People who deal with aggression and violence tend to understand this one well. I am still working on it at least from an academic view at this stage of life. A professional violence person said in a video, something like, "It is important to know when an immediate threat appears and it is even more important to know how to articulate that information when answering questions after the event."
What is taught as aggression and violence in martial arts is often NOT what reality is in this regard. Just saying, "he dissed me so I had to knock him out in self-defense," just isn't it. Now, another point I would make to people who have yet given this some study is this, "How you articulate it matters, not just knowing when a threat starts."
What it means as to the "how" of articulation is you must be able to convey a meaning of threat consummate with the actions you took in a way that the layperson who is going to be influenced by social conditions that may not see what you saw as immediate or a threat. It's complicated but in essence, those laypersons in all likelihood never have dealt with aggression and violence - at all. What they perceive as violence is what they see on the television, in the news, on social media such as Youtube and other entertainment venues of the modern world. But, you can't sound like a canned speech or quote like, "I was in fear of my life," because everyone who breaks the law tries to use that mess and it don't work.
Listen, this is a complicated, yet complex, teaching and application issue in self-defense defense of self and others. When you have to self-protect against aggression and violence the social inclination is that everyone who participated, even unwillingly, is guilty of fighting and breaking the law; or at minimum, the social order as they see it.
People who train in martial arts or other physical disciplines used to self-protect have to know how to detect when a threat is immediate regardless of level, act accordingly to that threat and level; then articulate it to first responders, prosecution and most importantly to your defense attorney.
There are only examples that teachers can provide that will get and give you a sense of what appears that says, "immediate threat exists," so that you can take appropriate actions. You have to get out there and dig to find the postures, displays and body physiological displays that say, "danger Will Robinson," but the information is out there, you just have to "let it in."
I would recommend starting with self-defense law, what does the local laws say in your location about a legal definition of “immediate threat?”
In just one reference in the great State of California it was written:
Reasonable belief in threat
In order to plead self-defense successfully, you must have had an honest and reasonable belief that you faced imminent harm and needed to use force to defend yourself. 13 It does not matter whether that belief was correct or not, as long as it was reasonable. 14
In deciding whether or not your belief was reasonable, the jury is supposed to use what is called an objective standard. This means that they are supposed to ask themselves whether a reasonable person in your shoes would have believed they were in danger – not whether you personally believed you were in danger. 15
So a person with a mental illness, phobia, or other psychological disorder may have trouble claiming self-defense – if s/he acted in a way that a person without that disorder would not have acted. 16
Example: Steve is in prison. He has a mental illness that causes him to hear voices telling him that the guards are planning to kill him. So he kills a guard, believing that he has no choice if he wants to save himself.
Steve genuinely believed that he needed to kill the guard in self-defense, but this belief wasn't reasonable. A reasonable person who didn't hear voices because of mental illness would not have believed the same thing. So he cannot escape a murder conviction based on self-defense. 17
Battered woman's syndrome
But there is one exception to the rule that a defendant's mental illness or psychological problems won't be considered in determining whether s/he acted reasonably. That is the condition known as “battered woman's syndrome,” which is attributed to women (and men) involved in relationships characterized by domestic violence. 18
In California, juries are allowed to consider the effects of domestic abuse on a defendant in deciding whether or not s/he acted reasonably in self-defense. 19
Example: Evelyn is married to Albert. Albert has been beating Evelyn for years, and lately he has been threatening to kill her. One day, he gets drunk and shoots a gun at her, but misses. A bit later, Albert begins hitting her again. Evelyn finds the gun where Albert left it and uses it to shoot and kill him.
Evelyn may be able to argue self-defense. A normal person who had been subjected to regular beatings and death threats by their spouse might reasonably have believed that Albert was about to inflict severe harm on her at that moment. 20
Presumption of reasonable threat from home invasion
California self-defense law creates a presumption that you reasonably feared death or great bodily harm if someone broke into your house “unlawfully and forcibly” — provided that person was not a member of your household or family. 21
In other words, if you are the victim of Penal Code 459 PC burglary, and you use force against the burglar, a prosecutor would bear the burden of trying to prove that you should be convicted of a crime for your use of force – rather than being excused based on self-defense. 22
ref: https://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html#1.3
Then it goes on to 1.4, Reasonable Response and so on. Needless to say, the explanations, as you may expect in the legal world, spell out things in a way that it is best to retain a legal defense attorney to just help you understand, basically, what it means to know, perceive, and articulate immediate threat to all parties concerned. In my mind, this is compounded by the fact that each individual in the system will perceive and interpret the language and definitions differently making it impossible to navigate the legal system smoothly.
Note: On 1.4. Reasonable response
The general rule under California self-defense law is that you are only allowed to use as much force as is necessary to combat the force being used against you. 23
However, if you have previously been threatened by your attacker, you are entitled to act more quickly and with more force than someone who has not been threatened. 24
Note: California self-defense law is a “stand your ground” law.In California, you may use reasonable force to defend yourself even if you also had the option of escaping the threat by running away. 27 You may even pursue your attacker until the danger has passed. BUT even under California's “stand your ground” law, you still can't claim the self-defense privilege once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer a threat.
Ref: https://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html
When you access the site, read the entire site on self-defense, then you will find just how important it is to study this stuff along with your self-protection efforts along with finding a good self-defense attorney because this stuff can be confusing and when applying skills under adrenal stressors of violence and aggression you don’t want to find you used the wrong information to trigger your conditioned responses because, “it be too late dudes!”
Note: I find all this surprising and understand why it is most defense programs fail to address it or if the do on a very glossing over way because most who come into the dojo for self-protection programs would immediately be dissuaded due to the complexities. People want simple answers; people want one stop shopping quick and easy answers; people want to feel safe but don’t want to do the work to be safe type stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment