Caveat: This article is mine and mine alone. I the author of this article assure you, the reader, that any of the opinions expressed here are my own and are a result of the way in which my meandering mind interprets a particular situation and/or concept. The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of other martial arts and/or conflict/violence professionals or authors of source materials. It should be quite obvious that the sources I used herein have not approved, endorsed, embraced, friended, liked, tweeted or authorized this article. (Everything I think and write is true, within the limits of my knowledge and understanding.)
In a recent article a statement was made about the use of firearms in self-defense. The statement is, “Documented training is part of the antidote to post-shooting accusations that you acted without regard for your responsibilities to society.” The article is, “Knowing What the Defendant Knew” by Janine@bwss of the Bitterroot Women’s Shooting School
This statement triggers a thought process that I followed up with in the form of this question, “Does this apply to those self-defense situations that don’t involve weapons?” What I am aiming at, if this applies in this particular case would the same thought processes follow in a non-weapon type situation?
In other words, if I am taking a self-defense martial arts training class would that training also support the same process if I have to present my case for legally authorized self-defense? I do understand that the documented training goes both ways and that is why I understand also that choosing the appropriate type of training, training instructor and training practices becomes critical in self-defense so would the same apply to my self-defense training of empty handed self-defense?
Yes, I also understand that in most attacks, even if they start empty handed, often lead toward some type of weaponized enhancement to one or the other or both parties and yes I understand that this type of situation would often be seen as a mutual combative fight and that is illegal but in the best of examples the question stands.
Would my documented training in weaponless self-defense be a benefit to support my actions to prove my self-defense claim, i.e., that I acted with responsibility toward societies expectations and thus remained well within the self-defense square?
Recently while listening to the radio the news mentioned about someone on trial for something was being scrutinized for their martial arts training being a contributing factor for their prosecution (I can’t find any articles on it and the radio may have been presenting something else entirely so I can’t verify) so is this the beginnings of the legal system using our training in the area of conflict, violence and self-defense to prosecute? Is it also appropriate and useful in a defense presentation too?
Should anyone who is training, practicing and/or teaching self-defense create detailed information of the system being taught so that it can be utilized in a self-defense defense? Would the course syllabus, training schedule and its training content along with graduate documents actually be acceptable in either a prosecutorial or defense situation? Who, what and how would that be determined in the case of my question?
Some may assume this is a non-concern but are those naysayers the ones’ who have never experienced the application of their teachings in reality and don’t have students who can present a case that either validates the teachings or invalidates the teachings? How many of the self-defense programs out there would actually be cannon fodder for the prosecutor?
No comments:
Post a Comment