Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

[hammy48]

I have been a little disappointed by the lack of legal guidance in the Krav Maga curriculum; I know the instructors are teachers, not lawyers, but couldn’t that be something that is taught to them at the training center? It seems odd that I learned to kick someone in the head before I learned the difference between aggravated assault and self defense. This is especially important, I think, when part of the Krav curriculum is learning to strike first in certain situations. I know people always say “I would rather try to beat the charge in court then wind up injured or worse” but still knowledge of one’s rights can never hurt. Frankly I was a little surprised by this. They integrate use of force training into the LEO classes, why not dedicate 10 minutes in a level 1 class to review the laws? Because Krav is a self defense system, and not just a martial art I think that there should be other aspects of self defense included: knowledge of your rights, how to avoid altercations, etc.

[roningai]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

quote :

I have been a little disappointed by the lack of legal guidance in the Krav Maga curriculum; I know the instructors are teachers, not lawyers, but couldn’t that be something that is taught to them at the training center?

i’m going to sound like an ass right now but…common sense dictates why one takes a self defense class. it’s for defense meaning you are already being attacked or will be attacked. anything that will cause injury/death you must be able to defend it to the best of your ability.

in Krav i haven’t seen an attack to start a fight i dunno am i the only one?

quote :

I learned the difference between aggravated assault and self defense

i doubt the one attacking you really cares what you know. if that person really wants to hurt you then all bets are off and you must do what you can to survive.

quote :

think that there should be other aspects of self defense included: knowledge of your rights, how to avoid altercations, etc.

So that one may walk in peace remeber that saying? you have all the rights to defend yourself that i know of. Avoiding altercations in always 100% effective but there will be that time when after all the talking and ass kissing you do to try to prevent something that it just ends put in something bad.

[getsmart]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

I agree that students should know when it is appropriate to strike first, or take some type of assertive action. However, I think that would take away from the curriculum since those types of conversations seem to snowball rather quickly.

Also, since the laws vary from state to state, it may be difficult to develop a curriculum. An idea may be to have local LE instructors brief the civilian classes on assault laws in regards to self defense. But Krav may have there reasons for not wanting to do that.

Here in Calif. it’s pretty simple. If, as a civilian, you perceive a threat to you or another, and can articulate why it was reasonable (meaning others would have done something similar in a like situation) to take the actions you did, then it’s justified.

There are obviously always other factors and extenuating circumstances that will change each situation. I’m not a lawyer and not trying to give legaladvice. But it’s a good topic and that’s a brief synopsis.

[hammy48]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

Yeah, maybe they could even have a separate day and do it once or twice a year and have a LE agent come in for a day. I agree 10 minutes might snowball into taking up the whole class. Lets say someone pushes you, and they are way bigger than you, then you might be terrified, but they still only pushed you; are you then justified to use lethal force? I think a good lawyer would be able to easily prove that Krav falls under lethal force. That means that when you use Krav on someone you better be able to justify shooting them. I really like that idea of the LE spokesperson.

[panphage]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

While laws generally differ state to state, the general rule is that you may use an *appropriate level of force* to defend yourself. The problem with this of course is that “appropriate” is defined as what the jury finds appropriate when you go to court.

The biggest problem that a KM practitioner might face in a self defense situation is using more force than is necessary to stop an attack. Once the attacker is no longer a threat you probably can’t hit them anymore.

This is a very complicated topic. There are different rules for when you can use lethal versus non-lethal force depending on who/what you are facing and what they are doing (ex. in Colorado you may use lethal force to stop a kidnapping assuming that lesser force will not work). Some places require you to retreat before attacking, others allow you to stand your ground.

I’d also be uncomfortable with LEOs teaching what is acceptable and what is not. While they have a lot of experience at the street level and with what their departments will arrest/prosecute for, they are not attorneys trained in interpreting laws.

Yes, I’m an attorney. No, I’m not *your* attorney and this is not legal advice. Remember that laws differ *widely* state to state and even city to city. If you want legal advice appropriate to your state I’d suggest talking to your instructor. Perhaps they can find an attorney willing to give a seminar in exchange for classes 🙂

[nickolas-cook]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

Learn these words:

Officer, I was afraid for my life or my loved ones’ lives. I used, what I felt was, reasonable force to stop my assailant(s).

