Word!! I was so scared and threatened etc etc etc You better talk the talk for sure if you use a preemptive strike.
Cheers
Sam:asian:
What does the law in your country say about punching first?
- Thread starter Yew
- Start date
Cheers
Sam:asian:
Sometimes the Plaintiffs lawyer will do that..But in all the times I was on the stand a simple Yes or No..Trials can be long and boring..Make sure you practice that story non-stop so YOU believe its the truth..The last thing you want or need is to be caught lying on the witness stand...Not good thing...So IF you're involved in an incident where you threw the first punch CONTACT A LAWYER A.S.A.P...
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
I'm no lawyer, but thats a quick link that I found.
I view it like this....each situation will need to be assessed one by one. If I can verbally defuse something, I'll try, however, there may be cases where that doesn't work, as well as ones where acting vs. talking would be a better option. Having yourself in a slightly bladed stance, hands up, open, palms facing the badguy, while saying things like, "Hey man, its cool, I don't want any problems." are all key, especially if there are witnesses in the area. Now, I can say that I'm not waiting until the punch is halfway to my head before I react. If the person gets into my personal space, then yes, at that point, I feel threatened and will respond with a pre-emptive strike. Some may frown upon that, and view it as me hitting first. IMO, thats not the case. I'd certainly challenge any jury to put themselves in the same situation. Anyone who says that they'd wait until they were hit is a fool IMO. I've given the BG more than enough of a chance to backoff. I felt that my life and safety was in danger.
I agree with this. IMO, youtube tends to give the wrong impression about alot of things.
I agree with Deaf. Before I speak to anyone, I want to make damn sure I have my "I's" dotted and my "T's" crossed. I don't think, given the nature of the traumatic situation, that its unreasonable to want some time to get your head straight.
Especially if the "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." comment holds true. 
I agree with Deaf. Before I speak to anyone, I want to make damn sure I have my "I's" dotted and my "T's" crossed. I don't think, given the nature of the traumatic situation, that its unreasonable to want some time to get your head straight.
Well, the police typically do not advise you of your rights unless they consider you a suspect in a crime, and that's the key. If they say, "What happened?" and have not advised you of your rights, you can answer without 'anything you may say will be used in court'. In general, an unwarned statement that amounts to a confession can be used. However, just telling the police what happened - if you're not making a confession - is not giving a statement that can later be used against you.
When you 'lawyer up', the police must cease all questioning. If they have a report to write, and need to determine whom to arrest, they may either say the heck with it, here we have two uncooperative combatants and I'm just going to leave - or they may say the heck with it, I have work to do, and arrest you both.
Without your cooperation early on in the investigation, the only information the police officers will have will be the information provided by any witnesses and the assailant, if he's talking. If you're the only guy not talking, you may find yourself arrested. You'll get your attorney, but you may also now have to fight an assault charge that otherwise you could have walked away from.
Everyone has to make their own decisions, so I'm not offering advice here. But imagine sitting the weekend in jail waiting for a judge to come in on Monday morning to set bail - sitting with the friends of the guy who tried to jack you in the county lockup, missing work on Monday morning, and definitely incurring a legal bill that will be all yours to pay.
Or, you could have said "Officer, I was waiting for the bus and that man walked up to me and said he was going to kick my ***. I could see that he was about to do it, so I defended myself." The cop runs your criminal history, sees none, runs bad guy's history, sees several priors for assault, puts the cuffs on him, takes your statement, and says good night.
The police are not your enemy if you are in the right, in circumstances like this. They like citizens and they dislike criminals. But they also dislike being inconvenienced by people who have seen too many cop shows on TV and decide to lawyer up. I'm just saying.
It sounds easy to say "I'm not giving a statement until I talk to my lawyer," but consider all the things that may entail and decide if that's the route you want to take.
Playing the OUTRAGED citizen will usually get you arrested...
or depending on housing availability you might wind up in the same cell with him and his friends
But is AFTER you write a statement...
We love those that think they know everything because they watch COPS and Law and Order...
tellner
Senior Master
I will give the best piece of advice on this thread:
Ask a lawyer legal questions.
