How many strikes is lethal?

[tallgeese]

You can hit, in most cases, proportional to the threat until the threat is neutralized. No further.

So, if a good hook puts him down, you'd best not kick him a few times to teach him a lesson. Unless he's pulling a weapon, then the threat is still real and you can deal with it.

Now, you can't hit him at all for simply pushing you. That's the proportional part of my answer.

So how much and how often and where are really a qustion that works on a sliding scale based on the perceived threat at the time.

[bushido_man96]

Now, you can't hit him at all for simply pushing you. That's the proportional part of my answer.

Couldn't you view being pushed as an attack? This kind of surprised me, but I've been wrong before. I just feel that a push tends to be a lead-in to a more focused attack.

[bushido_man96]

This thread asks the question...How many strikes is lethal? One! Which one, is another question.

I like this point of view. Its a good way of putting it into context.

[tallgeese]

True, you can view it as an attack, but you have to initiate a respone that isinline with the threat it presents. If it's an isolated push, you probibly can't justify whacking him. Could you redirect nd control and arm? Sure. But hitting hiim might escalte too far for alot of courts.

Now, if you can articulate that he pushed you and then pulled back to hit you, now yo've got something. NOw you can swing away to preempt his attack. It's proportional, I think this is where you're comment of "lead-in" come into play.

Good point.

[joesteph]

I view someone pushing me as an assault. It is an attack. I have the right to defend myself through the use of force. The force must be appropriate in terms of proportion to the threat (the "reasonable man," aka "What would any reasonable and prudent person do?"), but the use of force to respond to a physical assault is something I do not question. I believe a physical response to a physical act, a push, is ethical and legal. Each of us has a right to the integrity of our bodies.

[bushido_man96]

True, you can view it as an attack, but you have to initiate a respone that isinline with the threat it presents. If it's an isolated push, you probibly can't justify whacking him. Could you redirect nd control and arm? Sure. But hitting hiim might escalte too far for alot of courts.

Now, if you can articulate that he pushed you and then pulled back to hit you, now yo've got something. NOw you can swing away to preempt his attack. It's proportional, I think this is where you're comment of "lead-in" come into play.

Good point.

Thanks for this explanation, tallgeese. That helps to open it up a bit.

I view someone pushing me as an assault. It is an attack. I have the right to defend myself through the use of force. The force must be appropriate in terms of proportion to the threat (the "reasonable man," aka "What would any reasonable and prudent person do?"), but the use of force to respond to a physical assault is something I do not question. I believe a physical response to a physical act, a push, is ethical and legal. Each of us has a right to the integrity of our bodies.

I see what you are saying here, Joe, but I think it is important to view this from the legal aspect of the affront, and just the emotional aspect of what we feel is right or just. This may sound strange, coming from me, but it is a good idea to ask these kinds of questions to cops or attorneys, or even a judge, to see how they view it.

[sensei8]

Couldn't you view being pushed as an attack?

Yes, one could, but, it's just a push, this still leaves an avenue of escape by just walking/running away from the situation. If one's not allowed to leave, well, that's for another conversation, imho.

As an instructor of the Martial Arts I'm obligated to teach my students how to properly/effectively defend themselves, INCLUDING, walking away. A push by itself doesn't warrant a Martial Artist to escalate the situation to where the Martial Artist finds themself in jail, and then the court/judge is going to have no choice but to levy proportional fines/jail times when the Martial Artist "chooses" by one's own actions to not walk away. Especially when the court/judge asks..."When the opportunity presented itself; why didn't you just walk/run away?"

A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to "retreat to the wall" if it's safe to do so, before using any force. "Retreat to the wall" is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions don't require retreat under three circumstances. There's no duty to retreat from one’s own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest.

Or, how about this. Your student doesn't just walk away because you as the instructor didn't teach this type of methodology in self-defense, your student defends him/herself based on what you taught him/her. Now, you're defending yourself in a court of law because of what/how you taught. Why? In addition to it being necessary for a Martial Arts student to be aware of how the law works, it is necessary for the instructor/sensei to be aware of his/her role as well. In the law there is a theory known as respondeat superior. This is a term meaning "let the employer be liable." It allows a person who takes legal action against another to sue the defendant's master/employer. The theory behind this is that the individual who caused the harm would not likely have caused it had he not been fulfilling some duty for or performing some skill learned from the master/employer.

Under the Theory of Agency, the principal is liable for unlawful acts which he causes to be done through an agent. There are three possible ways in which a martial arts instructor might be held liable as the principal for the unlawful acts of his students, as agents. First, if the instructor appears to ratify or approve of unlawful conduct, he may be held liable for the commission of such acts. Thus, a dojo which encourages the use of excessive force, or lethal force in inappropriate situations may be seen to ratify and approve of unlawful conduct. Similarly, an instructor who continues to teach a student who has abused his knowledge may be held responsible, if not liable, for subsequent torts.

An instructor may be held liable for having entrusted a student with ‘an extremely dangerous instrumentality’. "[W]hen an instrumentality passes from the control of a person, his responsibility for injuries inflicted by it ceases. However, when an injury is caused by an exceptionally dangerous instrumentality, or one which may be dangerous if improperly used, a former owner or possessor may ... be charged with responsibility for [its] use...." The implications for instructors who teach potentially lethal techniques is clear.

An instructor may be liable for harm to the student or other parties as a result of negligent instruction. Anyone who holds himself out as an expert capable of giving instruction is expected to conform to the standards of his professional community. Thus, any instructor who, by his own negligence, fails to provide, teach and require adequate safe-guards and supervision, may be liable for any resulting injury.

No matter what you're answer might be, courts uphold the law, therefore, imho, Martial Artists are held accountable for our actions moreso than a laymen when these actions speak against a reasonable response in the eyes of the court.

We can laugh at the tenets/maxims of the Martial Arts all that we want and excuse our actions all we want, but, Funakoshi Sensei had it right when he said..."There is no first strike in Karate." I'd bet my money that the court would rule, although the Martial Artist was pushed first, and being pushed can be viewed as an assult, the Martial Artist "choose" to assult the victim first with greater bodily harm. Yes, your attacker will now be the victim instead of you.

While the principles of self-defense at tort law are similar to those at criminal law, the mode of analysis, and areas of emphasis differ. In general, self-defense is valid when a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is about to be attacked. Under these circumstances, he may only use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against the potential injury. Since only reasonable ground are required, a genuine mistake with respect to the attack will still support the right to self-defense. Once the attack or tort has ended, so does the right to self-defense.

Yes, you were pushed, but, that's all that is was, just a push. Retaliation is never permitted.

[bushido_man96]

That's a solid arguement, Bob. Have there been any incidents where an instructor has been taken to court for an instance like this?