Toning Down The Techniques

[SL4Drew]

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.

Police are generally permitted to use reasonable force, which also appears to be the case in Michigan:

"2. Arrest-Reasonable Force-Resisting Arrest-Statutes.
The right of police officers of a city under a statute to arrest and detain carries with it the right to use reasonable force in case of resistance (MCLA 117.34)." Delude v Raasakka, 391 Mich. 296.

And I think this is more appropriate than trying to shackle them to a 'mininal force standard' which would invite a lot of litigation and countless adminstrative reviews.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

I do not understand your statement. I quoted Michigan law on self defense, line and verse. If you think there is another law, cite please. What you "probably think" doesn't matter. Cite or withdraw your comment.

Second, the news article you quoted is quite correct, and agrees with what I said when I quoted current Michigan law. It had to do with the latest changes to that law, which remove the 'duty to retreat' and establish a 'presumption' that the person using deadly force in self-defense was justified in doing so - it is now harder for a criminal investigator or prosecutor to prove that the person who used deadly force was NOT authorized to do so. I have not said anything else.

And it would be incorrect to say that everything thing else is simply considered 'other than deadly force.'

Yes, it would. Read the statute, please. There are only two kinds of force defined in the self-defense statute in Michigan. Deadly force and 'other than' deadly force. That is all. If you have evidence of another, again, please cite.

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.

That may be true in Jolly Olde England, but it is not true in Michigan.

So, if you maim a drunkard that took a sloppy swing at you, chances are likely you are going to face charges.

The requirement for applying deadly force in Michigan is:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

So, if you don't think said sloppy drunk is going to kill you or commit great bodily harm, you cannot use deadly force. Nor have I ever said you could.



However, if you do not think he is going to kill you or commit great bodily harm, then:

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Again, there are only two definitions. Deadly force, and other than deadly force. Nothing about black belts, martial arts, duty to try the non-lethal techniques first, proportionate use of force, none of that. It does not exist in Michigan law, period.

You simply cannot legally justify tearing someone apart just because they took a swing at you.

Correct, if you are not reasonably in fear of your life. If you are, you can.

That's not using reasonable force to subdue the threat.

There is no 'reasonable force' statute in Michigan (or most states). Either cite the law, or quit saying it, because it simply is not true.

You either have or you do not have the right to defend yourself with deadly force. If you do, the manner in which you defend yourself is completely irrelevant.

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.

Correct. I have never said that you can kill someone for throwing a jar of stuff on you.

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.

The law says that the right to self-defense ends when the threat ends. Clearly, the police did not believe that the threat still existed when the final 'kick to the face' was delivered. Possibly because the man was down and had just had the crap kicked out of him, eh?

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

Was the husband reasonably in fear of his life? Apparently, the courts did not think so.

Read page 5. The judge very carefully asks - repeatedly - if the husband was in fear of his life. The guy says NO. If you're not in fear of your life, then you cannot claim self-defense as an excuse for employing deadly force. This is not rocket science here.

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.

I haven't been in any kind of fight in years. I don't go in bars or go around people who like to fight. I'm not a criminal and don't hang out with criminals.

I don't know what a 'pedestrian attack' is. Some guy randomly attacks me and does NOT want to kill me? I am 48 years old and that has never happened to me. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which it would.

If I am ever attacked on the street, I have no reason to believe it is anything EXCEPT an attack on my life. It would STUPID of me to assume otherwise.

But again, what you claim is true - in that if I am NOT in fear of my life, then I CANNOT use deadly force. I KEEP SAYING THAT.

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.

I never gave that example. If I had, you would be right. I've not suggested that in any way, shape, or form.

Every example you have given is either not one in which self-defense is justified, or not one in which the victim was reasonably in fear of their life, so they were not justified in using deadly force. Your understanding of the law is woefully lacking, and despite the simplicity of actually looking up and reading the self-defense statute in your state or country, you just repeat a bunch of stuff you heard somewhere and insist it must be true. For shame, sir.

I will repeat once more. In general, if you are attacked and you reasonably believe that your life is in danger, most states allow you to use deadly force in self-defense. What form that takes is not relevant, and there are no 'level of force' laws that I am aware of that apply to ordinary citizens with regard to using deadly force in self-defense.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Police are generally permitted to use reasonable force, which also appears to be the case in Michigan:

"2. Arrest-Reasonable Force-Resisting Arrest-Statutes.
The right of police officers of a city under a statute to arrest and detain carries with it the right to use reasonable force in case of resistance (MCLA 117.34)." Delude v Raasakka, 391 Mich. 296.

And I think this is more appropriate than trying to shackle them to a 'mininal force standard' which would invite a lot of litigation and countless adminstrative reviews.

Reasonable force = minimal force standard. They're the same. You keep proving my point and then insisting I'm wrong.

Citizens are not required to use 'reasonable force'. That's for police. Which is what I said, and what you just proved.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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)

The "defendant was the initial aggressor." The standard for self-defense was not met. Again, exactly what I've said, you keep proving it, and then saying I'm wrong.

 

[SL4Drew]

The "defendant was the initial aggressor." The standard for self-defense was not met. Again, exactly what I've said, you keep proving it, and then saying I'm wrong.

You plainly missed the 'or' in the statement. If you remove either disjunctive clause and read it, the entire sentence is quite plain.

And reasonable force may be more than minimal force, hence the use of the word reasonable. If you can't understand that different words mean different things and have different legal consequences, I really can't help you.

Regarding the rest, you can try all sorts of fallacies of reasoning to avoid the fact your conclusion was wrong, but in the end it's still wrong. What I am taking particular issue with is your assertion that there is no standard for the level of force permitted when engage in self-defense. There is, it's called "reasonable force."

I do this for a living, and I am quite good at it. I've been part of making sure people spend time in jail for making legal arguments even better than the ones your are trying to make.

But don't believe me, that is your prerogative.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I do this for a living, and I am quite good at it. I've been part of making sure people spend time in jail for making legal arguments even better than the ones your are trying to make.

Are you trying to imply that you are an attorney or a police officer? Because with all due respect, if that's what you are saying, then no, I do not believe you. In any case, I think we have reached the end of this particular discussion. You have stated your beliefs, and I have stated mine. Thank you for your time.

 

[punisher73]

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.

You are forgetting a couple of things. First, you can still be arrested and have to spend lots of money to "prove your innocence" in court even if you are right. Second, it is based on a "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person view the circumstances the same way you did? That is always a big gamble. Here is the law in Michigan to claim self-defense as an alibi for your crime (only dealing with non-lethal) notice that you still have to defend this in court and the prosecutor proves their case to show it was NOT self-defense.

1) A person has the right under certain circumstances. If a person acts in lawful defense, the actions are justified and person is not guilty of said crime (depending on injury could be simple A&B to felonious assault).

2) Judge the defendant's conduct according to how circumstances appeared at the time they acted.

3) First, defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that they had to use force to protect themself. If belief was honest and reasonable, person could act at once to defend themself, even if it turns out later that they were wrong about how much danger they were in.

4) Second, the person is only justified in using the degree of force that seems necessary at the time to protect themself. the defendant must have used the kind of force that was appropriate to the attack made and the circumstances as they saw them. When you decide whether force used was what seemed necessary, you should consider whether the defendant knew about any other ways of protecting themself, but you may also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice made.

5) Third, the right to defend lasts only as long as it seems necessary for the purpose of protection.

6) Fourth, person claiming self-defense must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assualt.

That is why cops will tell you that you can be raked over the coals. You got the bad guy giving a completely different story about what happened and he has the broken arm. Is that going to be reasonable? Depends on what the jury thinks. Again, you are going to be spending lots of money to prove otherwise. I know our prosecutor looks at "equal force" as big factor in prosecution of these cases, that is another reason why police will tell you these things, it isn't rumors it is how things are dealt with legally on the other end.

 

[Jdokan]

When dealing with a criminal we subject ourselves to acting like one....deal the blows that are needed and move on as they would hopefully not getting caught or attracting attention....AND if we are caught then like them throw ourselves at the courts mercy...
:BSmeter:

Kidding...Hopefully we never have to know the answers....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You are forgetting a couple of things. First, you can still be arrested and have to spend lots of money to "prove your innocence" in court even if you are right.

Absolutely correct. You can be arrested, you can be sued. I have always said, here and elsewhere, that if you think you can defend yourself with deadly force and walk away without your life becoming significantly more complex, you're fooling yourself. So I agree with you. However, in this thread, I have been stating what the law says, not what the consequences are of defending yourself with deadly force.

Second, it is based on a "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person view the circumstances the same way you did? That is always a big gamble.

