Justifed? Yes? No?

[humble monk]

If it's the thug, BB Joe, and I'm the cashier, you better believe when it goes to trial that I'm saying whatever it takes to vindicate Joe. If Joe saved my life, I'm telling the jury that the bad guy struck Joes hands repeatedly with his forehead.

[bushido_man96]

If Joe saved my life, I'm telling the jury that the bad guy struck Joes hands repeatedly with his forehead.

Good show, humble monk!

[humble monk]

Thanks. Afterall, sometimes justice is blind, but that doesn't mean we can't be it's seeing-eye dog.

[tenshinka]

So here is our scenario...

Joe is a Black Belt who is in a store purchasing some stuff. In walks a robber who is so pumped up that he doesn't even notice Joe standing on the other side of the store. The robber pulls a gun on the clerk and demands money. Joe then runs up to the robber and hits him in the head knocking him unconcious. The robber falls down and cracks his skull open. He dies.

Was He Justified?

Well yes and no.

I would say that it is indeed "Joe's" responsibility not only as a martial artist, but as a human being, and upstanding citizen to try to protect the store clerk. One the other hand as a trained martial artist, you would think that he would have been able to control the situation a bit more, than simply causing the death of the attacker.

It would really just depend on the moment, the state of the attacker etc.

We can talk about it all we want, but in reality, put yourself in the situation, really be there...You dont know for sure how you would react.

[joesteph]

So here is our scenario...

The robber pulls a gun on the clerk and demands money. Joe then runs up to the robber and hits him in the head knocking him unconcious. The robber falls down and cracks his skull open. He dies.

The presence of a firearm automatically creates a life-threatening situation. You may act to save or protect your own life or another's, the caveat here being with appropriate force. Joe struck an armed man once; the robber fell and died as a result of the fall, not Joe's repeatedly striking an unconscious man. The robber died as a result of his own misadventure.

If Joe struck the robber and caused him to fall--conscious or unconscious--and took the gun from him, that would change the scenario. Striking the robber further would have to be justified, especially if the target is the head.

I don't see this as more than something that would be investigated fully, but not wind up in criminal court. The wild card here is that the robber's relatives might sue in civil court for wrongful death. That would be a case of "No good deed goes unpunished."

[tallgeese]

Agreed. And dead on about the civil side of things. Just because a States or District Attorney dosen't put you in front of a judge dosen't mean that a surviving relitive won't.

On the up side, things are getting better on this front in most parts of the country from what I hear and it's getting more and more rare for civil proceeding to go against the criminal outcomes in such matters.

Still, figure on getting sued in civil court. Dosen't mean you shouldn't act, just something else to bge aware of.

[bushido_man96]

So here is our scenario...

Joe is a Black Belt who is in a store purchasing some stuff. In walks a robber who is so pumped up that he doesn't even notice Joe standing on the other side of the store. The robber pulls a gun on the clerk and demands money. Joe then runs up to the robber and hits him in the head knocking him unconcious. The robber falls down and cracks his skull open. He dies.

Was He Justified?

Well yes and no.

I would say that it is indeed "Joe's" responsibility not only as a martial artist, but as a human being, and upstanding citizen to try to protect the store clerk. One the other hand as a trained martial artist, you would think that he would have been able to control the situation a bit more, than simply causing the death of the attacker.

The problem here is that we make too many assumptions in a case like this. Just because one is an MA practitioner, does that automatically mean that you can control an outcome like this more? Or, does it mean you can more readily deal with the threat? I think we over-emphasize how much control we can have in a scenario, especially one like this, when the adrenaline is pumping, and we are going to move a bit faster, and a bit stronger, and probably not as accurately.

The presence of a firearm automatically creates a life-threatening situation.

Exactly, and this is an important point to keep in mind. According to the use-of-force continuum, one is justified is justified to kill in a situation like this. If you can articulate that you were in fear of death or great bodily harm, to yourself or others, then you can better justify the outcome. It is unfortunate, but it is the way it is.

Agreed. And dead on about the civil side of things. Just because a States or District Attorney dosen't put you in front of a judge dosen't mean that a surviving relitive won't.

This is another caveat to watch out for. Just because they sue, doesn't mean they will win. But, it will cause you time and some grief, most likely. A good attorney, and planned articluation will help.

[humble monk]

Bushido Man is wise, as usual.

I think we, and the general public, maybe put a little too much faith in our ability to control every outcome. I was talking to a guy the other day about the arts, and when he discovered I had a black belt, he insisted the law was my hands had to registered as lethal weapons. The more I tried to dispel the myth, the more he insisted it was true. Sadly, when I asked him where he got this, he replied that he had taken some classes, and the instructor told him this.

Unless Joe has incredible control of his emotions, and is completely infalible, he is putting himself and the cashier at risk. I personally would have to be completely confident that I could pull this off without injury to the cashier before I'd consider the move.

[bushido_man96]

Bushido Man is wise, as usual.

Ah, shucks, tweren't nothin'....

But, in all actuality, you can come up with a lot of ideas about how to protect yourself in the court room by chatting with LEOs and attorneys about things like this. Learning about the use of force continuum, and learning a bit about the laws involved and learning how to articulate in the court room goes a long ways.

Success is where preparation meets opportunity....

[BLueDevil]

Yes, its self defense of a third party. A judge would let him go.

The right of self-defense (also called alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of self-defense of one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.

The rules are the same when force is used to protect another from danger. Generally, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the third party is in a position where they would have the right of self defense. For example, a person who unknowingly chances upon two actors practicing a fight would be able to defend their restraint of the one that appeared to be the aggressor. Most courts have ruled that such a defense cannot be used to protect friends or family members who have engaged in an illegal fight. Likewise, one cannot use this to aid a criminal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense