, but it isn't black-and-white.

I think any disagreement we may have will be based on whether you are talking about an ethical duty or a legal duty.

Ethical: We may be trained to use the least-lethal techniques we can to defend ourselves, out of concern for our fellow human beings. Depends on martial arts style, teacher, and one's own internal ethics system, I think.

Legal: In most states of the US, if you have the legal right to self-defense, then there are no 'rules' involving what manner you may do it. If you end up breaking an arm, you break an arm. If you're a black belt with decades of experience, or a white belt with six months, it makes no difference - to the law.

When you say "People are going to..." do this or say that, whom are you referring to? The police? Or the general public?

I recommend finding and reading the laws of your own state or locality regarding self-defense. That should give you the 'legal' answers you seek. How you choose to interpret that through your own internal ethical system is up to you, of course.

 

[KempoGuy06]

In the first example you gave, of a purse-snatching, the law regarding self-defense might not even apply - at least in Michigan, a person has to be reasonably and honestly in fear for their own life or safety, not protecting their purse or shopping bag. A person MIGHT be in fear of their life as well, depending on the circumstances, but it isn't black-and-white.

I think any disagreement we may have will be based on whether you are talking about an ethical duty or a legal duty.

Ethical: We may be trained to use the least-lethal techniques we can to defend ourselves, out of concern for our fellow human beings. Depends on martial arts style, teacher, and one's own internal ethics system, I think.

Legal: In most states of the US, if you have the legal right to self-defense, then there are no 'rules' involving what manner you may do it. If you end up breaking an arm, you break an arm. If you're a black belt with decades of experience, or a white belt with six months, it makes no difference - to the law.

When you say "People are going to..." do this or say that, whom are you referring to? The police? Or the general public?

I recommend finding and reading the laws of your own state or locality regarding self-defense. That should give you the 'legal' answers you seek. How you choose to interpret that through your own internal ethical system is up to you, of course.

really anybody in that statement. the police, general public if it made the big headlines or the prosecutor even. any opinion you what to give on that will be much appreciated.

B

 

[Bill Mattocks]

really anybody in that statement. the police, general public if it made the big headlines or the prosecutor even. any opinion you what to give on that will be much appreciated.

Police are required to adhere to standards of their department regarding use of force. This is often and incorrectly confused with standards of self-defense when applied by the average citizen. The standards are not the same.

Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the 'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'. That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily. They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force. Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.

The average citizen is not held to that standard. Again, you have to read the laws regarding self-defense in your own state or locality to find out the details.

But in general, self-defense laws are pretty clear. They say that if you are genuinely in fear of your life, you may defend yourself. You are required in some states to first attempt to retreat - in other states you don't have to. Once you perceive that the danger is over, you have the responsibility to cease and desist. That's pretty much it.

Some states, including mine (Michigan) also include civil liability shield laws - meaning that if I legally employ self-defense, I not only cannot be arrested, I cannot be sued. There is a legal presumption that I did nothing wrong. This can be overturned only if the law enforcement agency concerned finds through their investigation that I did not have the legal right to defend myself. For example, if I was not genuinely in fear of my life, then I would not have the right to self-defense.

There is no 'degree' of force which I must adhere to. If I break an arm, knock the guy down, or break his knees so he never walks again - it doesn't matter at all. People can SAY anything they like. They cannot do anything about it. I am not required to 'escalate' the use of force as the police are.

I know that people like to share stories and I hear a lot of those things - even from police officers, sometimes. That you might be raked over the coals if some guy jumps you and you break his arm, but the cop thinks you could have just pushed him down instead. Nope. Not going to happen. It's just rumors, it is not true.

Again, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Find and read the law regarding self-defense in your location.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Police are required to adhere to standards of their department regarding use of force. This is often and incorrectly confused with standards of self-defense when applied by the average citizen. The standards are not the same.

Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the 'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'. That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily. They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force. Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.

The average citizen is not held to that standard. Again, you have to read the laws regarding self-defense in your own state or locality to find out the details.