The reasonable person test is crucial, yes. In Michigan, it is now a 'rebuttable presumption'. Basically, that means that the investigators must presume that the person who uses deadly force in self defense has a 'honest and reasonable' belief so long as the other factors for using deadly force in self-defense are met.

It is no longer a 'test' in Michigan, it is a presumption. That's the law. It does not mean that a prosecutor can't challenge it, but it's their burden to prove.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-951

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Here is the law in Michigan to claim self-defense as an alibi for your crime (only dealing with non-lethal) notice that you still have to defend this in court and the prosecutor proves their case to show it was NOT self-defense.

No, sir, that it not the law. The law is here:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-309-of-2006

SELF-DEFENSE ACT
Act 309 of 2006
AN ACT to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-972

1) A person has the right under certain circumstances. If a person acts in lawful defense, the actions are justified and person is not guilty of said crime (depending on injury could be simple A&B to felonious assault).

2) Judge the defendant's conduct according to how circumstances appeared at the time they acted.

3) First, defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that they had to use force to protect themself. If belief was honest and reasonable, person could act at once to defend themself, even if it turns out later that they were wrong about how much danger they were in.

4) Second, the person is only justified in using the degree of force that seems necessary at the time to protect themself. the defendant must have used the kind of force that was appropriate to the attack made and the circumstances as they saw them. When you decide whether force used was what seemed necessary, you should consider whether the defendant knew about any other ways of protecting themself, but you may also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice made.

5) Third, the right to defend lasts only as long as it seems necessary for the purpose of protection.

6) Fourth, person claiming self-defense must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assualt.

All true - but not a law cite. And you left out (intentional?) the last bit:

In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of disproving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's kind of important, don't you think?

But you are conflating two definitions. The first is self-defense when the victim has a reasonable and honest belief that their life is in immediate danger, and the second is self-defense when the victim does NOT believe their life is in danger. You are quoting from the prosecutor's manual (not the law) from the SECOND instance, not the first. And I have been speaking only of the first.

"Degree of force" does not apply if you reasonable and honestly feel your life is in danger. I'm sorry, you're incorrect.

That is why cops will tell you that you can be raked over the coals. You got the bad guy giving a completely different story about what happened and he has the broken arm. Is that going to be reasonable? Depends on what the jury thinks.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. But can it happen? Yes, absolutely. If I am defending my life - and there is no other reason I'd be defending myself with violence - I don't care as much about that as I do about SAVING MY LIFE.

Again, you are going to be spending lots of money to prove otherwise.

Money, I can get. A second life, not so much.

I know our prosecutor looks at "equal force" as big factor in prosecution of these cases, that is another reason why police will tell you these things, it isn't rumors it is how things are dealt with legally on the other end.

Yes, it is, because you are incorrect. I don't know how many more ways I can explain this.

If you are reasonable and honestly in fear FOR YOUR LIFE, you are justified to use deadly force or other than deadly force to defend yourself, according to the law of Michigan.

Your quotes are not law cites, they are from a prosecutor's manual. That's not the law. And they are not even about 'life-threatening' self-defense, they are about non-life-threatening self-defense, so you're quoting the wrong part of the prosecuting attorney's handbook.

Several people keep arguing with me about things I did not say. Why? I have never advocated that people go around killing anyone who assaults them. I have stated what the law says, and urged them to check their own laws. Apparently, people are completely incapable of looking up their own criminal code, because they keep posting snippets of non-law procedure, rumor, and things they heard from some guy down the block as if it were law. You can't make up the law - it is written down, I suggest looking it up and reading it.

I likewise have said that anyone who engages in deadly force in defense of their own life is not going to have a happy day, even if they survive. That's the way it goes. I would expect to have to hire a lawyer and I would expect to have to speak to a prosecuting attorney in depth about the conditions surrounding the case.

I also have not given the bizarre non-self-defense circumstances that others have been quoting here. The quotes are all quite correct, but they prove my own point - if you don't know what self-defense is, you might have a problem claiming it.

I'm sorry, guys. I don't mean to go on and on, and I certainly don't intend to make anyone mad, but you are wrong. You have to look up and read the actual law. It is very clear and easy to read. If it is not a cite to case law or public law, it is not law, period.

