PDA

View Full Version : From a legal perspective...


Hank15
September 2, 2009, 02:13 PM
is it more appropriate to use martial arts techniques or self defense tools (anything from a pepper spray to a handgun) to defend oneself?

raimius
September 2, 2009, 03:13 PM
Well, pretty much anytime you use a knife or gun, it is lethal force. Lethal force standards are usually much higher than non-lethal/less lethal force (spray or hands).

It is appropriate to defend yourself with a reasonable amount of force. Shooting a guy for taking a swing at you probably wouldn't seem all that reasonable to a lot of juries. Pepper spray or kicking him would usually be seen as more reasonable. Now, if a guy comes at you with a knife, shooting him would be a reasonable defensive measure.

Sefner
September 2, 2009, 03:51 PM
So many different "what-ifs" here. Each situations is different, as the second poster alluded to. Each case will be completely different. Some things to consider though.

1. Check your state laws. This is number one on the list for a reason. Each state is different (some allow lethal force to prevent a felony, others require you to be in fear for your life. Some require you to fear for your life in order to use ANY force.).

2. Sometimes any force can be illegal and the only difference will be what you're charged with. But remember, assault with a deadly weapon includes weapons from handguns to frying pans.

3. Sometimes non-lethal force is more likely to get you into trouble than lethal force. This boggles some people, but look at the classic example of "shoot the criminal in the leg" in an effort to use non-lethal force. So you shoot a BG in the leg to incapacitate him. What if you had missed? What if you hit his femoral artery that runs down his leg? What if the bullet had ricocheted off his femur and up into his thoracic cavity? Also, you just shot the guy in the leg? How fearful of this person were you? You obviously didn't fear for your life, he obviously wasn't THAT much of a threat to you, but you chose to shoot him and risk killing him anyways? And I think you see where the prosecutor would go with this one as well as where you would go: jail.

4. And here is the bottom line for a lot of people: Are you, in most cases, better off legally using non-lethal force? Sure. Are you, in most cases, better off health-wise using non-lethal force? Well that depends ;)

5. Check your state laws. This is number five on the list for a reason. Each state is different (some allow lethal force to prevent a felony, others require you to be in fear for your life. Some require you to fear for your life in order to use ANY force.).

Glenn E. Meyer
September 2, 2009, 05:11 PM
You are also better off with a distance instrument. Even some wimpy, old coot can stick his finger in your eye.

Also, if you close - and out comes a knife - even Kung Fu King Kong can get sliced up. I know two cases where seeming feeble folks stuck a little knife into a tough guy and hit the magic spot. TGs dropped stone cold dead.

James K
September 2, 2009, 05:24 PM
I think it would depend on the nature of the threat and what you are capable of. If you are a skilled martial arts professional (the kind that snatches bullets out of the air, at least in the movies), you would probably not use or need a gun unless the threat were at a distance and also had a gun. On the other hand, a gun is essentially a labor-saving device. A 75-year old woman would probably not have much success using martial arts against a 300 pound BG, but a gun would even the odds considerably.

The real problem comes in when you are so confident in your MA ability that you get into a situation where you really need a gun and don't have one.

Jim

kraigwy
September 2, 2009, 05:41 PM
Using the min. amount of force necessary to stop what ever behaiver that threates you would be the more reasonable and acceptable aproach in my mind.

Nnobby45
September 2, 2009, 06:19 PM
is it more appropriate to use martial arts techniques or self defense tools (anything from a pepper spray to a handgun) to defend oneself?

Depending on what situatiion? Give us some parameters.

It's very appropriate to use force other than deadly if you can keep from getting your gun involved and not get seriously hurt. The law essentially requires that you do so.

If you're asking about the use of less than lethal force when threatined with deadly force yourself, I'd hardly think so.

Ever see Mark "Animal" Young use a knive? He eats black belts for breakfast. Ever see him defend against a knive? He doesn't get his arteries slashed, like black belts, who use their martial arts blocking techniques.

That training and skill level is unachievable for most of us. The skills necessary for defending ourselves from an "ordinary" street thug aren't common, either.

I'm no expert what so ever, but I know that many knife attack victims think they're being punched when in fact they're being murdered by the knife they never saw. Be careful.

Hank15
September 2, 2009, 06:26 PM
Wow, interesting responses from everyone.

The reason I brought this up is because of a story my grandfather told me.

He was serving as a MP in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and found himself against a big threat (according to him, the threat was 190cm and 100kg. I am too lazy to convert it, but I am guessing 6' ish and 200ish pounds). The guy charged towards my grandfather. Instead of drawing his service pistol, my grandfather executed an one arm shoulder throw and slammed the guy into the floor head first :eek:.

