Black belt and the law

joe27

Can any1 tell me if having a blackbelt in any martial art classes u as a lethal in the eyes of the law

fizzynicenice

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense really.
Can you re-phrase it?

Boston

Americanisms. Nothing to do with being a black belt. Having any martial arts training will come up should you ever face charges for assault.

yomchi

I have a black belt, but I'd be more deadly than lethal. Just my opinion.

arybvtcw0eolkf

joe27 wrote: »

Can any1 tell me if having a blackbelt in any martial art classes u as a lethal in the eyes of the law

Boston wrote: »

Americanisms. Nothing to do with being a black belt. Having any martial arts training will come up should you ever face charges for assault.

+1.

A friend of mine was charged (and convicted) of assault and both the prosecution and the judge made an issue of him having a black belt.

But thats just one case (that I know of) and hardly sets in stone how having a black belt is viewed in the eyes of the law.

He didn't kill anyone, so being a black belt was hardly lethal.

Baggio...

Terrance Alive Row wrote: »

judge made an issue of him having a black belt.

I think they'd always try to... I guess the prosecution will say that you are a "deadly weapon" or some crap like that, and they you should have known better not too fight.

Does anyone want to buy my black belt?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Baggio... wrote: »

I think they'd always try to... I guess the prosecution will say that you are a "deadly weapon" or some crap like that, and they you should have known better not too fight.

Does anyone want to buy my black belt?

Yup, thats exactly what was said.

Baggio...

Terrance Alive Row wrote: »

Yup, thats exactly what was said.

Aye, I was just agreeing with you...

challengemaster

I'd say it would definately come up alright, probably argued that someone with MA training should know better than others what the boundaries of 'reasonable force' when defending yourself is.

Especially when looked at that quite a lot of techniques are actually meant for breaking bones and crushing internal organs if properly executed, as opposed to sparring where contact levels are reduced and incorrect attacking tools are used for safety while sparring(turning kick as an example, flat of the foot in sparring, ball of the foot proper execution) and going back to when martial arts were actually used in combat and to kill, these are the very same techniques we train today.

kata/patterns/whatever you want to call them were created to record and practice the most efficent and lethal ways of killing enemies in battle. So, essentially, anyone who does martial arts has more knowledge in how to use their body/power as an effective fighting tool, and we train things so that if we are attacked, learned MA instincts and muscle memory kick in somewhat more than basic animal survival instincts, and more than likely would be looked upon that they should have appropriate control also..

YamaMotoYama

Terrance Alive Row wrote: »

+1.

A friend of mine was charged (and convicted) of assault and both the prosecution and the judge made an issue of him having a black belt.

But thats just one case (that I know of) and hardly sets in stone how having a black belt is viewed in the eyes of the law.

He didn't kill anyone, so being a black belt was hardly lethal.

Was it self defense or just a fight?

Furious-Dave

Terrance Alive Row wrote: »

+1.

A friend of mine was charged (and convicted) of assault and both the prosecution and the judge made an issue of him having a black belt.

But thats just one case (that I know of) and hardly sets in stone how having a black belt is viewed in the eyes of the law.

He didn't kill anyone, so being a black belt was hardly lethal.

The problem is that it might have created a "precedent", to which judges on future, similar cases will refer to. Those judges might even go straight to the case and say "well Mr. Justice Bloggs decided X, Y and Z so that's what I'm going to do".

arybvtcw0eolkf

YamaMotoYama wrote: »

Was it self defense or just a fight?

I'm not getting into the whole thing, but there was a history of a gang intimidating my friends family.

On the night of the 'assault' two of the gang were trailing my friends car, he rang the guards to tell them. They advised him to keep driving towards Swords garda station. But he was caught at a junction and there was a confrontation.

Basically he beat the crap out of the two lads.

In his defence he produced garda evidence and evidence from his son's school principle of an on going campaign of intimidation and abuse against him and his family.

The two lads showed up with glowing reports from their probation officers & social workers.

The judge said someone with a black belt in martial arts should have acted with more restraint and it was his view (the judge) that my friend was in effect a deadly weapon and my buddy was convicted.

So make of that what you will, maybe we're suppose to lie down and have the sh*t kicked out of us - 'sure we're black belts, can't we take an ol hammering!.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Furious-Dave wrote: »

The problem is that it might have created a "precedent", to which judges on future, similar cases will refer to. Those judges might even go straight to the case and say "well Mr. Justice Bloggs decided X, Y and Z so that's what I'm going to do".

