| Under international law, personal self-defense is a | | | | factors. |
| well-established human right and is an important | | | | - Do you have the legal (statutory) authority to use |
| foundation of international law itself as well as the | | | | force, and under what conditions? |
| constitution of America. From 1893 to 1896, the | | | | - Were those conditions present at the time of the |
| United States Supreme Court handed down a series | | | | incident? |
| of decisions involving self-defense and the carrying | | | | - Were you a reluctant participant? Did you create or |
| and use of firearms for self- defense. These cases | | | | exacerbate the problem? |
| laid the foundation for a 1921 opinion, authored by | | | | - Did you consider retreating? Was it reasonable to |
| Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, which became the | | | | consider retreating? |
| most important armed self- defense case in | | | | - Was the force you used reasonable, given your |
| American legal history, upholding and extending the | | | | perception of the events? The problem most civilians |
| right to armed self-defense. | | | | confront when using force is that they do not |
| Self-defense is a legal protection for the use of | | | | understand what is reasonable. The legal definition of |
| force; even deadly force to protect one's life or the | | | | reasonable: "what is appropriate for a particular |
| life of a third party. The concept has roots back to | | | | situation?" This definition is generally applied in the law |
| Roman law and English Common Law, and, in the | | | | of Negligence. It is the standard of care that a |
| United States, has been refined over a series of | | | | reasonably prudent person would observe under a |
| historic self-defense cases in the Supreme Court. In | | | | certain set of conditions. Someone who exercises |
| many cases, but not all, the issue of self-defense has | | | | such standards would not be negligent. |
| been connected with shooting deaths and the right | | | | Let's go back to our example. Is it reasonable for the |
| to bear arms. While the Supreme Court has outlined | | | | intended victim to push a stranger away who is |
| principles governing self-defense as a legal concept, | | | | demanding their money? Of course it is. We |
| individual states are left to legislate the specific limits | | | | frequently hear about death and injuries that result |
| within their own jurisdictions. | | | | from these types of crimes. If the civilian's perception |
| Consider this. You have just finished buying groceries | | | | is that they are about to be hurt or injured as a |
| one evening and are on the way to your vehicle, | | | | result of a crime, it is reasonable to use force to |
| when you are confronted by a stranger who | | | | escape. |
| demands your money. You push him away in an | | | | Was it reasonable for the civilian to shoot the |
| attempt to escape. He trips and falls, hitting his head | | | | stranger demanding money, when the gun the |
| against the ground. The police arrive and everything | | | | stranger was using is a toy gun? Yes, it is. The civilian |
| is sorted out. You are sent on your way and the | | | | has no duty or obligation to ask the stranger if the |
| stranger is carted off to the hospital. You find out | | | | gun he is holding in his hand is a toy gun or a BB gun. |
| several days later, the stranger died due to the | | | | The civilian's perception at the time of the incident is |
| traumatic brain injury he received when his head hit | | | | that the stranger is holding a real gun, with real |
| the ground. Several weeks later, you are served | | | | bullets, and he might shoot. |
| papers which indicate you are being sued by the | | | | Civilians do not have the same mission as law |
| stranger's family for Wrongful Death, due to your | | | | enforcement officers have. Police are required by |
| negligence. Is this possible? | | | | their mission and policy to respond to, and deal with, |
| The central idea behind a Wrongful Death lawsuit is | | | | circumstances that may require use of force. Civilians |
| that through negligence, carelessness or recklessness, | | | | are not required to get involved in any situation |
| someone died. These lawsuits, usually brought forth | | | | requiring the use of force. Civilians are not sent out |
| on behalf of the surviving family members, attempt | | | | to intervene in anything. Civilians can walk away from |
| to collect damages for expenses related to the | | | | everything. |
| death, pain and suffering experienced by the | | | | Civilians do, however, have almost the same |
