- This topic has 26 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I was always wondering what the protocols were (legally speaking) of what would be constituted as appropriate self defense?
For example, lets say you are choked in an alley way by someone who tries to mug you…we’ll use the front choke defense for this scenario…
After I make the initial choke break, I plan to immediately follow up with combatives..probalby groin kick, knees, punches, hammers, elbows, or uppercuts to disable the attacker…after about 3 combatives I would then move to take down the opponent using a krav maga takedown move (the one where you spin your target while at the same time applying pressure to his temple, i dont know the exact name for it)…after he was on the ground, anyone could easily continue a beatdown on any target that was attacking you.
From a law enforcement standpoint, when does it become beyond whats legally deemed “self defense”
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
Um, first rule I use – defend to disable and get the hell out. To me, once I did the combatives and the attacker was disabled, time to go. Why would you even consider doing a takedown and take the chance the attacker would grab again you in some form or fashion? Defend, gain distance as much as possible and get out.
Now if the attacker doesn’t let you go after that, then you continue until you can exit. If you end up killing the guy, be prepared to be questioned.
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
quote jdawgmcb:I was always wondering what the protocols were (legally speaking) of what would be constituted as appropriate self defense?For example, lets say you are choked in an alley way by someone who tries to mug you…we’ll use the front choke defense for this scenario…
After I make the initial choke break, I plan to immediately follow up with combatives..probalby groin kick, knees, punches, hammers, elbows, or uppercuts to disable the attacker…after about 3 combatives I would then move to take down the opponent using a krav maga takedown move (the one where you spin your target while at the same time applying pressure to his temple, i dont know the exact name for it)…after he was on the ground, anyone could easily continue a beatdown on any target that was attacking you.
From a law enforcement standpoint, when does it become beyond whats legally deemed “self defense”
Okay, first question….what in the world is that “Krav Maga takedown” move? Your description of applying pressure to the temple and spinning the target isn’t ringing any sort of bell. It’s certainly not in the instructor manual through Level 4. By this point in the system, I’m pretty sure I’d know what that move is. 🙂
Second question, from my perspective (and not a legel opinion), if the attacker is down and no longer a threat, and/or not moving anymore….at THAT point, if I continue attacking, I’m in trouble, legally.
I think the big determinant is whether or not you had an opportunity to safely exit the situation. If you HAD that opportunity and failed to take it, I believe you then are “in the wrong.” Could one of the LE instructors weigh in on this?
Disclaimer: Mario doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about (RE: Legal information), and is only voicing his own humble opinion.
Mario
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
quote saruotoko:Disclaimer: Mario doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about (RE: Legal information), and is only voicing his own humble opinion.Mario
Good question for your friend M. She would know the correct answer.
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
a great adage from a wise man –
“excessive force begins when resistance ends.”another wise man –
“it is tactically unsound to continue expending energy on a neutralized threat when you should be addressing your surroundings.” other attackers, weapons and shielding, escape.i know the take down and don’t bother with it. too many things can go wrong. beating them into the ground gives you more options and is generally far safer.
just my 2 cents – well other people’s 4 cents anyway
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
quote jdawgmcb:I was always wondering what the protocols were (legally speaking) of what would be constituted as appropriate self defense?As I understand it one’s reaction should be in proportion to the threat faced.
If someone is choking you in an alleyway during a robbery attempt, that could be interpreted by any reasonable person as an attempt to kill you or otherwise cause severe bodily harm.
Depending on the circumstances, a scenario of someone grabbing your wrist or insulting your Mom generally wouldn’t be interpreted as a situation where a violent counterattack would be justified.
If someone no longer poses a threat eg: they are unconscious, incapacitated, retreating etc & one carries on attacking, then you could be seen as the aggressor at that point (by the courts in any potential aftermath).
A proportional response is really key & being familiar with whatever local laws might exist concerning civilian self defence & use of force.
In the scenario the original poster described – if one was to linger on scene initiating a takedown, then there’s just more chance for bad things to happen like the attacker’s buddies pulling out a knife or worse.
Defend, counter & get to safety
Hope that helps.
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
You will be held to the standard of what is “reasonable”. All tactical issues aside, your actions will be compared to what a reasonable person with your training and experience would do. If you knocked the assailant down and then beat him to death with stomps and kicks, you will go to prison. Especially once the prosecutor finds out you practice Krav. Same thing goes for someone who succeeded in executing a gun or knife take away and then turned the weapon on a now unarmed idiot. “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six” sounds great until you lose your house and family and start getting gang raped in the prison shower. Use common sense, use force until you you can no longer articulate a threat. Disengage and check the area for multiple attackers. Make distance and call the Police.
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
Itís all about the totality of the circumstances. As Jeremy stated, the ìreasonable prudent manî standard is what will be used to generally decide what was enough and what was too much.
