Self defense laws

[Kaminari]

As far as I know (for my area), as long as you only do enough to stop the attack, you're supposedly safe from the law. However, if you do anything else (say, hitting the person repeatedly to prevent him from getting to you again), you can be charged with assault, or something to that effect. Also, in my state at least, if a BB of a MA strikes another person they can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon (or so I hear).

[Ottman]

The 'deadly weapon clause' from what I understand is just a rumor, but it would be tough to convince a jury that you were 'merely' acting in self defense if you cause severe harm to your opponent. A lot of non martial artists are very wary about their percieved notions of what martial artists are capable of and if one of us uses deadly force, it unfortunately causes trouble for all of us in terms of image. The lay public has a pre-concieved notion (and a correct one IMHO) that martial artists should be able to neutralize a threatening and violent situation rather than escalate it with the use of deadly force. If we go around causing severe harm to people, even if it is in self defense, we are seen as deadly weapons in the eyes of the public (even if we are not seen as such by the legal system) and a jury of our peers will come down on us more harshly as they believe we should have known better, and in most cases (the vast majority of cases) they are right, we should know better. This is in fact the beauty of the US legal system; the jury does have a certain range of freedom to determine the severity of a punishment (or to punish at all) based on the circumstances of the situation. In our case (Martial Artists' case), it can be bitter sweet in that it can give our whole group a bad rep because of a few bad apples, (IMO it is also bittersweet because of the gender bias that Zhong Gau mentioned) but I also truly believe that it is the best system of justice on the planet, despite its setbacks. If any non-US citizens on this forum care to compare their legal system to ours, I would love to hear any arguments as I really don't know a whole lot about any foriegn legal system. This is just what I believe based on what I've read and observed.

[June1]

This is interesting. A friend of mine asked me to ask my sensei about this topic a few months ago.

 

Apparently, where I'm from, if you fight back and actually maim or cause moderate injury to the attacker (make them bleed, break a bone, etc.), you can be charged. You'll probably go to court and have to prove that you were the innocent party.

 

I'm sure there are clauses when it comes to the martial arts, though. Now that I think about it, actually, I remember my sensei saying something about having to prove that you study martial arts. I guess your sensei would have to testify for you.

 

This is fair, I think, because anyone could claim to know MA and try to get away with it. When it comes to the innocent who are punished for defending themselves... karma. What goes around, comes around. That person may have gotten away with it, but they'll get what they deserve, don't worry.

[delta1]

delta1: apportioning aside, if some turkey provokes a fight, strikes first and dies first his side is only heresay -correct?

 

Apportioning guilt and liability only applies in civil cases, where someone is seeking compensation for dammages. If you kill him, you will in all probability be charged with a crime (murder, manslaughter, ...). Then, there is no apportionment. You will be found innocent or guilty, and either walk free or be sentenced.

use of force can only be met by equal force. equal force can be a strike/attack that causes serious injury even death.

 

Not necessarily. If you can show mitigating circumstances, you may be justified in useing more force. Also, equal force is a judgement call, very subjective to an extent.

if a woman gets attacked for any reason she can cause serious permenant damage and basically walk away...

 

Yes, and no. Technically, the law applies the same to her as to a man. But, since you are dealing with perceptions as much as facts, there's a good chance that the she would not be held to same standards.

if a man is attacked and he uses crippling or lethal force he must prove that force was neccessary to defend his own life and/or he goes on near permenant vacation due to the severity of damage inflicted and likelihood of being capable of doing it again...

 

Depends on the circumstances, and how good his lawyer is.

so the only way to guarantee that your use of lethal force is to demonstrate to the court that the bully unlawfully detained you (cornered you or impeded your progress away from the situation) and touched you first...?

 

No. In some circumstances, you would be within the law in attacking him first. Also, he doesn't have to corner you or even touch you in order for you to legally respond with force.

 

Laws today are written intentionally complex and confusing. They also varry from one jurisdiction to the next. But, like martial arts, they are based on principles of law. Your best bet, and really a necessary part of martial training, is to study the law and how it applies to you. You don't have to become a lawyer, just get a basic familiarization with it.

[Rank7]

TheQuote:

is brings us to your second mistake- you went too far. You are only allowed to defend yourself with enough force to stop the agression and insure your safety. A bully trying to intimidate you, then delivering such a sloppy attack that you easily defeat him, generally doesn't warrant the level of response you took. Even if he started it, once he quits or is incapacitated you can no longer strike. If you do, you become the agressor.

This is were you persist the agressor would not stop .