paulg wrote:The way these self-defense stories typically go, the Bad Guy is a huge monster with no conscience picking on you, who are kind and warm and minding your own business. But what if YOU are the much bigger person, have a black belt in martial arts, made a few insulting wisecracks which then led to the confrontation? Think it doesn't happen that way sometimes? How would you justify "self-defense" in that situation?
You make an excellent point, Paul. I think over the long years we all have seen the type of martial arts practitioner you describe.
The display of arrogance, superiority complex, the 'better trained', the 'better sensei' syndrome, The 'Okinawa syndrome' ...and on and on...
We have seen such individuals 'at work'/on display/in Dojo/mixed company/and even on the street.
You might recall what I posted a few times about the several newly made Shodan imbeciles ...who traveled to the combat zone to pick fights to prove their 'martial prowess'...getting their asses handed to them...as well as other idiots trouble makers simply because they were 'trained'...who learned the hard way about the dynamics of real violence as we all read in books from the great Rory Miller.
Reason why I recommend that all practitioners read his books: 1. Meditations on Violence' and 2. 'Facing violence'...
But what if YOU are the much bigger person, have a black belt in martial arts, made a few insulting wisecracks which then led to the confrontation? Think it doesn't happen that way sometimes? How would you justify "self-defense" in that situation?
I think it would depend on the circumstances.
Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense.
For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.
Regaining the Right to DefendDespite the general rule, aggressors can gain the right of self-defense in some circumstances. It comes down to who the aggressor was at the moment defensive force was used.
Deadly aggression. To earn the self-defense right, an aggressor who employs deadly force must generally “withdraw” from the conflict and in some way communicate the withdrawal to the other person.
Suppose Donald tries to stab Violet in the neck with a knife. Violet fights off Donald, so successfully that Donald runs away and hides. Violet pursues. Donald has to communicate to Violet that he’s done with the confrontation in order to have the right to self-defense.
Otherwise, Violet might think that Donald is simply regrouping in order to attack again. If Donald doesn’t communicate his withdrawal to Violet and he kills Violet in what might otherwise be self-defense, he’s guilty of murder. (It might work for Donald to come out of hiding, drop the knife, and yell, “Hey, I’m sorry and I give up! Please don’t hurt me.
And so 'it reads'...but I think general common sense would prevail under judgment.
I were sitting on a jury, I'd be hard pressed to justify self defense by some idiot with a black belt who started the confrontation to begin with.
One simple truth is [regardless of 'legal opposition'] is that a martial arts practitioner's training will be used against him, as he will be held to a higher standard of personal responsibility.
I.E., would a reasonable martial arts black belt, have acted the way this defendant did in this confrontation?
As Walter Mattson said, once in similar discussion, when some martial artists turn into 'flaming martial idiots' it is not the fault of the 'art' but the pre-existing personality disorders the practitioner brought to the Dojo.
We have all seen such examples and many have come to an ignoble end.