Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:03 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2000 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 311
Location: Washington DC area, USA
Road rage: it's coming down to a physical confrontation. My question: which one is going to get me more time in Lorton (local correctional facility);

1) Hitting Uke with the car
2) Using my "empty hands" on Uke
3) Shooting Uke with a gun

Guess I got some nerve using Aikido terms for the attacker (Uke), considering Aikido, from what I understand, is all about harmonizing with your opponent, not taking him out of life's symphony.

Cecil

------------------
Email: <A HREF="mailto:creativebrother@yahoo.com">creativebrother@yahoo.com</A>
Web Page: http://creativebrother.freehosting.net


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2000 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
Definitely the first or third. Either would be considered either assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, manslaughter or murder.

Simply beating him up could be at worse aggravated assault; however, assuming that he is just at fault in provoking a physical confrontation the odds are it will be considered a mutual confrontation in which case you both might get disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance. This assumes that you don't beat him to a bloody pulp and he doesn't even hit you, in which case things would go very differently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2000 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2074
Location: Boston, MA
Cecil,

Just a comment on the "aikido" thing... To paraphrase O'Sensei, "In attacking me, you attack yourself." I take this to mean that the more rigorous and evil the intent of the attack, likewise the response... This is harmonizing.

Of course, a lot of aikido folks have taken a more "pacifist" interpretation. Simply, many have not truly confronted a rigorous and evil attacker bent on destroying the "center of the universe..."

david


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2000 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 1688
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Your milage may vary from state to state (or Province), depending upon the local laws and the competance of your attorney (which I am not) and the prosecutor and/or the dude representing the guy you just ran over, but...

Your response needs to be reasonable.
How/when/why is up to the armchair QBs and/or the judge or jury. But whatever the aggression, your defense must be reasonable.

Confused yet?

Gene


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2000 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 311
Location: Washington DC area, USA
So, if the guy has a gun, then I can shoot him with mine, or if he's trying to deck me I can deck him, but not with my ultra-powerful martial technique, right? Yeah, it's confusing.

I guess I'll have to do what feels appropriate at the time, then worry about the rest later. But, I doubt that I will get into a fighting stance with a road rager unless I am in an situation where the car will not move!

Cecil

P.S. A few months ago, I used the example of the guy at the beginning of Con Air who fought three guys and killed one of them who pulled a knife on him. He went to jail because he was expected to use better judgement because he was a trained Ranger. Yeah, right, okay sure. 3 on 1, that's cool, I'll be calm? However, I do admit one thing: he really could have just gotten in the car and driven off. The worse they could have done at that point was kick the car. If I remember correctly, he had a window to get in the vehicle, start it up and drive away, but he got out of the car and duked it out to protect his lady. Which I wish we were actually allowed to do without the song and dance of the legal system.

Oh, and David, I like your response!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2000 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Mr. Bernard:

Good response.

Cecil:

OK, I'm not clear on how road rages comes down to a choice of the alternatives you have presented, but assuming you are outlining a self defense situation, then typically what will be evaluated by the court is whether you responded reasonably. Is it reasonable to shoot someone because they upset you with their inability to adhere to even minimum standards of driving proficiency? I suppose the answer to that may depend in large part on who you have on your jury, but even the president of the NRA might think it was a bit of over kill, pardon the pun, to shoot someone over bad driving habits.

Most courts will look at how you respond in a given self defense situation by first asking whether you were reasonably in fear of your life and limb from the alleged attacker. If you have mutually stopped along a road side to have a confrontation, you may have already removed the element of reasonableness from your defense, as it may be considered unreasonable for you to have even stopped. In some states, you must take advantage of an opportunity to escape. If you had a chance to leave, as in the Con Air example you cite, and do not avail yourself of the opportunity, again whatever actions you take, may be deemed to have been unreasonable.

Next, your level of response will be examined for reasonableness. Also, did you break off your defense once you were no longer in reasonable fear. That is, once your attacker is down and no longer able to attack or pose a threat to you, did you continue to attack him? Or in hardware terms, don't use a blow torch when all you need is a match.

Finally, while you are measuring time served, you might also want to toss into your risk analysis the civil penalty price you may end up paying if you are found to have acted unreasonably. O.J. may not be in jail, but he's not living in Brentwood either.

Peace.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2000 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 55
Location: CANADA
I like every one's opinion here on how the law would or could handle the situation.

I'm from Vancouver,BC.here you can defend yourself in a confrontation,but if you know martial arts you're known as a lethal weapon,so it's a different story which makes no sense,either way it's still self-defense.

A martial artist will serve time in jail for any form of violence whether it be self-defense or the one doing the attacking.

However if it was self-defense the martial artist won't spend as much time as the one provoking the fight,but will still spend some time in jail.

Now tell me if this makes sense,we spend time in jail for self-defense for both reasons,being an adult as well as being what the law sees as a lethal weapon,yet due to our young offenders act any one under 19 can blow you away for no reason at all,and basically just get a slap on the wrist.

Don't know about you,but to me that makes no sense.Think about it what's worse blowing some one away or defending yourself? Of course blowing some one away.

If you're 18 you spend some time in boot camp,but not as long as a martial artist would for defending himself ,in adult jail,which is I would assume alot worse than boot camp.

That really sickens me,and is pathetic. Murder is murder regardless of age,unless in defense of your life and loved ones,as far as I am concerned.

If you can do the crime ,you can do the time


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group