Marc Animal MacYoung/ What is SD to you?

Hey folks, I was invited to join Martial Planet because someone started a thread about me. I was notified in case I wanted to comment, but the thread was closed before I was approved and able to post. So I thought I'd start a thread to tell you I'm here to answer any questions you might have about self-defense, training and issues related to personal safety and street violence.

Since I am -- to say the least -- a controversial character, I'm also willing to answer questions about myself, my writing, my motives and my views about various topics related to the martial arts, self-defense and violence.

That way instead of listening to some self-appointed psychic about
1) who I am
2) what I'm trying to say with my writing and
3) why I say the things I do...
you can ask me directly.

So let me start the ball rolling by asking a question. Where do YOU think the line is between self-defense and assault? And how do you explain the difference?

I ask this because -- among other things -- I'm doing expert witness work in court cases these days. Now that I'm doing this work, I was disheartened to discover the common attitude of the prosecution/district attorneys is that ALL violence is criminal. They ARE looking to put you in prison for defending yourself.

If that weren't bad enough, you'll lose sleep over how many defense attorneys I've run across who don't know what self-defense is either. So it's kind of important that you be able to explain to your attorney why what you did WAS self-defense and not a crime. So let's hear how you would describe it.

 

to me, self defense is what you do to get yourself out of danger.

in a one-attacker case, if you knock-out your opponent, it's self-defense (the problem would be if he hits his head on the ground and gets injured). if you break the opponent's arm, but stop there, and the attacker does not continue, it's self defense (be sure it's YOU who calls the police though, preferably on the spot), if the attacker resumes the aggression, and you respond, it's self-defense. if the opponent is effectively not threatening you anymore, and you still beat him up, it's assault.

the trick is defining threat. if you disarm an attacker, and the weapon in on the ground, the weapon is not neutralized and you are still in mortal danger if the attacker gets to it again, but if you grab the weapon and stab or shoot the attacker, it's assault.

a lot of this depends on local laws, though, so it's not something that's easy to define.

btw, welcome to MAP

 

Self-defense is doing what a 'reasonable person' believes is necessary to neutralize an imminent threat to yourself or others.

Assault is in excess of that.

Someone attacks you with a knife (attempted murder) and you break their arm, shred their shoulder, drop them on their head, etc in defense: reasonable.

If you've subdued/disarmed them and there is no longer a threat, but you continue to attack: excessive/assault.

The sticky parts is clarity of threat assessment.

I've seen too many martial arts schools that coach their students to go beyond the reasonable and into legally indefensible behavior either out of chest thumping bravado or plain ignorance.

Welcome. I look forward to your input on this board. I've enjoyed a couple of your books in the past.

 

I did close my thread because I didnt want anyone feeling insulted Im glad your here though. I guess self defense is like when a man is walking down the street and he's attacked by three men so he reacts by hitting them all with a barrage of fists then he just leaves. You should also call 911 and report the incident but i dont know if you should run away from your assailiant and call at a safe distance. Or just call from there. I never made any comments about Marc Macyoung all i said is that He seemed to dislike Professor Paul Buitron who teaches Savate in Laredo Texas you said something like your friend would consider it self defense to shoot him in the woods or something like that. So im guessing Buitron did something PRETTY HARSH to get that kinda reaction out of your friend.

Marc Macyoung's website nononsenseselfdefense has alot of good teachers He recommends in aikido, hapkido, silat, mauy thai, wing chun i think, as well as krav maga, and other arts, including Goju which is said to be one of the best arts.

 

I would like to know too as I believe in using the minimum force necessary, sometimes the minimum force necessary is lethal if the assailant happens to be under the influence and will not stop despite all non lethal maneuvers.

It's disheartening to know that lawyers will play around the issue and hair splitting about protecting your person. How would they defend it if they have to argue their own self defense. This twisting of the issue will end up protecting assailants and put good people in jeopardy.

I had a friend who defended a lady in the chivalrous way and ended up almost being accosted by the police because he was able to turn the tables on the attacker.

 

thats what lawyers do. thats why there is diffrent courts, a man breaks into a house and is injured.......in one court he goes to jail, in another he has a fancy lawyer who gets the people who defended against the guy to pay 60 grand for his medical bills. Lawyers dont always use common sense nor are they always concerened about the facts there concerned in the black and white, a man has sex iwth a 17 year old girl years later a lawyer discredits him as a witness to a crime, because of that statutory rape. but he fails to mention how that girl was 17 a year away from being 18 and how she ended up being married to the man who "raped her" thus this is why lawyers have such a bad rap

I once heard a joke "whats 50 thousand laywers at the bottom of the sea? The answer? "a good start"

 

...

Well I will admit that I am a huge fan! Along with Geoff Thompson...Would love to hit one of your seminars if you are still doing them (?)

Shiho-Nage said it best, I was a Police Officer and he sounds like he is/was also.

