sensei8

There are varied ways that failing to take advantage of safe avenue of retreat can undermine your legal defense of self-defense. Of course, in one of the 16 duty to retreat states you would lose self-defense as a matter of law. Poof, it's gone. Even in most stand-your-ground states, where you do not have a legal duty to retreat, the prosecution can still argue to the jury that your failure to do so was not the conduct of a reasonable and prudent person, and so you lose self-defense because you lose on the required element of reasonableness. There are a handful of "hard" stand-your-ground states that prohibit the jury from even considering whether the defender could have retreated, which sounds good, but even here you can get tangled up by failing to take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat. This can happen if the prosecution can convince the jury that you were the initial aggressor (doesn't need to be TRUE, just needs to be CONVINCING). If he does that successfully you lose self-defense on the required element of innocence. UNLESS it turns out that YOU can show that even if you WERE the initial aggressor, you legally recovered your innocence by withdrawing from the fight in good faith. Of course, if you can be made to look like the aggressor and CANNOT show you withdrew in good faith then you will NOT have recovered your innocence, you lose self-defense, and off to the party you go. In terms of "automatic defensive reactions," I understand the rationale from a tactical perspective, especially when we're most likely to be subject to an ambush attack, but that kind of terminology is very dangerous for a legal claim of self-defense. Self-defense, from a legal perspective, must be a deliberate, reasoned act--NOT an automatic reflex. If your automatic reflex turns out to put you outside the bounds of self-defense law (e.g., your "automatic" use of force was disproportional to the attack) the fact that it was an "automatic" response not only won't save your self-defense claim, characterizing it as "automatic" will only further undermine that claim. An "automatic" defensive response that's unlikely to cause much damage--e.g., a block or a shove to create distance--also is unlikely to cause too much legal liability. On the other hand, an "automatic" defense response that maims your "attacker"--especially if it turns out you were wrong about the nature or intensity of the "attack" is going to be a huge problem, legally speaking. That's all I have time for right now, sorry about that, but clients need their cases handled. But I write about this stuff all the time in my professional capacity as an attorney specializing in use-of-force law. Google is your friend. Fair enough, Andrew, thanks!! Google, huh, everything is true on the internet, huh?! LOL

Finally...it's about time...better late than never... The Yankees WON!! I was like, whew....man oh man...how much does a WIN cost nowadays... But, boy oh boy, it felt good!! ::DEEPLY SIGHS OF RELIEF:: Yankee's are having rebuilding growth pains, as of late, but it's still early in the season!! GO YANKEES!!