Or, you can always use…

Officer, I thought he had a gun and/or knife. Some guys I used to work with carried an extra knife or two just to make sure they weren’t wrong.

[miriam]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

quote hammy48:

I have been a little disappointed by the lack of legal guidance in the Krav Maga curriculum; I know the instructors are teachers, not lawyers, but couldn’t that be something that is taught to them at the training center? It seems odd that I learned to kick someone in the head before I learned the difference between aggravated assault and self defense. This is especially important, I think, when part of the Krav curriculum is learning to strike first in certain situations. I know people always say “I would rather try to beat the charge in court then wind up injured or worse” but still knowledge of one’s rights can never hurt. Frankly I was a little surprised by this. They integrate use of force training into the LEO classes, why not dedicate 10 minutes in a level 1 class to review the laws? Because Krav is a self defense system, and not just a martial art I think that there should be other aspects of self defense included: knowledge of your rights, how to avoid altercations, etc.

Hammy,
You raise a very good question, which I hopefully can address. I happen to be an instructor and a lawyer, but let me preface my response by clarifying that my comments are made while wearing my lawyer hat, and not on behalf of KMWWW. (that there is my official legal disclaimer) ;):

The issue of giving “legal guidance” or taking a few minutes to review the law in class is somewhat sticky. Yes, in theory, it would be helpful if instructors could give guidance on the laws concerning assault/battery and what constitutes self-defense in the state where they teach. However, that is a very slippery slope to tread down, in that: (a) it could be construed as giving legal advice without being licensed to practice law, and (b) they could either be wrong, or make a mistake and convey the information wrong. And even if the information is correct, sometimes in practice it comes out wrong. Either way, the end result would be problematic.

Case in point: I know someone who I believe was defending himself in a situation where he kept backing up, hands raised, telling a guy who was advancing towards him in both a physically and verbally threatening manner to stop where he was and not come any closer because he didn’t want to fight him. The guy kept coming, and my buddy ended up punching him twice in the face. The attacker went down, and my buddy actually called for help for the guy… but the end result was that criminal charges were filed against him. I’m not sure exactly why becuase I practice civil not criminal law, but my guess is charges were filed because he threw the first punch and could have chosen to turn and run away. (If I remember correctly from law school, I believe the rule is if you have a means of escape, you MUST take it.)

Actually, any one who takes Krav should ponder the question of whether to use force, when to use force, and how much force to use in his/her own defense. Reason being is, as you know from taking Krav, there is always a possibility when certain defenses could potentially be deadly. Every person should know before that moment presents itself whether he/she would deliver a blow which could potentially kill an attacker. If you have to stop and consider it in the moment, you could wind up seriously injuried or worse, dead.

I think the same applies to the issue of battery/self-defense. Every person should know ahead of time what they would/wouldn’t do to defend themselves, not only in light of the law, but also in light of their own moral take on the issue.

[getsmart]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

php php:"Lets say someone pushes you, and they are way bigger than you, then you might be terrified, but they still only pushed you; are you then justified to use lethal force?"

If someone that you legitimately feel threatened by (bigger, smaller, fat, skinny, older, younger), assaults you with a push (or a choke, or a punch), you can absolutely defend yourself with Krav techniques.

php php:"I think a good lawyer would be able to easily prove that Krav falls under lethal force. That means that when you use Krav on someone you better be able to justify shooting them"

Though Krav can be lethal, the techniques use personal weapons (hands, feet, knees, etc), which are not considered to be lethal force. By using Krav, you’re not intending to kill, just stop the threat. An attorney would have a hard time arguing that you used lethal force unless you went overboard and continued to beat the person well after the threat was gone.

[getsmart]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

Panphage, I thought it was up to the judges to interpret the law and the attorneys job to seek the truth? (Ok, I’m being a smarty pants:)

I agree with you that an attorney, specifically criminal (pros. or defense) should brief the laws rather than an officer.

However there are some Le Krav instructors that are full time use of force instructors that are experts in subject and can break it down in simple terms. That’s more of what I had in mind when I said le, and I should have been more specific.

[panphage]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

quote Getsmart:

php php:"Lets say someone pushes you, and they are way bigger than you, then you might be terrified, but they still only pushed you; are you then justified to use lethal force?"

