Unarmed martial arts and self-defense law in the US

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

well yes the point of the pkea is your saying your not guilty, which what the l jurry well say if your successful

In america at least, from what I understand, you are stating you are guilty of assaulting the person, as in you committed the act. But you're also saying it was justified, due to self-defense, and so you should not be punished for it. Bit different legally than saying that you did not assault the person at all.

 

[jobo]

In america at least, from what I understand, you are stating you are guilty of assaulting the person, as in you committed the act. But you're also saying it was justified, due to self-defense, and so you should not be punished for it. Bit different legally than saying that you did not assault the person at all.

no, in America or any other common law jurisdiction, your saying that despite using force, no crime was committed because you have a statuary defence or the law contains the circumstances where that law is not applicable, in this case self defence.

your not guilty of anything,unless the Jury says GUILTY

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

no, in America or any other common law jurisdiction, your saying that despite using force, no crime was committed because you have a statuary defence or the law contains the circumstances where that law is not applicable, in this case self defence.

your not guilty of anything,unless the Jury says GUILTY

The crime itself is using force. The defense is whether or not that crime is justifiable to the point that you do not get arrested. A very distinct difference that seems to be escaping you. I'm not sure of another way to state that.

 

[Buka]

Had a nice surprise at work on Tuesday. A man stopped by where I was patrolling. He was an old student of mine from thirty five years ago. We had a lovely time catching up. He told me that some of the folks he trained with back then have been his best friends ever since. Names were mentioned and he filled me in on where everybody was.

One of the guys, Peter M, who was about twenty at the time, went on to become a successful lawyer. I had heard that. But I learned that he is now a Professor of Law in one of Boston's most prestigious Law Schools.

I'm going to try to reach out to him and get his perspective on the law as it applies to self defense in Massachusetts. Might be interesting.

 

[jks9199]

no, in America or any other common law jurisdiction, your saying that despite using force, no crime was committed because you have a statuary defence or the law contains the circumstances where that law is not applicable, in this case self defence.

your not guilty of anything,unless the Jury says GUILTY

No. Simply no. An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged, but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act.

<a href="What is AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE? definition of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)" title="AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE">AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</a>
Affirmative Defense

 

[jobo]

No. Simply no. An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged, but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act.

<a href="What is AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE? definition of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)" title="AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE">AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</a>
Affirmative Defense

that a not what you said,e above, you said you were guilty, there's nothing in that definition that says you are guilty, as you are excluded from criminal liability you clearly are not guilty,

and that blacks law link says absolutely nothing about the matter

 

[jobo]

No. Simply no. An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged, but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act.

<a href="What is AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE? definition of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)" title="AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE">AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</a>
Affirmative Defense

here's an exert from wiki
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[3] A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[1] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if they can demonstrate that they had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect themself.[4]

now you admit to committing the " acts" ( the use of force) and are exonerated, if there are excepted, so that acts, not criminal acts and exonerated not as you said being guilty,,
you couldn't be father from the truth, which is depressing as its your countries laeyou seem willfully under informed about

 

[punisher73]

here's an exert from wiki
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[3] A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[1] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if they can demonstrate that they had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect themself.[4]

now you admit to committing the " acts" ( the use of force) and are exonerated, if there are excepted, so that acts, not criminal acts and exonerated not as you said being guilty,,
you couldn't be father from the truth, which is depressing as its your countries laeyou seem willfully under informed about

This is exactly what people have been saying that you keep trying to argue otherwise. You keep trying to play word games instead of admitting that what you originally posted was incorrect in regards to the law.

JKS's post

"No. Simply no. An affirmative defense is an admission that you committed the criminal act alleged, but that you were justified or should otherwise be excused from criminal liability for the act."

Again, people are saying exactly what the definition is and you are not accepting that fact.

 

[jobo]

This is exactly what people have been saying that you keep trying to argue otherwise. You keep trying to play word games instead of admitting that what you originally posted was incorrect in regards to the law.