| survivors and for future earnings of the deceased. | | | | authority as police officers when it comes to |
| There is also the possibility of a Personal Injury | | | | statutory authority governing the use of force. |
| lawsuit in which the injured party attempts to collect | | | | Civilians have the right to use "reasonable force", as |
| damages for their injuries based on negligence or | | | | do the police, if their perception is that an Adversary |
| intentional wrongdoing. | | | | is trying to hurt someone. |
| What rights do civilians have when using force to | | | | In most states, deadly force, or the taking of |
| prevent injury to themselves or others? What are | | | | another's life, is justified if a civilian's perceptions of |
| the legal limitations and implications on use of force | | | | the activity taking place will likely result in great bodily |
| by civilians? What legal thresholds will be examined by | | | | harm or death. This is the same general rule for police |
| the Courts? What specific type of force can be used | | | | officers. The difference is that civilians must consider |
| in self defense? | | | | retreating, and must be a "reluctant participant", |
| To answer these questions, let's look at this from | | | | which means they have little choice with being caught |
| another perspective. | | | | up in the circumstances to begin with. Law |
| The Odds of Death | | | | enforcement personnel do not have these |
| Consider the following odds of death as they relate | | | | restrictions. |
| to personal risk. These numbers vary to some | | | | Although not the focus of this article, another |
| degree depending on the annual totals. These odds | | | | commonality between police and civilians is the ability |
| are calculated by the National Safety Council on the | | | | to use reasonable force to detain someone during an |
| most recently released data from 2004. | | | | arrest. In many states civilians can make citizen |
| Plane Crash | | | | arrests under certain conditions. Check your state |
| - One-year odds are 1 in 400,000. | | | | statutes for details. |
| - Lifetime odds are 1 in 5,000. In this context, would | | | | Law enforcement professionals are held to a higher |
| the Court consider it unusual or negligent for flight | | | | standard of training than civilians, which is why a Use |
| attendants to skip the safety instructions given to | | | | of Force Model of some type is typically part of law |
| passengers? | | | | enforcement training. The challenge for the civilian is |
| Accidental Drowning | | | | to determine what is reasonable should they decide |
| - One-year odds are 1 in 88,772. | | | | to use force. Reasonableness and timeliness are the |
| - Lifetime odds are 1 in 1,140. In this context, would | | | | two primary considerations a judge or jury will use to |
| the Court consider it unusual or negligent for the | | | | decide if the civilian's actions were acceptable in a |
| owner of a pool to ignore reasonable efforts | | | | use-of-force case. |
| towards adult supervision while inviting young | | | | Traditional martial arts and self-defense classes do |
| neighborhood children to use the pool anytime they | | | | not teach what is reasonable and timely. Most of |
| wish? | | | | these classes teach motor skills and techniques, but |
| Falls | | | | do not provide the civilian a legal framework of force |
| - One year odds are 1 in 15,614. | | | | to work within. |
| - Lifetime odds are 1 in 200. In this context, would | | | | Here's an example of the dilemma: A civilian comes |
| the Court consider it unusual or negligent for the | | | | upon an Adversary who is standing several feet from |
| owner of a home to invite others over for a | | | | another person, fists clenched, swearing, and |
| barbecue on the upper deck, knowing the guard rails | | | | threatening that other person. The Adversary pushes |
| are loose and broken? | | | | that person hard, knocking them to the ground. |
| Accidental poisoning | | | | Would it be reasonable for the civilian observing this |
| - One-year odds are 1 in 14,107. | | | | take place, who has the right to use force, to |
| - Lifetime odds are 1 in 180. In this context, would | | | | intervene in the situation and to purposefully break |
| the Court consider it unusual or negligent for the | | | | the Adversary's leg? Probably not. Unfortunately, this |
| owner of a business to have unidentified hazardous | | | | is a possible response for the civilian participating in |
| materials in the break room? | | | | traditional martial arts. Why? Many martial arts will |
