The Consequences of Fighting

You're telling me if you did kotegaeshi on some drunk guy in a bar, and there was available space, then he'd land on the ground and be fine? I thought the move itself was designed to snap the wrist and arm in several places if uke resists the breakfall or fails to ukemi properly. Pardon my ignorance on this technique as I am not aikidoka.

@Roger: As this thread was titled "The Consequences of Fighting" I suggest that the legalities are certainly a part of the equation and discussion. We can discuss the ethical standards of involving ourselves in a fight as some have. We can discuss the efficacy of particular techniques in a fighting situation as some have. We also should consider the legal consequences of participating in a fight whether we are the aggressor or the defender. One can be morally right and technically proficient and still find himself in a criminal or civil court and I can assure you that has significant ramifications. I strongly advise folks to learn the laws of self-defense in their jurisdiction and think that martial arts instructors should teach their students about the "rules of engagement" so to speak.

@Jackie: My point about stereotyping was a little different than your response. Being alert to a stereotype situation is a little different than saying that a homeless person is likely out-of-shape or suggesting that he may not have any skill. That an attacker appears to be a homeless bum, doesn't necessarily make him less dangerous and making that assumption can be fatal. I'm not suggesting that you should run over him with your SUV if confronted, but rather you should assess the actual danger the individual presents.

@Garth: You make a good point about public opinion. Police agents here in California have wide discretion and are not required to make arrests in most circumstances - there are specific exceptions such as legal requirements to arrest anyone who has an open warrant, to enforce the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or to receive a prisoner from an arrest by a private person (citizen's arrest in popular language). Similarly, the prosecutor has tremendous discretion in choosing to prosecute or not, or for what charge. If enough "heat" is generated by the public or media, it isn't uncommon to prosecute a person that would otherwise not be charged.

Yeah, we're a little screwed up here in California, but we have far more problems to face than whether we have over-zealous prosecutors. On the bright side, we have good weather and lots and lots of good Aikido.

"Yeah, we're a little screwed up here in California, but we have far more problems to face than whether we have over-zealous prosecutors. On the bright side, we have good weather and lots and lots of good Aikido."

Well , you may have me on that weather thing, ..... and well the dojos do seem to be as populous as bodegas are here.
But you are not alone on the problems front by a long shot
Be well
G

Yeah Garth, but youse guys have those great pretzels down at the Ferry Landing from Atlantic Highlands. Awesome!

@Jackie: My point about stereotyping was a little different than your response. Being alert to a stereotype situation is a little different than saying that a homeless person is likely out-of-shape or suggesting that he may not have any skill. That an attacker appears to be a homeless bum, doesn't necessarily make him less dangerous and making that assumption can be fatal. I'm not suggesting that you should run over him with your SUV if confronted, but rather you should assess the actual danger the individual presents.

Good day Michael Hackett, thank you for sharing "a must go to place" for pretzels. I am now definitely going to make the effort to stop by there. Thank you for your thoughtful comment too.

The homeless person who attacked Jim was dangerous, sadly. Most people aren't dangerous, but we can't allow ourselves to be lulled into a false of security. Those of us who are practitioners of Aikido taking the Founder's view of non-violence/avoidance of violence, where violence has it's consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator, understand the importance of being aware of violent people.

The causes for this homeless man to be dangerous can be a result of generalizations. I was a part of a group where we lived on the street for a month to understand the conditions of being homeless. During that time of interacting with the homeless like any society you have dangerous individuals. I also met those who needed professional mental health care, most where not dangerous, some made me nervous. It is a myth to think all mentally ill homeless people are not dangerous. It is wrong to think all mentally ill homeless people are dangerous. Also, be deprived of food, sleep and a safe environment; where the threat of victimization is a constant. I will not add a drug habit on top of that. You will be surprised of what you will do to survive when there is no hope, when your life becomes broken.

You have to treat and show the homeless with respect, like everyone else. They are people too, living under desperate conditions, without hope of change. A very difficult way of life. Jim's attacker was driven to a desperate act that translated to a violent attack. Jim's attacker actions didn't work out well for him, sadly. Jim being on the receiving end of a violent attack didn't fare to well either. No one won. The both came out on the losing end. How sad of a circumstance, nothing good comes from violence.

I hope everyone has a great day and enjoys their training today, or what ever they do. In Peace.

Most people aren't dangerous, but we can't allow ourselves to be lulled into a false of security.
The causes for this homeless man to be dangerous can be a result of generalizations
You have to treat and show the homeless with respect, like everyone else

You did mention addiction so you would not have to mention it?
And also me assuming or generalizing that a homeless person(s) are dangerous can actually cause them to be dangerous? Seriously ?
And what about personal choice?
Living with the homeless,while a noble effort, does not interfere with the fact of statistics.
Homeless people are more prevalent in the cities in this country where there is leniency, tolerance and more handouts, good weather also. It is a fact. I watched them almost disappear from NYC in early nineties under Mayor Giuliani. Turns out they were also committing A LOT of the crime. (See William Bratton and Jack Maple also). Most of them have migrated to towns like San Francisco or
the ones for who it was a choice. That is no small number of the general homeless population.
New York now being one of the largest safe cities in the world was no accident and it is slowly reversing itself because after Mayor Giuliani and his progenitors the will was slowly lost , etched away by liberal resistance or "understanding" "compassion" "pschology".
Giving respect to homeless people is not going to keep them from attacking you if they intend to do so, nor any other member of society.
My point is , to you Mr. Adams and others , is , I do not have to understand why a homeless person felt the need to attack me when they do. I also do not wish to kill or hurt someone, but really it takes two to tango. A noble effort to eradicate one of society's great ills and it has not been accomplished since time has been recorded!!

Gregory Gargiso wrote: Most people aren't dangerous, but we can't allow ourselves to be lulled into a false of security. The causes for this homeless man to be dangerous can be a result of generalizations You have to treat and show the homeless with respect, like everyone else You did mention addiction so you would not have to mention it? And also me assuming or generalizing that a homeless person(s) are dangerous can actually cause them to be dangerous? Seriously ? And what about personal choice? Living with the homeless,while a noble effort, does not interfere with the fact of statistics. Homeless people are more prevalent in the cities in this country where there is leniency, tolerance and more handouts, good weather also. It is a fact. I watched them almost disappear from NYC in early nineties under Mayor Giuliani. Turns out they were also committing A LOT of the crime. (See William Bratton and Jack Maple also). Most of them have migrated to towns like San Francisco or the ones for who it was a choice. That is no small number of the general homeless population. New York now being one of the largest safe cities in the world was no accident and it is slowly reversing itself because after Mayor Giuliani and his progenitors the will was slowly lost , etched away by liberal resistance or "understanding" "compassion" "pschology". Giving respect to homeless people is not going to keep them from attacking you if they intend to do so, nor any other member of society. My point is , to you Mr. Adams and others , is , I do not have to understand why a homeless person felt the need to attack me when they do. I also do not wish to kill or hurt someone, but really it takes two to tango. A noble effort to eradicate one of society's great ills and it has not been accomplished since time has been recorded!!

Hello Gregory Gargiso, and thank you for taking the time to respond to my thoughts. I do agree with what you said. Pardon my confusion and possible misunderstanding on this point. If I mislead anyone to thinking I support or advocate the eradication of the homeless, I apologize. The homeless in my view need help, we as a society are not adequately providing that help. Most people don't realize the vast variation of people who end up homeless living on the street for lots of reasons. It is sad most people only think homeless are those with drug problems, or some how decide that is the life they wish to lead. I don't think this way. In Jim's case, the moral is for me violence has consequences for all involved. Violence has its price,. Violence makes everyone pay, and doesn't care who it is.
I hope all is well this fine day.

Mr. Adams, I am saying exactly saying that I disagree.
The homeless have been the recipients of billions of dollars of help and time, since the beginning of recorded history. Now , you can point to people specifically whose lives have been saved because of that help(i.e homeless people who didnt freeze to death because they were given shelter or food or money) . See "war on poverty" and or Lyndon Baines Johnson. Really? How much more can be done ? BILLIONS maybe TRILLIONS and thats only last fifty years.There are few or none that I can think of who did lift themselves out of that lifestyle to justify the expenditure which has been given them and that by hook or crook is a choice somewhere. I know, I know that we all get to feel good about ourselves and most likely will go to heaven and it is what is supposed to be done in a civilized society, BUT that millisecond of compassion that I am supposed to have for this person, which has been PROVEN to be 9 out of 10 times , either addicted and or crazy and or there by choice, may just be my undoing.
These posts have made me contemplate what would happen to me if I lost everything tomorrow including any kind of social support of family and friends, and that I conclude , would only happen if I DECIDED to cut myself off from everyone 100%, and I dont even have that many friends. I know that I would not remain homeless and cut off from the world for very long unless there were some very serious screws knocked loose in my brain in the process.
As for the violence, it is going to keep happening, even as society decides to pussyfoot around it more and more., even more so for that very reason.
To the criminally insane, compassion usually equals victim. They can smell it on you like a cheap suit.
And I have only seen two ways to convince someone of the error of their ways in attacking another person, Osensei's way which was perfect Aikido technique( which he said by the way included deadly atemi) and someone's size and strength overwhelmed the other person. Physically man on man that is, of course there is mace , stun guns , guns, knives, fire hoses etc. Compassion for attacker's situation or respect is either last on the list or not on it.

Gregory Gargiso wrote: Mr. Adams, I am saying exactly saying that I disagree. The homeless have been the recipients of billions of dollars of help and time, since the beginning of recorded history. Now , you can point to people specifically whose lives have been saved because of that help(i.e homeless people who didnt freeze to death because they were given shelter or food or money) . See "war on poverty" and or Lyndon Baines Johnson. Really? How much more can be done ? BILLIONS maybe TRILLIONS and thats only last fifty years.There are few or none that I can think of who did lift themselves out of that lifestyle to justify the expenditure which has been given them and that by hook or crook is a choice somewhere. I know, I know that we all get to feel good about ourselves and most likely will go to heaven and it is what is supposed to be done in a civilized society, BUT that millisecond of compassion that I am supposed to have for this person, which has been PROVEN to be 9 out of 10 times , either addicted and or crazy and or there by choice, may just be my undoing. These posts have made me contemplate what would happen to me if I lost everything tomorrow including any kind of social support of family and friends, and that I conclude , would only happen if I DECIDED to cut myself off from everyone 100%, and I dont even have that many friends. I know that I would not remain homeless and cut off from the world for very long unless there were some very serious screws knocked loose in my brain in the process. As for the violence, it is going to keep happening, even as society decides to pussyfoot around it more and more., even more so for that very reason. To the criminally insane, compassion usually equals victim. They can smell it on you like a cheap suit. And I have only seen two ways to convince someone of the error of their ways in attacking another person, Osensei's way which was perfect Aikido technique( which he said by the way included deadly atemi) and someone's size and strength overwhelmed the other person. Physically man on man that is, of course there is mace , stun guns , guns, knives, fire hoses etc. Compassion for attacker's situation or respect is either last on the list or not on it.

Gregory Gargiso, hello again, I hope your day was good and evening better. We agree but it is out methods for lack of a better word differ. Not in a conflicting way, just different paths up the same mountain. There are times when I am misunderstood on my perspectives by some people which happens. In brief, it may seem to some that I stereotype all homeless as evil, crazy, demented drug addicts, demeaning them as social refuse. But, I don't. I respect them, like one respects a weapon or a table saw. Mishandled or taken for granted it can hurt you. Giving a wide berth, and staying on guard in the presence of homeless people, as anyone on the street is my self defense and personal safety program is a good rule of thumb. I am self-defense proactive, and avoid being lulled into the idea homeless people are harmless not capable of violence. Jim's situation is a prime example.

Here is the situation with violence. It exists. It will not go away. It is constantly resisting peace for dominance. The only thing that can contain violence is peace. Peace and violence can't occupy the same space and time. It is either one or the other, we live in a state of peace or a state of violence. The Founder wanted to live in a state of peace and not violence, believing there are consequences for all those who are involved in violence where no one wins. People who are in war torn countries know this all too well. People who are victimized know this. People who live on the street know this. People who are in competitive contact sports know this too. It isn't a secret. I practice Aikido for this reason to keep more peace in my life than violence. Aikido has made me aware of who and what is around me. The technique I value the most is ma-ai.

Everyone I apologize for my tangent. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts here.

The only thing that can contain violence is peace

And sometimes the peace can only be won thru violence. you think that not enough has been spent on the refuse of society and I think that is a flat out non truth.The figure is in this country is literally in the trillions of dollars. (War on poverty) . Maybe we should have called it the peace on poverty ...I dunno
Agree to strongly disagree.

Gregory Gargiso wrote: The only thing that can contain violence is peace And sometimes the peace can only be won thru violence. you think that not enough has been spent on the refuse of society and I think that is a flat out non truth.The figure is in this country is literally in the trillions of dollars. (War on poverty) . Maybe we should have called it the peace on poverty ...I dunno Agree to strongly disagree.

