Fighting and The Law

After spending a few years in law enforcement I have come to a realization on this subject. There are no laws anywhere regulating Martial Artists. It would be impossible to keep tabs on as well as unconstitutional. What it all boils down to in reality, reguardless of the laws of self defense and mutual combat in any county, city or state is this.

1. The better lawyer usually wins!
2. The primary deciding factor reguardless of law or legal council is the judge, his views and beliefs on the MA and self defense, and his mood when your case gets to him!
3.And instead of the I would rather be tried by, than carried by B.S.( this gets a lot of people into more crap than you realize). I would rather be prepaired, cautious and knowledgeable to begin with than to have to deal with this B.S. you go from defending yourself in one situation to defending yourself in another, and I have seen enough of this in court to gain an understand of the way things really are.

Its best to be prepaired all the way around.

 

Also people always say that cops told them this and cops told them that. Its not a cops job to give legal advice. They do not enterprite(?), translate, and dictate the law, they protect, serve and enforce the law as they know it. A lot of my old buddies would get ****ed when i said this, but cops only know the law to a basic degree, city and state codes and regulateions. Lawyers and judges have to look the law up and their job is to interprit(?) the law and to protect the law itself. Cops rely on the average citizen not knowing better, not knowing the law.
As well many states have a right to flight law, this dictates that if there is a readily accesable escape rought your are legally bound to take it before you protect your home and property or your self. If you chase an assailent down and assault them you are now the assailant. And if you drag a person into your home from your lawn after an altercation, that is disturbing a crime scene. Wether it is in your home or your yard, your property is still your property.
These laws are written all to often out of personal opinion and beliefs of people who are not knowledgeable or experienced on the reality of conflicts. It is what someone else personally wants to happen, and all to often it passes. ( my personal opinion of course.)
Me personally, I would never bow down to an assailant for anyreason. It has nothing to do with property or pride, but honor. I will not let anyone take from me what I have worked soo hard to earn. its a moral issue and one of honor. So I tell people its not over the $5 bucks I have in my wallet. It is about something more, something deeper. I am willing to take the legal fight afterwards. This world has become all to political and cowardly, hiding behind rediculous laws and law suits. There is little honor anymore!

 

Hey Hap you're giving good knowledge everywhere. I just found this forum not too long ago ... same with you it looks like.

Shrfu_Eric

 

Thnx. As I tell my sis, I have been around the block a few times. It may be a small block but I have tredged it, many a time, and I learn more every day.

 

I agree entirely. What I have learn from police is they do not know the law as well as you'd expect. Obviously far more than the average person but not compared to a lawyer.

But I still take note of what they have to say, not purely from a legal standpoint, but one of experience. As there the first line of contact with these sitautions they have a good knowledge of what goes on.

 

Depends on the officer concerned!

To be fair as a Detective I know the law far better than most of my uniformed colleagues over a smaller number of offences. On any case I will refer to case law and charging standards as well as using resources such as the Police National Legal Database (PNLD) for the more obscure aspects.

I know the law as good as any lawyer within my sphere - serious assaults, murder, sexual offences etc. In many cases I have known the details of law far better than my CPS colleagues through use of aforementioned resources (although I always make it look like I know it from memory because it makes me look hunky!)

What you also have to remember is that as an LEO I can often get a case "binned" when the evidence at an early stage shows innocence or provides a suitable defence. This also leaves a ceratin amount of discretion available when it comes to dealing with incidents and common sense is not always as lacking as you think (although I wish it were pesent more often!)

Hence my previous advice about not running away from a scene unless you HAVE to

 

Are you even sure that what you are doing in such situations are legal?

If you initiated the attack first, aren't you the attacker then?

Heck, you're already contradicting yourself when you say you never disagreed witrh any legal points he made.

When I started reading this thread I got the strong impression of you undermining his experience with regards to law. Like most others he even wanted you to reiterate your point of view (whether it is coming from a lawyer or not). Then you felt threatened when people asked your law background. You are right about respecting people's opinions, but I hardly see you doing it (at least from the posts you made).

 

But honestly...

I think the simple fact of staying on the site of the fight waiting for the cops to show-up is the best way of making sure you're not mistaken as the aggressor.

What I'm trying to say is that if you have sucessfully defended yourself from an attacker and have controlled him, running away might leave him the opportunity to make a nice little story to convince the police that YOU are the aggressor. The regular aggressor will NOT want to have anything to do with the police: he might have a recent criminal record that will seriously compromise his words weight in court, he might be stoned or carrying drugs, he might have stolen belongings on him, there might still be the raped body of your girlfriend filled with his DNA laying in a corner... You get the drift; he probably has some other problem than fighting with the cops. Even if he doesn't; he knows he's the real culprit. Even the most cynic person will realise that every other factor being equal, the culprit has a lower chance of winning the court case.

If you can control your opponent, have someone call the police (bystander), and continue to control your opponent (sit on him, do a tight lock on him, get in a position where you could easily break one of his limbs if he resists too much and make sure he knows it by saying something like "If you try to move, I'll assume you are trying to kill me and I'll have to break your arm")... If I was the police officer, I'd probably believe the guy waiting for the police to settle this after successfully defending himself.

Bottom line: The bad guy will NOT want the police to be mixed with this. You can put chances on your side that you will not be mistaken from him by doing the opposite of that: waiting purposedly for the police to settle it.

Of course, I claim no background in anything law related, but I believe this is common sense and that it applies to every country. Take it for what it is.

 

The prosecution can point out you refused to comment but you can still remain silent, You still have a right to silence.

What do you think they do if you refuse to speak break out the rack and the thumbscrews?
I have phenominaly high endorphin levels, I have refused to speak until after I have seen a doctor as after an incident in which I have taken damage I might as well be drugged and talk nonsense. So I have a valid reason not to speak until I have calmed down. I can think of other reasons to stay silent as well, the best idea is say nothing till you have a lawyer present.
(And don't let the cops get you a lawyer, the best idea is to use the local Police Federation lawyer, the cops are more open with them and they also don't use wasters)

 

What situations are you talking about exactly? Why assume I'm doing something illegal?

Yes.

I'm not disputing legal points, none at all.

All from one of many comments I made Sorry but the argument had long since got past the point of being useful, I did still post what experience I have which is less than a few others on the boards but still enough to notice more than one wrong comment!

aml01_ph post which law I wrongly disagreed with and I'll apologise!

I think best if we post our own opinions and make up our own minds. The only thing I regret is entering into a conversation with someone so argumentative.....

 

I think it's the choice of the individual. If you hit someone in Britain, even in defence, you are likely to get arrested.

I knew one case where a man came to a person's defence and hurt the guy. He was arrested and put in prison.

The world nowadays has way too many rights for the criminals. People who go round starting fights, in my opinion, should be put down. Not given sympathy when they are beaten up.

There are some situations where the aggressor has had a bad day (girlfriend left him, lost his job, etc), so to kill him outright is a bit extreme!!
However, it certainly does not give him the right to take his aggression on those around him.

Living in close society (London) there are bound to be nice guys just having disagreements that get out of hand. There are also those times when you are an innocent party getting mugged / attacked for no reason.

The law is bad in Britain as it could be a case of, hurt the guy in self defence, he will come back and testify, and you could go to prison. Kill the guy in self defence, you could go free!!

If I am attacked with a knife I have the dark thought/belief that 'if I take this guy out completely, he will never be able to attack another person again.

I might go to prison, but I have saved lives.

 

To be quite honest if some blighter wants to attack me I will use any and every bit of force I deem necessary to defend myself. If it means tearing them limb from limb tough tacky mate, you shouldn't be trying to attack some random.

In britain yes, the law is quite grey in the area of self defence but in general a benchmark is that you may strike once or twice dependant on the situation and then control the person in a suitable method. The one thing is if someone is intent on hurting you most people would beat them utterly senseless as instinct dictates lol.

Most of these things in British Law are deemed 'Reasonable Force if necessary' but the thing is reasonable force means anything and everything the police, Judge, Lawyer or any other Tom wants it to mean

 

One of my friends once said to me if you get into a fight and end up killing a person, get the rings off his finger and cut yourself with them. That way you look more like a victim. It made me laugh.

British law is very whimsical in that if you get the wrong judge you may have hit the guy once but get set to prison. With another judge you may kill the guy and get off free!!