Advice from random strangers on th' Intrawebs is worth what you pay for it.
"A cop told me" is no better. Police officers learn what they have to to get through the Academy. They remember what they need to for their jobs, and that's generally it. Even then a lot of them are kind of sketchy because they don't get called on it very often. When they do they have layers of bureaucrats and lawyers running interference. You don't.
Ask a lawyer legal questions.
Advice from random strangers on th' Intrawebs is worth what you pay for it.
"A cop told me" is no better. Police officers learn what they have to to get through the Academy. They remember what they need to for their jobs, and that's generally it. Even then a lot of them are kind of sketchy because they don't get called on it very often. When they do they have layers of bureaucrats and lawyers running interference. You don't.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
Guys I suggest any and all of you, if you can, take Massad Ayoobs LFI-1 class (Lethal Force Institute.)
It's 40 hours (actualy in my case it was 44 hours.) Over 1/2 is on law. Not must book law but what happens in the courtroom.
Mas has been around a bit (see below.)
It's a very enlighting course. This is where I get my information from as I'm a graduate of his course. Oh, and he is retired now. Lives in Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob
Massad F. Ayoob (born July 20, 1948) is an internationally-known firearms and self-defense instructor. He is the Director of the Lethal Force Institute in Concord, New Hampshire, has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974, and has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and currently holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.
Massad Ayoob has authored several books and over one thousand articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense- and firearms-related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which airs on The Outdoor Channel in the United States.
While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney to ever hold this position. His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the US Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case. His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case" was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former President of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."
Ayoob remains an internationally prominent law enforcement officer training instructor. Since 1987, he has served as Chair of Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET).[dated info] He also serves on the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement EducatorsĀ and TrainersĀ Association, and is an Instructor at the National Law Enforcement Training Center.
Critics of Ayoob, such as John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, a Massachusetts gun control organization, accuse him of preparing potential killers to be more lethal, despite screening processes which permit only law enforcement officers, Federal Firearms Licensees, holders of state-issued concealed handgun carry permits, or those having similar credentials to take his courses.
He has also written a few good books.
It's 40 hours (actualy in my case it was 44 hours.) Over 1/2 is on law. Not must book law but what happens in the courtroom.
Mas has been around a bit (see below.)
It's a very enlighting course. This is where I get my information from as I'm a graduate of his course. Oh, and he is retired now. Lives in Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob
Massad F. Ayoob (born July 20, 1948) is an internationally-known firearms and self-defense instructor. He is the Director of the Lethal Force Institute in Concord, New Hampshire, has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974, and has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and currently holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.
Massad Ayoob has authored several books and over one thousand articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense- and firearms-related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which airs on The Outdoor Channel in the United States.
While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney to ever hold this position. His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the US Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case. His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case" was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former President of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."
Ayoob remains an internationally prominent law enforcement officer training instructor. Since 1987, he has served as Chair of Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET).[dated info] He also serves on the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement EducatorsĀ and TrainersĀ Association, and is an Instructor at the National Law Enforcement Training Center.
Critics of Ayoob, such as John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, a Massachusetts gun control organization, accuse him of preparing potential killers to be more lethal, despite screening processes which permit only law enforcement officers, Federal Firearms Licensees, holders of state-issued concealed handgun carry permits, or those having similar credentials to take his courses.
He has also written a few good books.
