Shaolin Kung Fu for Self Defence and Legal Ramifications

[cosmicdragon108]

off the top of my head

hi everyone

this may seem obvious and i dont have the criminal code of canada handy
or a law degree......

but as a former CAF military/security officer this what i remember:

L.O.T. Levels of threat
start with the lowest level and escelate as needed.

1. tac-com - tactical communication - be assertive but calm -
'sir, i am going to ask you stop that.' and
(depending on the attitude)
'thank you sir i appreciate that' or
'sir, i'm asking you for the last time'

oooshaaa

our teacher called it verbal judo

for most of us its 'hey buddy back off, i told you BACK OFF! i'm warning you!'

2. fall back - tactical repositioning - retreat if things don't look good. if its an option.
'run away! run away!' no seriously a controlled falling back
there is no shame to run away and live to fight another day
- calling for help or backup is never a bad idea

actually a tactic used by the RCMP to break up a serious fight is sit back and wait for them to get tired. doest take long for drunk untrained people, the ones who are 99% of the time are fighting. then jump in and control the situation when a few more officers have the area under control. now thats not the case if it looks like someone has the upper hand or is seriously hurt. then its pepper spray time (lot3.)

3. use of open handed tactics - use only as much force as is needed to stop the attacker from assaulting you. this is where the martial artist is expected to stay in the eyes of the law. also use of less than lethal options batons pepper spray tasers etc.

4. closed handed tactics - this is show time. legal gray area. you better be righteous both spiritually and in the eyes of the law. oh ya and have good reliable witnesses. expect to be in court. the lady in question used what is considered closed handed tactics when she soccer kicked buddies knee
(i know i know) it was the force she required to stop the assailent so did she escilate to lot4? only good witnesses can help you here.

5. deadly force - only used when deadly force has been proven to be used against you and you were left with no other options. good luck.

'stop shooting at me sir, i have a gun and i am trained in deadly force!' lol

it might also be interesting to know in canada, security has all the same rights and powers as the individual. when you are arrested by security it is under the private citizens-arrest act.

in canada(b.c.anyways, we have a problem with home invasion. this maybe because the law is to lax in this area. if someone broke into my house with ill intent and i kill or injure him with undue force, i will be charged.

i tend to ramble on but here is on more little tid bit.

if you put barbed wire on your fence because someone broke into your house. if they or anyone climbs your fence and get hurt. even in the process of a BnE you can be charged with intent to assault. it is considered a booby trap

now if you always had barbed wire on your fence, and no one ever broke in before. and someone tries to climb your fence with ill intent and injures themselves. thats their problem. you had no intention to harm them. you just think barbed wire looks pretty i guess?

anyway good thread

[cosmicdragon108]

i just wanted to add that the martial artist or law enforcment officer
can use lot4 but.... they can only match force for force. if buddy had made any kicking motion(grey area) towards the woman in question or kicked her, she would have been matching force for force and may have not been found guilty.

for example : if someone stabbed their finger at an officer's chest
if they do not touch him, the officer must remain at lot 1 or 2. if the finger even just barely touches the officer he may resort to lot 3(not an over reaction, because he is defending himself from an assault. this could be a simple palm block followed by reading his rights or akido style wrist lock/hand cuff application) now if that finger hits him hard as in a martial attack, he may resort to lot4. now we know what a finger can do, but does the court? if the officer just elbow smashed the person across the bridge of the nose should he be charged? yes, it was an undue use of force.

unless of course the officer was hit with a 'deadly' one finger shooting zen(would never happen because it takes too much discipline in the individual and the practitioner would never strike an officer like that without reason)
then he may have known he needed to use that amount force to survive the altercation.

to a witness across the street, they may never even see the difference except in the officers reaction. so this shows you how much respect we must have for law enforcement.

This is just like the baton tactics for lot3 are different for lot4.

thanks for reading

[Kraythe]

can use lot4 but.... they can only match force for force. if buddy had made any kicking motion(grey area) towards the woman in question or kicked her, she would have been matching force for force and may have not been found guilty.

Thats really silly. So you have to be stabbed with a knife to use deadly force. The fact is that the criminal probably hasnt started off mugging you. They have probably did it before and they might have even been in jail for it or for assault before. Why should the law protect them at all. The moment they make the concious decision to pull out a knife and threaten me or my family, in my eyes they have relinquished all rights to avoid injury. If they wished to avoid injury, they could have watched a football match, barbequeued with some friends or shot some pool. They made a concious decision to come mug me and they deserve what they get.