Hello Gregory Gargiso, it was kind of you to respond. Thank you.

I think there are greater issues where the government wastes and abuses our tax dollars, then on making our cities a better place to live. Agreed there always be homeless people, the goal then would reduce the number of people living on the streets. New York like you said changed, and it is changing back. That is like peace and violence. It takes allot of effort to keep violence in check, and you can't keep it in check for ever. This where good management of violence comes in. We can't eradicate violence but we can manage it and allow peace to dominate.

Have a great day and good training

So then the question is, do we spend money educating people about the consequences of their choices in life or do we spend it giving them handout after handout ad infinitum after they refuse to acknowledge those consequences. To say that it is the fault of the people who have made all the right choices in life or were born into better circumstance is flat wrong.
Jim had absolutely nothing to do with getting attacked , if not him, it would be another unsuspecting citizen.Having said that, how he handled himself, well, we all would have liked to see a better outcome. That is why we train, another right minded choice.
Social safety nets are or should be for the truly unfortunate in life, ie. born that way, accidents.
Not a continual string of bad choices that defy survival logic. It was thru confrontation of the problem that it was eradicated in NY, no more confrontation, they come back.
I am sorry that it seems to be directed at you, but there are plenty of other utopian minded people on here who voiced such opinions.
I am sure that people will say that the founder was like minded and eschewed competition and confrontation, I will say that he competed every moment of his life, making good choices, positioning himself at the top at which point you can say what ever you want.
Good day

Gregory Gargiso, Hello. I see you are very passionate and your spirit is strong on this topic. My admiration.

Gregory Gargiso wrote: So then the question is, do we spend money educating people about the consequences of their choices in life or do we spend it giving them handout after handout ad infinitum after they refuse to acknowledge those consequences. To say that it is the fault of the people who have made all the right choices in life or were born into better circumstance is flat wrong.

We do what you said New York did.

Jim had probably more control over the attack than he realized. The golden rule in any conflict is not to be hit, avoid at all costs. You move out of the way of the attack by being aware. Granted it is impossible to have superhuman powers and never be hit. Again, this is an issue of conflict management seen in the eyes of CA law. The law will ask did Jim do everything in his power to avoid the conflict. CA. is very conservative with issues of self-defense, there is no stand your ground law. It is different in CA. I am surprise Jim wasn't arrested. I will not be surprised if Jim is later prosecuted. That is how Cali rolls.

I am sure that people will say that the founder was like minded and eschewed competition and confrontation, I will say that he competed every moment of his life, making good choices, positioning himself at the top at which point you can say what ever you want. Good day

The Founder said didn't approve of competition, that is why we don't compete. As I understand it there was a relationship between competition and developing or having a violent nature. I can't disagree his observations or views are not without flaw. Yes, he was a leader and established his position as the leader of his art. He didn't do it with violence.

Any way enjoy your day, and thank you.

Jackie, PLEASE stop informing forum members about California law until you develop a body of knowledge. You are simply wrong. Granted, we don't have a specific law entitled "stand your ground" here, our laws of self-defense do not require a retreat, nor do they require that one do everything possible to avoid the conflict. I argue with you from a position of experience - I've investigated and enforced those laws for over three decades and continue to lecture at the college level on use of force.

On another note, "Cali" is in Colombia. We native Californians usually refer to our state as "California".

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...meless_man_for
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...69-504083.html

This is a perfect example. This is a situation of people who are FORCED to deal with conflict.
How well prepared they were prepared to deal with it is the crux of the matter.
Man was mentally ill schizophrenic, who father admits was not taking his meds and CHOSE to be homeless.
The first two videos and stories are CONJECTURE of people who were not very close to the matter.
The third video which was shown only on Fox news(only place i could find it) doesnt not come up when you google "cops kill homeless man"., clearly shows a confused man probably unable to obey commands, clearly resisting arrest.
There is a lot of things wrong with the video, but a couple of cops+ a taser could not deal with the person in a gentler manner., it is like I said a lot of things but not murder. Let anyone come forward, I would have liked to know a better way of dealing with the situation short of trying to arrest the guy. It is unfortunate and tragic and these cops HAD to deal with it, there is/no choice or awareness to comeback later and avoid the conflict or prior knowledge as to what type of person they were about to come in contact with.

And also I am under the assumption that the founder didnt want competition in Aikido because he did not want it become a "sport" like Judo had just done, not because he eschewed violence.
That is the "hippified" version of the story. Besides I am sure Takeda who was a lot of the genisis of Ueshiba's Aikido was eschewing violence when he got teeth knocked out trying to learn spear fighting or when Tohei broke some guy's leg(s)
Oh yeah

Garth, this event has gotten a great deal of local press lately. Two of the cops are currently in trial, one charged with murder and the other with assault under the color of authority. Yes, cops have to face violent people frequently and some mentally ill and homeless folks. Physical control holds and takedowns, chemical agents, impact weapons and electrical control devices usually are enough. This case appears to be something beyond proper police practice. The Orange County, CA District Attorney has a reputation of giving the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement officers and he has chosen to prosecute them. On the surface, it looks like a common and everyday event went too far and became criminal conduct. We'll see what a jury thinks in the next few days or so.

Wow, just yesterday our dojo-cho wrote a blog post on self-defense. I think it's worth a read.

It's on teaching the legalities of self-defense to your students as well as the physical training aspect of it. It cites the actual laws (at least in the state of NY).

http://www.liaikikai.com/weblog/

I'm curious about the other social implications of it though, because stereotyping works both ways, right? I mean if a woman defended herself and accidentally killed a guy, do you think the jury would go easier on her than if she was a man in the exact same situation?

Geoff Byers wrote: I never contested that. I made that exact point earlier. What I took issue with was: I fail to see how two men killing one and then pleading no contest to voluntary manslaughter could have anything to do with this discussion. It was claimed that these cases were specifically self-defense. Here's a hint. You most likely will not be able to find proof for such a claim in news sources. You will have to actually consult (gasp) case law.

http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2012/0...in-california/

Won't find 'case law' as that means something not related to the topic. Actual trials will be of charges like murder, manslaughter, assault and battery, etc and being found not guilty. No one is found 'not guilty buy reason of self defense' as there is no such outcome. One may prove self defense as a legal strategy to answer charges but unless one reads the trial transcripts that item is generally not mentioned in case summaries- generally only charges and verdicts are found. Kind of strange if one is presumed innocent until proven guilty as one does have to prove self defense - essentially by admitting guilt to the offense but 'getting off on a technicality' by proving the act as self defense.

Not exactly the same sense the term is used in MA for self defense adverts. I never heard a discussion of the legalities of self defense in any dojo I ever trained.

Let us not forget that the district attorney upon review of the facts (of the case) presented may elect to not file charges in the first place so there is no trial and no 'case law' and yet one may well have 'gotten off' by means of self defense. Arrests happen for all kinds of reasons and never end up in court. Kind of hard to present supporting documents for these instances.

Josephine, the short answer is yes. But as I said earlier, it is situational. To illustrate, let's use kotogaeshi in a restaurant as an example with the aggressor approaching the defender by reaching for he or she while saying, "I'm gonna kick your ass!" The defender responds by throwing the aggressor with kotogaeshi who suffers a broken arm and concussion.

Situation 1: Defender a female who is 5 foot tall/90 pounds being confronted by a young male, 6-5 and 240 pounds. This would very likely be viewed by the police investigating and the prosecution as a legal case of self-defense.

Situation 2: Just reverse the gender; huge female aggressor and smaller male defender. Quite likely the same result.

Situation 3: Gender irrelevant, but the aggressor reaches out and applies kotogaeshi on the defender with the same result. This event would probably result in an on-site arrest and a prosecution for a criminal assault.

The decision to arrest and prosecute an individual depends on many factors, even gender to some extent. The major factors though include determining what role each played in the event (aggressor v. defender), size, strength, age, sobriety, and even location to some degree. Suppose our location changes from a restaurant to the lobby of the local police precinct and the defender is surrounded by uniformed cops who can and will immediately step in to prevent the aggressor from harming the defender.

There simply is no "One Size Fits All" answer to this analysis. If the initial investigating officer takes the time to actually weigh the various factors no arrest may take place in cases of self-defense. Unfortunately some officers will take the view of "arrest them all and let the DA sort it out later." That is rare, but it does happen.

Your instructor should be congratulated for providing the students with legal self-defense information. Since many people train specifically for that purpose, the information is particularly valuable. Knowing the law if far better than relying on television shows and the media.