JKS's post

Again, people are saying exactly what the definition is and you are not accepting that fact.

people kept saying your guilty, and that you have committed an illegal act, that couldn't be further from the actual facts of the matter, as I said in my initial post, you admit the use of force but invoke the statutory defence of self defence

that means your act was not illegal and your innocent, that the exact opposite of what you said

 

[Gerry Seymour]

people kept saying your guilty, and that you have committed an illegal act, that couldn't be further from the actual facts of the matter, as I said in my initial post, you admit the use of force but invoke the statutory defence of self defence

that means your act was not illegal and your innocent, that the exact opposite of what you said

This is another example of you arguing words, rather than bothering to understand meaning.

 

[jobo]

This is another example of you arguing words, rather than bothering to understand meaning.

their meaning was wrong, you can't say guilty when you mean not guilty and and then claim that's what you meant, the law is rather precise about such definition, just inventing your own meaning as people here are prone to do, doesn't work when discussing something with strict definitions like the law

if they don't understand the law and clearly they don't, they should avoid telling people who do( me) that I am incorrect

 

[lklawson]

no expressly WHO ? the government, the president, the police the courts, Mrs Jones who lives next door, WHO CONSIDETRS IT A CRIME, , ?

clearly you " consider "it so, but your not actually in charge of such things

Don't be lazy. Read the linked doc.

 

[lklawson]

Except that's the point of the plea. You entirely missed that point.

Missed it or just feels like arguing? It's pretty much SOP for him.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jobo]

Don't be lazy. Read the linked doc.

I have read it, you clearly haven't or not understood it , nothing in that contradicts what I've said, what that case has done is making get a self defence acquittal to your use of force far far easier at least in Arizona as it's moved the burden of proof from the accused to the prosecution on the justications of such force

 

[lklawson]

I have read it, you clearly haven't or not understood it , nothing in that contradicts what I've said, what that case has done is making get a self defence acquittal to your use of force far far easier at least in Arizona as it's moved the burden of proof from the accused to the prosecution on the reasoablness or such force

Page 1: "One aspect of claiming self-defense that I find many people have never thought about, is that you are confessing to a crime."

Honestly, now you're just arguing because you are a contrarian. Your claim was disproved. Mine is proved. I'm done with your horsecrap for this thread.

 

[jobo]

Page 1: "One aspect of claiming self-defense that I find many people have never thought about,is that you are confessing to a crime."

Honestly, now you're just arguing because you are a contrarian. Your claim was disproved. Mine is proved. I'm done with your horsecrap for this thread.

is that as far as you got, and you called me lazy, at least I read the whole thing, that's a through away line, that the rest of his text goes on to contradict, ,
that's just quote mining,

 

[punisher73]

Kempodisciple wrote

In america at least, from what I understand, you are stating you are guilty of assaulting the person, as in you committed the act. But you're also saying it was justified, due to self-defense, and so you should not be punished for it. Bit different legally than saying that you did not assault the person at all.

this is the ONLY time in the entire thread someone mentioned the word "guilty". Even then it is then defined what he meant by saying you committed the act. This is what EVERYONE else has said as well. In an affirmative defense you ADMIT YOU COMMITTED THE ACT. There are no two other ways about it. There are only 2 ways to plead in a criminal court case.

1) Not Guilty
2) Guilty

When you plead "not guilty" you are saying that you didn't do it. Then the courts have to go and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did. If they don't prove their case, you are "not guilty" (never innocent). If they do prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are "guilty". You can't say "I didn't do it" and then say "I did it...but...."

When you plead "guilty" (In Michigan) there are basically three ways to do it.
1) Admit guilt--you can't take a plea without admitting what you did. (court process stops at this point)
2) Plead "no contest"--facts of the case are entered as true and you accept them without contesting them (court process stops at this point)
3) Plead with an affirmative defense--you admit what you did, but due to the circumstances, what is normally considered a crime, is excusable. Court process keeps going at this point to either jury trial or bench trial (you get to choose). Now you present all of your facts to show that what you did was justifiable and excused under the affirmative defense. The prosecutor will bring in their witnesses and facts to show that what you did wasn't justifiable and was a crime.

As an aside, this is also why most places have a local ordinance for "disorderly by fighting". Much lower standard to show that you caused a disturbance by fighting in a public place and the fine is usually so low it is paid and not taken to court.