 

[Thesemindz]

So I looked up the law here in Missouri.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c563.htm

Basically, you can defend yourself with force, or commit what would otherwise be a crime if, "according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality," you feel that such is necessary to prevent harm to yourself or another.

A person is permitted to use deadly force if,

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony

which has been ruled to include rape, and kidnapping.

You do not have a duty to retreat, so long as you are lawfully aloud to be where you are.

Something else I learned was that private citizens have the right to use force, even deadly force, to arrest or prevent the escape of a person who you both BELIEVE has committed a crime, and who has ACTUALLY committed a crime, depending on the crime in question. The distinction is important, if you think they've done something, but you're wrong, you can't use it as a defense.

The law also says it is the defendant's responsibility to introduce the claim of self defense in court.

It also states that if you are sued in civil court, and you can prove self defense,

2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

All pretty interesting stuff.


-Rob

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Something else I learned was that private citizens have the right to use force, even deadly force, to arrest or prevent the escape of a person who you both BELIEVE has committed a crime, and who has ACTUALLY committed a crime, depending on the crime in question. The distinction is important, if you think they've done something, but you're wrong, you can't use it as a defense.

Ah, I remember that fondly. When I took ConLaw classes in Colorado, so many years ago, one of my profs used to tell us about this - I think it is in Colorado law as well as Missouri, or something like it. He said that private citizens essentially have the same powers of arrest as police officers, only they mostly don't know it. No, they can't drive police cars or pull over traffic or write speeding tickets, but they can effect an arrest as much as a police officer can.

However, as you stated - police officers have a big shield, and I don't mean their badge - from civil liability. Private citizens do not. So if you as a citizen decide to 'arrest' someone - or if you believe you have witnessed a felony and you decided to use force to stop it - you are on the hook to defend your actions, and if you're wrong, brother you are going to wish you had not done that.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your statements. It is good to know what the actual law is where you live. And it is true, what others have been warning - it is hardly a license to kill. If you ever have to use it, well, prepare for a big legal bill and an unhappy few months-to-years ahead. But it beats being dead.

 

[Matt]

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.

It certainly helped me a lot. I was just being a tiny bit cheeky too, though.

Matt

 

[FeralKenpo]

...But it beats being dead.

Most important thing to know!

 

[SL4Drew]

So I looked up the law here in Missouri.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c563.htm

Basically, you can defend yourself with force, or commit what would otherwise be a crime if, "according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality," you feel that such is necessary to prevent harm to yourself or another.

The problem I am having here, is that important parts of these cases and statutes are being overlooked. The statute says: "A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person."

What is snuck in there, almost unnoticed, is the qualification "to the extent." It is saying that you can use the amount of force a reasonable person situated in your situation would use to defend yourself. This reasonable man standard is a legal fiction because he always does the right thing in any situation. An ordinary person would talk on the cell phone, mess with the radio, eat, etc. while driving in the rain. But Mr. Reasonable would not. So, if you get in a car accident, they apply the same standard, i.e. would a reasonable person have done what you did? So, the question as if relates to the jury/judge's evaluation is essentially, would the most prudent and cautious human being have believed was amount of force that was necessary.

Here are a fair number of cases addressing the question of whether the force was excessive: Chillicothe v. Knight (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 544, 550, 599 N.E.2d 871 ("To establish self-defense in a nondeadly-force case, one may use such force as the circumstances require in order to defend against danger which one has good reason to apprehend."); Martin v. Central Ohio Transit Auth. (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 83, 93, 590 N.E.2d 411 ("The force used to defend must be objectively necessary and reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the danger apprehended."); State v. Depew, 4th Dist. No. 00CA2562, 2002-Ohio-6158, at ¶28 ("[O]ne may use such force as the circumstances require to protect oneself against such danger as one has good reason to apprehend."); In re Morton, 7th Dist. No. 01-BA-29, 2002-Ohio-2648, at ¶22, quoting State v. Weston (July 16, 1999), 4th Dist. No. 97CA31 ("Self-defense is not available, `if the force is so grossly disproportionate to her apparent danger as to show revenge or an evil purpose to injure her assailant.'").

It was also suggested that when some thug attacks you his intent is to kill you. The UCR data does not support that. Aggravated assault accounted for 60.8 percent of violent crimes, the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement. Robbery comprised 31.6 percent and forcible rape accounted for 6.4 percent. Murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2007.