But in general, self-defense laws are pretty clear. They say that if you are genuinely in fear of your life, you may defend yourself. You are required in some states to first attempt to retreat - in other states you don't have to. Once you perceive that the danger is over, you have the responsibility to cease and desist. That's pretty much it.

Some states, including mine (Michigan) also include civil liability shield laws - meaning that if I legally employ self-defense, I not only cannot be arrested, I cannot be sued. There is a legal presumption that I did nothing wrong. This can be overturned only if the law enforcement agency concerned finds through their investigation that I did not have the legal right to defend myself. For example, if I was not genuinely in fear of my life, then I would not have the right to self-defense.

There is no 'degree' of force which I must adhere to. If I break an arm, knock the guy down, or break his knees so he never walks again - it doesn't matter at all. People can SAY anything they like. They cannot do anything about it. I am not required to 'escalate' the use of force as the police are.

I know that people like to share stories and I hear a lot of those things - even from police officers, sometimes. That you might be raked over the coals if some guy jumps you and you break his arm, but the cop thinks you could have just pushed him down instead. Nope. Not going to happen. It's just rumors, it is not true.

Again, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Find and read the law regarding self-defense in your location.

thanks a lot that was a great response

B

 

[jks9199]

Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the 'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'. That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily. They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force. Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.

The average citizen is not held to that standard. Again, you have to read the laws regarding self-defense in your own state or locality to find out the details.

But in general, self-defense laws are pretty clear. They say that if you are genuinely in fear of your life, you may defend yourself. You are required in some states to first attempt to retreat - in other states you don't have to. Once you perceive that the danger is over, you have the responsibility to cease and desist. That's pretty much it.

Not exactly; the general rule of self defense for anyone is that the force used must be reasonable and justifiable in light of the total circumstances. The distinction is the end goal; generally, a LEO is seeking to make that apprehension or arrest while an "ordinary" citizen is trying to end the attack and get away. A police officer or a trained fighter may be held to a different definition and standard of what's justifiable and appropriate. There are numerous threads where this issue is discussed at length here on MT alone... let alone other self-defense oriented forums.

What that means for our training in any style if we're focused on self-defense is that we must focus on being able to recognize the circumstances, and use the appropriate range of responses. Without trying to be so complete in developing those ranges that we create an overload in our reflexes and end up freezing in a lock on the OODA loop.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A police officer or a trained fighter may be held to a different definition and standard of what's justifiable and appropriate.

I respectfully disagree.

I would have to see the specific law or case cite. I have seen and read a lot of state self-defense laws. I have also not seen a single case of a person engaged in self-defense that was charged with a crime for using an inappropriate level of force. I think that's just rumor, unless someone has a cite.

Show me one law on self-defense that sets level of force requirements. It may well have been 'discussed to death' everywhere, but lots of people can as wrong as one. I've done a lot of Googling - all I see are repeated assertions that martial artists specifically have to 'be careful' to use an 'appropriate level of force' or they could be arrested - not one cite. In the US, at least, if it's not established in law, it isn't a law. You cannot charge a person with a crime that does not exist. If it exists, show me.

Let me give you an example:

http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200510/1128900145.html

In the above link, a Florida State University course teaches self-defense. It also asserts "Providing protection for yourself or a loved one from violence is imperative and using only the appropriate level of force is the law."

But is that true? No, it is not:

http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm

I won't quote the entire thing, but if you read it, you might not that there is no reference to 'appropriate level of force' anywhere in it. You cannot be charged with violating a law that does not exist.

However, I can think of situations where your 'level of force' standard might be used.

First - in self-defense situations that do not allow you the use of deadly force. For example, if you think you are about to be slapped by a woman you just insulted at a party. No reasonable person would think you had the right to break her arm or kill her. But the laws on self-defense are the determining factor here - not your martial arts skill. If you are NOT reasonably in fear of your life, then you are NOT authorized to use deadly force to defend yourself. That would be true whether you are a martial arts expert or you happen to have a gun.