The current trends in the court-room are disturbing but it will not cross my mind if an altercation arises.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

Jamey

 

I would say that the dividing line between self defence and assault is whether a Court decides that you acted lawfully or unlawfully.

Here in the UK that means that you have to be able to show that you had cause to use force in accordance with the key applicable laws (Human Rights Act 1998 and Criminal Law Act 1967) (Lawful Excuse) and in accordance with the same laws, the force that you used was reasonable. In practice in the UK that means that firstly it has to be demonstrated that force was indeed necessary (ie you couldn't run away, talk yourself out of the situation, call a Police Officer to make the arrest for you - note that there is no duty to retreat in your own home), and secondly that the force used was proportionate to the harm that it was believed might be caused by the crime in progress/anticipated crime.

In working practise I find this quite simple:
Engage in using force if you believe there is no other option.
On the basis of crime statistics assume headshots likely and respond/preempt with proportionate force.
If weapon involved and immediate escape is not an option, comply, and if you believe compliance is not an option (ie you are certain that it will be used against you as opposed to the more common threaten), use proportionate force if an opportunity presents itself.

 

Ok so lets say a guy throws a punch at you and you do a filipino move were you slam your fourarm into his elbow breaking it or punch or chop his bicep (i dont think this would break anything but it would hurt him more like stagger)

You can also use your hand in a cuped form to slap your opponent in the ear causing him to lose equlibrium and then you can run. Slaps like that are good because they send energy through the body.

Or lets say a systema practioner grabs your foot throwing it out of the way and then kicks you in your knee breaking your leg?

All these moves would have been done AFTER you were attacked in other words the guy put his hands on you FIRST

 

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6", is the quote so far for me. Do what you have to, worry about the consequences later. Just make sure you survive.

 

Where do YOU think the line is between self-defense and assault? And how do you explain the difference?

For me it's how long you keep fighting after the need to fight has ended. Although that's not an easy distinction to make in the heat of the moment.
For example we've had a recent internet video where a cage fighter in drag knocks down two drunk idiots. When they are on the floor he delivers two kicks. Arguably those two kicks are in the grey area between self defence and assault.
He could have left it at the punching.
As it is I think it was part of a sliding scale...the last kick was not as forcefully delivered ast the first because the defender was realising he didn't need to do anymore. He walked away when able and the danger was lessened.
That to me is self defence.
A couple more kicks and a knee drop to the head would have been assault.

 

BINGO!

That concept is simple to say, but it is a booger to perform while under adrenal stress.

I have a lawyer friend who is up in Missoula MT. A guy who was being charged with assault (fighting) complained that it was unfair that he was being prosecuted when HE had been attacked. Alain (my friend) said "Look, I understand that he attacked you first. When you knocked him down, you WERE defending yourself. The reason you are being prosecuted is because after you knocked him down, you kicked him. That isn't self-defense anymore. That's assault and that's why you are being charged."

A particularly nasty problem is 'orientation.' By this I mean what direction the person we are in conflict with is facing. When we are physically attacked, our monkey brain
(http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/monkey_dance.htm)
ONLY sees that there is a threat in front of us. It doesn't care if the person is trying to turn to run away, if the person is down (especially if we are standing over him and looking down) or is covering up defensively -- any and all a person will do when his attack starts falling apart under your 'defense.'

ALL the adrenalized monkey brain sees is that the threat is STILL there. So it's going to tell you to keep on 'defending' yourself, except you are no longer defending. You're attacking. Another hassle about the monkey brain is that we -- as primates -- often want to chase a threat from our area. I've seen videos of a person actually chasing a now-fleeing former attacker and continue to attack that person's back. This is what the security cameras show and this is what the wound patterns indicate.

And yet the individual will SWEAR that he was 'defending himself' through the entire situation. As long as you are looking at (oriented on) an attacker, you're monkey brain is going to tell you he's a danger.

So here's my next two questions:
How is your training likely to get you into trouble this way?

How does your teacher train you to break this pattern so you DON'T cross the line from defense to assault?

Because if your training doesn't include breaking the pattern, then you are likely to be that guy in the court going, "But, but ... he attacked me!"

 

I think self defence (self preservation) also means not hanging around long enough afterwards to get arrested! Smash his face in then do a runner.

 

Again, if your training embraces and enforces the concept of "finishing" your opponent once they have started something chances are you may win the battle but lose the war.

I am not a LEO, but my instructor is ex-LEO and he drills 'appropriate response' into us constantly. Under what circumstances you are legally justified to increase your response (ie. you are injured, outnumbered, they have a weapon, they have voiced felonious intent (take them at their word), they are bigger, younger, stronger than you, etc.). Also, when it stops being defense and starts to be assault.

He often says (to paraphrase) "It would be a grave error on my part if I taught you how to defend yourself, but I did not teach you how to defend yourself in a civilized manner such as to keep you out of jail or working the rest of your life to pay for someone else's injuries."

