Martial arts and the law...

[red5angel]

So I was thinking last night about some things and had an idea. I am not a lawyer and this idea isn't fool proof but lets see what you think anyway.

As martial artist we have to take special care in how we deal with attackers, in general, if we think the law will be involved at some point right? We know how to hurt or kill a person beter then most, in theory, so we are held at a higher level of responsibility, in general according to the law right?

But what about this...What if we look at it from another perspective. Lets say things aren't so cut and dry, it wasn't a bar fight situation where the guy was just picking on you, you threw a punch and did somehting you probably shouldn't have. Lets say someone breaks into your house. You have no idea who they are or what their intentions are right? You have an oppurtunity to ambush said invader and do so, hurting seriously or killing the person in the act.
Now you are sitting in court, and the prosecutor is saying that you had no right and should have known better, having the training that you have, should have been able to control the situation better.
Why can't you be considered an "expert" in this case? Lets say you have a few years behind you, maybe even a teaching certificate or something. Why is it that instead of looking at you as a person capable of determining what level of danger you are in the law wants to look at you as if you have a better chance of controlling the situation? I am not saying we don't as martial artsist but we all know that in a fight nothing is 100%. You don't know what the guy is about, you didn't know if he had a gun or a knife, but you did know he was heading for your childrens room, it was 2 am and he shouldn't have been there.

What I am getting at is, couldn't the law view us potentially as experts in the field of self defense and reasonable force?

[KC Elbows]

I don't know the law, but I suspect an expert needs to be unbiased.

However, if you're in trouble, I can come up there and testify that you run like a red headed step child at the first sign of danger. I'll even take a lie detector test.

Maybe if you'd bought a bigger dog, you wouldn't be in so much trouble.

[Budokan]

I doubt it because MA isn't viewed with anything resembling respect by other elements of our society, especially over-zealous prosecutors. Sad, but true. We're the red-headed step childs, like it or not.

And KC Elbows is dead on about the unbiased factor working against you.

So far, the tried and true method is the best. If you beat up the guy you say, "I was worried about my safety and the safety of my family." If you kill the b*stard (which he deserves for breaking into your house) you say, "I was worried about my life and the life of my family." And, naturally, your concern about the safety and life of your family is always paramount to your own, more times than not, in a jury's eyes.

But you'll still likely end up doing time because, like I said, MA isn't viewed with anything other than disdain and complete ignorance as to what we're really all about by the rest of the population...including lawyers and judges.

[Oso]

You have an oppurtunity to ambush said invader and do so, hurting seriously or killing the person in the act.

I would have to say in this specific instance you DO have the opportunity to control the situation. If you have the drop on him your first attack would be of your choice. So, with even a medium level of training you should be able to incapacitate but not kill, by choice.

If your initial attack fails and it then becomes face to face you do lose a certain amount of control over you choice of attack, theoretically 'responding' to the type and severity of the attacks you are recieving without as much forethought.

Specifically, if it is an intruder in your home, no matter what happens in the course of the engagement, if you win, make the scene look like you had to do whatever you ended up doing. Before you call the cops.



What I am getting at is, couldn't the law view us potentially as experts in the field of self defense and reasonable force?


I'd buy that. And your defense lawyer should surely be using that angle. But, of course, the other sides lawyer will be using the aforementioned approach.

[Oso]

Budokan is dead on with the need to stick to the 'fear for my life and safety' bit. You wouldn't ever want to change your tune.



KC is also correct. But, look at all the unbiased experts you could call on here !!

Course this conversation could be used as evidence of collusion.

[KC Elbows]

This thread could be deleted. Which is exactly what should be done. Considering Red5's present circumstances.

We should also start a forum collection to get him a real dog.

[Oso]

so, did I miss something?? is our red5 in trouble??

[SolarStance]

Hi there!
I think the problem that we face as martial artists is the fact that "reasonable force" is a very androgenous concept. Most states, from the research I've done, say that reasonable force is the amount of force needed to stop the attack and nothing more. So, if that guy in the bar takes a swing and you successfully block/deflect his attack, it has to stop there. Smile and shake hands. Once you decide to counter attack, the roles change: you're the assailant. It's silly.

So what's reasonable force? What I might consider enough to stop the attack is probably a lot different than his, or the lawyer's or jury's. It's up to the arbitrary decision of "the system."

As far as being an expert in the field, there's difficulty in this also, but seems to make sence to try to me. There was a case in Canada(I think) a few years ago where they likened the MA'st to a soldier. The kid (Performing at a shopping mall with his school) started macking on some chick after the performance. The chick's boyfreind got ticked off, and decided to take a swing at the kid. So, the kid sees this and punches him in the nose. Somehow the boyfriend dies. The prosecution argued that he knew how to punch and kick as well as any trained soldier can fire a weapon. Both were considered deadly force. Therefore, the punch, which he argued had no technique at all, was considered a deadly one by the jury. Because he was considered an expert in the field, his punch was assumed to be well trained and intended to kill. It worked against him.

A strange dilema indeed...

)))SolarStance(((

[KC Elbows]

No, I'm just kidding him.

Although seriously, he has an old lady's dog. We should start a collection.:D

[SolarStance]

Did my first post stumble into something yucky??:eek:


))SS((

[KC Elbows]

"Did my first post stumble into something yucky??"
Nope, red and I get along good, although watch the dog poop.

As for the topic, I'd agree that it's a fine line. However, I think there's some major factors:

-if the home invader has a gun and is holding it at the time, I would imagine that enough expert witnesses could be brought forward to say thet gun fu is superior.
-if there was no other option(family involved and all)

I'd totally agree that it would make sense to place it in the context of defending your family.

[SolarStance]

Absolutely. If some bonehead is boneheadded enough to invade my home, I'll do everything I can to make him wish he hadn't. We have to remember that judges and juries have homes and families, too. Their job is to put themselves in your position and decide what they would do in the same situation. I could guarantee that anyone, if they had the resources, would defend their home and family from an invader by any means necessary. to begin with, the invader was breaking the law in the first place. Doesn't this mean that he willingly waved his rights as a citizen?


Is that dog poop on my shoe?


)))Ss(((

[Oso]

something else to consider is this:

so, you beat the guy, hurt him enough to satisfy your need for revenge on his intrusion (not a flame, I would feel the same) and then call the cops and they cart him off and you don't get any charges filed against you. This jerk is at most in jail for 2-3 years.
AT MOST. What do you think the chances are of him revisiting you as some point? I mean, you beat him down and put him in jail. My guess is he comes back armed to the teeth.

Kill the ****er, grab a kitchen knife, stab yourself somewhere unimportant and slice your hands up a bit, stick the knife in his hands and THEN call the cops.

[Oso]

I have to say red5's choice of a dog is ok.

My family had a pug when I was in hs. We got it as a puppy and it grew up wrestling with a great dane. Giving up all that weight just made the pug a beast. When she was a year old she was 5 pounds heavier then her dad. She looked like a small bulldog and was feisty as hell.

so, small old lady dogs can be cool if you train 'em right.

It's the training not the dog. :D

[KC Elbows]

Well, if you don't want to learn a lesson from Red5's plight on the importance of having a real dog, you can continue living in your 'pugs are tough world', but I assure you, my german shepherd, ugly though she is, is firmly grounded in the real world, where pugs are snacks.:p

[red5angel]

Oso, not in trouble but in the past two weeks someone has been spotted twice walking around our yard and our neighbors and we found tracks going back to our shed.
Also, my need to hurt him would not be out of revenge, it would be my need to keep myself and my family out of danger. We all know very well, or should, that even with the element of surprise you never know, and it is well known my theory is shoot frst ask questions later on this sort of thing. There is no reasonable reason you should be in my house uninvited at 3 am and I have to assume you are there to do harm of some sort.

KC - Why else would I need a better dog? That Corgi can kill man. You ever seen the Holy Grail? He makes that rabbit look like small time!!

