Taking a strike so you can sue?

[bushido_man96]

I was reading an interesting article in a 2003 issue of Black Belt Magazine wherein a question was asked about taking a shot in an encounter in order to be able to file a law suit against the attacking party.

When first seeing a statement like this, my initial thought was "duh, bad idea!" However, in the letigous society that we live in, I began to think about it, and I guess that there are people that think this way.

The article was written by Sgt. Jim Wagner, and he made some good points, including ones stating that you shouldn't assume the outcome of a strike like that; you could end up injured or dead in a worst-case scenario.

His last paragraph was the most attention-getting for me, as I know where he is coming from. He stated that you have to consider if the person preparing to attack you is a criminal or not. Many times, you won't get anything out of suing a criminal. They won't have much of anything to get from them, if anything at all. Often times, going back to jail for a criminal is just another day at the office.

In the end, yeah, I would say bad idea, for lots of reasons.

[Ace2021]

If i wanted to just sue someone that attacked me, instead of successfully defending myself, I wouldn't be taking Martial Arts.

[The BB of C]

If i wanted to just sue someone that attacked me, instead of successfully defending myself, I wouldn't be taking Martial Arts.

If you were still alive that is.

[lordtariel]

That's a tricky slope to be on. Goading somebody to attack you makes you an equal participant in the event. Then it's not defense, it's two people going at it. If you're going to do that, you better be dang sure you know the laws pertaining to your state and you have the witnesses to back you up. That being said, letting someone hit you so you can sue seems pretty low to me.

[Martial_Artist]

If i wanted to just sue someone that attacked me, instead of successfully defending myself, I wouldn't be taking Martial Arts.

If you were still alive that is.

Most empty-handed attacks don't end up in homicide. Physical injury, yes; but homicide without a weapon of some sort is vary rare among adults. You see it far more often with adults beating children to death than you do two adults beating each other to death with their bare hands. More often than a not a weapon is employed

However, I don't recommend taking a hit. Why? No one has the right to hit me. I make that decision.

I don't think you should be thinking of the civil legalities of a fight prior to going into a fight. A criminal lawsuit is different than a civil lawsuit. I don't have to press charges against you and you won't go to jail, but I can still sue you for money in civil court. (At least in AZ, I'm not sure how civil vs criminal court works in other states. In Arizona if someone punches you and there is probable cause against that person and you don't want to prosecute, that person will not be charged and will not go to jail for the assault.)

I think you should worry about your personal safety and wellbeing before you every think if you can sue your attacker for any dollar amount. I don't think that thought has ever even crossed my mind before. I think it is fitting enough the other guy is beat up, why sue him?

Besides, if it is a true self-defense street attack situation the person you are going to sue will most likely not have any accountable money. It's funny how most dirtbags don't have steady jobs, residences, or bank accounts, but can often be found with lots of cash on their person.

My two cents, and it's not any legal advice (seeing as how I can't offer legal advice legally) but I don't like the idea of letting anyone hit me, even if I'm thinking of the legal lawsuit while his fist impacts my braincage.

MA

[Ace2021]

If i wanted to just sue someone that attacked me, instead of successfully defending myself, I wouldn't be taking Martial Arts.

If you were still alive that is.

I would rather die defending myself than die because i had the delusion i'd sue the other person after it was over?

[bushido_man96]

I don't think you should be thinking of the civil legalities of a fight prior to going into a fight. A criminal lawsuit is different than a civil lawsuit. I don't have to press charges against you and you won't go to jail, but I can still sue you for money in civil court. (At least in AZ, I'm not sure how civil vs criminal court works in other states. In Arizona if someone punches you and there is probable cause against that person and you don't want to prosecute, that person will not be charged and will not go to jail for the assault.)

Around here, if a Police officer sees to guys scrapping, no matter who started it, both get hooked for disorderly conduct. If questioning takes place, further charges could ensue. However, even if the other person doesn't want to press charges, and an officer sees another get attacked by him, he will most likely still get charged.

In the end, just waiting to get hit is not a wise idea at all.

[NightOwl]

Bob, weave, and a good throw never hurt anybody

[Martial_Artist]

I don't think you should be thinking of the civil legalities of a fight prior to going into a fight. A criminal lawsuit is different than a civil lawsuit. I don't have to press charges against you and you won't go to jail, but I can still sue you for money in civil court. (At least in AZ, I'm not sure how civil vs criminal court works in other states. In Arizona if someone punches you and there is probable cause against that person and you don't want to prosecute, that person will not be charged and will not go to jail for the assault.)

Around here, if a Police officer sees to guys scrapping, no matter who started it, both get hooked for disorderly conduct. If questioning takes place, further charges could ensue. However, even if the other person doesn't want to press charges, and an officer sees another get attacked by him, he will most likely still get charged.

In the end, just waiting to get hit is not a wise idea at all.

Not to sabotage the thread too much...

Well, as for disorderly conduct in AZ, again, gotta have a victim. If someone nearby wants to prosecute for being disturbed by the disorderly conduct, then both will be charged, or at least the aggressor, but otherwise it is classified here as "mutual combat" and nothing as far as charges being pressed is done. Unless there are significant injuries then an informational report will be taken.

Again that's just the way it works around here, gotta have a victim to prosecute a crime and the state can't be victim most of the time.

That way if you're in a fight and someone calls the cops you most likely won't go to jail for defending yourself. If there is a victim of disorderly conduct that person most likely saw the fight and can witness to you defending yourself and then you won't get charged with the assault or disorderly conduct. Rather than arbitrarily being arrested for fighting, even if you were defending yourself.

Now, if the mutual combat(no self-defense situation, ie two drunk friends fighting in the street) is disruptive to the neighbors and they want to prosecute for the disorderly conduct - fighting, then both will be charged. It's two separate cases. The Disorderly conduct with the neighbor and the mutual combat/assault (or in this case mutual combat because it was not a self-defense situation and neither combatant wants to press charges )with the two involved in the fight.

Like I said, I'm not too familiar with the laws in other states, but I know AZ law fairly well. (not perfect and I can't predict how a case will be resolved in court),but I know what the law is on the front end.

Anyways, just my .02 cents. I can't give legal advice, but, personally, I wouldnt let anyone hit me.

[bushido_man96]

To add to what you have presented here, sometimes City Ordinances differ as well. The state may not charge it, but the City may have an ordinance against it, which changes things a bit.