You must be careful not to just go round killing people though. I agree - if they attack you for no reason, give them hell. However, if you clash into them (road rage, spilt pints, etc) and you get into a fight, killing someone is a bit out of order. They could have family, they may be mates with someone you know. The consequences can sometimes haunt you

 

yeah pgm's right i came from oregon and i won 7/8 fights there, these were street fights no holding back. anyway here in idaho when you get into a fight at school they call the cops and try to pin assault on you. where in oregon the teachers are just like when your done get back in class. the one i lost i got knocked out with brass knuckles and i got an impression from it. he's right, fight as hard as you can, use who knows what they might do next

 

Equal Force

I have seen an interview with a police officer in the U.K. where he was asked about what was proper force in a self-defence situation. The answer was given that equal force was the correct amount of protective force to use. Now this doesn't mean that if he just punches you you cannot kick him, or if he just kicks you you cannot punch or elbow etc.. What this means is if the man is of equal size and build you may use your advantage of martial arts to stop the fight. If you have to block then kick then it is reasonable depending on how threatened you are by the assailent. Don't just say I was totally in fear of my life as they are going to question the perpatraitor also. Cops are trained to spot lies and liers. They will know if the jerkweed was really going to kill you or just bust your nose. Never apply to much "preassure" to your self-defence. It is alright to teach a mugger or whatever a lesson ( maybe a broken nose an such ) but to break both arms and both legs when the guy tried to start a bar fight is going over the line and YOU will be the one going to jail. It really comes down to common sence and discrestion.

 

The thing with most fights/assaults is that there's often a verbal threat made first. So you have 2 options which are legally safe:
- Run, and when safe contact the cops
- Try to verbally diffuse, if this doesn't work, then run and contact the cops

Violence needs to always be the last course of action due to:
- If you had tried escape and/or verbally diffusing first it will look better on you
- If it does get violent you could loose (I'm an ok super welter weight thai boxer, I'm pretty sure there's a few people on the street better than me)
- If you win, and he's injured (which is quite likely unless he's very easy to control) it'll look like you're the aggressor
- From the previous point you might end up with an expensive legal bill (or an el cheapo court appointed lawyer), several weeks of being on edge due to a potential prosecution

If anything does happen:
- When you can, call the cops (or if you're restraining him, yell out for someone to do so)
- Get a lawyer before you talk to the cops. Obviously if you get severly beaten then they'll believe you story.

One of the things that the "grappling versus striking arguments for the street" posts seem to miss is that in quite a few situations it will be a lot easier legally to grapple, think about these 2 scenarios:
- He threatened me, then I kneed him in the stomach, and then in the face (which broke his nose)
- He threatened me, then I took him to ground and I controlled him on the ground and yelled for help

Please note I have no legal training and these are merely my own thoughts.

 

So here's another question..... are you more likely to get in legal trouble if they ( police, judge ect.) know you are a MA?
wouldn't it be just "2 guys fighting"? I train in a town about 10 miles from my hometown, I don't let alot of people know that I train in WC, so if I were to get into something, How would they know I was a MA?

just a thought......

 

Can you actually get in MORE legal trouble for walking away (fleeing) from a guy you just beat up? Or is it just the factor of the cops catching up to you.

In a situation where everyone around has seen the attack and defense and there is no annonymity what is the best course of action?

 

Glide and Lukasa, I can only offer up the advice given to me from Hannibal. You will be judged more on what you say than what you do. As for the knowing MA, if asked I would tell them, lieing will surely look worse if caught?

Walking away can make sense, after all why stick around to see if the guy has some friends?

A simple rule of thumb for me is if I can say, hand on heart, that the action I took was appropriate to the situation as I believed it to be, then I'll live with it.

This may have absolutely no bearing on the legal ramifications however.

 

I think PMG has written a well thought, logical, and informative post.
All this talk of ‘don’t run’ seems foolish. How hard would it be to convince a person that “after being attacked, in the interest of self reservation, I simply ran’? Even an animal will run when in danger. Running is instinctual to many an animal, and humans in a literal sense, are animals, with instincts like any other.
I also agree that law enforcement is not to be trusted in many a situation, especially ones such as an assault.
I myself have been attacked, and after the incident, guilt was assumed as I was the one standing, while my attacker was awaiting an ambulance.
Common sense says ‘protect yourself at ALL costs, its my belief that a man who attacks an innocent person, unprovoked, deserves NO pitty, and if a police dept. or court wont do justice, I’m sure as hell happy to deliver it myself in the form of a full force empi uchi’s to the face, or the classic kin geri to the family jewels, theres a smorgasboard of justice for these violent morons, I say teach them a lesson they wont soon forget.

P.S how cool does this line sound

“If attacker will be drunked or spuned you won't need to use ultra violent combo”
I love that saying Trampler, “ultra-violent combo”… I’m gonna use that as a new term for some serious KSA methodology

Excellent post

Paradoks