Truly Realistic Training

[OldMarksman]

Feel free to look up the education codes in other states.

Not a simple task by any means. State law structures and groupings vary signifcantly.

Where I live, the laws governing the subject have nothing to do with "education codes" and are not grouped therewith.

I was hoping that there might people knowledgable of the situations in their jurisdictions who might want to enlighten us.

In any event, I would be surprised if there were many states that would not provide for some kind of completion and training, whaler it be covered under "education codes" or somewhere else.

 

[stephen426]

I great way to learn to shoot under stress is to shoot competitively. The stress isn't identical to the stress of a gunfight but it's close enough to develop the skill.

I totally agree with the above. If you want to be competitive, you've got to practice. If you practice a lot, you will most likely revert to what you practice if the poop hits the fan. The more you practice, the more muscle memory you build and the gun almost becomes a part of your hand.

Try to find IDPA clubs that focus on regular carry guns rather than IPSC which is too gear dependent. I'm sure a lot of the skills still translate from IPSC, but who carries a race gun on a daily basis?

I started participating in "practical shoots" with my sister's friend and that has really broadened my skills. The drills include drawing from holster, engaging multiple targets, shooting from retention, shooting on the move, shooting from cover, rapid fire, Bill Drills, weak hand drills, Tueller drills (using a dummy on a cart), and others I don't recall. Shooting nice pretty groups, slow fire, while stationary, at a stationary target only means so much in the real world. Still, some practice is better than no practice!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Not a simple task by any means. State law structures and groupings vary signifcantly.

Little logic here. Most states allow 'discipline' in the classroom to be enforced in several ways... that is where the education codes come in.

And virtually all states allow martial arts dojos to have full contact sparing. One becomes a member of such dojos for $1, and then the owner/teacher has them sign releases. As long as the 'demonstration of techniques' does not end up with death or very serious injury then it's all ok (broke nose, busted teeth, bruised ribs.. no biggie).

I once had a guy want to spar me after class. He paid one buck and signed the release. Funny thing was, one of my friends wanted to watch.. and he was bored once there was no blood and went home. The nut who challenging me was, well, pitiful, which is what my teacher told me about those do such, and I dunno where he got the idea to challenge me for you see to ask a teacher to a sparring match is to directly challenge the teacher's skill and expect to get the stuffings beat out of you.

And I've seen many a time where a bit of 'attitude adjustment' was given out in classes. Those with big heads (maybe a few times I got a serving to) have their heads deflated..

Deaf

 

[OldMarksman]

Little logic here. Most states allow 'discipline' in the classroom to be enforced in several ways... that is where the education codes come in.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

And virtually all states allow martial arts dojos to have full contact sparing.

Well, that more or less answers my custom, which was "Are there jurisdictions in which that is not true?".

One becomes a member of such dojos for $1, and then the owner/teacher has them sign releases.

Not all of the ones in our area work that way.

And I've seen many a time where a bit of 'attitude adjustment' was given out in classes.

You are way off topic now.

 

[Deaf Smith]

You asked...

State law structures and groupings vary signifcantly.

Where I live, the laws governing the subject have nothing to do with "education codes" and are not grouped therewith.

So that is where 'Most states allow 'discipline' in the classroom to be enforced in several ways... that is where the education codes come in.

Not all of the ones in our area work that way.

So what? I surely don't care.

You are way off topic now.

'attitude adjustment' is where one gets to full contact sparing. Full contact sparing is where you get to fights.. inside a dojo. So yes, it is 'on topic'. One is giving the new $1 student an education in 'attitude adjustment'.

Deaf

 

[OldMarksman]

'attitude adjustment' is where one gets to full contact sparing. Full contact sparing is where you get to fights.. inside a dojo. So yes, it is 'on topic'. One is giving the new $1 student an education in 'attitude adjustment'.

Just what do you mean by "attitude adjustment",and how does it relate to the subject of realistic training for lawful self defense?

 

[Deaf Smith]

Just what do you mean by "attitude adjustment",and how does it relate to the subject of realistic training for lawful self defense?

Scroll up to the 'mutually agreed fight ' thingie at post #36.as

As for 'attitude adjustment' scroll up to post #43.

Deaf

 

[Ghost1958]

Oldmarksman asked about various jurisdictions.
In KY, there is legal mutual combat

As far as SD goes you can even start a fight.
If you at some point try to disengage and communicate that to your opponent, but your opponent will not allow you too all of your SD options are available to you including lethal force if you reasonably believe danger of death or serious bodily harm. By KY statute.

As far as responding to a threat of physical violence if intent ability and opportunity exist you do not have to wait to be struck to react with physical or lethal defensive force, depending on which I'd warranted under the circumstances.

This in no way means one must respond.
But it is legal by statute to do so.

 

[OldMarksman]

Oldmarksman asked about various jurisdictions.
In KY, there is legal mutual combat

Thank you.

That seems to vary a great deal among states--and it is not always yes or no.

As far as SD goes you can even start a fight.
If you at some point try to disengage and communicate that to your opponent, but your opponent will not allow you too all of your SD options are available to you including lethal force if you reasonably believe danger of death or serious bodily harm. By KY statute.

That seems to be true everywhere.

You can mount a defense of justification for your use of deadly force under such circumstances.

That would mitigate against criminal liability for that aspect, but it would not necessarily constitute a defense against a charge of battery.

As far as responding to a threat of physical violence if intent ability and opportunity exist you do not have to wait to be struck to react with physical or lethal defensive force, depending on which I'd warranted under the circumstances.

No one anywhere is required to wait to be attacked before resorting to self defense.

The defender is not required to divine the intent of someone who appears to present a serious threat. Rather, he must have some basis for believing that, unless he acts immediately, he will almost certainly be attacked then and there with force--a judgment call that may be ruled upon by others after the fact.

Mere verbal threats will not suffice. What someone suggested in Post #27 does not constitute the justified use of force. In some states that's a matter of common law; in others it is spelled out in statutes. It has nothing to do with whether mutual combat happens to be lawful.

And, of course, he will be justified in the use of no more force than is necessary to defend himself.

Except for the mutual combat issue, and that's really a secondary one, I do not see anything in the KY self defense laws that is markedly different from the law anywhere else in this country. Of course, one cannot tall that just by looking at statutes--court rulings and jury instructions come into play.

On second thought, some states do vary in terms of when and under what circumstances the display of a weapon may be lawfully justified.

But that's another subject.

 

[Ghost1958]

I don't write very well ,my bad, so I'll try to be clearer.
As to physical force response in KY.
If a person 1. Gets in arms reach of me. Opportunity, 2. Appears capable of doing me serious harm. Ability. And 3. Verbally threatens to strike, beat up, etc ,,,intent that is all that is legally required here to use physical force. He doesnt nessacarily verbalize intent. Could just by posture or actions give reasonable belief he is a threat.

What level of threat would depend on his age physical condition vs my own at 59 yrs old etc.

One thing that we do have that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender.
They may use normal investigative technique but unless there is substantial evidence the self defense claim is a lie the defender will not spend one minute in police custody or be taken to the station etc.
As of I believe 2014 that statute was strengthened in language so In practical terms unless a SD claim is blatantly obviously and unquestionably false, arrests resulting from SD seldom occur.
The few that almost never occur on scene but later on after the case against the claimed defender is believed air tight.

 

[OldMarksman]

One thing that we do have that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender.

What has given you that impression?

 

[Ghost1958]

I believe only 3 states actually forbid arrest, or even detain in custody by statute.
There could be a few more but not many.

 

[OldMarksman]

I believe only 3 states actually forbid arrest, or even detain in custody by statute.

Specifics?

I seriously doubt that there are any.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok folks, if claims are going to be made about various state laws, there needs to be a citation of the specific law in question accompanying the claim. Laws can sometimes be counterintuitive and specific wording and minor details matter. Trying to work from memory or hearsay can result in incorrect information being disseminated and nobody wants that. Even if the law is accurately summarized, minor details or specific wording can make a big difference and an issue that the person summarizing the law glosses over because he/she might not consider it important could be critical to a person reading the summary.

Providing a citation shouldn't be a problem as nearly all state statutes are online these days.

So with that in mind:

In Washington state it is not illegal. Agreeing to a physical confrontation is not considered assault or battery. I don't pretend to know about other States but I try to stay up on the laws in Washington.

