View Full Version : This might be a stupid question, but...
IronFist
05-27-2001, 05:21 AM
I'll try to keep this brief. If people know you practice MA, and you go to court for injuring someone in a fight (say you were attacked). Couldn't you get in trouble for using a weapon or something just because they would consider MA a "weapon"? (in this example you didn't actually use a physical weapon, however)
Like, I've heard some people have their hands considered "deadly weapons" (movie star's who know karate or something, i forgot who).
I think you know what I'm trying to ask.
So, wouldn't it be better to not tell anyone you practice MA?
Say someone secretly practiced iron palm, if they were attacked and just "slapped" that person on the head and that person happened to die, wouldn't they get in less trouble than if someone goes "HEY EVERYONE!!! I PRACTICE IRON PALM!!! LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!" who was in the same situation?
I dunno, now i'm talking out my arse.
Iron
btw, i just started coming to this street/reality board. it's pretty cool
Martial Joe
05-27-2001, 06:23 AM
I know that when your older then 16 and you have a blackbelt in my state(MA) you get you hands and feet registered as weapons when you practice karate.That is one of the benifets of style like my own(WING CHUN) that dont have grading systems.I dont tell many people.Only one of my friends knows what I can do.Other know that I study kung fu but only one person knows what I can actualy do.
JerryLove
05-27-2001, 04:38 PM
Pardon, but that sounds like bullox. Can you cite the statute? (actually, that's downright absurd)
There is the issue of the perception of the public. If you inflict heavy damage, juries will often see the belt and presume that you should have been skilled enough to disable the three guys with baseball bats without hurting them. The thought that you will be accused of attempted murder (use of a deadly weapon) in any juristiction for punching someone, I find silly.
JasBourne
05-28-2001, 05:17 PM
Let's see... you're in a bar, drunken fool next to you doesn't like your shoes, takes a swing at you, you do a palm strike to the chin, he falls back, hits his head on a barstool and croaks.
Legally, you defended yourself. However, in this lawsuit-happy land of ours, his family could concievably bring a civil suit against you for wrongful death. Best bet is to get everyone at the bar to very loudly back you up from the git-go how this jerk attacked you and you were in fear for your life. Sort of a little psychological aikido ;)
<IMG SRC="http://machagrande.com/images/aMao1.JPG" border=0 height=116 width=100>
Highlander
05-28-2001, 05:32 PM
Since we are dealing with the publics misperceptions, it is possible to use them to your advantage. One misperception is that a punch is more devistating than an open hand strike. How about this for a scenario.
A person in a bar takes a punch at your head. You duck the punch and strike their side with a palm strike breaking the ribs. The person collapses on the floor. The police come in and you tell them he attacked me and when I tried to push him away he collapsed, he must have had a previous injury. The witnesses say all you did was kind of slapped him. No one can understand how his rib got broke. You go home. :)
Weapon-Maker
05-28-2001, 11:58 PM
Well put,Highlander.
My take is that one does what is necessary; both in preparation and action. The primary goal is immediate survival, with minimal residual problems.
Most of what I have learned in this has been gained from firearm related discussions; ie if you have to shoot in self defense, how do you stay out of jail.
To get by, minimze the damage to your adversary and absolutely do not fabricate anything that is not true. If you end up charged with a crime your life will be investigated microscopicaly and the falsehoods will damage you. DO NOT presume that your innocense is sufficient to see you through unscathed. If you are questioned, you really need to consider getting a lawyer. If a gun is involved, KEEP YOUR **** MOUTH SHUT till you have one.
PS: The stuff about registering hands and feet is myth... at least in the South. If you want to know for your own location, call your local law enforcement and ask where to register.
JerryLove
05-29-2001, 04:49 PM
"To get by, minimze the damage to your adversary"
Doubt you got that from a firearm discussion. Legally horrible advice for a weapon. (If you didn't have to kill him, you didn't have to shoot him at all).
From my discussion with my lawyer... Admit to the facts (He attacked me, I hit him, he fell down) but nothing more. Don't ask for a lawyer immediately. Ask "I'm bretty broken up, can I come down tomorrow and make a statement?", and then bring your lawyer. Do not accept a "ride to the station to answer a few questions", you will not likely be coming out that night.