Basically: if you go primitive you're going to jail. And it really is something that has to be learned and drilled, because when it is crunch time and your mind is blank and you are jacked up on adrenaline and fear the last thing you're thinking is "I've got to do this with a measured hand."

The things he teaches us are so different from most other MA/self-defense instruction that even within our own parent organization he is seen as simply 'different'.

 

Wish I took that advice instead of hanging around in town, then I wouldn't be in the trouble I am now

 

What if you knock the attacker down and he is not "down and out" should you wait for him / her to get back up and go at it again or deal with the threat there and then.

Now I'm not saying standing over the attacker and kicking him in the head or jumping on his chest is the way to go about it.

I just think different situations require different actions. For example Id deal with a threat differently if I was on my own, and act differently again if my wife or child was with me.

Allowing someone to get back up when your on your own is one thing, letting them get back up when that person is still a potential threat and there is a possibility of them attacking your partner other than you is another thing all together if you ask me.

Granted SD is all about getting out of there and making a quick exit home or to safety but its not always as black and white as that

 

JWT sets out the law in the UK ..

Remember the law changes from state to state and country to country...

Mr MacYoung welcome to MAP....I take it you dont use your stated title "Animal" when giving evidence in a court of law !!

SD ___Defending oneself, others,property from threat of physical violence .....remembering the point in law of percieved threat at the time ...fearing for your immediate safety ..

Regards

Smurf

 

i think your suppose to run, it also depends on who provoked the fight so if you started the fight and you leave the guy in a bloody pulp you cant just say it was self defense.

 

Amazingly enough this IS a sound strategy on a number of fronts. First off it doesn't leave you hanging around trying to 'win' a fight. The longer you engage the more likely
a) things are to go wrong
b) you are to get hurt
c) you are to cross the line from self-defense into assault

I call this the 'smash and dash' strategy. You block the incoming attack and smash him as you are dashing past him. (I'm personally fond of throwing an elbow as you run by)

It is also why I say ANY martial art style can be used for self-defense IF your strategy is to get out of a dangerous situation ASAP. Where things are likely to go wrong for you is you insist on sticking around to 'fight' the guy. This can come about in many ways, for example if you want to teach him a lesson, get revenge on him or refuse to leave the area.

I've seen too many people hurt because some other goal becomes more important than getting the **** out of Dodge. And if bugging out is the goal of your physical strategy you limit problems like one of his mates busting a beer bottle over your head, him pulling a weapon when he realizes he's losing or you being on the security recordings kicking a downed opponent.

Second, with a smash and dash, you can justify running away because you were 'scared.' On the other hand, dropping him, stomping him and then running looks exactly what it is on the security films ... an assault and then fleeing the scene of a crime.

There is a term common among the firearms world (people who have to plan on legal repercussions for shooting other people), that is "Race to the phone." That is the person who gets to the phone first is the one the police are going to believe is the victim. If you do a smash and dash, you have to accept that even if there was no security camera in the area you're going to be filmed leaving the scene. And as many middle class runners have discovered,there IS film of them jumping into their car and driving away -- complete with your car's license plate number. Or in a place where you are known to frequent, witnesses of the event saying "Yeah, that was Van. He lives over on ...."

If you win the race to the phone you can come across as "I'm the victim" even with a smash and dash. (And believe me this is important in a self-defense situation, because USUALLY the guy who isn't hurt is the aggressor. If the other dude is hurt, and you're not, the cops are going to give your claim of 'self-defense' a hairy eyeball).

If you do a smash and dash and opt to go home instead -- AND the event is recorded -- even when the cops knock on your door, you can still come across convincingly as 'oh my gawd I was so scared and upset that I just ran' -- provided you DIDN'T unleash your killer kung fu ninja commando reality based combative system on the guy and pound him flat.

So yes, bugging out needs to be a major goal of any self-defense strategy.

 

Absolutely, and that is why it is important for you to check into the laws of where you live. And check with someone OTHER than a martial arts or self-defense 'instructor.' I'm a big fan of folks -- especially who carry knives -- to take Massad Ayoob's Judicious Use Of Lethal Force seminar. You'll never look at your training in the same way again.

Thanks for the welcome. And yes, it comes up in court all the time, including things like how many people I've stabbed and shot. Opposing attorneys are trying to find anyway possible to discredit me. Unfortunately, my track record kind of gives me credibility on how knives are used in the streets.

I had one DA actually 'redact' evidence to try to imply that I was a racist white power Nazi. The photo he edited had me with my hand raised. He asked me if it was a Nazi salute I was doing. What he'd edited out was the fact that I was standing next to an Indonesian and black guy. It's the first photo on the photo gallery of my Website. Had the defense attorney been on the ball he could have had the case thrown out right there for misconduct on the prosecutor's part.

It gets really nasty in the court room with the truth getting trampled as attorneys fight over what evidence will or will not be allowed. Which is why it's so important for folks to know that handling the aftermath of violence is just as important as being able to stop a physical attack. You'll be attacked in a different way in the court room.