Martial Arts and the Law!

[sensei8]

This topic, Martial Arts and the Law, will be debated by laymen forever. Even though laws concerning the martial arts vary from state to state, the advise of experts in the field of Law and/or Law Enforcement and the like mustn't be ignored for obvious reasons. I, myself, am NOT an expert in Law and/or Law Enforcement and the like, therefore, while I'm aware of many laws concerning the martial arts, this by no means should be taken as I'm an expert in Law and/or Law Enforcement.

Therefore, here are some links that might or might not answer some question(s) still on debate here at KF and/or anywhere else for that matter of fact...

**This first link is authored by Ivan Mendez, is a police detective in the state of New Jersey with 11 years of law enforcement experience. He also holds a 4th degree Black belt in American Karate with 21 years of martial arts experience.

http://www.martialartcentral.com/M.a.c/Articles/11.htm

**This next one is David Kaufman who combines doctorates in law and economics with 40 years experience in the martial arts. Mr. Kaufman, in addition to being an Adjunct Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, is a 6th Degree Black Belt in Mu Duk Kwon Tang Soo Do, holds 5th Degree Black Belts in Kendo and Iaido, and is a Kodokan-trained Judoka. He operated his own Dojo for 10 years.

http://www.karatelaw.com/

**This next one is an essay written by Geoffrey Sasso, Shodan Cultural Essay, 3/3/04, Titled: A Martial Artist's Role in the Legal System.

http://www.loyola.edu/maru/Martial%20Art%20Law.html

**These last two are on the funny side, depending how one views them, but, they shouldn't be ignored all together, imho.

>>This first one is about Martial Arts Laws that are still on the books. This is titled: Martial Art Laws: The Strange and Unusual

http://www.loyola.edu/maru/laws.html

>>This second one is entitled: Murphy's martial arts laws

http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-martial-arts.html

However we martial artists might or might not view our art when it comes to our relationship with the Law and/or Law Enforcement, one must repect that the USA has laws, as well as those that have been sworn to enforce the laws of our land, therefore, one has a choice. Obey the Law and/or those who are sworn to enforce it, or, find oneself in jail and/or court. In that, we martial artists aren't the Law, just proponents of the Law and/or Law Enforcement, and in that, we must make ourselves absolutely aware of and knowledgeable of the Laws of the United States of America, including your city, local, state, and/or federal Laws within your city, town, region, and/or state and the like. Leave no stone unturned!

It's our choice, but, boy oh boy, I don't want to think I know, I want to know, without any shadow of any doubt, that I know for absolutely sure.

Don't you?

[joesteph]

**This first link is authored by Ivan Mendez, is a police detective in the state of New Jersey with 11 years of law enforcement experience. He also holds a 4th degree Black belt in American Karate with 21 years of martial arts experience.

http://www.martialartcentral.com/M.a.c/Articles/11.htm

I wanted to read this one in particular, as I live in NJ, and examples from other states may not fit where I live.

From Detective Mendez's article:

This issue, the ability to defend yourself, brings up some very interesting questions:

 

Do you have the right to protect yourself in any way you feel is necessary?

 

Are you protected against assault charges, criminal or civil lawsuits brought against you by someone you injured while defending yourself? If you are threatened with bodily harm, are you justified in taking any action necessary to protect yourself, your significant other or your personal possessions?

"Any" can really get you into trouble.

When a martial artist, especially a Black Belt is accused of excessive force in self-defense, the standard is usually higher than that of a novice practitioner, a non- martial artist, and a reasonable or prudent person. Many courts believe that it is only fair that one with unique skills is held to a unique standard.

This will sound odd, but being at gup level in Soo Bahk Do (I have a green belt), and taking Jeet Kune Do (there are no belts), might actually fly better in court than the Black Belt, perceived by many as someone whose entire body is a weapon.

[joesteph]

**This next one is an essay written by Geoffrey Sasso, Shodan Cultural Essay, 3/3/04, Titled: A Martial Artist's Role in the Legal System.

http://www.loyola.edu/maru/Martial%20Art%20Law.html

When I saw that Mr. Sasso's essay was online through Loyola University, I knew I had to read this one. His coverage of Assault, Battery, and the Duty to Retreat was interesting. I found this important:

When a martial artist defends his use of self-defense, he raises what is called an "affirmative defense." An affirmative defense is an individual's way of saying, "I did the illegal act [battery] that I am being charged with, but I had a legally justifiable reason to do so." Self-defense is an acceptable affirmative defense listed in the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[sensei8]

"Any" can really get you into trouble.