The term case law does not apply to every case tried in court. Usually case law citations are based on appellate decisions argued before a higher court than the trial court. Don't confuse case law with transcripts of trials and the rulings of trial judges. Generally case law makes a ruling involving a legal principle or concept binding on the lower courts of that jurisdiction. Take the Miranda Decision as an example. That was a decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court and binding on all courts in the nation.

Robert's last paragraph is most important. In matters of self-defense, the investigating officer may determine that a self-defense situation existed and choose not to make an arrest or forward his investigation to the prosecutor for review. Similarly, if the prosecutor gets the case, he may determine that self-defense clearly existed and elect not to file a criminal complaint with the courts. He might also determine that the evidence isn't sufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It actually is fairly rare to see self-defense raised at trial, and those cases usually involve homicides.

Michael Hackett wrote: Josephine, the short answer is yes. But as I said earlier, it is situational. To illustrate, let's use kotogaeshi in a restaurant as an example with the aggressor approaching the defender by reaching for he or she while saying, "I'm gonna kick your ass!" The defender responds by throwing the aggressor with kotogaeshi who suffers a broken arm and concussion. Situation 1: Defender a female who is 5 foot tall/90 pounds being confronted by a young male, 6-5 and 240 pounds. This would very likely be viewed by the police investigating and the prosecution as a legal case of self-defense. Situation 2: Just reverse the gender; huge female aggressor and smaller male defender. Quite likely the same result. Situation 3: Gender irrelevant, but the aggressor reaches out and applies kotogaeshi on the defender with the same result. This event would probably result in an on-site arrest and a prosecution for a criminal assault. The decision to arrest and prosecute an individual depends on many factors, even gender to some extent. The major factors though include determining what role each played in the event (aggressor v. defender), size, strength, age, sobriety, and even location to some degree. Suppose our location changes from a restaurant to the lobby of the local police precinct and the defender is surrounded by uniformed cops who can and will immediately step in to prevent the aggressor from harming the defender. There simply is no "One Size Fits All" answer to this analysis. If the initial investigating officer takes the time to actually weigh the various factors no arrest may take place in cases of self-defense. Unfortunately some officers will take the view of "arrest them all and let the DA sort it out later." That is rare, but it does happen. Your instructor should be congratulated for providing the students with legal self-defense information. Since many people train specifically for that purpose, the information is particularly valuable. Knowing the law if far better than relying on television shows and the media.

Thank you so much for the information! I thought the gender issue was an interesting one... since I thought if the defender's size and weight matters, then wouldn't their gender as well?

Although I guess that would seem kind of unfair to guys--I mean, say the girl has the same capacity to hurt someone (like the kotegaeshi example) as a guy does, but BECAUSE she is a woman, she'd be "let off" more easily, since our gender has the stereotype of being weak. Maybe that's why women rarely get the death sentence as often as men, even though some can be just as, occasionally even more so, depraved.

I like learning about this law and self defense stuff... but it kind of makes me fearful to do ANYTHING to anyone even if they were coming at me with the intent to hurt me.

I think I posed these two scenarios to someone else before:
Hypothetically, if a woman is about to be raped, the rapist tells her if she doesn't fight back, he'll let her live and never bother her again (and supposing this is caught on tape so there's evidence), and she still fights back and kills him, would she be held accountable then? He gave her the option of living, and one of the two ways to survive (a. kill him, and b. not fight back) would have been not to fight back (but of course, suffering the horrible fate of having to go through that).

And on the gender issue, hypothetically, if you were protecting a person who was about to be attacked by an aggressor by doing something that caused the aggressor harm, would there be any difference when it comes to prosecuting you if the person you were trying to protect was a man or woman? (because the man has more of a capacity to defend himself, you should have left the situation alone.)

These bugged me because then, could my hesitation because I'm not sure if I'd be prosecuted or not cause me to be "too late" in helping when I could have done so? I've had the fair share of creeps and psychos... I used to know I would be defending myself if it came to it, no questions asked, but then I wasn't so sure after reading some law issues on this.