I'm no legal eagle and just qouting from my memory of the trial.

I'd guess it depends if the prosecution makes an issue of it.

How it came to light that my friend was a BB (I'm deliberately not saying with style etc, Yomchi know's the lad well) was as a charactor reference my friend showed his contributions to the community through his work with his club area, but it blew up in his face.

Sorry I really don't want to go too deep into things. Just answering the OP's question and in this case it seem's having a black belt was an issue.

Boston

The lession I take away from that is don't involve the gardai and handle the situation yourself. Plenty of unexplained unsolved assaults in Dublin, by contacting the gardai he effectively hung himself. But that's me.

Jason McCabe

mako, the law is an ass. Anyone would have gone AWOL if they had been followed by scangers and threatened

Boston

Your friends story sounds a lot like this. He may feel hard done by, but it could have been worse.

FruitLover

If anything, a black belt would have more restraint/control than your average punter. Just look at how two white belts spar in comparison to two black belts...

YamaMotoYama

Terrance Alive Row wrote: »

I'm not getting into the whole thing, but there was a history of a gang intimidating my friends family.

On the night of the 'assault' two of the gang were trailing my friends car, he rang the guards to tell them. They advised him to keep driving towards Swords garda station. But he was caught at a junction and there was a confrontation.

Basically he beat the crap out of the two lads.

In his defence he produced garda evidence and evidence from his son's school principle of an on going campaign of intimidation and abuse against him and his family.

The two lads showed up with glowing reports from their probation officers & social workers.

The judge said someone with a black belt in martial arts should have acted with more restraint and it was his view (the judge) that my friend was in effect a deadly weapon and my buddy was convicted.

So make of that what you will, maybe we're suppose to lie down and have the sh*t kicked out of us - 'sure we're black belts, can't we take an ol hammering!.

I think it should come down to the punishment dished out...

Once its not excessive - then I don't think you should be roasted especially if you don't go over the top and don't have a history of smashing people up for fun.

arybvtcw0eolkf

FruitLover wrote: »

If anything, a black belt would have more restraint/control than your average punter. Just look at how two white belts spar in comparison to two black belts...

Oh I hate sparring (or in my case Randori) with white belts [sorry white belts out there], I always end up injured

In judo the difference between being thrown by a white belt or blue up is instead of having your balance broken, then your up and over - its more a feeling of being dragged over someone back and dumped in a heap on the floor - OUCH.

Sorry again white's

Doug Cartel

Terrance Alive Row wrote: »

The judge said someone with a black belt in martial arts should have acted with more restraint and it was his view (the judge) that my friend was in effect a deadly weapon and my buddy was convicted.

This is one of the reasons I don't like those guys who say their system will turn you into a deadly killing machine and make other sensationalist claims. When it comes down to it the Guards and judges are people two, and their perception of martial arts is going to be influenced by this stuff just as much as anyone else.

I would expect more restraint from a black belt in one respect though. They should be better at telling when they've done enough to end the fight. While a regular person might kick someone who's down and use the excuse that they were overcome with fear/adrenalin/whatever, I wouldn't let someone with fighting experience off so lightly. (Not saying that's what your friend did, btw.)

corkma

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. as far as i know the test is a subjective reasonable man test(if you study criminal law you get sick of the words objective and subjective) so reasonablee force is ok, bb or not. however its subjective, so if u know u can easily drop someone without smashing their face up u should do so. at the same time if u can convince a court that u honestly felt endangered and had to use serious force then when applying a subjectivee test this is reasonablee given your state of mind.

cletus

along with the force being reasonable, it cant be seen as having been planned, or any forethought gone into it. It should be the only resort left open to you, hence the advice often given to tell the gardai you were in fear of your life.

You also have to stop when the guy hits the ground, if you continue when the threat is gone, ie you could have got away, its assault

There is nothing specifically about black belts in the law, but if you bang somebody up badly enough, the prosecution are gonna look at any ma training, not just bb's.

Boston

It's always assault. Assault doesn't mean you're in the wrong. There can be justifiable assault. The minute you place your hands on another person it's assault. In some cases threatening is assault also.

cletus

of course your right Boston, that was sloppily phrased, what i meant was that what yoo were doing would no longer be considered self defence, instead you would be viewed as th aggressor in the situation