The legality and ethics of pre-emptive striking

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by Matt_Bernius, Dec 30, 2004.

  1. Pastyti

    Pastyti Banned Banned

    In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being.
    Quote from Rory A. Miller
    A prison officer at an American Prison.

    This I found whilst surfing other sites, and 'no', I have not taken it out of context. It was the opening statement in an article on 'The Flaw in the Drill'.

    The full thing being as follows. (The first paragraph)

    In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being.
    However, in the dojo we cannot go about breaking our students So in any drill where
    students are not regularly hospitalized there is a DELIBERATE flaw, a deliberate
    break from the needs of reality introduced in the name of safety. In every drill you
    teach, you must consciously know what the flaw is and make your students aware of
    it.


    So it looks like I'm not on my own with my argument.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2005
  2. Linguo

    Linguo Valued Member

    The original scenario you provided offered nothing in terms of context. We didn't know the circumstances that brought the "accused" to court. Was the "accused" defending their life or using excessive force? Was there a weapon present? etc. If the person is being prosecuted because they were defending themself, then some other factors are present. The jury would take into consideration other factors besides the fact that the individual happens to be trained in MA.

    What is a pre-meditated act of violence? It's an act of violence conceived in advance with the intent of injuring a specific target. Generally speaking, training MA is not pre-meditated because it does not have a specific target. You can not pre-plan something without intent and a target. If there is no target intended, there is no pre-meditative act.

    The quote you offered does not state that MA training is a pre-meditated act of violence. It defines it as an activity that provides you with certain skills. They might be violent skills, but they have no specific target.

    Now you have to make the distinction between self-defense and pre-meditated acts of violence. Pre-meditated acts actively pursue a target (murder, robbery, mugging, kidnapping). There is some level of pre-planning involved. You CHOOSE your target. Self-defense doesn't choose a target. It responds to being a target.

    Can MA skills be used for pre-meditated acts of violence? Absolutely. However, it isn't the MA training that is a pre-meditated act, but the actual violent act that is pre-meditated.

    Training MA is training MA. What you do with those skills is up to you.
     
  3. Pastyti

    Pastyti Banned Banned

     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2005
  4. enquirer

    enquirer New Member

    Ok, this is just my opinion, in a case of self-defence, where the defender has skill in a martial art, he or she will not defend themselves differently (in law) just more effectively. Provided the degree of force used is still "reasonable" (which you are not expected in the heat of the moment to be able to judge precisely) and you do not continue after the threat ceases then your actions will be legal.

    Just remember that the person who attacked you will almost certainly lie their head off in court. Get witnesses, make a good statement to the police, hope its on cctv. Don't let them get away with it.
     
  5. Linguo

    Linguo Valued Member

    Choosing the targets on the human body and training MA are two different acts. Your MA training may have provided you with the knowledge and the skill to deal with your assailant's body, but training in and of itself is not the pre-meditated act. The pre-meditated act would be one in which you used this knowledge on a specific target.

    Because that other human being does not exist at the moment of training. There is no target involved in the training. It simply is training. You are learning skills. Even in sparring, the purpose is not to injure a specific person, but to develop your skills. It is like learning to shoot a gun. Learning to shoot in and of itself is not a pre-meditated act of violence.

    In your example, you have not actually pre-meditated any target. You have only learned what to target in conflict. You are not actually attacking anyone with the intent to injure. You are learning what to target and where to strike. Like I said before, training is training. Pre-meditation exists when you actively pursue a target. You have no target in training. You are simply training.

    You make choices based on the circumstances presented to you. You don't act because you have training, but because a circumstance exists where your training can be used. I don't punch a person unless I have a reason, which could be anything from self defense to I just dont like the person.




    Training MA is training MA. What you do with those skills is up to you.[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps, but I assume, for the purposes of our discussion, we are talking about cognizant individuals.
     
  6. Pastyti

    Pastyti Banned Banned

     
  7. Matt_Bernius

    Matt_Bernius a student and a teacher

    This is why it's a terrible idea to represent oneself in court. A lay understanding of the law is a dangerous thing. The idea that practicing martial arts in any way is linked to pre-mediation is a laughable legal concept that any good defender can tear apart.

