Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts

[Stickgrappler]

http://www.wimsblog.com/2012/09/renzo-gracie-twitter-and-self-defense-a-case-study-of-what-not-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-18722

glad no one was killed. he said he wasn't inebriated, just wonder if he was under any influence, if not i think Renzo's ego got the best of him.

[Stickgrappler]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/05/george_zimmerman_claims_he_was_fighting_for_his_life_how_deadly_is_an_unarmed_teenager_.html


How easy is it to kill a man in a fistfight?
 
It happens more than twice a day, on average. Fists and feet were responsible for 745 murders in 2010, or 5.7 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI statistics. (The data on this have been remarkably stable in recent years. In the five preceding years, the percentage of murders perpetrated by fists or feet fluctuated between 5.6 and 6.1.) It doesn’t even take an experienced brawler to punch someone to death: An 11-year-old California girl appears to have killed a classmate with her bare hands in a February fistfight

Woof bigdog,

belated thanks for posting that link and stats!

~sg

[Crafty_Dog]

http://ussd.com/jury-awards-7-7-million-to-united-studios-of-self-defense-in-lawsuit-against-z-ultimate/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/08/we-have-the-right-to-defend-ourselves-community-rallies-around-utah-man-arrested-for-shooting-at-burglar/

By they way, note that the attorney, Mitch Vilos, is the author of the "SD Law of the 50 States" book that we sell here.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/21/gun-expert-joe-biden-advises-his-wife-to

[G M]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/21/gun-expert-joe-biden-advises-his-wife-to

Anyone who listens to Biden about anything is setting themselves up for trouble.

[G M]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/more-self-defense-advice-from-joe-biden-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/

More self-defense advice from Joe Biden: “Just fire the shotgun through the door”


posted at 8:41 pm on February 27, 2013 by Erika Johnsen






Because the advice he offered last week to simply “fire two blasts” outside the house wasn’t recklessly bogus enough, here’s the vice president expounding even further on his recommendations for in-home self-defense in an in-depth interview with Field & Stream on Monday (h/t Washington Examiner):
 

F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?
 
V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
 
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
 
Honesty, did no one bother to inform the vice president, after his first round of similarly awful advice, that just blasting away on the back porch will 1) reveal your position, 2) leave you effectively disarmed, and 3) possibly get you into some legal trouble?
 
Personal anecdote, as a young woman of the sort at which the vice president heartily chuckled last week: I’m fairly handy with a twelve gauge, if I do say so myself — I’ve been using them for years on family shooting expeditions, so I’ve had plenty of practice time to get comfortable with them. Just this past Christmas, however, I had my first opportunity to try out an AR-15, and not knowing what to expect, I firmly nestled the ‘assault weapon’ into my shoulder, braced for impact, and… there was virtually no kick. Effortlessly accurate at both short and long distances, and easy to operate, too.
 
I would never argue that a shotgun is a good option for home defense and deterrence (especially those singularly musical sounds of a ready-to-go pump-action) in the case that a single intruder is bearing down on you, since it doesn’t take much precision at close range… but you better not miss. Tradeoffs, people.
 
And just firing the shotgun out the door when you think people might be looking to enter your home? …So much for “gun safety” advocacy.


G M: The myth that "you can't miss with a shotgun" is very common and very wrong. There are many factors involved in the patterning of individual shotguns, including ammo selection, chokes and bore size. As a less than perfect rule, you can expect that shot will spread one inch in diameter for every yard it travels from the muzzle of the shotgun. So, at 9 feet, the shot will have roughly expanded three inches in diameter. Can that miss an assailant? You better believe it!

[G M]

http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/virginia-man-arrested-after-following-bidens-advice/

Virginia Man Arrested After Following Biden’s Advice


Posted by Jammie on Mar 01, 2013 at 7:58 am





We recommend this man call the idiot Biden as a defense witness.
 

Vice President Joe Biden told Field & Stream magazine in an interview published Monday, “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”
 
Coincidentally, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va., was charged Monday with reckless handling of a firearm after doing just that a couple days earlier.
 
Local TV station WAVY 10 reports that the man observed two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. The men allegedly had weapons and told him to close his bedroom door. He stepped outside of his bedroom and did as instructed, then fired his shotgun through the closed door and then several more times at the window.
 
According to the news report there were no injuries and the suspects were not apprehended by police.
 
Biden’s comments to Field & Stream came as he summarized a hypothetical question in which someone from California pondered “when the end days come” or if there’s an earthquake.
 
