the law, and martial arts self defence

[kh_s]

In Canada, does anyone here live in Canada ?

Alright i`m not sure if this should go here or not but anwyays, lets just say you were defending yourself in a street situation. And you KILL someone or injure them really bad. You go to court. What happens to you ? You have evidence, or what if not ? Anyways how about if you were in the U.S. ?

It would be scary if someone comes running up to you with a crowbar or a bat, tries to hit you. Even more life-threathining, a knife or gun.

[holte2]

it be tough. If you have evidence your a lot better off, if you kill them in the states i believe you have to be able to prove that you were in a life threatening situation and there was no alternative route...meaning you could not have easily gotten away or that you knew it wasnt just going to be a run of the mill fight. You definetly cannot have neutralized the situation and then kept going. Example you get in a fight you knock the guy down and out and its obvious the fights over but instead of leaving or whatever you start smahing his face in the concrete till he dies...im preety sure you would be convicted of manslaughter.

If you dont have a witness they maybe able to piece together what happened and who did what to whom with forensic evidence, example if he attacks you with a knife you may get defense wounds on you arms and hands and that would show that you were the victim not the attacker....if they couldnot do that then it would probably come down to his word against yours, how good your lawyer is, and what kind of past you have...all else being equal there if one persons past is clean and the others isnt that may help lend more credince to your side.

anyway i hope that helps and that i read your question right

[ryanhall]

You always have the right and responsibility to defend you life and limb. The level of permissible force really depends from state to state in the USA and I'm guessing from province to province in Canada. In Texas, you can shoot someone who's stealing your car or TV. In Massachusetts, I believe that you have to retreat from a criminal until you are cornered before you physically defend yourself (if I'm wrong, someone from Mass can correct me). In order for lethal (either kills or severely maims someone) force to be justified, you usually need 4 things: PS THE REST OF THIS IS NOT MINE.

POSTED BY DARREN LAUR ON THE SENSHIDO.COM FORUM ON DEC 28, 2002. --Darren Laur is a police officer and trainer in the province of British Columbia.

" Up here in Canada, there are for criteria that need to be met in order for deadly force to be used:

1) Means: threat needs to have the means to cause you death or grievous bodily injury (armed or unarmed)
2) Intent: threat needs to have the intent to cause you death or grievous bodily injury (by action or verbal intent)
3) Jeopardy: You need to reasonably believe that you are in fear of death or grievous bodily injury (this is based upon your perception of threat and no one else)
4) Preclusion: You have no other reasonable option available "

Shit, I don't like it when people jump forums with my posts without asking me, and I'm doing the same thing. Well, at least he's a member here.


Hope I/Darren helped,
Ryan

[Guest]

Kill Em All.

LET GOD SORT EM OUT!

[MrPoopy]

Kill Em All.

Great advice from a British cop. Remind me never to go to England.

[ryanhall]

Kill Em All.

LET GOD SORT EM OUT!

Gotta love that combatives mindset. Crazy British bastard

[eXcessiveForce]

I have a book written by a lawyer/martial artist about legal ramifications of self defence techniques.

First there has to be a credible threat to use lethal force.


The question you must answer is. what outcomes are you willing to subject yourself too.

Death of attacker and possible prison?
Death of attacker and possible wrongful death lawsuit for family
Death of attacker and no negative outcome

If you kill the person they cannot testify to the events that took place.

If you do great bodily harm. the about questions are still valid but now you have the other party to tell a different version of events. Lawsuits are a major concern since you could be forced to pay this person that attacked you for the rest of their life.

Running is the safest legal choice if you wish to avoid possible negative legal outcomes.


But if your life is in danger it is better to concentrate on your own safety than to worry about legalities.

It is better to be tried by 12 then buried by six.


side note. It is not wise to announce that you have martial arts training in. In a court if you posses a black belt or other certification that can be used to show that you are "an expert" and that you indeed were not in real danger. stupid but true.
The law says in self defence you can only use the minimal amount of force required to insure your safety. This does not mean you will not get sued for it later.

[platinum_angel]

the best thing to do in any situation like that is to just run.

[aseepish]

I'm a Canadian ex-pat living in Singapore, but the question of the law came up several times when I was training back home.

Under Canadian law, as a RULE OF THUMB, you can only use as much force as is necessary to end the danger to yourself. Law enforcement officers can use "equal force plus one", but I don't think that applies to the general population.

The use of deadly force must meet the criteria that Ryan/Darren listed above. Also in Canada you CANNOT use force to defend your property - only yourself or others from physical harm. This is why having an attack dog in Canada is not a good idea - a burglar breaking into your home has grounds for legal action against you if he is bitten.

So if a weapon is brandished (your crowbar, knife, or gun), and you have no way of escape, I think you could argue you had cause for using deadly force.

So for your scenario (assuming there was no weapon involved), things don't look very good for you. No witnesses, so it's your word against his. Hopefully the other guy has prior convictions for violent crime and your record is clean. Hopefully you've got a good lawyer.

Fortunately this is Canada we're talking about. These kinds of assaults are quite rare compared to in the US and the UK, but they do happen.

[seeker]

I think it is best to run if possible. if not then try talk your way out and if that wont work use force.

[Great Sage]

The law is slightly different in many states concerning the use of martial arts. But one thing that I've read is that in a situation, a person can only use force sufficient to "get away." In other words, you cannot apply more force than your assailant. For instance, if someone grabs you... You can pull away or hit their arm away, but you can't cripple them with kicks and finishing blows. In court, your status as a martial artist always works against you when and if you use more force than necessary, but at the time seemed necessary.

[superdave]

"In Texas, you can shoot someone who's stealing your car or TV. In Massachusetts, I believe that you have to retreat from a criminal until you are cornered before you physically defend yourself "

Im glad I live in Texas.

[platinum_angel]

in michigan i think it is against the law to defend your self from attack at all but i might be wrong. some friends were telling me about it.

[ryanhall]

Whatever our legal self defense problems are here in America, they pale in comparison to those in England--or the UK as a whole. I would hate to live there. If I remember correctly, you can be prosecuted for defending your home from a violent intruder. Care to elaborate Bri Thai?

[Guest]

Yes, I do care to elaborate. No offence, but that is nonsense. The British public have the legal right to use force for a number of reasons, including self defence. The force us has to be reasonable in the circumstances.

So, if an old lady attacked a 210 Wrestler, he could not pick up a brick and smash her head in with it. But if he attacked her, she could. Each case is taken on its' merits.

But reasonable cases of self defence never get in the papers, as it doesn't help sell them. So we get selective facts, half truths and lies in the papers. You occasionally hear very biased and one sided accounts of an incident where some person has been imprisoned for "defending themself."

If you take the trouble to look into the case though, the truth is very different. For example the "defender" may have actually been the attacker, or the defender got arrested whilst the matter was investigated (under a blaze of publicity) but then released without charge when the full circumstances became known (under zero publicity).

I have seen many web sites were the participants are very pro "Right to bear arms" types. I don't have too much problem agreeing that Americans should retain this right. But they see the lack of such a right as evidence of an unsafe society over here and, therefore, propogate these myths and refuse to listen to anything else.

There is a very definite right to self defence in this country, and I know of hundreds of real cases where this right has been exercised. I have dealt with many as an officer, and have even used the right myself time and time again.

Fond regads!