I actually AM a lawyer, with a legal practice that specializes in use-of-force law (USA only, I'm afraid), so perhaps I can shed some light on this issue. I'll generalize a bit, but everything below would apply in all 50 states, unless I indicate otherwise. There are five elements to any claim of self-defense, and they are cumulative--that is, all five must elements MUST be present (unless legally excused for some reason), or the entire self-defense claim collapses. To put it another, for a prosecutor to destroy your claim of self-defense he needs to destroy any ONE of the required elements of the legal claim of self-defense. One of the elements that is always required is the element of reasonableness--were your perceptions, decisions, actions those of a reasonable person. Reasonableness is evaluated using a two-part test--first, whether your conduct was subjectively reasonable; second, whether your conduct was objectively reasonable. Your conduct must have been BOTH subjectively AND objectively reasonable, or your fail the element of reasonableness and you fail on self-defense. In the context of objective reasonableness, the jury is asked to decide whether a hypothetical "reasonable and prudent person" would have conducted themselves in the same way. If not, your conduct was not objectively reasonable, you fail on the element of reasonableness, and you fail on self-defense. Still with me? Here's where a defender's martial arts training/expertise comes into play. That hypothetical "reasonable and prudent person" (RAPP, we lawyers love our acronyms) is customized to fit the particular facts of that particular case. One of the ways the RAPP can be customized is for any exceptional or specialized capabilities or knowledge possessed by the defendant that is not normally possessed by the general public. The RAPP is presumed to possess generalized knowledge--fire is hot, knives are sharp, etc.--but NOT specialized knowledge. The same for specialized capabilities. If a defendant DOES possess specialized knowledge/capabilities, and this knowledge/capabilities contributed to their perceptions, decisions, and actions in self-defense, than that specialized knowledge/capabilities is relevant to their claim of self-defense. In effect, then, the jury is being asked to decide if a reasonable and prudent person POSSESSING THE DEFENDANT'S SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE/CAPABILITIES would have acted in the same way as did the defendant. If the answer is "yes," then the defendant's conduct was objectively reasonable. If "no," then the conduct was NOT objectively reasonable, the defendant fails the element of reasonableness, and the defendant fails on self-defense. Typically, relevant specialized knowledge is introduced into evidence through the testimony of an expert witness in that field. It's important to understand that such specialized knowledge/capabilities can be used EITHER to the defendant's detriment OR benefit, depending on the circumstances. An example of how specialized knowledge might be used to a defendant's BENEFIT is if he is faced with multiple "unarmed" opponents, and his dojo training and experience has taught him that such a disparity of numbers represents a threat of grave bodily harm. This could justify him in using a weapon even though his attackers are "unarmed." When the prosecutor argues that a weapon should not have been used against an "unarmed" opponent, the expert witness is brought in by the defense to educate the jury with the relevant specialized knowledge. An example of how specialized knowledge might be used to a defendant's DETRIMENT is if he is faced with an attacker apparently possessing no particular fighting expertise, e,g, throwing round house punches at the defender, and the defender possesses a suitable expertise in, say, judo, that he could reasonably throw the attacker to the ground rather than perform elbow mediated dental extraction on the poor fellow. (Another one of the elements of a self-defense claim, proportionality, requires that you use no more force than necessary to neutralize the threat.) That latter example is what most people are thinking of when they wonder "Can my black belt be used against me in court?" The answer is that if you possess a particular level of expertise, you will be held to the standard of someone possessing that level of expertise. It's hard to argue that this shouldn't be the case, really. Sorry, we lawyers tend to run on-and-on. I hope that's helpful information. Solid post, Andrew!! Andrew, If I've a chance to leave my attacker, and I don't, I continue to engage, am I wrong, in the eyes of the Law, and ultimately in a court of law?!? How far can one push the defense of perception?? If I say I perceive that I was still in danger, am I forgiven in the eyes of the court?? "I do not hit, "it" hits all by itself!!!" Automatic responses and the like, how might a judge view that? Can one use that quote as a defense? Seeing that one might say..."I was attacked, and my response was so automatic that after that very moment, I didn't think with intent, I just reacted without thought." Considerations are forgotten, not by malice, but by circumstances that I acted upon by automation within myself, as I've been trained to do so. Thanks, Andrew!!

Well, in the US almost all cases of self-defense are handled at the state, not the Federal, level. We've got 50 different states and thus 50 different sets of laws (plus Washington DC, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc.). As a result almost any statement about self-defense law generalized to the entire USA is going to be incorrect. In fact, only 16 states impose a legal duty to retreat before you can use force in self-defense. The remaining 34 states do NOT. So, a duty to retreat only exists in a minority of states. Even in the states that DO impose a legal duty to retreat, most of them impose this duty only before you can use deadly force in self-defense, and do not impose the duty to retreat if you limit yourself to non-deadly force. Unfortunately, we've had more than a few martial artist clients who mistakenly believed that "deadly force" means only force that can actually kill someone, and that any lesser degree of force must therefore be mere non-deadly force. Sadly for their cases, the legal definition of deadly force is considerably broader than that. If you've learned a martial art in part to make yourself hard to kill or maim or rape, it pays to know the use-of-force laws in your jurisdiction in order to make yourself hard to convict. Solid post!! I'd also add, that if there are 50 states in the USA that have differing laws, then one best stay in their state and not venture elsewhere. I'd like to think that these 50 states have a sense of normalcy in things like this. Have a chance to leave and you don't, now who's guilty?!?!?! I would think that a judge would pass sentence on me, as well as my attacker, and perhaps, even more so!!

