Fighting and The Law

You've no idea what I know!

Instead of lecturing me, get off your high horse and write your version. Then let people decide!?

Then when they decide what I say is junk they can go and hand themselves in!



But seriously I'd like to read an article of yours.

 

I DID write my version, remember? I've participated in just about every legal discussion on this forum since I've joined, thanks.

And all the armchair ninjas pounce because I dispel the precious illusions about the legality of so-called "pre-emptive" strikes and "running from the scene of the crime". Or did you forget about how you, Haduken and several others spent about a week jumping all over me because I had the gall to disagree with you.



You guys want the easy and dirty way that requires the bare minimum of personal responsibility and fewest consequesnces, which leads me to wonder if you guys are talking about self-defense or just simply ways to wiggle and lie your way out of the trouble you find yourself in.

 

every post I've seen from BKG has seemed like solid, well thought out advice.

My own uneducated opinion is that every self defense situation is a unique entity that can't accurately be defined or even described in an internet post - hence the need for BKG, juries, judges, etc...

shrug. If I ever need one, I'll be flying BKG in

 

QFT. I didn't put a whole lot of stock into the original post, because none of his information is first hand. Reading it, I was thinking about how wrong some of it was (like when I commented on the whole running away crap), and how someone who follows these "guidelines" are setting themselves up for getting in more trouble.

When confronted with the choice of listening to people in the system with actual first hand experience and 7 years worth of concentrated schooling in the subject (not even counting the post school real world experience), or listening to someone who admittedly just took other people's posts and pasted it into his own, who do you think most people will agree with? You are posting legal advice from conjecture, and that is nothing short of dangerous and irresponsible.

Agreed. Like I said in my post, most legal debates on what people should do in self defense situations can be boiled down to this: there is no universal rule, every single case is different, and you will be treated differently by the CJ system for being a martial artist.


Oh, and one other thing. If you're just posting other people's ideas, give sources. Otherwise that's plagiarism.

 

I have to say that out of all the posts Timmy's and BKG's are the closest to the mark.

I hope that by now I don't have to introduce my background so I'll just crack on.

Running away post-confrontation is perhaps one of the least advisable things you can do UNLESS you are in danger of further or escalated confrontation. This is because the first account given is often the one that gets crimed and your subsequent version of events essentially becomes a DEFENCE to an alleged offence not an account of crime from a victim. This does not, of course, exclude subsequent legal action but it does make it a hell of a lot more complicated.

If you must flee the scene, ring the police from a safe distance or else go to your nearest police station to make an initial report of crime.

Timmy, you sound like you will be a welcome addition to the legal ranks...if you can stay away from "the dark side"....(defence solicitors *brrrr*)

 

It was not an article purely about the law!

Much of my original post was more about dealing with the situation than just the legal position. Obviously we don't see eye to eye on many matters. You say they will get people in trouble, maybe, maybe not.

Some of the things you say are wrong, completely wrong from my point of view. Its upto people to make their own decision on how they deal with things.

Please don't call me an armchair attorney as I have studied law.

 

Where did you study, what area did you study, and how long did you study?

 

And if your definition of "study" means "I learned just enough to pass a bar exam and then went into a completely different field", I'd wager you don't know nearly as much as an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Please, tell us where you studied and when you were admitted to your country's bar and settle this once and for all. Also please provide us with your area of specialization. Taking criminal law advice from an attorney specializing in mergers and acquisitions is like asking a math teacher to proofread my American Studies thesis for grammar, spelling, and content. In a word, inadvisable.

Geenius is correct, what you're doing is irresponsible.

 

I'd love for you to expand on that point, just out of my own curiosity.

 

Bah, I don't like this I am 17 currently, I could get away with a lot of things, but I know in school as soon as you're an adult, whenever you have a fight or something it's out of school matters they get the police in same as the school I guess, previously I have had fights with men and on that grounds alone I got of pretty easily I don't wanna be turning 18 soon! I must enjoy my last months!

 

I can expand a bit, and my comments only apply to US law.

Depending on your rank, you may be held to a higher standard than other people who have never trained. Now before everyone jumps on the "see this is why one should never stay around or let the cops know you study Martial Arts (tm) bandwagon", let's clear a few things up:

Unless you have decided to use your mad, d3adly skillz on t3h str33t (also TM) and killed someone, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY YOU GET TREATED.

Let me repeat, for the reading impaired "NO DIFFERENCE". Unless, of course, you decide that that homeless dude asking for a quarter was so terrifying you had to kill him on the spot.

Seriously, all this means is that as long as you use your skills in a reasonable manner based on a real and justifiable sense of need, you're not getting thrown in jail. If you choose to be reckless, you're safe. For example:

If you get robbed and slug the guy while he's trying to snag your wallet or backpack, you're safe (at least in the states, "robbery" is defined as "a theft by means of force no matter how slight", so even a "purse snatching" is a "robbery"). This is reasonable behaviour.

If you get mugged and he's unarmed but you decide that during the struggle your wallet is so important you need to break his arm, shatter his eye sockets, break his nose, and crush his testicles, I think it's safe to say you've gone above and beyond the acceptable levels of force necessary to diffuse the situation. This falls under the category of "reckless" behaviour. As does drunken high kicks to the neck or head as part of a too-long drunken brawl with what ended up being a somewhat innocent bystander, to use the example of a case which has been discussed too much at this point.

Oh, and lest we forget, most states in the US have something our original poster, and many MAers in general, seem to forget.

YOU HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT UNLESS YOU ARE IN YOUR HOME.

That's right folks, although it wasn't mentioned, if you are walking down the street and some strange guy is approaching you, you have a duty to turn around and walk the other way and avoid a fight. You can't just leave yourself in a bad situation, make it worse by getting into a ****ing contest with "the bad guy" (tm), and then cry "self-defense".

 

^^^ I like it. There's also a thread in the self defense forum about that, but it was getting kinda flamey so I'm not sure if it's still up. The part about retreating if possible is also very important. If you knock over a purse snatcher and he whacks his head on something and gets dazed and dizzy, you best get to steppin. If instead you take the time to climb up the nearest lightpost and yell "ELBOW DROP" and land on his neck, you're going too far.

Here's the SD post: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37920&page=1&pp=15

 

That would be the one where pgm and several others ganged up on me for not liking the legal ramifications of the hypos which had been presented.

 

BaiKaiGuy... pre-emptive strikes are actually OK under English law. Are they prohibited by the law of your jurisdiction, or do they just make you look bad?

 

As I explained in the other thread, you better have exhausted all possible means of diffusing the situation first. We generally don't go along with the "hit first and ask questions later" approach absent seriously extenuating circumstances. That's why we even have the Duty to Retreat codified in our laws. You have a LEGAL obligation to get away before throwing a punch.

 

NO!

You've been less than polite so expect nothing! And it makes no difference to what I've said...

You treat everything so black and white, this is absolutely not the case. You pick a point of my article I wrote a few years ago, say its very and say its all junk. Every case is different, so to me theres no black and white rules.

 

If you can't handle criticism, don't post an article containing sweeping and incorrect statements of law backed up by "sources" that probably have no more knowledge of the law than you do. And you've just made yourself look like a complete fool.. "I have legal knowledge, but since you're not nice, I won't talk to you". Grow up.

 

Did I say don't retreat?

What I wrote was from the perspective of having a fight. Theres numerous threads on avoidance, confrontation, etc (although not sure of there legality).