OK we have this policy here too, but our school policy is much the same way, and we always have Police there, but the point is, our policy says, "any students willingly participating in a fight will be immediately suspended for 10 days, with consideration for expulsion." I mean sure, this is usually the case, but what if some maniac attacks u and starts beating you up, do you stand there and take it?!?! And I found out the other day, even if you don't swing back they still suspend you so, there's no point in not fighting back, so my question would be, If some guy attacks you with a knife would they stil suspend me?!
if the school i'm in had rules like even if you don't swing back they still suspend you i'd go and punch the principal in the nose and see how he reacts
I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem that in many cases the laws defining necessary force, actually revolve around "reasonable force." Or in other words, given the same situation you are in, what would a reasonable person do and what level of force would they use. This imaginary "reasonable" person can help put situations in perspective. For example, if the assailant was knocked down, no longer posed a threat, and you were able to walk away -- a reasonable person would not then come back and stomp on the head of the assailant because he felt the assailant did not get enough of a beating. Not a whole lot of help, but it does pay to know your local laws and the laws of any place you might be travelling to. Consult legal authority. I can give you some specifics about where I live, but that might not apply to where you live.
Another idea, if you can stand this one, would be call your city hall and ask them about it. They oughta know. Wait, this is a political branch, hmm better take lunch and dinner with you, you'll be on hold, and hearing bs for awhile.
I suspect that the policy is in place to ensure that any action you take will be absolutely necessary. Maybe they are trying to encourage you to avoid potential situations where you may have to use your skills. I would estimate that around 95% of the assaults I deal with involve poor environmental awareness on the part of the victim. I am not saying they deserved to be attacked - far from it - but a feel for what is happening around them, and the consequences of the same would have worked wonders. If an attacker comes at you with a knife I 100% guarantee the last thing you will be thinking about is "could I get suspended from class over this?"
Isnt there a law that goes something like : If u feel threatend, like 3 guys in front of you denying you passage and holding bats, then u can like kick them all in the nuts and give them some punches to the face. I think its a Self-defence law kinda thing ... But maybe its only where i live ?
The bottom line Actually this is not a "technique/Method" discussion. First and formost, put your ego away. This discussion is about how you report the incident ( which hopefully is how it happened) I called me a snot and I broke his neck.... isn;t going to do to well for you. He called me a snot and said he was going to leave me for dead. He then moved his hand towards his waistband, while he began to lurch towards me. I was scared to death, I tried to get out of the way. HIs lunge came as I was moving sideways and he went over my oustretch leg (tai atoshi), and he fell. Did he really break his neck? Wow am I lucky, I really thought he was going to kill me! Pete Ticali
Excellent point, the way you report an incident is very important as that can be used as testomony for or against you later in court. I was told to stick to the facts but leave out details that aren't important. In the above example, it could have just been said that "he came at me, I thought he had a weapon, we ended up fighting and I threw him off of me." I'm not saying to lie, but a few things to think about, one is that you can only describe things from your point of view, a witness may see it quite differently so if you go too much into details, you really might not be telling it how it really happened. Ever sparred and looked at a video tape of the match, you will see that what you thought you did is actually a bit different than what you actually did. Hard to explain, but keep things simple, it isn't some belt ranking test where every technique must be explained and demonstrated. Another thing is best to leave any martial arts terminology out of your initial report, it can be used against you if the first impressions of you is that you are some bad ass skilled martial artist and you had everything under control. This can take away from the truth that you were in immediate jeopardy, and the attacker had the ability and the intent on harming you.
I dont know, I think if you went into court and were able to explain everything you did in detail you could prove you had complete control over your actions. Then you could prove that had you wished you could have kicked/punched him a lot harder than you did (assuming you weren't actually trying to kill your attacker).
Once again, I'd say get a copy of Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme". It's from more of a firearms perspective, but it will give you very clear insights into the legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of force, particularly deadly force. If you are really motivated to do the right thing and stay out of jail save up a few hundred bucks and take his course LFI-1. You'll learn more about this sort of thing than you could imagine. Go to a good lawyer, maybe even the ones the local police department uses when they have to defend these cases. Pay for an hour of her time to explain the statutes to you. A lot of guys can teach you how to hit someone. Very few can teach you when and when not to. Now, I'm not a lawyer, a judge or even a police officer. You'd be a fool to take anything I say as legal advice. But the best information I've seen indicates that you are generally only justified in using physical force if you believe that someone is using or about to illegally use force against you or an innocent third person. You are only justified in using deadly force (usually written along the lines of "capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury") if you or a reasonable person in your situation, knowing what you know would be in reasonable fear of immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or serious bodily injury to yourself or an innocent third person from someone acting illegally. In other words, in my layman's understanding, if you believe that the only way you can safely escape from a situation where someone is trying to hurt is by hurting them you may do so. If you really believe that someone can and will kill or seriously injure you you can use deadly force to stop him if you don't believe anything less will stop him. You can't shoot the policeman who is making an arrest. You can't shoot the bad guy in the back if he's running away and isn't a threat any longer (except under some very specialized circumstances). If he's down and you are sure he isn't going to get up and attack you again you can't give him an extra kick in the fork just because he deserves it. Circumstances mean a lot. If you're outnumbered, if the bad guy is better armed than you, if he's big and strong, if you know he's well-trained or has had a lot of experience jacking people up, if you're sick or disabled and so on these can all make a difference or not depending on the laws and precedents in your jurisdiction.