Earlier this month, Biden told an interviewer that he had advised his wife, Jill, “if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.”
 
According to Delaware attorneys contacted by U.S. News, in Biden’s home state it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. Shooting a gun in the air could result in felony reckless endangering and aggravated menacing charges, in addition to misdemeanor charges, the lawyers said.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/high-school-student-disarms-gunman-gets-suspended/

[bigdog]

Nonsensical.

[Crafty_Dog]

The more paranoid amongst us see this in quite a contrary manner.  There is no good faith interpretation to this.  It is part of an ongoing and very purposeful effort to turn the American people into sheeple.

[bigdog]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-03-05/news/os-zimmerman-witness-8-medical-records-20130305_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-bernie-de-la-rionda

From the article:

Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, the state's most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.

It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward position

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/update-mall-security-guard-darien-long-has-been-arrested

[Crafty_Dog]

80-year-old Homeowner Arrested After Shooting Burglar
Mar 28, 2012
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/80-year-old-homeowner-arrested-for-shooting-burglar.html

An 80-year-old Army veteran was arrested after he shot a burglar who had broken into his Chicago-area home.  Police have charged Homer Wright with one felony count of unlawful gun use. They charged the man who broke into Wright’s home, 19-year-old Anthony Robinson with felony burglary.
 
Wright, who owns a pub in Englewood, called his arrest “unjust.”
 
“I think it’s wrong and it’s unjust that I can’t protect me and my whatever, and that’s wrong,” Wright told The Chicago Sun-Times.
 
Police said Wright was arrested because he had two previous weapons convictions – in 1968 and 1994.
 
Wright told the Chicago Tribune that he was awakened. by his wife – who heard a noise. Wright found Robinson inside the house trying to steal liquor. So he grabbed a pistol and shot the burglar once in the leg.  Court records indicate the suspect had been arrested at least 13 times since 2009, the Sun-Times reported.
 
Wright’s arrest has infuriated his family and his neighborhood, many of whom called the elderly man a pillar in the community.
 
“If a man can’t defend himself from harm, what can he do,” Daryl Smith, a tow truck owner told the Chicago Tribune. “We’re outraged as a community and we’re calling for the state’s attorney’s office to drop the charges. This man has done nothing wrong.”
 
18th Ward Committeeman William Delay said Wright was just trying to protect his home – and besides – he didn’t kill the burglar.
 
“He only maimed this guy yet he has been arrested and is sitting in jail,” Delay told the Sun-Times. “Where is the justice in that?”
 
Wright was released on his own recognizance.
 
His grandson, Courtney Cook, had some advice for the burglar.
 
“If you want to rob somebody, you got to face the consequences,” he told the Sun-Times.
===========================
Charges dropped:

April 2, 2012 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- The Chicago homeowner charged after he shot an intruder no longer faces those charges.

Homer Wright was charged with unlawful use of a weapon because he was convicted in the past of weapons charges and wasn't allowed to own a gun.   Now, prosecutors are dismissing the charge, but did not say why during a court hearing Monday morning.

Wright shot a 19-year-old burglar in the leg after he says the suspect broke into his Chicago home last week.   Police arrested the 19-year-old but also arrested Wright when they found out about his previous conviction.   Wright was arrested and charged after the shooting at his Englewood home, which is also his place of business.

Wright was released on an I-bond.

"The judge seen it himself, an old man protecting his family and his home," said Homer Wright's grandson Courtney Cook. "An 81-year-old man is protecting himself and his family. Is he supposed to be the victim?"

Some Englewood community residents are upset that Wright was arrested for allegedly shooting 19-year-old Anthony Robinson.

Police say Robinson broke into Wright's home situated behind the tavern he owns.

"Where in America can you not defend yourself?" said Darryl Smith of the Englewood Political Task Force. "And because you have a felony is your life less valuable than any other person? Had he not had a gun, we would be here for another reason, because he was beaten to death."

"If they come into your house, whether you are a convicted felon or not, you are going to protect yourself and your family," said 18th Ward Committeeman William Delay.

Wright has two felony convictions on his record dating back almost 20 years.

"He has a right to defend himself," said Richard Kling, clinical professor of law at Chicago Kent College of Law. "Had he not been a convicted felon, he would have the right to shoot the person dead. His problem is not the shooting but that he possessed a gun, which he was not allowed to do because of a prior record... He certainly could have used a knife. If he had used a knife there would have been no charges."