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

Here in Texas, as long as you join a dojo, boxing club, etc... and the 'fight' is there, it ain't mutually agreed combat. It's a 'class' and 'sparring'.

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

As far as SD goes you can even start a fight. (in KY)

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

One thing that we do have (in KY) that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender.

Please provide a link to the law in question, or at least provide a "chapter and verse" reference so that those who are interested can look it up.

 

[Ghost1958]

Krs chapter 503.

 

[JohnKSa]

I assume that your reply was in response to a request for the statute that you claim states that police in KY may not arrest a person "once a claim of self defense has been made".

I found this link to the KY statutes.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39367

Since you provided only a chapter reference, I read through the chapter trying to find a relevant section. About 2/3 of the way through the chapter I found section 503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force -- Exceptions

Section (2) of 503.085 states:

A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.​

I assume that this (specifically the highlighted portion) is the law you are referring to.

The law does not state or imply that a claim of self-defense exempts a person from arrest.

The law does prevent arrests when there is no probable cause indicating that a law was broken. In other words, police are prevented from routinely arresting people involved in use of force incidents. There must be some probable cause indicating that they broke the law before they can be arrested.

If there is probable cause indicating that the use of force was unlawful, then the law certainly allows the person to be arrested regardless of any claims of self-defense that have been made.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...One thing that we do have that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender. They may use normal investigative technique but unless there is substantial evidence the self defense claim is a lie the defender will not spend one minute in police custody or be taken to the station etc.....

And of course you're wrong.

John quoted the statute. The test for justifying immediate arrest is "probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." That's far different from "substantial evidence that the self defense claim is a lie."

The generally applicable definition in law of "probable cause" is:

...sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed....

As the Supreme Court of Kentucky noted when affirming a second degree murder conviction against a plea of self defense and claim of immunity under 503.085 (Commonwealth v. Lemons, 437 S.W.3d 708 (Ky., 2014), at 714-715):

...although those in the criminal justice system are familiar with the standard of probable cause, “it often eludes definition.” Id. However, we also noted that we had recently used the definition provided by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983): “[P]robable cause is a fluid concept-turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts-not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.”...

And later (Lemon, at 715):

...“Probable cause has ... been defined as ‘reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.’ ” Commonwealth v. Jones, 217 S.W.3d 190, 200 (Ky.2006) citing United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir.1990)....

 

[Ghost1958]

I cited what you requested.

You are apparently more familiar with the laws of my state than I and leos here are.

I never stated a self defense claim exempted a shooter from arrest.
But unless there is substantial physical or witness evidence that the shooting was wrongful there will be no arrest or detainment in custody.

Happens frequently here.

But I will now to your greater knowledge of KY law and how it is applied as gleaned from California.

Carry on.

 

[OldMarksman]

I never stated a self defense claim exempted a shooter from arrest.

Just what, then, did you mean by "One thing that we do have (in KY) that many states don't is the statute that once a claim of self defense has been made police may not arrest, take into custody etc the defender"?

 

[Ghost1958]

503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force --
Exceptions.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and
503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution
and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force
was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the
performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself
in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably
should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection,
the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and
charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of
force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force
that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss
of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action
brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from
prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 6, effective July 12, 2006.


Attempt to clarify.
Police here may not use the fact a shooting has occurred as probable cause to arrest as in most states and then up to the defender to prove hexes justifed up the legal pipeline.
There will be some evidence to indicate the shoot was wrongful or no arrest detainment or prosecution will occur.
The fact there was a shooting here is not enough for probable cause as in the majority of states.

Real example from last summer in my area.
Two men have an argument and verbal threats are exchanged then they part company. Both know the other is armed.

20 min later they encounter each other on a rural road. One shoots the other putting him in the hospital for a month. Claims self defense because of previous threats and knowledge the other was armed.
The man shot claims he was going past the shooters drive where the shooting occurred to visit another person on the same street.

Neither man was ever charged or detained nor arrested because SD claim could not be disputed by evidence and was legally reasonable here.

The man shot though he had also made threatscand was armed could not be proven to actually have attempted to harm the shooter and nor charged either.