• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Should Not Be Used Against You In Court If You Get Into A Fight

Bodhisattva said:
Anything can expose you to charges of excessive force if you go too far.
Click to expand...

From what I know, in such a situation you will not be charged with excessive force you will be charged with anything from assault to murder depending on how bad you hurt the other person. Whether or not self defense is a valid legal defense in court against such charges that would depend if the force you used was excessive or not.
 
jamesbyoung said:
I have explained it above several times. If you are an aggressor, DC, and you use your certified martial arts skills against the defender, the court should take that it into account, the same as if you used a baseball bat or a crowbar.
Click to expand...
A baseball bat or a crowbar is a weapon when used against somebody in a fight. When you use martial arts you're not using any weapons other than your own body, but that's the same as if you don't know any martial arts. Fighting with your bare hands is fighting with your bare hands whether you know martial arts or not.

Now as far as having "certified" martial arts skills, that varies tremendously. Not all schools use certificates, belts of rank, or any ranking system whatsoever. As for schools that do, the requirements, skill levels, and standards for various certificates, ranks, etc. vary tremendously.

jamesbyoung said:
More than forty years ago, my friend was attacked by a M A guy so he shot him in the knee. He was not charged with any crime, only the attacker.
Click to expand...
And your friend shouldn't've been charged as he was defending himself. Of course when guns are used in a fight that is a fight at a whole different level and in court it is a whole different ballgame.
 
DebateChallenge said:
A baseball bat or a crowbar is a weapon when used against somebody in a fight. When you use martial arts you're not using any weapons other than your own body, but that's the same as if you don't know any martial arts. Fighting with your bare hands is fighting with your bare hands whether you know martial arts or not.

Now as far as having "certified" martial arts skills, that varies tremendously. Not all schools use certificates, belts of rank, or any ranking system whatsoever. As for schools that do, the requirements, skill levels, and standards for various certificates, ranks, etc. vary tremendously.
And your friend shouldn't've been charged as he was defending himself. Of course when guns are used in a fight that is a fight at a whole different level and in court it is a whole different ballgame.
Click to expand...
You know that you are wrong. If you start a fight and use M A skills, the judge is going to use it as an aggravating event in sentencing. You are going down longer if found guilty.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I did a lot of crazy s*** in College but I don't remember even coming close to getting into a fight
Click to expand...

In regards to what's in boldface above, you're not the only one. Its common for people to run wild once they're in college, living away from home, and that includes bullies. Im not saying that you were a bully or that you went around instigating and provoking people in college but when people do run wild in college, that includes bullies who do stuff that they might've not done in high school. That's why college can be a place where it can be likely to get into a fight.
 
Drowning Man said:
"Shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" really don't matter too much. Do you have a legal reason for why that information should be excluded? Are you claiming it is prejudicial, for example? Or is there another legal basis for your opinion?
Click to expand...

Fishking said:
Yes, a person should be able to stand their ground, whether they are trained or not. To say otherwise is basically saying a person that is trained is not allowed to stand their ground, a right that should belong to anyone.
Click to expand...

/shrug
 
Martial arts training is pertinent to the facts surrounding around any case. As someone said.. it should neither be seen as a negative.. or as a positive.. but depends on the facts of the case.

Someone that has martial arts training.. I would say.. would be less likely to convince me that in a situation fighting an smaller, obviously untrained opponent that they felt endangered and were justified in using what I would consider "excessive force".

On the flip side.. I also agree that at times the martial arts training justifies what others would consider excessive force. For example.. I know of one fellow that was trained in the same martial art that I am (I have a couple of brown belts in two disciplines and am working on black in another).

He was looking at being charged with aggravated battery because he was attacked by a fellow who threw the first punch... and in defending himself, broke the fellows wrist, elbow, ribs, and nose.

The aggravated assault charge was primarily based on the extent of the injuries that resulted from the fellow throwing a punch. However, one of the instructors in the discipline was able to show the DA that the technique that was taught as a defense to a punch to the face, was a single technique with a strike, continuing into a throw and would result in such injuries. In other words..the injuries did not take place over a period of time where the person could have walked away.. or were the result of over use of force.. but were the result of a learned response to a punch to the face.
Based on the information provided to the DA..the charges were not filed against the martial artist.
 
Fishking said:
I understand that you do not care about rights, apparently, or logic and reason for that matter.
Click to expand...

Rights are codified into law. That also wouldn’t be a “should” argument, but would point to specific rights. So if you have a “rights” argument, sure...let’s hear it.

As for “logic and reason”, I’d say that you looked pretty silly with your response considering what I was asking for...

Again, /shrug....
 
Drowning Man said:
Rights are codified into law. That also wouldn’t be a “should” argument, but would point to specific rights. So if you have a “rights” argument, sure...let’s hear it.

As for “logic and reason”, I’d say that you looked pretty silly with your response considering what I was asking for...

Again, /shrug....
Click to expand...

Rights are not codified by law. They exist in a state where they are validated by law or violated by law. And your argument has been ****, continues to be ****. It's so bad that you aren't even making valid points anymore.
 
Fishking said:
Rights are not codified by law. They exist in a state where they are validated by law or violated by law.
Click to expand...

Um...wow...

Good luck with that. You’ll need it.
 
Drowning Man said:
I always concede to an unarmed man in a battle of wits. Who wants to be stuck arguing with a complete moron?
Click to expand...

Oh pumkin...you think you're winning here. That's cute.
 
No, snookums, you win. I’m sure there is an internet prize waiting for you, somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom