Do martial artists run a higher risk of prosecution when involved in an altercation that ends in injury?

Most states have a duty to retreat clause on their law books. This means that you may use reasonable force to defend yourself or repel an attack but can only legally use deadly force (death or great bodily harm) when faced with a deadly or great bodily harm threat yourself. Otherwise you are obligated to retreat if possible or practical.

Use only that force you believe to be reasonable and neccesary and be prepared to justify your actions.

John Junker, a University of Washington law professor specializing in criminal law and self-defense issues. state's "If the person using force believed he needed it to defend himself, and it was reasonable,"

So the key is what is reasonable to defend yourself

So you have a guy yelling, bullying, threatening you (put your hands up to protect yourself ) and state you do not want to fight, He is not backing down, and takes a swing at you, you kick his knee and he falls to the ground in pain unable to continue the attack. You stop. Someone contacts the police.

Peter Hobart, Esq. further addes "...The law, and the facts underlying a cause of action are rarely clear-cut. Statutes and case law vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Lawyers are skilled at recasting the facts in their client’s best interest. Juries are given broad discretion with respect to determining guilt or innocence, and may feel the need to compensate an injured party regardless of fault. And even if a defendant successfully raises one of the defenses discussed above, litigation is costly both in terms of time and money.

It would be foolish to try to rely on a general understanding of the legal principles at work in these situations, in order to engage in behavior which falls just within the realm of legality. Rather, the wise martial artist will attempt to avoid any hint of liability or criminal conduct.

The following general principles may be of value in this endeavor.

• Avoid physical confrontation. If there is a safe avenue of retreat, use it (regardless of jurisdiction). At a minimum, retreat to the wall.

• If confrontation is inevitable, give a warning when defending property, unless doing so would be dangerous or futile (which is often the case). This does not mean that you should list your qualifications, as the samurai of old were wont to do. Rather, you should simply give the aggressor notice that you intend to use force against him, in order to allow him to reconsider his position.

• Ensure that you are not seen as the aggressor. This does not require ‘taking the first hit’, but it does require being certain that physical contact is imminent prior to reacting (for an in-depth examination of the danger here, see the Goetz case).

• Be aware of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Is there a size, age, or ability differential? Are you or the attacker armed or trained? All of these factors will help you determine the appropriate level of force.

• Use only the amount of force necessary to deter the attack. This does not require the use of ineffective technique, but rather mature reflection prior to a confrontation about what technique (including flight) is appropriate in which situation. It would be wise to introduce this as part of training.

• Once the initial threat is neutralized, stop. This does not mean that you must give your opponent a fighting chance. Rather, you may immobilize the attacker while awaiting the police, but do no further damage.

• When intervening on behalf of a third party, ensure (as much as possible) that the intervention is justified and necessary. As a rule, interference in domestic disputes is unwise. Reconciliations can mean trouble for the would-be rescuer.

• Remember that, in this country, human rights are superior to property rights. The use of force in the protection of property is very risky.

• As an instructor, you are both morally and legally responsible for the actions of your students, both inside and out of the dojo...."

Humbly posted,

Devin Willis

Hi there This is a very interesting question and one that not only questions the way one trains but also the style one trains in. Its a common known fact that some arts are by their very nature hard. As a mature martial artist in my early 30's there are somethings i struggle with like yourself. I have collected many injuries over the years by training unsafely when i was younger and with poor tuition from people who don't know the definition of martial arts. I think you are now at a crossroads where you have to decide which direction to take. You can keep training in the same style or search for an alternative solution. If you stay with a hard style you need to find an instructor that understands what your abilities are or find another art that suits your circumstances. One thing i have noticed is that if you train for years in an art that requires strength and speed you will lose these abilities as you get older. Martial arts are all about self development of ones character and martial skills. So you should be getting better and more refined as you get older and not the other way round. If your lucky enough to find an instructor who polishes their skills rather than flexing their muscles then youve cracked it! As a guide to which arts benefit you in the long run just take a look at some of the grandmasters of the different arts. Some are still developing their skills even in their 70's Just my views Best wishes idai

No, those are old wives tales.