Don't you mean, have them turn off their cell phones as part of dojo rules?! Because, the cell phone is private property, and imho, no dojo has the right to take anyone's cell phone/private property away. Possibly in some parts of the world, but kids are kids and they can all go into a box for "safe keeping".......... Or keep the darn thing in the car...with a parent...at home...anywhere except in the dojo and NOT on owns person during class...or put it in the locker, if your dojo is lucky enough to have them...leave it in your bag...just express consideration for the dojo and fellow students. Like the wearing of jewelry and the like in a dojo, use common sense, and FOLLOW THE RULES...OR GO HOME!!

Don't you mean, have them turn off their cell phones as part of dojo rules?! Because, the cell phone is private property, and imho, no dojo has the right to take anyone's cell phone/private property away.

That's great news there, Brian; congrats to Kenneth and Kendall...AWESOME WRESTLERS!! Come on next season!!

This is just me, but all of the chi power and the like seem to me too hocus pocus, and I don't like trusting things like this. Adrenaline and things like that, I can trust in things like this!! It's up to the individual; to each their own!!

If for some reason all the hachidan's retired at the same time. Could by-laws get amendended to where Hachidan is the highest? Absolutely!! After all, that's the purpose for amendments! However, I don't expect all of the Hachidan's to retire at the same time. We've not abolished Kudan or Judan from our ranking structure. Judan was, at one time, reserved for Soke types only!! Seeing that we've abolished Soke types all together, Judan isn't attainable!! As was Kudan, for Kaicho, AT ONE TIME. Ever since my Kudan promotion through a rigorous Testing Cycle, Kudan is in the By-Laws in the manner of which I fought so hard against. However, if the Term Limits pass, then, Kudan will only be earned through a Testing Cycle. One final note, we're of the same mindset on one thing...Kudan Testing Cycles shall still be quite rare, and not earned like one would earn a pat on the back!!

I'd never allow that to happen, and as a matter of fact, no one in the Executive Team would allow that either!! So...NO!! Not a possibility! No matter who that student is, they will be invited to a Testing Cycle when that time is appropriate, and not anytime sooner...and no one's guaranteed any rank!! Okay cool, hope everything works out. Yes, thank you, The Pred...I too, hopes everything works out in the long run. The Student Body and the SKKA/Hombu must be taken care of if a future has any hopes or dreams of any longevity. In addition, I resent the implication that our governing body harbors any impropriety, whether direct or indirectly, and that we're without any moral compass at all!! For us to do this and that, would show a vastly lack of integrity across the board. Our Dai-Soke was the one and only last Kudan attainment thru being earned through the By-Laws absolutes by being promoted to Kaicho by our Soke. At this promotion, there were no votes, and indeed, this was Soke's supreme authority to do so, and it was without contestation!! We've no interest in having a bunch of Kudans!! No!! Kudan and Judan should be the two most rarest of the rarest in the MA!! I didn't expect to ever become a Kudan, and I still resent ever passing that Testing Cycle. In my heart of hearts, I'm still Hachidan, and not Kudan. I never wanted to earn any rank that would imply that I'm equal to Dai-Soke, in which, I'm the furthest thing from that...my loyalty to Dai-Soke is deeper and more than one could ever understand, and to the day I die, I never wanted my Kudan, and I still don't want my Kudan. But, there it is, and I can't change that on paper and the like.

Welcome to KF, ThatGUY; glad that you're here!!

I'd never allow that to happen, and as a matter of fact, no one in the Executive Team would allow that either!! So...NO!! Not a possibility! No matter who that student is, they will be invited to a Testing Cycle when that time is appropriate, and not anytime sooner...and no one's guaranteed any rank!!