Solar - If by yucky you mean KC is a dirty peacenick hipy then yes, you have stumbled into something "yucky"

BM - It's not about taking the law into my own hands, the law part comes after the situation has been resolved one way or the other, at the moment it is about survival and no law will make me choose death or the risk there of. Personally by doing some serious damage I have done my "community" some service.... :)

I do understand that an "Expert Witness" needs to be unbiased, but at the same time it should be taken into consideration that as a well trained martial artists I should be credible in my determination of whether I felt my life was in danger or not.

[Oso]

glad to hear you're keeping your nose clean :)

Set a trap. I'm betting you know how. And it doesn't have to be lethal or even harmful. A bucket of sulfer dioxide would teach a lesson. (might have the chemical wrong there)

hmm, 'revenge'. I think I would still look at it as revenge for ME.
I mean, "HEY, WTF are you doing in my house at 3am obviously up to no good. I'm gonna teach you a lesson." Revenge, payback, just desserts, eye for an eye...whatever you want to call it the motivation for me would be to get back at the person who violated my rights of property and safety. But, I feel that once you violate someones space you get whatever they decide to dish out to you. fugg a bunch of so called civil rights. the guys a criminal at that point and on my propert intent on no good.

safety for myself and my loved ones is a concern in the tactics I employ to create that 'safety' but in the specific instance of someone violating my space; I'm ****ed off and that's the emotion that will fuel the level of response to his encroachment.

I will seek to subdue/control but won't wast more than one....technique, if you will...on it. From that standpoint I guess I would attempt one technique at each response level. subdue>maim>kill. but only if I haven't detected a weapon in their hands. If I see a knife or gun then I will be attempting to disassemble them as quickly as possible.

[norther practitioner]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
I don't know the law, but I suspect an expert needs to be unbiased.

However, if you're in trouble, I can come up there and testify that you run like a red headed step child at the first sign of danger. I'll even take a lie detector test.

Maybe if you'd bought a bigger dog, you wouldn't be in so much trouble.

Each side will always have there "expert"

When does one become and "expert"...
I'm a design engineer, I am an expert in every sense in what I do (patting self on back)
Does the court think I am an expert, prob. not until I get my Profesional Engineers Liscense (4 years school, EIT exam, 4 years practice, PE exam).

Biased has nothing to do with expert. You can always get experts to argue alomst whatever you are trying to prove.



OH, and my pit would eat all of you and your dogs for lunch, right after she got done licking you to death.

[Oso]

ya, but a pug would uglify you to death. kinda like a medusa. AND my pug would have superior technique cause they are chinese dogs


and chi fa rts.


and you can tell a good killer dog cuz they DO lick you first, the saliva starts the tenderization process.

[tsunami surfer]

Red 5
The reason that YOU dont testify as an expert witness is because you will be testifying against yourself. once your lawyer finishes asking you nice friendly questions Mr District Attorney who has big political aspirations is going to tear into you like a raging pitbull on his cross examination.

Use of reasonable force means making Mr Danger Stranger stop his rude actions and leave. If he dies in the process and he didnt die from punches to the throat and temple AFTER you made him stop his rude behavior you are in the clear.

Tell one story and stick to it (THE TRUTH) and do not alter the crime scene. Thats right your home is now surrounded with cool yellow ribbon. once you tell a lie and are caught in it even if you acted justly in self defence you will be doomed in the eyes of the court.

[Kuen]

and carry a throw down gun. Who ever suggested stabbing themsleves with a knife and putting it in the perps hand was right on. Cops do it all the time.







Pugz Rule, btw.

[tsunami surfer]

really??????

[Oso]

Why should anyone breaking into your house be given any sort of mercy?

[txwingchun]

Originally posted by Oso
Why should anyone breaking into your house be given any sort of mercy?

They shouldn't anyone who breaks into my house is armed and dangerous.

[Oso]

agreed but we apparently have some dissenting opinions.