    Let's get into some definitions. First of all, premediation isn't enough. You need to have both the concept of premeditiation and malice aforethought in play for most assault and murder cases (at least here in the states):

    Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m053.htm)

    MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, KILL WITH - To kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m005.htm)

    So, in even the most extreme of self defense cases a good defender can argue that the intention to kill was not formed and most likely occured in the heat of the moment. The prosecution would need to prove that not only did you train to kill, but you left with specific intent to kill.

    However, the other thing to understand is the force continumm. If you push me and I pull out your throat, that crosses the line. If you threaten me and I break your nose, I'm in a much better situation.

    It seems that there is a tendency to assume that we need to totally maim a person to defend ourselves. That isn't the case. And provided we stay within the acceptable continumm, as Hannibal suggests, one should be fine in a self defense scenario and legal fall out.
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Not necessarily - As a Police Officer and a holder of four black belts (3x 2nd Dan, 1 x 1st Dan) and as a qualified Self-Protection Instructor I would venture that my anaylsis of a conflict or a potential conflict would qualify as "expert evidence" - by that measure teh defence would have to produce an equally - or more qualified counter-witness.
     
  9. OBCT

    OBCT New Member

    Fire urinated on.
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Just a thought Pats, in all my fights and conflicts I have only ever inflicted injury once and that was when I broke a suspects arm during a lock. His fault as if he hadn't resisted it wouldn;t have snapped...so the pre-meditated violence theory does not hold up.

    By the way, what would you do in my scenario posted earlier?
     
  11. Pastyti

    Pastyti Banned Banned

    Hannibal,

    I thought I had already answered that one on page two? Hadn't I?

    Regards.
    Pastyti.
     
  12. tommy

    tommy New Member

    I think you can make a legal argumaent that that it is not always the case. We study history, we meditate etc, and practice more self DEFENSE not self OFFENSE
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Errr..not really mate no! You gave a slightly glib answer, but did not address it!

    So what would you do?
     
  14. CobraMaximus

    CobraMaximus Banned Banned

    I think its a matter of judging which is inaccurate. Some tom walks up to you and shoves you maybe once cos hes a bit drunk and trying to be friendly/pally but then you htink hes at you so you knock the hell out of him. Hardly just. I think It should be limited to if you have very very reliable reason to attack first.
     
  15. MarioBro

    MarioBro Banned Banned

    I don't know what it is like where you come from, but if someone comes up and shoves me they are not trying to be friendly. One shove for me is enough to suggest that they will escalate the interaction. In fact just getting in my face suggests that they are not opposed to interacting aggressively and in either case I would opt for the 'ask questions later' approach and drop them.

    What? I want to wait to see if they jab a pocket knife into me, let him get the first shot or have some friends who will come to give their friend a hand? Not a chance.
     
  16. CobraMaximus

    CobraMaximus Banned Banned

    Well where i am sometimes when people get merry they will shove you angrily or push you in a friendly 'everyone join in the jolliment' way. You can tell by their face. Personally if someone threw the first one id be far more capable. Most of my attacks and so on are counters
     
  17. MarioBro

    MarioBro Banned Banned

    Ya, famous last words...
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    To be honest, they wouldn't even get to push me once before they were on the floor!
     
  19. MarioBro

    MarioBro Banned Banned

    Words to live by...literally.
     
  20. OBCT

    OBCT New Member

    A lot of my friends do that kind of thing aswell, pushing, dead arms, sweeping, throwing tennis balls (i have a dog, so they're usually about the place) etc, it's just playful banter.

    In it's context though it can get out of hand at times and it hits a grey area when someone misses and catches the head, or goes that little bit too far and you never know if it's still playful banter or has become a fight, usually thats the time for a lock or a gentle takedown, or you finish your drink and use getting another as an excuse to avoid the situation worsening, kind of like countering really.

    Besides, you're hardly going to KO your best friend because he gave you a dead arm, or pushed you too hard, you'd like like a right miserable fool, and probably have no friends, and having lacking a sense of humour that badly really is not an attractive attribute to the opposite sex.

    It's about reading the situation and the context which it's in, a drunken mate pushing you a bit too hard is not the same as some drunken lager lout throwing a haymaker at you for wearing your favourite Liverpool top whilst wondering around Mosside (Manchester)
     

Share This Page