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=8604705

[bigdog]

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/30/180116799/george-zimmerman-waives-right-to-stand-your-ground-hearing

[Crafty_Dog]

A couple of months old, but for the record, here it is:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-murder-verdict-reduced-20130520,0,6854907.story

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/police-confiscate-vets-rifle-charge-him-because-he-fired-warning-shot-at-wanted-felon-trying-to-break-into-his-home/

[G M]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/police-confiscate-vets-rifle-charge-him-because-he-fired-warning-shot-at-wanted-felon-trying-to-break-into-his-home/

I disagree with the charges, but warning shots are a bad idea.

[Crafty_Dog]

You are a thoughtful man GM, especially with regard to this sort of issue.  Care to flesh that out?

[G M]

You are a thoughtful man GM, especially with regard to this sort of issue.  Care to flesh that out?

If you ever press a trigger outside of a shooting range, it had better be because "I had no other choice at that moment".

In a gunfight, time and ammo are precious, especially time. If you have time to fire a "warning shot", you have time to move to cover, you have time to communicate, you have time to plan.

You are legally and morally responsible for every bullet that leaves a firearm in your possession. Bullets ricochet and still have plenty of mass and energy to maim or kill.

Outside of prisons, law enforcement ended the practice of "warning shots" decades ago for the above reasons.

[G M]

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/specials/2013concealed_story.html?id=227425

Common mistakes in self-defense shootings

Seen here, pointing a gun at someone, absent the justification to do so, is the crime of aggravated assault. Do you know when it is justified to point a gun at someone? If not, you need to do your homework.
One of my favorite sayings is "he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." It happens all the time in the real world of self-defense, where an otherwise legitimate act of self defense is clouded by mistakes the defender made either before, during, or after the act of self defense. Sometimes the error can be corrected at trial, but many times it can't. In studying and working on self-defense cases over the years, I have seen a few common themes which can turn a justified shooting into a crime, at least in the minds of the jury.


Chemicals

The very first way to get you arrested and prosecuted for what would be an otherwise legitimate use of force is to use a gun while intoxicated, or even after a couple of drinks. Being under the influence opens a wide door for the prosecution, wide enough to convict you. Juries do not like drunks. They really do not like drunks who are handling guns. And they really, really do not like drunks who use deadly force, then claim self-defense.

I have worked on several cases where the armed citizen had been drinking, and in all cases, the drinking played a major part of the prosecution's theory of the case. Even when the level of intoxication was minor, below the legal limit, the issue is brought up by the prosecution. Sometimes it is the only negative issue in the case, so instead of attempting to defeat the self-defense claim, the prosecution claims he was intoxicated (even if he wasn't). Of course, they likely cannot link the intoxication to any wrongdoing regarding use of deadly force, but they use it to smear the good name and reputation of the armed citizen. Juries will likely see through that, but why take that risk?


Training

Secondly, can you document your training? You do have training in use of deadly force in self-defense don't you? Society demands (through court cases involving police use of force) that officers must receive competent, relevant and up to date training in the use of deadly force in order to avoid a negative outcome in a "failure to train" lawsuit. You see, people can and do make mistakes. But, society and the courts will often times forgive a mistake made in good faith, but will likely punish the individual if the mistake was made through lack of training and/or education.


Much less aggressive, but still the crime of brandishing unless you have the right to display the gun in your hand in public.
I believe it will only be a matter of time before this same philosophy becomes a standard in the world of the armed citizen. Take it from a guy who has trained over 15,000 people in the use of deadly force in self defense. You want that training under your belt and you want it documented. Having deadly force training can be brought up on your behalf at trial, if it can be reasonably shown that you had the training, and relied upon the training in your decision making process. Opening that door at trial means that you can likely bring in your instructor or instructors to discuss the training you received, which by extension means you get to educate the jury as to what you knew at the time of the incident. Failure to have this training and failure to document it means you go it alone at trial. Because I teach firearms for a living, I have an extensive training resume, and I know that I can call upon any of my instructors to come to court for me and discuss the material they taught. It's like walking around with the "A-team" of firearms instructors in my pocket for back-up, only they shoot better!


Gunpoint

Another common theme in self-defense prosecutions is when a person commits an aggravated assault (pointing a gun at another person but not being justified to do so).

There is a distinction between drawing a gun as a warning to people who might be getting ready to attack, and drawing a gun as a warning to people who might be getting ready to attack and pointing it at them. The distinction is often up to 10 years in prison for the latter, if convicted of aggravated assault, (a felony) compared to a year in jail for the misdemeanor crime of brandishing. Additionally, if the armed citizen has a clean record, he can often plea bargain the brandishing charge to a deferred prosecution, (resulting in no criminal conviction and restoration of his gun rights). If an aggravated assault is plea bargained, it is often times to a lessor felony conviction, and loss of gun rights.