- Armed and Alive (1979)
- Ayoob Files: The Book (1995)
- Ayoob on Firearms (year unknown)
- Fundamentals of Modern Police Impact Weapons (1996)
- Gun Digest Book of SIG-Sauer: A Complete Look at SIG-Sauer Pistols (2004)
- Gunproof Your Children / Handgun Primer (1986)
- Handgun Primer (1986)
- Hit The White Part (1986) (on bowling pin shooting)
- In The Gravest Extreme (1980)
- LFI Handgun Safety (year unknown)
- Physio-Psychological Aspects of Violent Encounters (year unknown)
- Police Survival Shooting (How Close is too Close) (year unknown)
- Post Shooting Trauma (year unknown)
- The Complete Book of Handguns (1998Ā2001)
- The Experts Speak Out: The Police View of Gun Control (1981)
- The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery (with Chuck Taylor, 2002)
- The Semi-Automatic Pistol in Police Service and Self Defense (1987)
- The Stressfire series, three volumes: Handgun (1986), Shotgun (1992), Rifle (year unknown)
- The Truth About Self-Protection (1983)
- The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry (2008)
I'm not advocating, and I hope my post didn't elude to that, that I'm against talking to the police. I"m simply saying that given the nature of a traumatic, stressful situation, that its only normal to want a second to calm down, so you can talk, with somewhat of a clear head. I don't want to say or not say something that I may regret later on.
And paperwork is probably the #1 thing that is the biggest part of the job. However, if I were involved, God forbid, in a serious crash with my wife in the car, and she is taken to the hospital, I can assure you, SHE will be my first priority. Many times, the officers will have to follow up at a later time to get a statement. Again, its not that I don't want to talk, but unless the cop has a heart made of stone, he/she would respect the fact that I may need a second or two to get my thoughts in order. And if they can't understand that, they shouldn't be cops. A huge part is interacting with people, and trust me when I say, some of the ones I know have crappy people skills.
Of course, if those were the circumstances. However, I thought we were talking about a person defending themselves from an assault and the pros and cons of punching first. Presuming both parties have stood down or the fight has otherwise stopped and the police have arrived, they will want statements. Unless you're on the way to the hospital, my suggestion was simply that giving a brief statement of the who, what, when, why and where is fine, in my opinion. That's a) assuming you did nothing wrong and b) feel free to ignore if you feel that remaining silent in the face of police questions about the incident will serve you best.
Absolutely.
I probably wouldn't have anything to worry about anyways, seeing that, a) I have no criminal record, b) do my best to avoid questionable places, and c) will do my best, depending on the situation, to always try to talk my way out of the fight. If I can't and there are bystanders, I'll be sure to do my best to make sure that they hear me repeatedly say that I don't want to fight, and to present myself in that fashion as well. However, should none of this work, and the police get involved, I have no issues with talking but I'm not doing any of that until I've calmed down and collected my thoughts. And if the officer can't understand that, I don't know what to tell ya. If I'm expected to give a statement, I don't want to be accused later on, of changing my story. I want to tell it like it happened, when I'm calm, so that I can remember things to the best of my ability.
JadeDragon3
Black Belt
If I feel threatened I'm going to hit first regardless. It all comes down to your word against thier word if there are no witnesses around. I have no prior arrest record so my word hopefully would be taken more serious than an attacker who probably has an arest record. If you got a good lawyer than you shouldn't have any worries. I have one of the best lawyers in my town on retainer at all times. Plus he's a close family friend. He's represented me on numerous cases for various things. A little bar brawl would be a piece of cake for him to get my found inoscent.
chinto
Senior Master
in my state if you are in fear of your life, and the person seems to have the means to take your life, then deadly force is justified.
that said, the reasonable man doctrine is the rule, will the man or woman in the jury box feel that you were in danger of your life. assault is to be put in fear of injury, assault and battery is the actual attack. once under attack you may use any force needed to stop that attack.. including deadly force.. that is black letter law.
that said, the reasonable man doctrine is the rule, will the man or woman in the jury box feel that you were in danger of your life. assault is to be put in fear of injury, assault and battery is the actual attack. once under attack you may use any force needed to stop that attack.. including deadly force.. that is black letter law.
Except, now we all have this written statement that you posted. So when your name appears in the news, any one of us could sell this to the other guy's lawyer...Bwaaahaaahaaaa (evil laugh).
JadeDragon3
Black Belt
Do you really think it would make national news if I fought someone? Also do you know my real name? Be kinda hard to rat me out don't you think? And if Iyou did rat me out then I would have to hunt you down and kill you. What do I have to loose if I'm already going to jail??? Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa (evil laugh).