Second - in tort (civil) law. In states that do not provide a shield on civil liability for people who are legitimately defending their lives, you may well find yourself facing an attorney for the plaintiff who demands to know why you did not use your vast superhuman fighting skills to merely stop his client's violent attack with a Jedi mind trick instead of kicking in his ribs. That's certainly a risk you run when you defend yourself, which is why I do encourage people to find out what the law on self-defense is in their state.

Again - no disrespect intended, but I hear and read a lot of 'you have to use an appropriate level or risk arrest' and I never see a single cite. I don't know where people are getting this, but it isn't from the laws I have seen.

What that means for our training in any style if we're focused on self-defense is that we must focus on being able to recognize the circumstances, and use the appropriate range of responses. Without trying to be so complete in developing those ranges that we create an overload in our reflexes and end up freezing in a lock on the OODA loop.

With respect, I disagree with this as well. Having more ability might well mean choosing a 'less lethal' response, but from my point of view, the purpose is to have more capability and more options to end the attack, lethality not being a major consideration.

 

[MJS]

I'm not sure about that - some of the nastiest tricks I know, I learned from Tai Chi.

My apologies. I was speaking more of what it looks like on the surface. If you were to look at TaiChi it gives the soft, fluid impression from the start. Compare that to a Kenpo technique, and the differences should be obvious.

On a side note, a few guys from my Kenpo school study TaiChi. Its amazing working with them when they're doing a Kenpo or Arnis technique, as you can see and feel some subtle differences in application.

 

[MJS]

I disagree with that as well for multiple reasons. we are taught early in our training what the "soft targets" are and that very little force on our parts can bring someone down, thats why we are shown how and why to attack those targets. We also learn that appropriate force to the same targets can cause serious irreversible damage or even death. This shows us that these targets are not the ones we always go for unless we absolutely have or to diffuse a situation quickly.

Like you said MJS, the situation we are given dictates what response we use. The said part is that if you take a low ranked person and put them in a situation where they are get there purse or shopping bag snached, they hold on to it and apply force and techs they learned to defend themselves and break the guys for somehow. people will look at this person, learn what rank and how long they have been doing this and will praise them that they knew what they did and that no harm came to them.

On the flip side you have a 3-4 degree black belt, who is approached by 2-3 people in a park with knives, he/she defends him/herself and seriously injures 1 or 2 of the attackers. People are going to want to put this person on the chopping blocking and say they should have been able to exert enough contol not to cause any harm to the attackers.

Is this acurate? am I way out in left field on this? if im right WTF?

B

I think you hit the nail on the head. I mean, it shouldn't be held that if you're X degree balck belt, that you shouldn't use force to defend yourself. I still stand by the notion that we should judge each situation.

EX: I'm on my yearly trip to NYC with my wife, sister and brother in law and I'm approcahed by a street person asking for money. I refuse and they keep walking behind me, asking again. I tell them no again, and now they reach out and grab my shoulder. I don't think breaking the guys arm and nose is necessary. Now, if he pulled a blade with his free hand, then thats a different story.

I'm walking to my car and someone tries to mug me and they have a blunt object in their hand, then yes, perhaps their amr will be broke. Is it necessary to break it? Maybe, maybe not, but IMO, I think, given the nature of the situation I'm justified in doing that.

 

[just2kicku]

Police are required to adhere to standards of their department regarding use of force. This is often and incorrectly confused with standards of self-defense when applied by the average citizen. The standards are not the same.

Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the 'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'. That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily. They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force. Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.

The average citizen is not held to that standard. Again, you have to read the laws regarding self-defense in your own state or locality to find out the details.

But in general, self-defense laws are pretty clear. They say that if you are genuinely in fear of your life, you may defend yourself. You are required in some states to first attempt to retreat - in other states you don't have to. Once you perceive that the danger is over, you have the responsibility to cease and desist. That's pretty much it.