So can "If", but, what's one to do. Unfortunately, when we're in a court of law for something we did or didn't do. The only interpretation that will matter at that time, is the judge! Yes, I can appeal, but, meanwhile, I'm in jail and/or owe a fine. Both aren't fun!

[bushido_man96]

This is a good idea, Bob.

[ShoriKid]

Mendez

For starters, self-defense is not a right, but a privilege - a privilege that can be lost in a variety of ways. The privilege of self-defense and the use of force towards another person are justifiable only when a person reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself/herself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present location.

Did anyone else have trouble with the first section of the first sentence here? while I respect Mr. Mendez for his time in law enforcement, I would think, or at least hope, that his statement is nothing other than an opinion. Or at worst, part of New Jersey law. Reading from the writings of the men who wrote the Constitution, self defense was, to them, a clear right not granted by a government or legislative body, but by the birth of the individual.(so as not to offend by presenting the creator aspect.)

While his thoughts on levels of response are nice, I think he, despite his training, misunderstands the point of follow up techniques in self defense demos. Application of technique after the initial attack response are meant to keep the martial artist from depending on single counters/techs from dealing with attackers. A good remedy for presenting it as multiple attacks to make sure the threat is gone is to explain that is the point. I'm sure detective Mendez wouldn't like the publics/new reports when an officer fires more than one shot when they are forced to use their weapons. [/b]

[bushido_man96]

Yeah, I agree with you here. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....if someone trys to take your life, then as it reads, you should have the right to defend yourself accordingly.

Driving is a privilege, not a right; I'd hate to think that self-defense is looked at the same way. I do think that self-defense can be looked at a "triggered" right, if that makes sense. You have the right to actively defend yourself once some kind of event "triggers" the need to do so. Does that make any sense at all?

[ShoriKid]

Makes erfect sense to me. It's a right that only comes into play when the action of others force you to use it. You have no need of 4th amendment rights until you are confronted with law enforcement trying to come into your home or search your person. The right always exists though, wheather you exercise it or not.

[joesteph]

Mendez

For starters, self-defense is not a right, but a privilege - a privilege that can be lost in a variety of ways. The privilege of self-defense and the use of force towards another person are justifiable only when a person reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself/herself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present location.

Did anyone else have trouble with the first section of the first sentence here?

I'm glad you brought it up, ShoriKid.

I didn't think it was properly worded myself, and thought that perhaps he just wanted an attention-grabber to kick off his article. I did like the rest of it, and my posts on the article, above, don't quote that opener.

Personally, my restatement would be:

For starters, self-defense is a right, but not an unlimited one. It can be restricted in a variety of ways. The right of self-defense and the use of force towards another person are justifiable only when a person reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary . . .

[sensei8]

It's my right!

Someone breaks into your house while you're home. What would you rather have? A telephone to call the police or a gun? Me, I'd rather have a gun. Yes, I can call the police, then the police will come, then the police will fill out a report, then the police will treat it as a crime scene, and then the poice will take photos....of my dead body. I hate guns because they kill IN THE WRONG HANDS, but, I'm going to defend myself and my family. But God help me if after I defend myself and my family and I've killed the intruder/attacker; I better have PROOF that I acted in self-defense and some witnesses to back up the facts.

I'll get arrested for using deadly force. HUH? WHY? It's the job and resposibility of the police officer to do just that after the use of deadly force. I can claim self-defense to the arresting officer(s), but, the police officer(s) job isn't to assume, the police officer(s) job is to arrest me, take a police report, and book me for the crime. It's up to the courts to sort out all of the facts and evidence before passing judgement. If all of the facts and the evidence prove without any shadow of a doubt that it was indeed an act of self-defense, then the courts/judge will find me innocent of all charges. If not, then I'll be in prison for sometime!

What if I didn't have a gun and I used my martial arts skills? Same thing will happen as above with one exception. There won't be any tangible weapon like a gun, knife, and/or the like to book as evidence; just you!

It's my right! After the ordeal's over and knowing that my family and I are ok; then, it was a priviledge to PROTECT my family and me!