The data also shows that about half of the murders were committed by someone the victim knew, and of the known factors, it was most likely to happen after and argument. (Having an argument was the mostly likely predictor of homicide, based on the types of data collected.) And about half of them were not preceded by a felony. In fact, felony property related offenses where only present in about 10% of the cases. So, chances are quite likely the attacker trying to rob you or steal from you doesn't usually intend to kill you (unless maybe you know them and argued with them first).

The UCR data demonstrates why the law is the way that it is. Out of the millions of crimes reported every year, your chance of being murdered is far less than 1%. And when you factor out certain types of offenders, you chances are pretty small.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

SL4Drew:

I am not going to pick apart your last post, it's way too boring for me, and that would make it mind numbingly tedious for readers. I will merely say that you are repeating yourself, and you continue to commit the same basic error. You quote cites with an emphasis on cases where 'deadly force' was not justified and then attempt to conflate them with self-defense where deadly force is justified. They are not the same.

Then you use UCR data to point out that most violent don't end in murder. Duh. That does not mean that a reasonable and prudent man would not believe his life was in jeopardy when attacked by a violent criminal. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. It's not the outcome, it is what you reasonably believe will be the outcome, that matters in self-defense.

I have never been attacked by a mugger or a crazed person or anything of the sort. I hope never to be. However, I can easily imagine that if such a situation ever occurs to me, I will be reasonably in fear of my life. Your 'to the extent' and UCR quotes notwithstanding, if I am reasonably and honestly in fear of my life, deadly force is authorized as a self-defense measure, and there is no 'yardstick' of force applied - end of story.

You sir, are wrong, and you really ought to learn when to stand down. You're outmatched.

 

[KenpoDave]

With respect, I disagree with your statements.



As an ethical belief, that's fine.



A police officer has obligations that ordinary citizens do not, including the general obligation to use the minimum amount of force required to affect an arrest. That is partially because police officers are required to put their lives in jeopardy as part of their job description.

I do not think such advice is applicable to, or wise, for an ordinary citizen.



I agree, and I believe that self-defense begins with situational awareness, and includes simple expedients like removing yourself from dangerous situations before they become dangerous to you, if you can. Running away works too, if that avenue is open to you. It's all 'self-defense'.

The primary directive of self-defense is just that - self defense. If you can back away from a challenge or a fight and avoid it altogether, that is a much safer alternative than engaging in a fight, even if you are confident of victory.

However, if you cannot avoid violence, then again, the first and only rule is to defend yourself. Nothing else matters.



If you are talking about sparring or kumite, then I agree.

If you are talking about self-defense, I could not disagree more.

First - self-defense is a life-or-death struggle. You have no assurance that if you lose, you will live. You must assume that if you lose, you die.

Second - if you are indeed fighting for your life, there is no 'situation' to allow to unfold. You goal must be to end the confrontation as quickly as possible, because every blow you trade, every second you are still struggling, is another step closer to your own death.

Third - again, if you are indeed fighting for your life, your assailant is not holding back. They are using everything they have, and they are fully determined to kill you using any means necessary. If they have a knife, they will use it. If they have a gun, they will use it. If they have not used it yet, it is because they prefer not to unless they should begin to lose, then they will. Every moment you delay ending the fight, they have another opportunity to use that hidden weapon on you and kill you.

Fourth - you may well know your own skill, but you do not know your attacker's. He may be evenly matched with you, he may be better. Or he may be stronger, faster, more experienced, flat-out lucky, or just immune to pain due to drugs, etc. Your careful escalation may quickly result in your own overmatching with a singe decisive blow against you.

Fifth - the mind boggles at the potential plight of the poor student, who knows a variety of techniques and is trying to sort through them in search of the least lethal whilst being pummeled.



That may indeed be "real skill." If it is, you can have it. I will inartfully and inelegantly bash in an attacker's head with a brick, if one happens to be handy.



I do not care what the attacker's intent is. I'm under attack. I will assume he intends to kill me. I will also assume his skill is greater than mine, so I will use everything I have to defeat him. I will attempt to avoid harming others only in the sense that I always aim center mass. As to legalities, I would presume that I am fighting only because I have been attacked and I am reasonably in fear of my life. I can think of no other reason I'd be fighting. If so, I have no fear of legal consequences. My life is my first priority, the rest can wait.



When self-defense is involved, I think the biggest responsibility that martial arts skills teaches is that fights can often be avoided, and should. Knowing that many of us are skilled in ending human lives should also teach us not to take human life casually. These, I agree with.

Once the need to defend one's life is upon them, I think the only responsibility is to survive. How that is done is really of no consequence.

I agree with all that you have said, assuming a life or death situation. I don't believe that all situations in which you must defend yourself are life or death.

 

[KenpoDave]

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.

In Louisiana, if someone feels threatened, then they have been assaulted and have the legal right to defend themselves. What form that defense takes is the issue most often fought out in court.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In Louisiana, if someone feels threatened, then they have been assaulted and have the legal right to defend themselves. What form that defense takes is the issue most often fought out in court.

People have a right to defend themselves in every state, that I am aware of. There is a difference between defending yourself when you are attacked but do not feel your life is in danger and when you are attacked and do feel your life is in danger. That is what SL4Dave and I have been arguing over.

If you do not feel your life is in danger, then your ability to respond with force may be tempered by law - meaning you have to use 'appropriate force' and cannot simply kill or maim the person assaulting you.

If you do feel your life is in danger, in very general terms, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. There is no prohibition on the amount or type of force you may use.

One must know what the difference is between being reasonably and honestly in fear of one's life or simply wishing to defend oneself against assault that one does NOT believe threatens one's life.

Personally, since I do not hang around in bars or go places where I am likely to be confronted by simple drunken, stoned, or crazy belligerents, I cannot imagine a situation in which I would be attacked where I would not be reasonably in fear of my life - but I suppose it could happen. If so, I would not be justified in using lethal force, and my response would have to be tempered to an 'appropriate level' as well.

 

[SL4Drew]

SL4Drew:

Then you use UCR data to point out that most violent don't end in murder. Duh.

.

One must know what the difference is between being reasonably and honestly in fear of one's life or simply wishing to defend oneself against assault that one does NOT believe threatens one's life.

I don't know what a 'pedestrian attack' is. Some guy randomly attacks me and does NOT want to kill me? I am 48 years old and that has never happened to me. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which it would.

If I am ever attacked on the street, I have no reason to believe it is anything EXCEPT an attack on my life. It would STUPID of me to assume otherwise.

I do not care what the attacker's intent is. I'm under attack. I will assume he intends to kill me. I will also assume his skill is greater than mine, so I will use everything I have to defeat him. I will attempt to avoid harming others only in the sense that I always aim center mass. As to legalities, I would presume that I am fighting only because I have been attacked and I am reasonably in fear of my life. I can think of no other reason I'd be fighting. If so, I have no fear of legal consequences. My life is my first priority, the rest can wait. Once the need to defend one's life is upon them, I think the only responsibility is to survive. How that is done is really of no consequence.

 

[SL4Drew]

You are forgetting a couple of things. First, you can still be arrested and have to spend lots of money to "prove your innocence" in court even if you are right. Second, it is based on a "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person view the circumstances the same way you did? That is always a big gamble. Here is the law in Michigan to claim self-defense as an alibi for your crime (only dealing with non-lethal) notice that you still have to defend this in court and the prosecutor proves their case to show it was NOT self-defense.

1) A person has the right under certain circumstances. If a person acts in lawful defense, the actions are justified and person is not guilty of said crime (depending on injury could be simple A&B to felonious assault).

2) Judge the defendant's conduct according to how circumstances appeared at the time they acted.

3) First, defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that they had to use force to protect themself. If belief was honest and reasonable, person could act at once to defend themself, even if it turns out later that they were wrong about how much danger they were in.

4) Second, the person is only justified in using the degree of force that seems necessary at the time to protect themself. the defendant must have used the kind of force that was appropriate to the attack made and the circumstances as they saw them. When you decide whether force used was what seemed necessary, you should consider whether the defendant knew about any other ways of protecting themself, but you may also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice made.

5) Third, the right to defend lasts only as long as it seems necessary for the purpose of protection.

6) Fourth, person claiming self-defense must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assualt.

That is why cops will tell you that you can be raked over the coals. You got the bad guy giving a completely different story about what happened and he has the broken arm. Is that going to be reasonable? Depends on what the jury thinks. Again, you are going to be spending lots of money to prove otherwise. I know our prosecutor looks at "equal force" as big factor in prosecution of these cases, that is another reason why police will tell you these things, it isn't rumors it is how things are dealt with legally on the other end.

I am glad to see Michigan is representing.