Its a sad sad state of affairs when a law abiding person can be sent to jail for throttling someone who set out to harm or steal from another person.

[cosmicdragon108]

now a weapon is a different matter. if some one is brandishing a weapon, even a pen or bannana for that matter, in a threatening maner, then the defender can use lot5 if they feel it is required. i am sorry i forgot the attacker had a knife.

look out hes got a bannana!, (neck break)

i do not mean to make light of the situation, but it is even more frustraiting when you are trying to protect the rights of everyday citizens, what most
law enforcement officers join the acadamy to do originally.

if the attacker had a knife then there should be no reason why the woman was charged.

Now i dont necessarily agree with this(LOTR that is), but this was how i was trained to re-act. The actual acronym is (L.O.T.R.) level of threat responce

and it came about because a security officer killed someone in self defence
he was sued by the family of the victim and lost

so he sued the security company for not defining his training.. and won

so the security company sued the government for not setting standards and ....won

so the government set standards in place

[AlexBaranosky]

My two cents is that this whole heap of law stuff pisses me off.

I am so dang peace-loving, but if someone attacks me 4-6 on one, I will attempt to break all their arms and legs (assuming I knew how or could which I can't). Or if they had a weapon I'd try to put them out of commision however I could. Literally. To think I need to measure how much damage I do to an attacker is ludicrous.

I feel as little remorse for those actions as if I was killing mosquitos that won't go away. Or for the chicken I ate last night for dinner. Sometimes situations in life warrant people and other creatures getting maimed or killed. For an ignorant attacker of the innocent that's just his stupidity combined with bad fortune! But it's not the worst fate, maybe a butt-wooping is what's needed to change their life?

No I am not from Texas

Peace :-)

Alex

[cosmicdragon108]

i agree with you ab, it is ludicrous, and some of these guys could use a good butt kick'n for sure. but try telling that to a judge.

if it were me and 4-6 persons jumped me. i would defend myself to the best of my ability and pick up the pieces later.

[George]

Please remember that several members of Shaolin Wahnam are already either practicing Law, or training to be Lawyers (like George).

Thank you, but I am not actually training to be a lawyer any more. The degree was enough for me - I am a full time geek now. My girlfriend is, however, training to be one and she is lovely (hence my sensitivity.)

Back on topic, Scot's Law is different from English Law in this regard. A gross oversimplification is that Scot's Law still follows the meaning behind the law, while English law follows the letter of the law.

Apologies if I implied it was the same, I am aware it is different. I try to use the word 'English' but it does not always happen.

Just to make it clear: under English law there is no need to wait for an attack - pre-emptive self defence is fine. Nor is there a duty to retreat (unlike in most of the US states.)

English law is concerned with 2 things really:

1) Threat must be immediate. This is why Tony Martin was convicted: he shot the burglars while they were running away.

2) The response must be proportional to the threat. If someone punches you in the face and you go all out and break his legs, then the response is not proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife and you do the same (or even kill him) then you will probably be acquitted.

Also, once a self-defence issue is raised the burden is on the prosecution to prove _beyond reasonable doubt_ that it was not self-defence.

As a side note, with regards to the lady mentioned at the start of the post, her self-defence claim probably failed on the proportionality test based on the treat level at the time (this is why I would have to read the case to be sure.) However, getting 30 days in jail for Grievous Bodily Harm (in this case breaking the leg and knee which would probably have marked that person for life) is an _extremely_ light sentence.

[Kraythe]

Depends on your point of view. The guy had been in jail several times for sexual assault, assault and other things so I think HE got off light. The basic reality is that he picked on the wrong woman, one that for the first time in his life he was not able to subdue and he got his butt kicked. I may be too old fashioned but I personally think she had every right to do what she did. But now she has a criminal record and people wont look deeper to see why. SHE is marked for life for defending herself. She can be refused jobs, denied visas and so on because one day a potential rapist attacked her. Seems to me like the potential rapist won.

Personally I think she had a horrible attorney or the legal system is in need of some SERIOUS reconsideration. Most likely both. However, when I see liberals campaigning for "prisoner rights" and "rehabilitation" then I wonder how exactly our society got to the point where the criminals have such an upper hand. They have suprise on their side, usually weapons on their side and if they actually suffer Newton's law from one of their victims, they have the courts on their side. If they had kept this looser in jail in the first place, this woman's life would be different.