If someone that you legitimately feel threatened by (bigger, smaller, fat, skinny, older, younger), assaults you with a push (or a choke, or a punch), you can absolutely defend yourself with Krav techniques.

php php:"I think a good lawyer would be able to easily prove that Krav falls under lethal force. That means that when you use Krav on someone you better be able to justify shooting them"

Though Krav can be lethal, the techniques use personal weapons (hands, feet, knees, etc), which are not considered to be lethal force. By using Krav, you’re not intending to kill, just stop the threat. An attorney would have a hard time arguing that you used lethal force unless you went overboard and continued to beat the person well after the threat was gone.

Unfortunately you’re absolutely incorrect on this. If you kill someone, you’ve used lethal force. It doesn’t matter if it was with a gun or your hands.

If you use a throat strike against someone who only pushed you and they end up hospitalized, expect to go to court. Even if you are found not guilty expect to pay $20k in attorney’s fees before you’re done.

While I’d love to keep commenting on this thread, I’m going to be quiet now. I would like to HIGHLY suggest that if you’re NOT an attorney that you not post what your opinion of the law is. Even if you’re absolutely correct for where you live, the odds are it’s WRONG for where the reader lives. And for readers, PLEASE don’t rely on any legal advice you get from an internet board (even if they claim to be an attorney).

[hammy48]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

First, great posts; very helpful! Second:

“Though Krav can be lethal, the techniques use personal weapons (hands, feet, knees, etc), which are not considered to be lethal force. By using Krav, you’re not intending to kill, just stop the threat. An attorney would have a hard time arguing that you used lethal force unless you went overboard and continued to beat the person well after the threat was gone.”

I was under the impression that even kicking someone with a boot on is lethal force? I even thought that blows to the head can be lethal force?

[getsmart]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

code PHP:[quote=Panphage;35993]Unfortunately you're absolutely incorrect on this. If you kill someone, you've used lethal force. It doesn't matter if it was with a gun or your hands.

If you use a throat strike against someone who only pushed you and they end up hospitalized, expect to go to court. Even if you are found not guilty expect to pay $20k in attorney's fees before you're done.

Panphage I absolutely agree that if you kill someone you’ve used lethal force. The difference being the intent.

I also agree that you will face a civil suit and incur enormous bills.

This is a very convoluted topic. That’s why I expressed in the first post it shouldn’t be a small segment of a class. And you’re right that it probably shouldn’t be part of a discussion forum where there is too much ambiguity.

[ds314]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

First of all never volunteer that you used Krav to defend yourself. You do not have to give anyone that information. Always say you felt your life was in danger that they came after you in a threatening way. In my opinion if they are close enough to hit or kick you and are threatening – take them out. Let them know verbablly not to come in any closer. If they do, do a Bas on them.

DS314

[nate]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

I’ve had instructors go over basic use of force issues in our classes, but it’s pretty vague stuff. I think Miriam brings up a good point. The gym doesn’t want to be held liable because they said it would be legal to do a head stomp on someone who pointed a gun at you. They definitely explain to be careful of using certain techniques on situations that haven’t escalated to that level.

In the end, it’ll really depend on your reactions at the time. If you feel really threatened, you’re going to use more force. If the situation is not threatening, maybe it’s as simple as a soft technique. That’s why we train and learn multiple levels of techniques, so you can be prepared for most situations.

If you’re on the street being attacked with a knife, I doubt you’re going to consider the legality of whether or not you should use elbow #7. I think it’s more common sense, gut reaction, and training than anything.

[scholl34]

Re: Self defense/use of force taught in Krav

I am a former Krav Maga Instructor as well as a current law enforcement officer. While the laws vary from state to state and all use of force curriculums are subject to interpretation, a good rule of thumb is to counterattack with the minimal amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat. Much of the legal aspect of self defense is how you articulate yourself in court. If you make the judge understand that you were in fear for your life and you used only that amount of force that you deemed necessary at that time to neutralize your attacker your chances of coming out on the right side of the law are greater. Stomping on someone who is already unconscious and no longer a threat to you is a perfect example of excessive force. When I taught classes in Philly I would explain the laws in our area regarding self defense to the best of my ability but at the end of the day it is up to you the invididual being attacked to determine what you believe is necessary to stop the attacker. Again the best rule of thumb to remember is always use the minimal amount of force to neutralize your attacker and you should be fine. My personal opinion is if you didnt want to get hurt you shouldnt have attacked me…haha…stay safe everyone

[Author]

Posts