| Motor Vehicle Accident | | | | teach you a number of techniques to deal with an |
| - One-year odds are 1 in 6,535. | | | | Adversary, several of which will break an Adversary's |
| - Lifetime odds are 1 in 84. In this context, would the | | | | leg. |
| Court consider it unusual or negligent for automobile | | | | Now, take the same situation and apply what you will |
| manufacturers to sell automobiles without safety | | | | learn from an appropriate Use of Force Model. The |
| restraints? | | | | description above is one of an Adversary whose |
| Using the same formula, I have crunched some | | | | actions are physically aggressive with no apparent |
| numbers regarding Crime. | | | | weapons in hand. A good Use of Force Model will |
| Assault | | | | recommend appropriate techniques for this specific |
| - One-year odds are 1 in 25,263. | | | | type of Adversary. Impact pressure would be one of |
| - Lifetime odds are 1 in 217. In this context, would | | | | the appropriate techniques, as would a striking |
| the Court consider it unusual or negligent for the | | | | technique. Impact pressure can be applied in various |
| intended victim to use force to escape or protect | | | | ways in which it is unlikely a leg will be broken, and is |
| themselves? | | | | very likely to be effective on this type of Adversary. |
| The odds of being a victim of any type of Crime are | | | | Strikes can also be very effective in a situation like |
| approximately 8%. | | | | this. |
| In this context, would the Court consider it unusual or | | | | A good Use of Force Model does not teach civilians |
| negligent for the intended victim to use force to | | | | to break legs. It does, however, suggest impact |
| escape or protect themselves? | | | | pressure and striking specific areas of the body is |
| The odds of being a victim of Violent Crime, not | | | | appropriate. Let's assume the civilian performs a head |
| necessarily involving death, are 1-2%. In this context, | | | | strike or stun on the Adversary, which momentarily |
| would the Court consider it unusual or negligent for | | | | affects the Adversary's nervous system to the point |
| the intended victim to use force to escape or | | | | they collapse and/or lose consciousness. See the |
| protect themselves? | | | | difference? Momentary loss of consciousness is |
| What Does The Law Allow? | | | | considered more reasonable than a broken leg in this |
| Almost all states within the United States allow | | | | particular situation. |
| civilians to use reasonable force in protection of their | | | | Let's change this scenario one more time. The civilian |
| own or someone else's property or life. Check your | | | | uses a thigh stun or knee strike, which is an |
| own state statutes, as they vary considerably from | | | | appropriate technique on this type of Adversary. The |
| state to state. | | | | civilian aims for the Adversary's thigh with his knee, |
| Most of these statutes do not define what | | | | but the Adversary turns at the last moment toward |
| reasonable force is. Using the example we opened | | | | the civilian, whose thigh stun ends up striking the |
| with, is it reasonable to push someone down who is | | | | Adversary's knee, breaking the knee joint. |
| demanding your money, but is not displaying, | | | | In this instance, using either the traditional martial arts |
| brandishing or threatening you with a weapon? This is | | | | training or a Use of Force Model, the injury to the |
| where it gets tricky. Let's assume, for argument's | | | | Adversary is the same; a broken leg. But the context |
| sake, that the stranger, who died from the brain | | | | and framework is entirely different, and that will |
| injury after you pushed him, was found to have a | | | | affect the considerations of timeliness and |
| concealed knife in his pocket? Does this make any | | | | reasonableness from a legal perspective. |
| difference? | | | | Primary Consideration |
| Let's change the scenario. The same stranger | | | | Do your homework when choosing self defense |
| produces a handgun and demands your money. You, | | | | training and defense weapons. Make sure that the |
| being a legally licensed handgun permit holder, pull | | | | techniques you learn are in the context of a Use of |
| your handgun and shoot him. He dies. The police | | | | Force Model that has been tested by the courts and |
| discover the handgun he pulled on you is really a BB | | | | is appropriate for civilians. These programs are very |
| gun, or a toy gun. Does this change your liability? | | | | difficult to find. |
| The bottom line is that the courts will look at several | | | | |