Legal issues with MA's?

[Lenny]

I’ve always wondered what are the legal responsibilities when you are an “expert” with a martial art. If someone attacks you or starts something with you, so you have no choice, and you make them sad they messed with you. Let say you also had to injure them with a joint lock or knocked them out or even had to use an eye gouge because there was not a choice. It was either you or them. Are you more/less liable knowing a MA? Has anyone ever had to deal with that situation? Is so what happened?

[steveb]

There have been several threads on this topic already by people who have much more knowledge than me, but what it boils down to is don't use any more force than is necessary to protect yourself and escape. As a martial artist you are not any more or less liable than anyone else, after all you don't need to know martial arts to gouge someone's eye when they attack you.

[SabreToothMan]

It is true that you should try to remove yourself from the threatening situation as quickly and with the lowest level of force possible. In my state, however, if you are attacked in your home you have a right to stand your ground. Out of your home if you can run and don't run you are liable for any damage you do to the person. As for being treated differently by the law, the answer is yes, and no. The law will look at your ability to defend yourself with the least force needed. If you are a strong untrained man and are attacked by a weak slow person with a knife you don't need to kill the person to remove the deadly weapon. The same goes for the martial artists. If you have the ability to disarm and subdue someone attacking you with a knife, you should. If you use excessive force beyond your need to defend, the law is allowed to deal with you accordingly.

[Nick_UKWC]

I've heard all sorts of hear-say about this, when I was younger someone told me his martial art license was basically a license to kill because you could be help responsible for the lethal power at your disposal (lol). More recently I heard that you were legally obliged to tell the person that was likely to attack you that you were a trained martial artist...which I shouldn't imagine would antagonise them in the least!

 

The bottom line is, I have no idea lol.

[Shane]

Use the least amount of force necessary to subdue your attacker and get the hell out of there.

[Shorinryu Sensei]

I've heard all sorts of hear-say about this, when I was younger someone told me his martial art license was basically a license to kill because you could be help responsible for the lethal power at your disposal (lol). More recently I heard that you were legally obliged to tell the person that was likely to attack you that you were a trained martial artist...which I shouldn't imagine would antagonise them in the least!

 

The bottom line is, I have no idea lol.

 

Just to clarify, in the USA there has NEVER been anywhere that you were "licensed" as a deadly weapon, or to "kill". That's pure *.

 

States and couintries will vary, but as a general rule you are allowed to defend yourself and yoru home with "reasonable force". Reasonable means that you don't use any more force than is necessary to defend yourself. Now, if a guy pulls a knife or gun on you and you kill him...that would be considered reasonable on the grounds that you were afraid for you life. if you were a 5' tall, 890lb woman and a guy 6'5" and 300 lbs attacks you...even bare handed...she could draw a bun and shot him dead, as that wou;ld be considered "reasonable" in that circumstance.

 

Now take my situation. I'm 6'6" tall and weigh 240lbs. I have multiple black belts and 30 years of experience. In an empty hand self-defense situation, I would be expected to be able to control most situations that would arise in the area of my own self-defense against an unarmed...which I, personally, think is total *. There are many, many people out there that can kick my butyt...and I know that full well. But in the eyes of the law, they won't see it that way if I kill someone without actually being in fear of my own life.

[Zhong Gau]

Just to clarify, in the USA there has NEVER been anywhere that you were "licensed" as a deadly weapon, or to "kill". That's pure *.

 

in certain circumstances lethal force is allowable.

 

other more prolonged circumstances in which the governmental law enforcement and judicial system has proved its inability to defend your rights in, by nature, allows the individual to protect him/her self with lethal force against such complaints as organized crime or racketeering or blackmail, or limiting the constitutional right to free association in coersion to fulfill payment. in these circumstances in which the judiciary as proved ineffectual or impotent to prosecute the complainant has the right to exercise lethal force preemptively until the threat no longer exists. in protracted situations this legal grace is limited to a thirty day window of opportunity per annum.

[Proskater]

I saw my friend with this paper on his wall and I asked him what it was. He said it was from Tae Know do from when he was 5 years old, and that paper was a legal document that he was concidered a weapon. so if he attacked anyone, he would automatically get charged with assult with a deadly weapon. Has anyone see this before?

[Proskater]

I saw my friend with this paper on his wall and I asked him what it was. He said it was from Tae Know do from when he was 5 years old, and that paper was a legal document that he was concidered a weapon. so if he attacked anyone, he would automatically get charged with assult with a deadly weapon. Has anyone see this before?

[Proskater]

I saw my friend with this paper on his wall and I asked him what it was. He said it was from Tae Know do from when he was 5 years old, and that paper was a legal document that he was concidered a weapon. so if he attacked anyone, he would automatically get charged with assult with a deadly weapon. Has anyone see this before?