And yes, the law usually looks quite differently on a slap than a punch.
The Whyzyrd
05-29-2001, 07:42 PM
I can tell you that there is NO statute anywhere in the US which requires ANYONE to register anything regardless of rank in any martial arts program.
If you are intersted - go here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
They have links to every states legal codes.
Mycin
05-30-2001, 01:44 AM
The attitude we were taught in my concealed handgun class is you never use deadly force to KILL. You only use it to stop someone from whatever threatening action they are taking. Now, you may say that they are just as dead after you "stop" them with a .357 through the heart as if you were shooting them to "kill" them, and you'd be correct. However, think of how it would sound on the witness stand.
Prosecutor: When did you decide to kill the deceased?
You: I never decided to kill them. I only wanted to stop them from attacking me.
See how reasonable that sounds?
I would expect the same type of approach would be best when you've just used your MA on some thug who was attacking you. Never allow things to be framed as if you were FIGHTING them. Just keep insisting that you were only trying to stop the attack.
FWIW. Mycin
Mycin
05-30-2001, 01:59 AM
Follow up...
Obviously, it would be hard to claim you were only trying to stop an attack if you continued fighting after the attacker was unable to threaten you. That's what got Bernie Getz in so much trouble on that New York subway. He first pulled out his pistol in self-defense, but ended up continuing to shoot his attackers after they were already on the ground - obviously to KILL at that point since they were already stopped.
That's probably what SLC meant by minimizing the damage. Don't keep shooting/fighting once the threat has passed.
Another thing that came out of the concealed handgun class is that it is easier to justify extreme force when faced with multiple attackers. For example, a half-fist to the throat might be considered excessive in a one-on-one altercation but might seem more reasonable when three guys were jumping on you.
Mycin
"That's probably what SLC meant by minimizing the damage. Don't keep shooting/fighting once the threat has passed."
Thanks Mycin, that is exactly what I meant.
"(If you didn't have to kill him, you didn't have to shoot him at all)." I disagree, Jerry.
If what I did to STOP him, killed him, what he was doing must justify his death. I can shoot, as Mycin says, to stop - not to kill. His death is a predictable result but certainly not the goal. AND IF...he desists prior to being killed, I continue to shoot/beat/injure/kill him at my legal peril. That is what I mean by "minimizing the damage."
Maybe an easier way to say it is to stop when the threat is neutralized. The law provides no authorization for "punishing" an assailant, only stopping him in a reasonable manner. Punishment, rightly or wrongly, is reserved to the courts.
Jerry, we probably agree on all these issues and I respect your knowledge here a great deal. I am writing more to those with less experience and trying to generalize (perhaps incorrectly). Perhaps the lesson here is that complexities of the law can even make it hard to know when agreement occurs.
Losttrak
06-02-2001, 11:31 PM
I think there is precedent for people being tried for their hands being "deadly weapons" but in any case having a certified black belt is dangerous thing. Nothing will get a sentence slapped on you faster than a BB. People blow off martial arts until you are on trial for assault... then they pull out the whole "Karate Kid," "Quai Chang," syndrome where you SHOULD have been a monk and turned the other cheek. How you should have jumped onto a rooftop to avoid the engagement(<---sarcastic). A little exaggerated but its true. People use alot of propaganda to market martial arts and it can be used against you just the same.
JerryLove
06-03-2001, 01:11 AM
An exxageration at minimum.
Some things that will get a "sentance slapped on you" faster than a black-belt.
Being clearly identifed as the instigator.
Continuing to beat an unconsious oppnent.
Doing severe damage to an obviously inferior opponent (child for example).
Being the only one to deploy a weapon.
Anything that can be construed as "malicious use of power".
A criminal history of such behavior.
Losttrak
06-03-2001, 07:05 AM
Whatever facts they can bend to suit their needs, prosecutors will use. Don't think that they WONT exaggerate your training in attempting to show your liability. Especially the stigma that is attached to martial artists.
JerryLove
06-03-2001, 07:12 AM
"I do Taiji for my health... You mean you can fight with that?!?"
The Whyzyrd
06-03-2001, 01:46 PM
"...you mean you can fight with that?"
That's a good one. Think it would work with Hung Ga?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.