Some states, including mine (Michigan) also include civil liability shield laws - meaning that if I legally employ self-defense, I not only cannot be arrested, I cannot be sued. There is a legal presumption that I did nothing wrong. This can be overturned only if the law enforcement agency concerned finds through their investigation that I did not have the legal right to defend myself. For example, if I was not genuinely in fear of my life, then I would not have the right to self-defense.

There is no 'degree' of force which I must adhere to. If I break an arm, knock the guy down, or break his knees so he never walks again - it doesn't matter at all. People can SAY anything they like. They cannot do anything about it. I am not required to 'escalate' the use of force as the police are.

I know that people like to share stories and I hear a lot of those things - even from police officers, sometimes. That you might be raked over the coals if some guy jumps you and you break his arm, but the cop thinks you could have just pushed him down instead. Nope. Not going to happen. It's just rumors, it is not true.

Again, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Find and read the law regarding self-defense in your location.

I am gonna somewhat have to disagree. Police should be held to a higher standard, but often do not have to account for their actions.

Let's take for example, you go to a bar to have a couple of beers. You get there, and some stupid drunk starts talking trash calling names and getting in your face. You tell him to back the F off and he shows you a gun. (True story) I hit him with a bottle and attack where I see the blood coming from, now all I'm thinking is taking out the threat. Adrenaline pumping I'm wailing on this guy till he's a bloody stump. Now from behind I am being pummeled with batons and cuffed. On the way out my head seems to find the door frame on the place I'm being escorted out of while cuffed, and the doorpost of the cruiser a few more times as I'm getting in the back. Come to find out, he's an off duty cop!

Even tho charges were ulimately dropped, it still wasted my time in jail ( 9 glorious days to be exact) and I heard nothing of this guy getting into any trouble for 1) not identifying himself 2) being a drunk idiot with a firearm.

So the standard is not the same, I for one, if had to do it again would have jacked the guy up more than I did. Don't get me wrong, I know some good cops and these guys put there life on the line everyday. But there is a differerence between upholding the law and following the law.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

EX: I'm on my yearly trip to NYC with my wife, sister and brother in law and I'm approcahed by a street person asking for money. I refuse and they keep walking behind me, asking again. I tell them no again, and now they reach out and grab my shoulder. I don't think breaking the guys arm and nose is necessary. Now, if he pulled a blade with his free hand, then thats a different story.

If you were not in fear of your life, then you are not justified in using deadly force in most states. You say you would not be in fear for your life - then you would be correct not to break his arm.

However, if you were in reasonable fear for your life, you would be. It's not the level of force - it's the level of threat you reasonably felt.

I'm walking to my car and someone tries to mug me and they have a blunt object in their hand, then yes, perhaps their amr will be broke. Is it necessary to break it? Maybe, maybe not, but IMO, I think, given the nature of the situation I'm justified in doing that.

Absolutely. Or whatever else comes to hand or mind. But again, you're reasonably in fear of your life.

With respect - I see people getting wrapped around the axle with this whole 'break an arm, or just twist it a little' etc thing. Why do people resist simply Googling for their own state's laws on self-defense and reading them? Really, it cannot be that hard. It's making something that is really quite simple into a very complex and thorny problem.

NY State Law:

§ 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.

6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or qualify such authorization.

It is just what you said. If you're not in reasonable fear for your life, you can use force not to include deadly force. If you are, you can. Section 35.15 talks about when deadly force can be used, it's very commonsense and understandable.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am gonna somewhat have to disagree. Police should be held to a higher standard, but often do not have to account for their actions.

[snip]

So the standard is not the same, I for one, if had to do it again would have jacked the guy up more than I did. Don't get me wrong, I know some good cops and these guys put there life on the line everyday. But there is a differerence between upholding the law and following the law.

Police officers break the law too. I'm sorry it happened to you, but it does not change what the laws say.

 

[SL4Drew]

People may have their own internal ethical or moral reasons to attempt to use less force or less lethal techniques when engaged in self-defense. To each their own, I say.