While many of the other answerers gave good advice and some even stated facts, the thing to remember is volunteer no additional information then a basic description of what happened. Never announce I am a martial artist, thats almost a gaurantee that you'll get in a fight, or after the fact be sued. (and if you lose its embarassing as can be) Never tell the police unless specifically asked. This is just to avoid predetermined conclusions. Always be respectful to the police, it will give you a better chance at being believed.

I agree with most everyone here. As a martial artist you would be held to a higher standard, and be expected to show restraint since you may to severely injure someone. I think that if you take the martial arts, you should be required to take a class in conflict resolution, or something similar. A martial artist should only fight when they have no other choice. If after trying to talk someone down they still want to fight, Try to get away. Try to brush them off. 90% of the time this wont work, but you should try every time regardless unless it is clear there is no other choice.

Not really. The police are going to charge you based on what they call battery and or assault. Battery is the actual physical touching of someone; poking your finger in someones chest or pushing them, striking them. Threats fall under the category of assault and you can be charged for that and not be charged with battery. Normally if it is a clear cut case of someone threatening or attacking you then only that person is charged but sometimes that is not always the case or it may not be very evident and so both people get charged. This is more-so true when alcohol or personal relationships are a factor. The other factor oftentimes is how much force you used when the situation happened as you are only entitled to use force slightly greater to protect yourself. This is where additional charges are filed and lawsuits made if you have a martial arts background and be sued for using to much force or causing excessive injury while using to much force.

I believe that most courts or jury's would hold an experienced black belt to a higher standard of restraint or control than they may expect from an untrained member of the public. Whether or not that would qualify as running a greater risk is somewhat questionable.

Certainly, anyone with training should have more options available to them to utilize the most appropriate technique in response to a given threat. They would also hopefully try to de-escalate or mitigate any situation prior to it becoming a physical altercation. If the worst happens, I'd hope that provided they acted reasonably in self-defense, most DA's, jurors, or judges would recognize this.

Ken C

9th Dan HapMoosaKi-Do

8th Dan TaeKwon-Do

5th Dan YongChul-Do

Marital Arts are supposed to be taught as self-defense, so if you are using your skills properly, you would only use in this way. It seems to me that the law in general is for the defender using as much force as necessary to deter any threat made against his health and/or life. I think any court would uphold this position if it was clear you were innocently attacked. When alcohol or other provocation becomes involved, then the picture becomes less clearer. The lesson from this is to be a straight shooter and live by the Golden Rule and if worse comes to worse, thats what all that MA training is for.

yes and no.

yes because we all live in the theoretical world where everyone knows everything about the background of every stranger.

no because we don't exist in the mythical imaginary world where the police don't have instant access to your background and martial artists are not requred to "register thier hands" and are not a pro fighter with some fame.

I believe so, if you have a background in Martial Arts, Wrestling, Boxing, or military training... I think you may be held to a higher standard when it comes to use of deadly or unnecessary force. You have to use the minimal use of force possible to subdue your assailant.

People untrained in confrontation can always use in fear of life and death, for myself and my family. People who have training in dealing with confrontational situations will be expected to show restraint.

first of all it really wouldn't matter who started it if you stuck around without trying to get away, you helped to perpetuate the situation. you would have to make a very clear attempt at trying to escape the situation, but if you were unable to you would be allowed to do whatever you needed to without using excessive force in an attempt to escape the situation. for example: a) if a man came at you and tried to punch you, you would be allowed to strike him back just to disable him so you can escape. b) if a man came at you with a weapon and looked like he was going to attack you with it and had the means to do so. that is a perceived threat. you can attack him in an attempt to defend yourself but as soon as you disable him you have to make an attempt to escape. c) now if a man threatened to attack you and had some weapon but made no attempt to come at you to carry out the threat, you better just remove yourself from that situation asap. if you attacked him when he had made no attempt to harm you, you would be the one in the wrong.

there has to be a clear threat to you, there has to be a real threat of this person actually being able to carry out his threat to harm you and you must have made some attempt to get out of the situation. if you stick around after having an opening to get away, it will no longer be considered self defense.