Your interpretation is quite on the money, generally speaking, and on each of your paragraphs!! I will always welcome change, however, if I perceive that it'll hurt the Student Body and/or the SKKA/Hombu, I'll fight against it. As you've noted, change has to make sense, and to make changes just because they can, is a death blow to any entity. Yes, for the most, Kaicho's authority is absolute without contestation, and this has a lot to do more with Administration than any of the other departments. There are proprietary responsibilities within the SKKA/Hombu that give Kaicho that absolute authority per how Soke wrote the By-Laws. Once Soke and Dai-Soke had passed, and they knew that time would come, the Kaicho had to have that same authority as they had when they were in office. No, you're not rambling, at all!! Also, even though you're not asking, I've touched briefly on our "power structure" in my OP... The bold type is the upper hierarchy of the SKKA!!

JR137 makes some good points. I'm of the opinion that it could be good to review the appointed Kaicho every so often. After all if that person is in charge of and responsible for the student body, they have to be supported by the student body and represent their best interests. Though to me 2 years seems like a very short term. IMHO not long enough to effect any real change. Especially if the incumbent Kaicho cannot be re-elected, this 2 year turnover may stagnate change rather than promote it. I'm with JR137 in that it would be better to have any outgoing Kaicho available for re-election so that if they are doing a good job and are the best person for the job, they can serve another term. I too, agree, that JR 137 made good points. You can read my response in this thread. Check and Balances are redundantly throughout the entire SKKA/Hombu!! Everyone who's assigned at the SKKA/Hombu must have their annual reviews, and the Executive Team is even more so, must either meet or exceed expectations. If not, then they are placed on a PIP [Personal Improvement Plan] that covers up to 3 months long. Anyone on a PIP, has to pass monthly reviews before going forward up to graduating. Fail a monthly review, you're dismissed!! If anyone from the Executive Team is placed on a PIP, same thing, pass or fail. Pass, you remain in post...fail, a vote of no-confidence will occur, and that could lead to you being removed from post.

Funny I was just gonna ask the same thing regarding rank. I mean what rank is one considered to be put on the ballot? Nanadan is the most minimum rank requirement for any of the Executive Team. The Executive Team consists of Kaicho, Kancho, and Regents: that gives us 7.

Taking turns ISN'T going to work!! To help the Student Body and the SKKA/Hombu requires a dedication that means more than one just taking their turn to see what new life they can breath into either. At the moment, their are 7 who are qualified to become Kaicho. 5 of them are from the Regents, and then there's Greg, our Kancho, and myself. The 2 years term is to be determined at a much later date. This number was more of an "FOR EXAMPLE", so, for now, I'm not even dwelling on that for the moment. While it's important, it's really not important, at the same time. When I first heard the number, I felt that all that Soke and Dai-Soke worked to create were slowly being flushed down the drain. Whom would the SKKA/Hombu give more power/voice to?? If the Kaicho, is at the top of the food chain, how would giving more power/voice benefit the Student Body and the SKKA/Hombu?? Already in place, we've the Regents, which use to be called the Board of Regents, which had 12 elected members ranked from Godan to Hachidan. Whereas, now, the Regents is 5 elected members with a Hachidan rank, and no lower than a Nanadan, of which we've none. In a nutshell...The Regents responsibilities are to oversee the Student Body...first and foremost. Secondly, they are to oversee the SKKA as far as it's growth!! Remember, there are things that the Kaicho decides that are without contestation; once decided, that decision CAN NOT be turned over by anyone!! As a business, we vote over many concerns, and not every vote is favorable; can't win them all!! I agree! Remember, term length hasn't been decided, as of yet. I asked that we table that concern for the moment, and that we address that last. Why? Because I know the Regents and I know Greg and I know myself...this might take the majority of our time to finalize. I'm with you...5 years prevents many things, and that's what I'm pushing for, and not anything less!! The incumbent CAN NOT be reelected!! The incumbent must sit out ONE Ballot!! Having said that, nothings been determined on granite, as of yet. Rank ISN'T an issue. Forgive me that I didn't make that clear, and that's my fault!! The SKKA isn't going to be a ship of fools!! While the SKKA By-Laws require the Kaicho to be promoted immediately to Kudan, that will NOT work whatsoever!! I've placed this matter to the front burner for consideration to amend that particular By-Law. That By-Law had it's day in the sun, but, I believe that this By-Law needs to be pastured; the sooner the better!! Once rank is earned, it can't be taken away/back!! Here's what I'm proposing: 1) Kudan can only be earned through a TESTING CYCLE!! I fought to my dying breath against being automatically promoted to Kaicho. And only then, did I ask for, and receive, a Testing Cycle. What was good for Dai-Soke when he was promoted to Kaicho by Soke back in the day, has gone by the wayside, and when I fought against the promotion with the Board of Regents at tooth and skin, Dai-Soke, asked me once, and after I explained to him my reasons, he fully supported me. So much so, that he told the Board of Regents to shut-up, and to leave me at peace. Only after his passing, did they go back on the attack. The current system isn't broken. They're not trying to fix anything, but I believe that they're sincere in wanting to reinvent our brand, and sometimes, that inevitable change is that fresh voice. Time will tell!! Discussions have just begun, and we've other fires to put out first before Term Limits can be decided upon.

