Great article on MA and the law

[SifuAbel]

Run out and get the JAMA (Journal of asian martial arts)
Great article on differences between acceptable and unacceptable force. Also, defenitions that everyone in MA should know. Plus, great article on CMA history(blackjack and ginsue might find it interesting).

[The Whyzyrd]

It was a good article. I am waiting for Part II next month. The first part dealt primarily with liability issues facing a school whereas (right now) I am more interested in issues involving the street.

Nonetheless, a good article.

[Jaguar Wong]

Well, crap. Now I gotta buy it. I'm still looking for the issue with the history of Russian Sambo That was a great article.

Anyway,
Is it a totally ridiculous differentiation (hey is that even a word?) on the acceptable use, opposed to the unacceptable use? Does it say that I have to proclaim that I have martial arts training when being attacked in order to use it to my full effectiveness? Am I allowed to use headbutts, and fish hooks, or does the law look very similar to the UFC rules? ;)

What I'm really wondering is, what did you guys think of it? Does it really limit our use of skills, because the guys that wrote the laws watched too many kung fu movies, and believe that a guy with some martial arts training can easily subdue and detain an aggressor twice his size? (the last paragraph is an actual question...I really wanna know)

After watching King of the Hill. I'm changing my personal defense style:

"THAT'S MY PURSE...I DON'T KNOW YOU!!!"
*kicks the groin*

I figure that's nice and legal...right?

[Tigerstyle]

LOL! I saw that episode. I'm not really a fan of the show, but Hearing Bobby yell "THAT'S MY PURSE...I DON'T KNOW YOU!!!" before kicking kids in the groin was too funny. :D

Now I'm curious about the article as well.

This is what my lawyer told me:

"If somebody attacks you, defend yourself. Better to be tried by 6 than carried by 12".

"Use REASONABLE force".

[The Whyzyrd]

Well, let me see...

***flipping through pages***

The article (at least this first part) primarily deals with training situations BUT it does discuss street use. Essentially it points out the famous "Reasonable force". The big problem comes from defining "reasonable".

The article opens up by giving several important legal definitions to things like assault and battery. It is always interesting to see what the formal definitions of these things really are.

Anyway, it goes on the describe several situations (both in the school and on the street) and what could be considered "unreasonable" force.

The situations IN the school center around "implied consent" and "negligence".

The street situations read mostly like a survey of what the courts are likely (sorry - it deals with the US courts only) to see in a situation. The article discusses "Reasonably perceived danger", "the degree of permissible force used in self defense" and the ever loving "duty to retreat" (interesting observation about this one, "Courts in the South and West place more stock in an individual's dignity and honor and say that he may stand his ground and inflict serious bodily injury or death when an attack calls for it. Other jurisdictions, including New York, hold that personal honor cannot justify inflicting serious injury or death upon an assailant and that a victim must retreat when he may do so safely.")

All-in-all I thought it was pretty good. Again, I am waiting for Part II to come out. I am more interested in street situations over issues revolving around the school and liability of your Sifu (not that they aren't important).

[Tigerstyle]

Thanks for the summary, Whyzyrd.

It's good to know that I can foolishly fight for my honor if I so choose. :)

[The Whyzyrd]

Yeah - just don't do it here in New York.

[SifuAbel]

Originally posted by HuangKaiVun
This is what my lawyer told me:

"If somebody attacks you, defend yourself. Better to be tried by 6 than carried by 12".

"Use REASONABLE force".

Dam n straight.
Except that its "tried by twelve and carried by six." ;) If you have to be carried by twelve then it's better to be burried at home.


The article is best used to give the MA practitioner a perspective of what the Courts will say as to any case in question that involves force. Not that you have to follow the letter of the law, but it is helpfull to know what you can get away with and how to present yourself to the courts if ever needed. The best way to avoid court decisions is to not be there when the cops show up, if you can. If you can't then it's better to know how you can present the situation to go your way. The laws aren't perfect but thats what we got.

[illusionfist]

I've worked with the local PD on this issue and it seems the common consenus is neutralization. Almost all tactical groups (PD based, not military) that resort to hand to hand combat will use a step down approach, which inevitably leads to neutralization. Escalation is the key factor in determining what force you are allowed to use. If weapons are introduced, serious physical injury is almost always legal to use, but once the weapon has been taken out of the picture, a lot of courts will expect a bump down to the lower level.

Its a bit tricky. My suggestion is that you dont mention you have martial arts training and that you simply say, "i dont remember what i did, i just reacted..." This is safer for you because you will most likely not remember the details (and usually the details are what incriminate you). When you start giving a play by play description, the "reasonableness" doctrine will not be in your favor due to you having such a (perceived) cool temperament about the situation.

Peace :D

[Satanachia]

I was always told there was one phrase we should remember if we ever had to defend ourselves.

"I was afraid for my life"......

Apparently works legal miracles:D

[Serpent]

D@mn straight. That single phrase can work wonders, but you have to sound like you mean it. If it was just a scrap and there was no real danger, then a lot of force is not justified. But act all wide-eyed and say something like, "Well, this guy looked like he was going to kill me! I didn't know what was happening, I didn't know what to do. I don't remember what happened, I just reacted, I thought he was going to kill me!" The prosecutor, etc. will test that with something like, "You were actually in fear of your mortal safety?" And you give it all the panic attack stuff: "Yeah, man, you should have seen his eyes! I didn't know if he was drunk or on drugs or what! I thought he was going to kill me, really, I was in fear of my life!"

Then the jury have to believe that! ;)

[Budokan]

If you're attacked by someone and beat the living dogf*ck out of him you can always say "I was afraid for my safety." (Or, the safety of your wife, kids, etc.)

If you're attacked by someone and think he's out to kill you and you beat him to death you can say "I was afraid for my life."

The distinctions are real and necessary for you as a MA to make when being interviewed by the police, and your lawyer.

If you dont' get off then you can always escape prison and hunt down and beat that shyster lawyer of yours to death with a tire iron.

[SifuAbel]

ttt

[lawdragon]

I haven't read the article, but the summaries posted here seem legally sound. I am a trial attorney in Washington State, and I happen to be in the midst of preparing a seminar for martial artists dealing with these exact issues.

Keeping in mind that nothing in the law is as simple as this or the other summaries, generally self defense is a function of the actual threat and the victim's perception of the threat.

Self defense is actually an excuse for what would ordinarily be assault. The excuse applies to the reasonable use of force. Reasonable can vary from locale to locale, but generally, you can use force appropriate to the situation and must stop when the threat is neutralized. Martial ability plays a role in wht is reasonable (based on the individuals skill) and on the victim's perception.

If someone is throwing punches, you can use sufficient force to neutralize that person. Going beyond tht, such as using deadly force (whether martial arts or weapons) or continuing to use force on a subdued attacker is now lawful. Deadly force can be used only when confronted with deadly force.

These general rules can be quite difficult to apply, however. This is due to the fact that each individuals perception will be different. Then there is the duty to retreat. This may or may not play a roll. For instance, if you are blindly attacked, there likely is no reasonable retreat. Also, many US jurisdictions hold there is no duty to retreat if you are in your home.

My suggestions - avoid trouble if possible. If not possible, do what you need to do, then stop. Think before you talk to the police or others-make sure you are clear yourself about what happened before talking. Be polite to the police - attitudes make a big difference and first impressions are important.

LawDragon

[respectmankind]

I find the best way to handle to situation is to say 'I was afraid for my life, that is why several meen have indentations on their throat'. The send flowers to the family, and a f u letter to the parents for not raising a good child.

[Oso]

Not sure if my sifu or his sife coined (or borrowed) this phrase
but it's how we apply the knowledge we have in self defense
situations.

Avoid
Evade
Control
Control w/ Pain
Maim
Kill


Matt