At what point do you hit someone?

[Chalice]

Ryan, I agree with you for the most part. The main issue is justification. If you have to justify your action, then make it good. Much like the "fighting words" doctrine. This is similar to "heat of passion" doctrine in that it allows for a physical response to a verbal situation. If you are in any situation where they have to throw down, make sure you're doing it for the right reason. All will be well.

Thanks Ryan.

[ryanhall]

Thanks for clarifying, Chalice. Good input. Welcome to the forum.

[Crouchtig]

bad situation

if you hit first then the fight is your fualt, if they hit first then your at a disadvantage. if they win then you might die, if you win they can press charges claiming that you were the attacker.

The best defence is probably to avoid such a situation: dont walk in dangerous areas at night and practice one of the best self defence arts there is: run-away-do.

[eXcessiveForce]

the real key is perception.


example:


Hey, why the hell did you hit me you as s hole.
Whack.


Witness to police officer.

Well is started when that guy laying there on the ground hit the other guy. Then that guy yelled at him and punched him and he went out like a light.


People see what they believe. Bus drivers do this during an accident.

Did You see that jerk cut me off.


Old People to police: yes officer that car cut off the bus driver and he didn't have any choice but to run into him.

perception perception perception.


My opinion is the time to hit someone is the exact moment your hand or foot touches them and not a second sooner.

[briggfoot]

Geoff Thompson

hey guys,
cool to see people speaking about Geoff Thompson. he wasnt a cop by the way, but he spent 9 or so years working some of the roughest doors.
im really interested in his books, and hell, im only 15!
he speaks alot about the preempitive (spelling) strike.
alot of info about it on his site www.geoffthompson.com. its a great site with loads of information and a forum Dave Turton, Ian Macranor, Dennis Martin and Geoff himself contribute alot to it.

hope this helps
andy

[Tory]

Having just finished my Use of Force Law class in my police academy I can definitely say that ""Defense to verbal provocation alone is not justified." The agressor must have a means (knife, gun, stick, tire iron, in the process of a punch, kick or whatever) of causing harm, bodily injury, serous bodily injury, or DEATH before you can legally defend yourself.

If the agressor is saying "I will kill you Mudder Fudder" is he just talking trash like many people do, or does he actually have the means to do it? Every situation is different. If he is just talking trash or actually making an threat, call the cops and press charges for Threat of Bodily Injury. You still win, even without fighting

Chalice is right, check out the videos or book by Dr. Thompson, "VERBAL JUDO" they have some very good material in it, even if the delivery is a little different.. lol

remember this:
"When words and actions do not agree, trust actions"

[Tory]

BRIGGFOOT.

Dr. Thompson was a cop for 6 years before he released his book. He was an english professor prior to becoming a cop. While he was a professor, he was a reserve peace officer and became so enamored with what peace officers do, he quit teaching and became a full time cop.

[Bruce_Fan]

What if you are pushed?

A Lot of fights seem to start with pushing and shoving.
That's how it was in High school and it seems to be the same way in a lot of bars and such.....

If someone pushes you both hands or lays a hand on you in anyway, (Bitch slap?) does this now mean you have been provoked and need to defend yourself by knocking him out?
(Asking as seen in the eyes of the law)

Once someone has put his hands on you, does that constitute assault, and thus, open season to retaliate?

Thanks
Bruce_Fan

[Tory]

Yes Bruce, that does constitute assault. but realize that amount of force used to defend onesself has to be directly apportionate to the force used against you. IE: you get bitch slapped, you hip throw him, dot his eye etc. it doesnt give you the right to break his legs.. lol make sense?

[Typhoon]

My philosophy is plain and simple If someone hits me or is trying and I am lucky enough to get out of the way I hit back.

[ryanhall]

May God/the Force/your ancestors be with you...you may need them. Lots of luck involved in that philosophy.

[Lethargic8]

Hey,
3 years ago during highschool, my friend had gotten in a fight with a kid but it was more of a ground wrestling match. The kid came back with like 20 other guys to "finish it". I tried to talk my way out of it but alls that acomplished was to have him decide to fight me. He started coming at me with his hands down, and I guess I just decided I was not going to talk my way out of the issue, so I thew a straight right at him. I had been taking Shotokan Karate for about 4 months at that point. By some crazy chance the punch landed flush on his chin and knocked him straight down. I was an idiot and let him get up where I knocked him out again at which point his friends all jumped me.
The point of that story is, was I at fault for throwing the first punch, even though he was coming towards me in an aggressive manner? I am tall and personally dont relish the idea of letting someone who is talking and acting in an aggressivly to come within fighting distance of me even if they had not yet made a physical attack.
-Derek

[eXcessiveForce]

In the US it is about what the Law can prove not on what actually transpires.

If someone is yelling at you in a provacative manner then that is assault. You have a right to defend yourself but only to the extent necessary to maintain your safety.


One of my instructor's sons was driving his car in a parking lot when a guy picked up a cinderblock and threw it on the hood. The son got out and kicked the guy in the chest. The guy fell down and he kicked him again in the chest. The guy ended up with some broken ribs.


In court the judge said the first kick was justified by the second kick was not since the other person was already down.

Right or wrong that is how it works.

If you get into a fight and it is you and twenty guys and you hurt one and the police show up and 20 guys say you started it you are going to at least be arrested and questioned.

That's why what ever you do you do it quick, decisively and get the hell out of there.

[Tory]

Lethargic8,

Where are you from? That is the largest factor in determining if you are right or wrong for throwing the first punch. Even is the best defense is a strong offense!

He started coming at me with his hands down, and I guess I just decided I was not going to talk my way out of the issue, so I thew a straight right at him.

The law in Texas says you really did not have any right to assume a self-defense claim in that particular situation, since his hands where down. I don't know if threats where said while he was coming at you, or if he had a weapon of some type or not, if so, that would be a little different. The biggest factor was the word of 20 of his friends against yours.

eXcessive,

The law may read different in VA. but I do know for a fact that in TX the law plainly says, defense to verbal provocation alone is not authorized or justifiable according.

For situations like this, you are best off KNOWING (reading and understanding) ,not just going off of what some one has said, what the laws of your state/country dictate as to what is a legal claim for self-defense.

Once again, I am just stating what I know about the laws in TX, not where both of you are from, they may say different.

[eXcessiveForce]

Tory, sorry maybe I'm not making myself clear.

I am not talking about legalities so much as I am talking about the perception of on lookers.

Eye witness testimony sucks, people fill in information when they do not have all of the information.

My point is if you are completely in the right and did defend yourself but there is no one to back up your claim you could still be arrested and convicted of assault.

Bus drivers in New York after an accident will say things like "Did you see that ******** cut me off." or things to that nature because even though the people did not see anything they will often say they did see the other driver cut off the bus driver.

The test has been done many times in psychology. People are very impressionable.

I understand the force continuem, but I also realize that it is all it what can be proven. You can be completely in the right and still be sued for damages and lose. It has happened many times.

If you are going to respond you better make your case to the witnesses so that they tell the police the correct story or you will be finished right or wrong.

Just like if it is just you and an attacker and you kill them it makes testifing a lot easier since they are the only other ones that were there and they don't get a chance to testify because they are dead.

Chances are if you defend yourself you could be charged with assault. No matter who started it, or why. Convicted of something is different but still possible.

So if you are going to do something you better be aware of that fact. The Law is what can be proven to 12 people or to a judge. If you forget that you may end up worse off defending yourself.


I am taking a defense logic approach not an LEO approach.
I mean we have to face facts the police are not our friends after an altercation. Right or wrong.