You canít chase after somebody, for example, and then expect to claim that you acted in self-defense. We had a former student find himself in some hot water in circumstances akin to this recently.
Also, re-read what Jeremy said about the ramifications of being in a situation that you could have avoided. The best way to get out of a bad situation is not to get in oneÖRe: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
And it may vary by state as well. In some states, you have a duty to flee and can only use deadly force if there is no other option. Other states, like Texas and Florida, have “castle laws” that allow you to stand your ground if you’re in your “castle” which in Texas now also includes your car or office as well as your home. 🙂 Also, you can protect your property with deadly force if it’s at night. You can protect someone else’s safety with deadly force. But you can’t use deadly force to protect someone else’s property unless they asked you to, or you are responsible for it, and you don’t think it will otherwise be recoverable. In other states, you might not be allowed to protect property with deadly force under any circumstances.
But for self-defense specifically, the Texas statutes don’t specify particular methods of “deadly force” besides that “Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. So I would expect that they could apply the deadly force statutes whether you were using a gun, knife, any other weapon, or even your hands, elbows, knees and feet.
I’m reminded of my favorite Texas penal code statute – “Sec. 9.34. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.”
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
quote mara_jade:Now if the attacker doesn’t let you go after that, then you continue until you can exit. If you end up killing the guy, be prepared to be questioned.And don’t answer any of those questions without an attorney present. If someone is dead, you don’t want to answer anything without representation.
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
Oh, I totally remember the takedown now. Needed to get a headbutt tonight to free up the brain cell in question. 🙂
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
In the Netherlands the law in itself is very simple. You can do whatever necessary to defend your self and other people as well as your property. The response has to be in proportional level to the threat.
unfortunately you are not allowed to carry any type of weapon.The interpretation of necessary force in reality is very problematic though.
You may have a split second to decide what to do while the judge has all the time in the world to study the situation and see if you were able to deal with the situation with less force.
Often judges have no clue about reality and think martial arts will give you a charisma that prevents you from being attacked. It makes it harder to claim you had a need to use force.
They also think you should have more control than other people to deal with the situation in a less violent way. (wich is true to some extend)It’s important to deal with legal issues such as this in self defense.
One of my students was attacked recently and two of his attackers went down after an elbow strike. He clearly tried to defuse the situation both verbally and with bodylanguage so anybody there saw he was trying to stop them. The police gave him a big thumbs up for the way he handled the situation and told them they were instructed to deal with it pretty much the same way.By teaching de-escalation and prevention you can both prevent escalation as well as making legal issues easier to deal with.
One important thing is to never say you hit the guy because he hit you. Revenge is not self defense (at least not by Dutch law) So you should always clearly state you had no other choice to get away to safety.
For some reason I have not figgerd out yet it’s very helpfull in the Netherlands to be the first one to press charges. Go to the police as soon as you can after a situation.
(check yourself in a hospital first if needed)I’m sure most of this also counts for other countries from what I understand.
I like the comment about not using the weapon on your opponent after taking it from him.
If you’re high on adrenaline you really need some self-control there.Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
quote gimgamgommetje:For some reason I have not figgerd out yet it’s very helpfull in the Netherlands to be the first one to press charges. Go to the police as soon as you can after a situation.
(check yourself in a hospital first if needed)Very interesting comments about the situation on the ground in The Netherlands – to other outside observers in Europe and perhaps the rest of the World, there are certain aspects which are puzzling.
This idea of having a race to the police station to file charges / a complaint, after an incident – with the 1st one to make it there being viewed more favorably by the legal authorities (assumedly because they would appear to be acting the ‘least guilty’) definitely falls under the category of puzzling.
Wow! Also the stuff you mention another thread about being basically encouraged but also discouraged at the same time from taking action in a self defense situation or for a 3rd party..
It strikes me as a kind of ‘groupthink’ – things which make total sense to the closed group (eg: in this case Dutch policymakers) but not to those outside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
quote stevetuna:You canít chase after somebody, for example, and then expect to claim that you acted in self-defense. ÖWe had a case about five years ago in Nevada where a man was beaten by two criminals who had broken into his house. He was able to get his hands on his pistol, chased them two blocks, and shot and killed both of them. During the attack, they told him they were going to come back and kill him. Due to the circumstances, the DA decided not to press charges.
This was probably not the smartest thing for him to do, but that’s two less criminals I have to worry about robbing my house.
Re: When does it become considered "assault" instead of self defense?
quick two pesos:
IMO, absolutely no problem with taking away a BG’s weapon and using it against him – as long as he still presents a credible threat. After all, you are not wearing a holster for it and dropping it or throwing it could potentially allow the BG (or others) to rearm him/herself.
And as far as hitting/countering someone after you’ve been hit – it is LIKELY that you were hitting the BG to Prevent Further battery or physical injury to yourself. And, you struck said BG “X” number of times because “X-1” wasn’t enough and “X+1” would have been too many… thumbsup
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