This was in Taiwan, so my grandfather didn't go through much legal trouble afterward. But in the United States, that incident would probably feed a corrupt lawyer's family for a year.

serf 'rett
September 2, 2009, 06:41 PM
State law will likely be either the hook they hang you by or the get-out-of-jail-free card. If lethal force is used by a skilled martial artist, doesn’t there exist some possibility that their training would be viewed in the same light as a weapon; especially, if their particular martial art discipline focuses on lethal methods and moves.
I almost think the higher the level of skill one obtains, the deeper one could get mired in the legal “do-do”, cause we all know a skilled marital artist should have been able to escape the bad guys by running up the walls and across the ceiling.

Hank15
September 2, 2009, 06:48 PM
Depending on what situatiion? Give us some parameters.

Just in general. By that I mean you can't really run and you have a better chance of leaving unscathed if you fight.


Ever see Mark "Animal" Young use a knive? He eats black belts for breakfast. Ever see him defend against a knive? He doesn't get his arteries slashed, like black belts, who use their martial arts blocking techniques.

That training and skill level is unachievable for most of us. The skills necessary for defending ourselves from an "ordinary" street thug aren't common, either

I understand exactly what you mean. I wouldn't recommend using one's bare hands (like they teach you to do in most bullshidojos) to defend against a knife either. However, you may not have time to draw your weapon against an assailant wielding a knife either. Either way, the chances of any of us facing a thug like that is extremely low.

But in the event that it does happen to one of us, there are very simple things we can do to come out of that situation with minimal injuries. I am not a certified instructor so I really don't want to give out any advice nor instructions. I recommend those that are interested to find reputable self defense instructors such as Itay Gil, certified instructors who studied under the late Ted Arai, and a few others that I can't seem to remember at this moment.

Nnobby45
September 2, 2009, 11:31 PM
This was in Taiwan, so my grandfather didn't go through much legal trouble afterward. But in the United States, that incident would probably feed a corrupt lawyer's family for a year.

If an armed individual in the US were attacked and used hand fighting skills instead of his gun, then how would that "feed a corrupt lawyer's family for a year". Seems like an appropriate response to me.

From your description, we don't know if your grandfather was in a brawl off duty, or was on duty at the time.

Either way, the chances of any of us facing a thug like that is extremely low.


Hank, I don't know what the chances are, but I think knife armed thugs aren't really uncommon. I suspect that many punks are so armed, even if we're unaware of it and that we should consider that they likely are when they're asking us for "change", approaching us in parking lots, etc.

Hey, I watch COPs.:D They sure take a lot of weapons off the people they search.;)

Lost Sheep
September 3, 2009, 12:58 AM
the threat was 190cm and 100kg
That would be about or 6' 4" and 220 lbs. How big was your grandfather at the time?

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep
September 3, 2009, 01:05 AM
From a legal perspective...
is it more appropriate to use martial arts techniques or self defense tools (anything from a pepper spray to a handgun) to defend oneself?
Hank15,

I am not sure what it is exactly you are asking. Sefner gave a good answer.

The situation and your state laws and your own moral code will determine the maximum amount of force you can use. If you use less than that amount, and are successful in countering or avoiding the threat, good for you.

Lost Sheep

Hank15
September 3, 2009, 11:10 AM
Lost sheep,

my grandfather is about 172cm and 60kg right now. This happened 50+ years ago, so I guess you can add some weight and height. I can't say for sure. But I'd assume he was in top shape.

My question was pretty much: which action would result in the least amount of court time? which action will give a corrupt lawyer (who is trying to pin something on you) a hard time in court? I think Sefner answered my question pretty well.

For anyone who have not posted or was confused: if it helps you out, go ahead and lay out your own scenarios, just let me know what course of action you would take to minimize your time spent in court.

Nnobby45
September 3, 2009, 07:23 PM
For anyone who have not posted or was confused: if it helps you out, go ahead and lay out your own scenarios, just let me know what course of action you would take to minimize your time spent in

I'd follow the law, which, in my state, essentially says that if a man assaults me, I can go one up. If he attacks me with his fists, I can ward off his blows with a bat. If his hand is broken in the process, that's his problem.

That's how it was explained by two veteran police officers in our CCW course.

Hitting him in the head during the attack would likely be unlawful, though disparity of force statues might apply in some cases. Continuing to hit him when the attack was over would be unlawful.

I'm talking about being attacked, not a domestic situation where a weapon like a bat could land you in big trouble.

Maybe we should worry, also, about would action would keep us from being physically injured--not just out of court.