Self defense laws

[Sasori_Te]

ShorinRyu Sensei has it covered the best. That's the general rules that I pass out to my students. I also make them look up the local criminal codes for a bit of homework. If in doubt say you were in fear for your life. (It has to be believable of course. )

[WolverineGuy]

I know that in Michigan, you are required to retreat if possible, unless you are at your own home. As for what is considered self defense, it was covered earlier...you need to have reasonable cause for any damage you do to your aggresor. (2 g's. )

[Metsubushi]

Well you could allways hit him in places which he cant prove. I mean if hes crawling with a bad stomach ache that can be faked. But when it comes to a black eye broken nose its obvious somone did something

[delta1]

Then again, the purpose of a court is to decide the punishments themselves.

 

Criminal courts decide guilt or innocence, then sentance you if guilty. One or both of the combatants may end up there. Guilt or innocence is based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil courts will apportion guilt, and liability, based on prepondrance of the evidence.

He was attacked, and, in order to safe guard his well being, he ended his opponants ability to further attack.

 

In deciding if you used excess force, the courts will look at several factors, including but not limmited to:

 

* your ability and training relative to his

 

* your health, size and strength relative to his

 

* his stated or demonstrated intent (and just attacking you does not demonstrate intent to do seriouse harm, sad too say)

 

* were weapons, multiple attackers, or other seriouse factors involved

 

* past history (of both or between both of you)

 

* and most importantly, what level of force or threat did he use against you

Really, there's no way to tell the person wouldn't of kept going on.

 

Unles you can prove you had good reason to believe he would have kept going and was a continued seriouse threat, the courts don't care whether or not he would have, only that he did or didn't. They want facts, not 'he might have' or 'I thought he might'.

 

Personally, I think that if you assault someone without reason you have morally given up your 'rights' and placed yourself at the mercy of his good judgement and sense of fair play. Within reason, it should be left to the person attacked how far he goes in dealing with a violent jerk. But the question was about the law, and to date no politicians have consulted me about the kind of laws they enact. So we are for the most part stuck with a lot of stupid laws that do more to condemn the victim than the aggressor.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. But, on the other hand, I've never lost in court when I represented myself. I believe it was Chief Justice Black (could be wrong, though) that said 'Lawyers today are trained to do two things, plea bargain and loose.' He was pretty much right, in my overinflated opinion!

[Cybren]

I don't mean to be intrusive, but how many times have you had to defend yourself?

[jONN13]

here is a thought.................

 

If you felt you were in "harm" and had to kick some butt.

 

Why would you stick around and admire your work.

 

That to me sounds like you had it under control the whole time.

[MichiganTKD]

Something else that might have been missed. As martial arts practitioners, we are and should be held to a higher standard than your average street fighter. For example, if your average person on the street gets involved in a fight, punches a guy in the jaw, and breaks it, he will be held accountable. However, if a TKD BB defends himself in a fight by kicking the guy in the face with a high side kick or roundhouse, he is liable to be punished more severely because he is seen as being much more trained, able to (theoretically) inflict more damage, and much more obligated to control himself. Therefore, those of you who feel that as MA students you will do whatever is necessary to defend yourself should keep that in mind. Tae Kwon Do is not streetfighting. It is SELF defense.

[Fisica]

Fighting is wrong. if your in a situation where there is no other way but fight.Well do it a face the consequence of your actions.

 

Try to be smarter than the bully and do not engage in combat.

[Sasori_Te]

Also, here's a little more food for thought. I agree that you should try to avoid these situations all together. However, someone else may one day make this decision for you. If so, to be safe, do only what you need to to handle the situation, no more or no less. Then, you be the one to call the authorities. That way, you get to tell your side of the story first. If you run and leave a person lying in the street injured, even if they were the instigators of the attack, you will look extremely suspicious. When they asked you what happened, see my other post.

[Mc. Steve]

I once got some advice which seemed to make sense. In a situation where you are alone and someone starts on you, you should run. If they try to persue you, don't sprint off, try to keep a constant distance between you and them, just a few metres. Spin kick them in the stomach then keep on running. If they continue to persue you, aim for somewhere a lil more decapacitating. Self defence isn't beating people, it's protecting yourself from harm. People can't hurt you if they can't catch you.

 

Edit: Ooh, or roundhouse them in the side of their upper leg. Can you be sued for giving someone a dead leg?