Self defense when someone won't let you leave?

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by Morik, Nov 2, 2016.

  1. Morik

    Morik Well-Known Member Supporter MAP 2017 Gold Award

    So I was reading about Ronda Rousey's domestic violence incidents and came across a situation that I have pondered before, but don't know the answer to.

    Lets say I'm out somewhere and go to the public restroom.
    While in there someone gets into an aggressive verbal argument with me.
    I decide to leave the situation, but they block the exit and refuse to move.

    Would it be generally legal for me to use force to make them move and let me leave, assuming there were no other exits besides the one they are blocking?
    I don't mean beating them badly, but say grabbing them & grappling them away from the door, then leaving without further violence (unless they attack further).
    Or getting in a good body shot or leg kick and then slipping out past them.

    I understand laws are different in different places. I'm just generally curious about the law regarding this type of situation, both in the US (i know it varies by state) and in the UK.

    Does the answer change if I have a cell phone on me and could call for help? (Assume the person isn't actively attacking you, just preventing you from leaving.)
     
  2. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    If you could call the police - that's what you should do.

    If not, then you would be within your rights to use reasonable and proportionate force to make your escape.
     
  3. SWC Sifu Ben

    SWC Sifu Ben I am the law

    Try to employ those good tactical communication skills to get them to let you leave
    Call the police if you feel you can do so safely
    Shout to get the attention of other people ("Get the hell out of my way" would probably do nicely)
    Get someone else involved if you can

    If none of that works, here they would be violating your right to freedom of movement, and unlawfully arresting you. Charge like a linebacker.
     
  4. Theidiot

    Theidiot New Member

    I'd say everything is stacked against you, unless you can turn the situation around.

    If you attack them, you've attacked them. With no witnesses it's your word against there's. Regardless of law, they have the position you want, you don't, they are in the stronger position. There's a chance they could defeat our.

    Don't count on shouting working. If I hear aggressive shouting in the toilet I'm passing, I ain't taking any chances going in there, unless it sounds like a kid in distress.

    I'd say just passively try to push past. Either they will let you or they'll use force to stop you. The latter constitutes hem attacking you, which creates a whole new situation. Then it becomes a simple question of, in law, can you defend yourself. To which the answer is yes.

    You are also at an advantage because you've taken ownership from there. Previously they held the position of choice and could attack you if or when they chose. The new situation is you've dictated when they must attack if they wish to retain control. It means you can now know when that attack is coming, if at all, which means you can be ready for it. It also means you are inside their range. Unless they are well trained in close range fighting, the chances are they can't do much. Whereas if you're trained in anything, chances are you have at least some close range ability, even if it's just solid footwork to maintain your stability against being tussled.
     
  5. TwirlinMerlin

    TwirlinMerlin Valued Member

    No one can hold you against your will. I wouldn't jump right to violence though just because someone is blocking the door. Personally I would tell them I need to get past. If they didn't move I'd push past them and make my exit. If they turned it violent from there and started grabbing or swinging then no more Mr nice guy.
     
  6. YouKnowWho

    YouKnowWho Valued Member

    Aggressive approach - Knock your opponent down, and hide yourself in Amazon jungle for the rest of your life.

    Conservative approach - Use wrestling "arm drag" to guide your opponent's arm across his body, you then move through his "blind spot" and take off. Nobody will get hurt. Everybody will live happy ever after.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2016
  7. Morik

    Morik Well-Known Member Supporter MAP 2017 Gold Award

    While trying to research laws about this in my state I found some exceptions:
    - Police (obviously, though there are some restrictions on them detaining you without a justifiable cause)
    - Shopkeepers who reasonably suspect you of retail theft can detain you until police arrive, and are permitted to use reasonable force to do so (per caselaw, the judge felt it was obvious that if they are permitted to detain you, that they must be allowed to use force to do so because otherwise why would a thief consent to waiting for the cops to show up?)
    - Citizens can detain people who are committing or who have actually committed felonies (this is a not-fully-accurate summary, there are a buncha details. Generally the person must be convicted for this to be valid, if not convicted citizen may be sued and/or prosecuted)

    Yeah, I would do something similar. I'd tell them I am going to leave now, kindly move out of the doorway.
    If they didn't I would push my way through them, but without trying to hurt them.
    I'm a very big dude, I doubt most people would be able to stop me without using violence. I.e., I doubt they could just stand firm in the door such that I couldn't push them out of the way.