 

[jobo]

Kempodisciple wrote

this is the ONLY time in the entire thread someone mentioned the word "guilty". Even then it is then defined what he meant by saying you committed the act. This is what EVERYONE else has said as well. In an affirmative defense you ADMIT YOU COMMITTED THE ACT. There are no two other ways about it. There are only 2 ways to plead in a criminal court case.

1) Not Guilty
2) Guilty

When you plead "not guilty" you are saying that you didn't do it. Then the courts have to go and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did. If they don't prove their case, you are "not guilty" (never innocent). If they do prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are "guilty". You can't say "I didn't do it" and then say "I did it...but...."

When you plead "guilty" (In Michigan) there are basically three ways to do it.
1) Admit guilt--you can't take a plea without admitting what you did. (court process stops at this point)
2) Plead "no contest"--facts of the case are entered as true and you accept them without contesting them (court process stops at this point)
3) Plead with an affirmative defense--you admit what you did, but due to the circumstances, what is normally considered a crime, is excusable. Court process keeps going at this point to either jury trial or bench trial (you get to choose). Now you present all of your facts to show that what you did was justifiable and excused under the affirmative defense. The prosecutor will bring in their witnesses and facts to show that what you did wasn't justifiable and was a crime.

As an aside, this is also why most places have a local ordinance for "disorderly by fighting". Much lower standard to show that you caused a disturbance by fighting in a public place and the fine is usually so low it is paid and not taken to court.

but that's plead, NOT GUILTY WITH AN AFIMATIVE defence, not, just plead with an affirmative defence as you said

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Kempodisciple wrote

this is the ONLY time in the entire thread someone mentioned the word "guilty". Even then it is then defined what he meant by saying you committed the act. This is what EVERYONE else has said as well. In an affirmative defense you ADMIT YOU COMMITTED THE ACT. There are no two other ways about it. There are only 2 ways to plead in a criminal court case.

1) Not Guilty
2) Guilty

When you plead "not guilty" you are saying that you didn't do it. Then the courts have to go and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did. If they don't prove their case, you are "not guilty" (never innocent). If they do prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are "guilty". You can't say "I didn't do it" and then say "I did it...but...."

When you plead "guilty" (In Michigan) there are basically three ways to do it.
1) Admit guilt--you can't take a plea without admitting what you did. (court process stops at this point)
2) Plead "no contest"--facts of the case are entered as true and you accept them without contesting them (court process stops at this point)
3) Plead with an affirmative defense--you admit what you did, but due to the circumstances, what is normally considered a crime, is excusable. Court process keeps going at this point to either jury trial or bench trial (you get to choose). Now you present all of your facts to show that what you did was justifiable and excused under the affirmative defense. The prosecutor will bring in their witnesses and facts to show that what you did wasn't justifiable and was a crime.

As an aside, this is also why most places have a local ordinance for "disorderly by fighting". Much lower standard to show that you caused a disturbance by fighting in a public place and the fine is usually so low it is paid and not taken to court.

Thank you, you explained what I meant a lot better than I did.

 

[jks9199]

people kept saying your guilty, and that you have committed an illegal act, that couldn't be further from the actual facts of the matter, as I said in my initial post, you admit the use of force but invoke the statutory defence of self defence

that means your act was not illegal and your innocent, that the exact opposite of what you said

No. We have said, repeatedly, that in an affirmative defense, you ADMIT THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF but you had a good reason or were otherwise justified in doing so and should not be held criminally liable. This is not the same as a guilty plea; a guilty plea is "I did it, you're right, hand me my lumps..." A guilty verdict means that the tryer of fact found that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt (in the US) that you committed the alleged criminal act. An Alford plea is a way of saying "you can prove I did it, but I'm not going to admit it" -- similar to a plea of no contest, where the defendant simply says "I'm not going to argue." (Both are generally used to avoid the admission that might influence a seperate civil trial.) In other words -- this stuff is complicated, some of us deal with it daily, and actually know what we are talking about and get a little frustrated when words are put in our mouths. There are reasons for the way we say things...

In the specific case of a self defense claim, the defendant admits that they did commit what would ordinarily be a criminal act, such as assault and battery, but that they did so to prevent a greater harm from coming to them. In an extreme case, they are admitting that they killed someone, but that the homicide was justified to prevent the defendant or another person from serious bodily harm.