With the excerpt from my Golden Anniversary, I'd like to draw attention to the bolded type above, more specifically, concerning my Kaicho appointment(s). Within the SKKA By-Laws and the like, there's no existence with lifetime appointments. Two ways to rescind any elected appointment is either voluntarily or involuntarily with cause!! Supposedly, there's now a third way to rescind any elected appointment... Term Limits!! Thusly, I suppose that Term Limits might be under the same umbrella as voluntarily or involuntarily, depending on just how one might view either. Being put to pasture, isn't always a welcomed part of ones life, it being an involuntarily act. However, stepping down isn't always too welcomed either, it being a voluntarily act. Well, it's like my fellow upper hierarchy's have found that Term Limits might be the way for the SKKA/Hombu to reinvent itself. Change is inevitable, and albeit, needed from time to time. Otherwise, a willingness to refuse change, ushers in an untimed death to the entity. So, without speaking about the legalities and all in any great detail, after all, it came be quite boring, the legal language and such...so much so, that one would rather have a root canal without any anesthesia of any type. Let's speak very briefly about my elected appointment as Kaicho [President]. The By-Laws speak about the recipient of that appointment being automatically promoted to Kudan, without any delays, immediately!! I've never agreed with that, and I still don't agree with that, and that's why I refused that more times than I care to remember. My Kudan, was awarded to me, but only after I passed a Testing Cycle; HOWEVER, this was in the absence of Dai-Soke, due to him having passed away many years earlier. That still leaves a bad taste in my mouth...even now! Kaicho is in charge of everything, and anything, related to the SKKA/Hombu; the buck stops there, and at times, many decisions made by the Kaicho is without contestation!! Because the SKKA/Hombu is a business, daily operational concerns at the Executive Administrative level, are dealt with by the Kaicho. Kaicho's primary concerns are: 1) The Student Body 2) Business Success Kaicho's leadership role also entails being ultimately responsible for all day-to-day Management decisions and for implementing the SKKA's/Hombu's long and short term plans. Kaicho acts as a direct liaison between the Student Body and Management, and therefore, communicates to the Student Body on behalf of the SKKA's/Hombu's Executive Team, which is comprised of General Affairs Department, Instructor Department, Administrative Department, and Regents, as well as any/all sub-level departments. To the crux of the whole matter. I'm Kaicho until I'm no longer the Kaicho per the powers that be, of which, I'm at the top of the food chain. Term Limits!! Here's the proposal, as of this very mornings pow-wow, with the other food chain members. Tada...The Kaicho, for the moment, will... Hold said elected office for ONLY 2 years!! I've been Kaicho for 7-8 years, and guess what, if this proposal becomes a reality, I'll no longer be Kaicho, until I'm reelected at a future date, and believe it or not, I'm fine with that. Anything for the betterment of the Student Body and the SKKA/Hombu. Tricky thing is that as part of the proposal, once a sitting Kaicho is finished with their term, they can't be placed on a ballot for one full term. In short, once I've completed my current term as Kaicho, I can't be placed on the next ballot in any shape, way, and/or form. I'm fine with that too!! Idle minds and the like have nothing else to do with themselves, so, they come up with this, which I too, am fine with. Wondering out loud if this years POTUS election and the like in the USA gave them the idea. It sure wasn't my idea, but, I'm willing, for the betterment of the Student Body and the SKKA/Hombu, to accept and embrace the change. Continued meetings/conversations over this proposal will take us to and through this years Annual Testing Cycle this June/July at the Hombu. This will give us plenty of time to fine tune AND adopt the proposal, if it passes several key votes, that is. Any thoughts, or whatever else??