I like learning about this law and self defense stuff... but it kind of makes me fearful to do ANYTHING to anyone even if they were coming at me with the intent to hurt me

These bugged me because then, could my hesitation because I'm not sure if I'd be prosecuted or not cause me to be "too late" in helping when I could have done so? I've had the fair share of creeps and psychos... I used to know I would be defending myself if it came to it, no questions asked, but then I wasn't so sure after reading some law issues on this

Josephine,
Exactly!! Do not let this cloud your judgement. This is why we train or should I say "re train"
"rewire" our response and dont just give a instinctual "reaction.
The cops have a saying amongst themselves, "I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
Now, upon closer examination this could get you into much trouble, putting your head down and bulling your way thru a situation, (women dont usually have this problem BTW) , or tunnel vision. Hopefully our "response" is balanced within our "education" or training. This is why newbies are placed with senior members because there experience is most likely broader, dojo and real world and then there is training.
High stress situations , gunfights, knife, fist is has been shown you will fall to your most basic training.
No training, fight or flight reaction, the more training the more educated the response as your basic vocabulary becomes broader.
Having a history as an aggressor has a way of following you around also, no matter your size gender.
This is why people have criminal records or not, which will also come into play. Very rarely are two people minding there own business bounced into court. There is usually a history .... somewhere, domestically (divorced , seperated, harrassment). 80% I believe is the statistic of victims of violent crime know their attacker in some capacity. Could be as harmless I knew him from church gatherings or full blown stalking or crimes of passion. Awareness plays a big role.
Stay safe.
G

Josephine, you ask tough questions!

In your first scenario, yes, the rape victim could defend herself. First, there is no guarantee that the rapist won't severely injure or kill her beyond and after the rape itself. Secondly, the very act of rape is an attack likely to create great bodily harm, or the fear of the same.

In your second scenario, yes is probably the correct answer. In most jurisdictions a person can act to protect another from imminent death or bodily harm. The law is silent regarding gender. The major issue would be the amount of force used and whether it was reasonable.

That begs the question of what is reasonable. The term means the average person in the same situation would view the force used as "reasonable". There is no objective scale to rely on. Police agents have a different standard that speaks to whether a reasonable peace officer in the same circumstances would view the force as reasonable and addresses the underlying activity that caused the use of force; whether the individual is continuing to resist or attempt to escape, the danger presented by the individual's conduct to the officer and public, and speaks also to a dynamic and evolving situation.

No one can give you a menu of options you can rely on. Talk to your instructor again, since he or she is interested in keeping his or her students from legal harm. You can pose hypothetical situations until the cows come home, and each will require a thoughtful analysis. In general you can defend yourself if you rationally believe that you are in danger of being attacked and suffering harm. Simply being scared isn't enough - you have to have a real and rational belief and you have to be able to articulate why you held that belief at that moment.

My ramblings here don't constitute legal advice and may even be inaccurate in your jurisdiction or situation. In our local schools here, a student has NO right of self-defense on campus by the policies of the school board. He could be legally right in defending himself, but still be expelled for engaging in a fight. So, as someone here once said so eloquently, YMMV.

In general you can defend yourself if you rationally believe that you are in danger of being attacked and suffering harm. Simply being scared isn't enough - you have to have a real and rational belief and you have to be able to articulate why you held that belief at that moment.

My ramblings here don't constitute legal advice and may even be inaccurate in your jurisdiction or situation. In our local schools here, a student has NO right of self-defense on campus by the policies of the school board. He could be legally right in defending himself, but still be expelled for engaging in a fight. So, as someone here once said so eloquently, YMMV.

Mike,
I mostly agree with this advice. But I still like my point. I cannot invest all the time necessary to learn the penal code, especially when Michael Bloomberg decides he does not like something anymore.
I know , I do so at my own peril, but again I will not place my personal security in a school board that decides some cockamamie law is necessary every time somebody burps or a legislature that will not be there when I am getting my clock cleaned. Information is king, but keeping your nose clean also goes a long way. All these laws are designed for victims and that is not a place I want to be forced to reside at/in.
But to Josephine's point , I do not want to become a victim because I hesitated to act. Doesnt mean it cant happen, but I am eliminating room for error.
Sh$t happens in the meanwhile, and not lucky whether by design or choice I do not need hesitation or indecision on my side also....
G

Garth, my advice is not different than yours. I was answering legal questions that are highly complex. As for advice, mine is try and avoid getting into situations where you might have to defend yourself whenever possible. If that doesn't work, defend yourself or others, and then STOP when the danger is neutralized or flees. In other words, don't take that extra hit. Don't be the aggressor, don't be a bully, don't provoke an encounter. There may be some unpleasantness and perhaps even some legal problems, but if you are honestly defending yourself you should be alright.