[txwingchun]

I maybe biased though since I had my home broken into several months ago. Lucky for them i wasn't there thier human rights were forfiet as soon as the broke in. And I know stuff can be replaced but so can teeth, broken bones mend also. And I bet the shi tbag would think twice about doing it to someone else.

[Waidan]

Hypothetically, if a guy broke into my house in the middle of the night, and I killed that guy in some sort of confrontation, that guy would end up in a ravine, probably in a neighboring county. I don't trust our "justice" system on these matters.

Hypothetically :)

[red5angel]

I am with Waidan mainly. If you break into my house and in the course of defending myself and my family, you end up dead, well, I imagine you didn't tell anyone where you were going before hand so a few months they dredge you up out o fthe local pond, well, its a done deal.
However, I won't lie about a situation that didn't go that far. Lets say that a burglar sues me for puting my heel in his spine and crippling him for life, in this country it could happen. It was dark, he had something in his hand so I tried to hit him in the back with a disabling blow and it was more effective then I could have hoped. I used deadly force? I think he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I went too far? He was in my house, it was 3 am and my children were sleeping just down the hall? He was burgling me an didn't intend to harm anyone? I didn't bother to stop to question him, I thought he had something in his hand and he was in my house at 3am.
I don't think I am out of line in responding this way at all. It's different when you are at a bar and you go to far in a brawl. But you invade my house, your a dead man walkin....

[Laughing Cow]

Interesting subject, even more interesting opinions.

Question:
How many people here watch Discovery channel and see programs like "The new Detectives" and similar.

Changes are that if you are NOT honest or fake circumstances you will make YOUR situation tougher and the assailants easier.
Forensic science is a very interesting topic to me. ;)

As for the "Expert", define for me when someone can be classed as an expert.

Years of MA training, Rank reached, etc??

Cheers.

[Waidan]

"However, I won't lie about a situation that didn't go that far."

Exactly. Hey, if I get sued, I can deal with it. Sure, it's weaksauce, but I guess those sorts of rediculous laws are the price we pay to protect our individual rights/freedoms. But I'm not doing hard time because some sleezeball chose my family as his victims and I retaliated. I don't watch "The New Detectives" for nothin'! ;)

Again, hypothetically speaking.

[Waidan]

I just finished my post and upon refreshing saw LC's New Detectives reference. LoL.

[Oso]

so, we're all pretty much in agreement. except for that surfer dude.;)



I keep having this recurring dream that I am panicking because someone has dug up some skeletons near where I used to live 15 years ago or so. :confused:

[Oso]

and they're all dressed in black with some crazy looking weapons buried with them.

[red5angel]

are any of them 'smaller' then the rest? ;)

[Oso]

they were all pretty short. in the dream.

[red5angel]

I do find it somewhat odd that one would not question the rights of an animal to defend its territory, its children, its life, however when it comes down to being human that right is often questioned?

[ZIM]

I do find it somewhat odd that one would not question the rights of an animal to defend its territory, its children, its life, however when it comes down to being human that right is often questioned?

We often question it. Dogs are put down all the time for attacking ppl. Heck, for lesser offenses than would earn the death penalty for humans.

[Oso]

that's cuz we place the 'civil rights' of humans way to friggin high.

You can have peace or you can have freedom but don't count on both at the same time.

[tsunami surfer]

Red 5 question if I recall was why can't he testify as his own expert witness in a case of use of force and out of all the replies to this thread I think I was the only oneto answer his question. While I am not a lawyer I think I gave him a right on answer to his original question.

I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. Red 5 asked a good question and I feel I gave him a straight answer.

One thing I have learned over the years is when people being questioned by the law tell the truth the first time, thier story never changes. If they try to hedge a story and color it up or flat out lie, the story keeps changing.

Do whatever you want when dealing with the law but once caught in a lie you are branded a liar from that moment on whether you were justified in your actions or not.

[Oso]

relax dude, tweren't messin' wit you seriously.

you're right. If you get caught in the lie you're screwed. If the dude broke in and I caught him and incapacitated him...I personally would have to seriously about whether I called the cops or not. But, that's just me.