However, it pays to know the laws regarding self-defense where you live. I live in Michigan. Here are the important excerpts from the Michigan law on self-defense:



Please note that there is nothing in here about level of force used. There is nothing about being told by the police "You should have just twisted his arm, not broken it." The persistent rumors about 'level of force' or 'disproportionate force' apply to police, not to the ordinary citizen.

The law in Michigan only distinguishes between two kinds of force - deadly force and 'other than' deadly force. That's it. So if you knock a mugger down and pin him until the police arrive, great. If you kick both his knees backward and he'll never walk again, also great.

Michigan has other laws relating to self-defense, including a prohibition on lawsuits - so you cannot even be sued, and another that says if you are sued on the basis that you were not entitled to use self-defense and the judge/jury rules in your favor, the plaintiff has to pay your court costs, lawyer fees, lost work wages, etc, etc.

About the worst thing that can happen to you if you apply 'too much force' in defending yourself in Michigan is if a prosecuting attorney decides that you did NOT "honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary," etc.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. However, I do recommend looking up the law on self-defense in your own state or community and reading it. It's worth knowing.

And again, if you feel that less force is desirable, even if the law would otherwise permit it, then go with that. Most of you know, my own self-defense belief is that any altercation with an assailant is automatically a life-and-death struggle, so I would first attempt to disengage if I could, even if the law authorizes me to take more direct action.

Unless Michigan is an exceptional outlier (which I doubt) you are wrong. This statute addresses the use of deadly force only. It is quite probable there is another dealing with the use of force more generally or that the case law in the state is well-developed in that regard. This article suggests that Michigan, like many other states, have by statute dropped the duty to retreat to use deadly force: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204720,00.html And this appears to be the statute, so I certainly wouldn't read it as expansively as you seem to.

And it would be incorrect to say that everything thing else is simply considered 'other than deadly force.' Since the days of yore in jolly old England, the law of self defense there have been (at least) three requirements to exercising this privilege: 1) you weren't responsible for causing the affray, 2) you reasonably believe that are in immediate danger, and 3) you respond with reasonable force.

So, if you maim a drunkard that took a sloppy swing at you, chances are likely you are going to face charges. You simply cannot legally justify tearing someone apart just because they took a swing at you. That's not using reasonable force to subdue the threat. There was a case around here not too long ago were the 'defender' threw meth manufacturing chemicals in the face of his attacker. That wasn't self-defense. Or another, where after a few beers some guys in the street got in a fight, pulled the guy's shirt over his head and beat the crap out of him. Then, despite the claim that the downed man was getting ready to charge, the kick to the face was held not to be self-defense. Or how about this case, where the wife held a broken piece of glass, the husband pushed her, and she stabbed herself in the neck and died--and it was held that self-defense wasn't viable: http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2008SepTerm/08-5006.pdf

There seems to be this notion among martial artists in particular that every street confrontation amounts to a gladiatorial combat in the Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. If you respond to a 'pedestrian' attack, with a chop the attacker's throat, then break his arms, blow out his knees, smash his testicles, and pop out his eyes, you've responded with a level of force that caused serious bodily harm, which is essentially considered the same as lethal force. So, if you aren't facing lethal force, then doing most of that stuff will transform you from a guy that was attacked into a felon.

Prosecutors deal with cases of real violence every day. Trust me when I tell you that they will not be impressed that after 20 years of martial arts training you maimed a guy for pushing you in a parking lot outside a bar.

 

[SL4Drew]

I respectfully disagree.

I would have to see the specific law or case cite. I have seen and read a lot of state self-defense laws. I have also not seen a single case of a person engaged in self-defense that was charged with a crime for using an inappropriate level of force. I think that's just rumor, unless someone has a cite.

Show me one law on self-defense that sets level of force requirements.

Here's one from the Michigan Supreme Court.

In People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482, 509 (opinion by Riley, C.J.); 456 NW2d 10 (1990), the Supreme Court explained that "an act committed in self-defense but with excessive force or in which defendant was the initial aggressor does not meet the elements of lawful self-defense." (emphasis added)