[FluffElemental]

considering your female friend is now classed as a criminal perhaps those liberal rights are not such a bad idea. Law is about equality and that means vigilantes get in just as much trouble as criminals if they do the same damage. I realise it is not fun for those who are in a position of being punished for defending themselves but as George says, 30 days really is a very low sentence and does reflect that the law has taken the circumstances into account. Consider that failure to pay council tax is punishable by 60 days imprisonment.

Before awarding a custodial sentence the court must first ask is the offence "so serious" as to warrant a prison sentence. That doesn't sound a lot but it is actually a high threshold and not one crossed lightly.

[George]

Interesting. I think George just demonstrated the art of fighting without fighting.

I am trying to learn from my mistakes (sorry about that Mark, I was a fair bit OTT .)

[Kraythe]

Yeah, I suppose she should have let herself be raped and murdered instead. At least then she would be recognized as the victim and be treated with respect instead of like a criminal. The point is that she isnt and never was a criminal and never should have been except for a corrupted legal system.

Its ironic that she left the house seeking only to go shopping and he left the house seeking to mug and rape a young woman and at the end of the incident she is the one that suffers the most. The criminal won and in such a society as that, there is no such thing as justice. Our societies of today are hampered by the fact that the criminals of all types are allowed to win. Not just the violent ciminals either but also the ones in the shadow; people such as managers that think nothing of putting 5000 poeple on the street so that they can get a 3 cent higher divident per share.

It must indicate something wrong with the system when I love people in general and hate the institutions of government with vehemence. To be honest, I think people were better as a whole when one had to be concerned about a challenge of a duel or a punch in the face on the street. It was more honest and more dangerous to be a jerk. Today there are almost no social reprocussions; if a person spreads rumors around that you are a criminal and ruins your life and reputation, there is little you can do about it nowadays. I remember being in university and sleeping with a willing (and even agressive) woman that later regretted it and told everyone I raped her when she was passed out. Nothing i could do. She ruined my life at that school and there was nothing I could possibly do. I never dated another woman at university after that.

And if you actually defend either you lose. Crime does pay. Its little wonder a woman can be raped in broad daylight in front of 10 people and a gang banger can ruthlessly murder a person with impunity. Any onlookers around who have the capability to stop the event incur SIGNIFICANT chance of ruining their entire lives. For the onlooker the best possible plan is to merely thank their respective gods that it isnt them and look the other way. To do more could result in arrest, imprisonment, loss of job, travel restrictions, criminal records and so on. Once they intervene, they are throwing it into the lap of 12 people that werent there and in the end dont really care if the person in the dock goes to prison or not.

Well, enough rambling I suppose. What a sad state of affairs the world is in.

[Ray]

Namo Amitofo

[Kraythe]

Namo Amitofo

[Ray]

Dear Kraythe,
Namo ami to fo means Homage to Amitabha Buddha, I was merely offering a prayer to your female friend who now suffers from what we agree as unjust consequences from just actions.

Best,

Divineshadow

[Mark A]

leal ramifications

Hi Folk's
Here is a story I would like to share with you all. In my line of work I have had been in conact with people who live and deal in the shadier side of life.

I used to work in a drug rehabilation centre and sometime we would have to take clients up to the local court house to attend session for acts they had done.

One day I was taking a client up there and because he was from the rehab centre a member of staff had to be with him at all time to make sure that he was not going to be "tempted" to recieve any drugs or anything like that. This client was attending court for driving offences(he had been driving illegally and had crashed).

Now when we met his lawyer, his lawyer was saying stuff like "dont worry I will get you off this'" The lawyer then went on to explain that he the client had changed his appearance drastically. He no longer had long hair etc and the lawyer got my client to wear a puffy jacket to make him look bigger. Then my client had went on to say that his uncle had been to "visit" the witness and that he was not worried. My impression was that the lawyer knew that the client was guilty yet he was defending him anyway. Needless to say I was quite disgusted by the whole thing.

Now I have known lawyers to work with clients for good causes etc.

So my point here is that we have a system, it does not always work and it depends heavly on the people who have roles in that system. But we have one!!!

Look at countries that have no legal system at all, or that system is corrupt. Some places in Africa are terrible or lot of other places around the world.

You have spoken about, Karma you have good Karma to be in a country that has a legal system.

Thanks
Mark A

ps Hey George no worries on the OTT, you should see some of the things I have done . I look forward to meeting you when I return to the UK