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.

[SolarStance]

Did my first post stumble into something yucky??


))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.

[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.