Thank you for your kind words, Brian!! More importantly, I thank you for your friendship, in and out of the MA. And more than ever before, now that the celebration is done, my goal for 2015 is... Sharing the floor with you once again because once, isn't ever enough!! So, hell or high water, I'll be coming to Hays, KS in 2015, God willing!! Your friend, in and out of the MA!! To the bold type above... Bummer...I messed that one up; sorry, Brian!! I'm STILL trying to work this out for us!!

If so, then he needs much better insurance!! When insurance plans try to dictate MA training, then it's time to shop for much better insurance plans, and they're there, gear for MA training. Imho!!

Solid post!! If she had anything to do with SKIF, and if the powers that be had got wind of this, someone would be called onto the carpet for some discipline faster than one can blink. You handled this excellently; way to go!!

This is appalling, to say the least!! This act negates the three K's completely, and this Okinawan Sensei should be ashamed and should close his dojo doors forever!! IMHO!!

Congrats, Ken on your being promoted to 2nd Dan! Hopefully, your pursuit for 3rd Dan won't keep you away from KF; I enjoy your inputs!!

Look for a martial arts club, go there, ask them to train, train. Solid post!!

Solid post!! What I do know about the ATA is that the GM for ATA IS the authority of their governing body; alas, they've had, up until 2015, one GM AT A TIME, as IcemanSK has pointed out!! Whenever one GM stepped down, another would be promoted to the GM mantle. I believe that Brain, might be able to shed some light on this because he once was part of the ATA.

Since I don't walk within the circles of the ATA, I hadn't heard about this until today. My post isn't to disrespect the ATA in any shape, way, and/or form!! For me to do that, would be cheap, to say the least, and that isn't my character. The ATA now has TWO Grandmasters...not one, but two Grandmasters CURRENTLY! In Ho Lee and now, Richard Reed. I'm not talking about successions, but I'm talking about, if I may, Co-Grandmasters. Why now? Why not later? Why ever? Let someone else speak about this, better than I can... "The Officiating Grand Master, In Ho Lee, announces an addition to the 2015 Masters’ Ceremony. We are excited to announce a very special, high rank advancement. On this historic occasion, Chief Master Richard Reed will receive his 9th Degree Black Belt and the title of Grand Master. Chief Master Reed was instrumental to bringing his instructor, Eternal Grand Master HU Lee to the United States in the 1960’s. Considered the very first member of the ATA, Chief Master Reed was instrumental in the startup of the first ATA school – which was called the Nebraska Karate Association in Omaha. He was an innovator of martial arts as a business which built part of the foundation for over one thousand ATA licensed locations today." As belated as this is, I extend my congratulations to GM Richard Reed of the American Taekwondo Association. I'd say, that this can be truly said that it's not ever been tried before, imho, of Co-Grandmasters, and the like. Will they both have equal authority as Co-Grandmasters? It could be that as their announcement starts... "The Officiating Grand Master, In Ho Lee.." means that In Ho Lee maintains the mantle of authority, while Richard Reed, just holds the mantle of GM. Please, be respectful to the ATA in your responses... Would this work in YOUR governing body?? Would you want this of your governing body?? I doubt that it would work in our governing body because the upper higher hierarchy aren't capable of sharing responsibilities. They're team players, but they all want to be the boss...the head honcho, therefore, my days as Kaicho are quite numbered!! I wouldn't want this of our governing body because I believe that it can be disruptive to the core of the student body. How? Following two Kaicho's, as it would be in our governing body, is akin to following two masters, whereas, one will be loved and the other hated. Two visions running to the same conclusions doesn't seem to be quite acceptable because one will want what the other doesn't.