Hand on gun, in bladed position will likely not get you arrested but this position, coupled with the command to "stay back," will likely communicate the message effectively. And you are just a moment away from drawing if necessary.
But, why does a person get into this trouble in the first place? Likely it is a combination of failure to know the law regarding when you can display a gun as a warning, combined with lack of confidence in your skill to use a gun for self-defense. Both these conditions can be addressed with professional training. And, compounding the problem is often times the armed citizen doesn't think the incident was important enough to call the cops, and when police do show up to investigate the "man with a gun" call, the armed citizen is hard-pressed to convince the police that HE was the victim, not the individual or individuals who claim you pointed a gun at them and threatened to shoot them.

My advice is to avoid drawing the gun unless you absolutely need to do so, avoid pointing the gun at anyone unless you absolutely need to do so, and then call the police to report the criminal activity which caused you to draw the gun. If you cannot articulate criminal activity on the part of the aggressive parties, don't draw the gun.

An alternative to drawing the gun at all is simply to take a bladed stance, with gun side away from the potential attacker or attackers, and place your hand on the gun underneath your concealment garment, with a warning to back off. Your resolve to use deadly force if necessary is communicated, but there is no exposure of the gun.

We are also seeing more and more incidents of persons chasing after others who were burglarizing their house, or perhaps trying to steal your car or other property, and then shooting the individuals while they're attempting to get away, seem to be increasing. Typically, when the incident is dissected, the armed citizen had the right to threaten deadly force to stop the crime, but when the individual turns to run (or drives away in your SUV) you are going to be hard pressed to justify shooting. But it happens anyway. Society has no problem with armed citizens who use deadly force to protect life, but juries typically have a tough time justifying killing someone to stop a property crime.



Post Shooting Procedures

Lastly, the way a person who has used deadly force in self-defense interacts with the police after the incident can also land him or her in jail. This is one of the most commonly discussed issues in the world of self-defense. Do you talk to the police after a shooting incident, or to you demand to talk to an attorney before answering the cop's questions? There are pros and cons to each side of the argument.

Let me explain. Those people who believe that the armed citizen should say nothing to the police primarily come from the defense attorney side of the argument. Most criminal defense attorneys spend a great deal of their professional time trying to mitigate statements their clients made to the police. If I were a criminal defense attorney who spent all his working time trying to explain to juries why his client told police an incriminating story, I would likely feel the same way. But remember, the vast majority of criminal defendants are actually guilty of criminal conduct. So whatever they would tell the police is either confessional in nature or false. In either case, the statements do not help the defendant.

One thing to understand is that if you clam up and refuse to talk to the police, you very likely will be arrested. You see you purposely killed someone and absent evidence of justification, you have committed the crime of murder.

The other side of the argument comes from the professional firearms instructor cadre, with people like Massad Ayoob, John Farnam and others explaining that you, the victim of a criminal assault, need to let the police know what was happening that caused you to fear for your life. 1) You were the person attacked. 2) You will sign the complaint against the individual, or be a witness at trial (depending on the jurisdiction you are in). 3) There were witnesses to the incident, and telling the police who those witnesses are. 4) There is evidence of that criminal attack, and pointing that out to the officers. And lastly, 5) you recognize the seriousness of this incident, and would like legal representation before you give a formal statement to the police.

Taking this approach will not guarantee protection from criminal prosecution but at least you got your side of the story out to the police first. Assuming you tell the truth, that story will likely be given at trial too and your consistent statements will absolutely help your defense. And, by pointing out the evidence of the crime being committed against you, the police have an alternative crime to investigate.

Let's look at legal representation. What you say or don't say will both be used by the police to make a judgment call regarding whether not they will arrest you for a crime. The few critical minutes after an incident is not the time for you to start thinking about how you are going to handle this critical part of your self-defense incident.

Thumbing through the yellow pages to look for a self-defense attorney while sitting in police lock-up is a pretty poor legal defense plan. People spend hours and hours trying to decide what type of gun to carry or what bullets to use but ignore this important part of their response to criminal attack. Having an attorney to call after a self-defense incident is vitally important to your overall self-defense plan.

 
-- Photos and text by Marty Hayes, J.D.

Marty Hayes is the President and founder of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network Inc. , and, in his capacity as an expert witness, has worked on dozens of murder and assault cases over the years.