In general, in the United States, physical violence is only legally justifiable if used for self defense or the defense of a loved one. It's self-defense if you are actually being attacked - i.e. someone is actively punching you or trying to stab you or hit you with a chair or ... well, you get the idea. The law is pretty clean cut in regards to whether or not you are being attacked or not.
[Editor's note: In general, "a loved one" means someone in your direct family - a parent, child, sibling, or spouse. Some states are more lax with this definition and will allow you to come to the aid of a friend. For clarity, let's just assume that when I say "you" in this section, I generally mean "you or a loved one." Again, check with local authorities as to what kinds of relationships count as close ones for self-defense purposes.]
You are also allowed to defend yourself from imminent attack. The law is a bit trickier on this point. It seems pretty simple on the surface: you can act if and when you know you're about to be attacked, right? The problem is whether a jury agrees, after hearing you, your (imminent) attacker's, and the police officer's side of the story, that you were about to be attacked. You don't have to be able to convince your friends or family about this, and it doesn't matter how obvious it seems to you. What matters, in the eyes of the law, is whether you can convince a jury of your peers - 12 strangers.
Sometimes it's pretty clear: the guy is charging toward you, screaming at the top of his lungs, swinging a machete, or he's put up his fists and is dancing around you trying to "fake" you out.
But sometimes it's not so clear. A jury will be asked to judge either subjectively or objectively whether or not an assault was imminent. By objectively, I mean that the jurors will decide whether the average, ordinary, reasonably sane person, if he was put in the same situation at the time of the incident, would have also believed that he or she was about to be attacked. Many legal experts believe that there is quite a bit open to interpretation in this case.
Your lawyer may also choose to persuade the jury subjectively. Each juror will be asked to pretend he or she is you and guess as to your state of mind: did you really honestly think or fear that you were about to be attacked? This will vary according to who you are. For instance, my mother is 70 years old, 4 feet 11 inches, and 80 pounds soaking wet. If a large, unshaven man wearing ripped leathers lumbers threateningly toward her, and she responds by whipping out her can of mace and spraying him and then kicking him in the groin (go Mom!), a jury might decide that my mother was being reasonable in fearing for her safety - especially if she had previously been the victim of a violent crime. On the other hand, if my former college roommate - 6 foot 3 inches, a former football player who is still in fairly good physical shape - responds similarly, the jury might subjectively decide that John (not his real name) was not being reasonable in assuming that he was about to be attacked.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Kent Fung's Martial Arts topic, please visit the Discussions page.