    If that didn't work I'd call the cops. I almost always have my cell on me outside my house.
    (My guess is they would let me out when they realize I've actually dialed the police.)

    If they tried to attack me I would defend myself as I could and escape the situation ASAP (as required by law in my state).

    If I was physically unable to push them out of the way, and didn't have a phone, I would probably try calling for help on the assumption that if I didn't it wouldn't be legal to resort to force. (I think this is true in my state--that I would have to attempt every other reasonable solution.)

    If no one came to my shout for help, I would probably punch or kick them a few times (probably full force or close to it; they are strong/big enough that I can't physically push past, I better attack powerfully).
    I don't think anyone would continue to just passively block the door at that point--they'd either let me out or attack back.
    (I'm assuming that if I'm physically unable to push past them, that means I'm unable to best them in grappling.)

    (I'm also basing this on rational thought right now... who knows if my adrenaline was up.)

    I was mainly asking about the legality of that last part--launching strikes at them (or grappling with them) to bring about my escape.
    I don't think I can skip the shouting part in my state; exhausting all other reasonable solutions prior to using force is baked into our self defense law. The law just wasn't very clear on what I'm allowed to do if someone unlawfully detains me. For all I know in my state the law says I have to just wait for them to get bored/hungry/tired/bathroom-need and leave the doorway. (I tried finding relevant law, but couldn't. I only spent a few minutes looking though.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  8. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    In my opinion self-defence should never be about the law. I would do everything that I reasonably can to avoid getting a fight. Turn the other cheek, pay them off, walk away. But if I felt that a fight was inevitable after all I have done to prevent it. My only criteria would be to escape the situation as soon as possible with as little risk to my life as possible.


    What I would do and why.

    The potential attacker has not attacked. Either they want an excuse to attack or they are building up the nerve / looking for a vulnerable target. Or they might not be an attacker at all and I might have miss read their actions.

    Politely and assertively ask the person to let me pass. If no result, politely but assertively instruct the person to let me pass. If no result, politely but assertively insist that they let me pass.

    If they do not step out the way but I feel that they might let me pass if pushed. I would push past.

    If I feel that they are resolved not to let me pass. Remove my wallet. Show it to them. Place it on a counter/ surface where they can see it but they have to move away from the doorway to reach. Position myself away from their line of movement. As they go to pick up the wallet I make my exit.

    If I believe that they are not after money. Or if after being offered the wallet they make no move to pick it up. I would conclude that I was in very imminent danger of injury and/or loss of life. I would take the first opportunity to hit /lock/ trip/grapple/throw them. My intention would be to create the space to get past and escape. However, if the first technique did not succeed I would use the next available opportunity to apply a technique until I do get an opportunity to escape. I will always take the attack that I feel gives me the highest percentage chance of escape. I will not censer my actions to limit the injuries to my attacker. Neither will I use strikes or techniques with the intention of punishing the attacker. I will use the technique to hand at that moment that gives me the best opportunity to escape. This would include a consideration of escalation. If I smack the guy in the mouth he is going to get angry and escalate. If I arm drag him to create space and fail, he is less likely to be so angry and less likely to escalate as far. At no point would i think about the legal implications of my actions. I am fighting for my life and the only thing I should be thinking about is escaping safely.

    In any eventually, once out of the room in a place of public safety, I would contact security if available and I would call the police to report the incident.


    Why I would not shout for help or call police during incident. Given the location of most public toilets with few passers by, shouting for help would have limited potential benefit and might be taken as a signal of vulnerability by a would be attacker and encourage the potential attacker to attack. If I did shout I would shout “fire”. More likely to get attention less likely to be seen as a vulnerable action.

    Why I would not use my phone during the attack. because the police would not be on hand until well after the event. The attacker would know this. Again in my opinion it could make me appear vulnerable and encourage the potential attacker to attack.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  9. Knee Rider

    Knee Rider Valued Member Supporter

    I agree with you about the last two points. I'd never take my phone out in that situation as it wouldn't do anything but make me look weak and present a possibility to have my phone nicked. I'd equally not shout for help.

    Regarding self defence not being about the law: I'd have to disagree. I would do everything to avoid unnecessary conflict too but I'd be mindful if using just enough force to end the situation and facilitate escape if it became physical and being able to justify myself in court if it came to it.

    With that said, in the op hypothetical, you could probably just nut the guy and walk out without ever being caught up to and prosecuted.
     
  10. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    One of my old instructors had a fight with two guys in a toilet one time. They had been saying disparaging things about his lady companion through the course of the evening.
    Not sure on the full context (I wasn't there and in his youth this guy didn't need a lot to get into a fight to be honest) but he nutted one guy as an opener, took out the other guy and then exited the toilet to go and sit with his girlfriend again.
    His girlfriend only realised something had happened when blood started gently dripping down his forehead. He'd split open his head by nutting the first guy.
     
  11. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    "Mr Defendant, did you have your mobile phone in your possession at the time of the incident?"

    --"I did"

    "and did you at any time, attempt to contact the police or security when you were prevented from leaving the room by Mr Died-of-a-head-injury-you-inflicted?"

    --"No"

    "And did you attempt to call out for help from anyone who may have been nearby?"

    --"No"

    "Why not?"

    --"I thought it would make me look weak"

    Yeah, good luck with that one.
     
  12. Morik

    Morik Well-Known Member Supporter MAP 2017 Gold Award

    That is my thought as well--I'd rather appear weak and stay within the law--if he attacks me for shouting/dialing for help, it seems pretty likely to me that he would have attacked me anyway.

    I would rather not mess up my life with prosecution for assault. I'd probably lose my job if convicted (esp. if I had any jail time).

    Nutshotting the guy & walking out would probably work, and I agree it seems unlikely to me that the other guy would try to press charges.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  13. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    Very good point

    --"I could not take out my phone because I feared that he would mug me for it. I contacted the police as soon as I could, which was when I had escaped from my attacker."

    " i did not call for help because I feared that he would attack me if I did. I contacted the police as soon as I could, which was when I had escaped from my attacker. "
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  14. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    This is not necessarily so. Correct assertive behavior can get a potential attacker to reconsider. Submissive behavior could potentially trigger an attack.


    It is not that I do not wish to appear weak because of my ego. It is that I dont want to encourage an attacker who is looking for an easy target.
     
  15. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    My thought although poor articulated is that the time to consider the law is times like now - on a forum. not when you should have all your attention on keeping yourself safe.

    Also there is no reason to believe that the law is incompatible with self defense.

    Opening moves would be pitched at a level that I felt best controlled the situation without exposing myself to a greater risk of violence by escalating force to fast.

    If I felt that I could push / grapple my way passed I would do so. Even thinking about striking most moves would not likely cause severe injury. Yes people can be killed with a single strike but on balance this is unlikely.

    I am not going to roundhouse kick him in the head or drop knee Ipon him into the urinals. I would do the simplest things to clear a space for me to escape. This approach should be in line with the law. but i simply would have too much on my plate to deal with the situation and think about the law at the same time. I am a very poor multi tasker - particualy under stress.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  16. Morik

    Morik Well-Known Member Supporter MAP 2017 Gold Award

    Tom--I think I'm just more cautious with legality. I work what is essentially my dream job and would not want to compromise it in any way due to legal issues.
    I'd rather be attacked (empty hand) and have to deal with that than be prosecuted for assault/battery.
    I know the guy could always pull a weapon... so this isn't a riskless option in terms of my safety, but I think the risk is sufficiently smaller than the risk of legal action to make avoiding possible legal action the better move for me.


    The wording of self defense law in Massachusetts seems pretty clear to me.
    http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/cou...inal/6000-9999/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

    I would not want to rely on convincing a jury that shouting for help or calling the police were not reasonable alternatives. I just don't think its a very convincing argument. Maybe it can convince some people who have training in this area, but I doubt most people would say you've exhausted reasonable alternatives if you could have phoned the police.

    Note that this particular situation isn't really well covered by the above. I don't think it would be hard for them to show that I wasn't being attacked or in imminent danger of attack.
    Maybe there is some other place that covers the scenario I posed, but I've tried searching and couldn't find it. (The only other thing I could find was discussing citizen's arrest.)
    So it isn't clear to me that the same standard applies (having to exhaust all reasonable alternatives to force).

    Since it isn't clear to me, I would err on the side of caution.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  17. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    What you are saying is all perfectly legitimate.

    However what you do say in your argument is that you are willing to accept a greater risk of injury or death in a physical confrontation that you have not caused, so that you could reduce the risk of a legal judgement against your actions afterwards.

    I do not believe that the victim of an attack should have to do this. I believe that in an unavoidable violent situation the priority should be to survive not to escape potential prosecution. The consequences of legal action can be devastating, but so to can be the consequences of violence.

    Note: this does not justify any action, but rather asserts that some actions are justified and that one should trust oneself to do the best one can in that situation.
     

Share This Page