Provocation

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. Oh, and just because I wrote it and just because it sounds reasonable and just because it makes sense, does not mean it is true.) 

Please make note that this article/post is my personal analysis of the subject and the information used was chosen or picked by me. It is not an analysis piece because it lacks complete and comprehensive research, it was not adequately and completely investigated and it is not balanced, i.e., it is my personal view without the views of others including subject experts, etc. Look at this as “Infotainment rather then expert research.” This is an opinion/editorial article/post meant to persuade the reader to think, decide and accept or reject my premise. It is an attempt to cause change or reinforce attitudes, beliefs and values as they apply to martial arts and/or self-defense. It is merely a commentary on the subject in the particular article presented.

In order to be considered aggressive in a conflict your actions must be “Sufficiently provocative.” What kinds of behavior qualify? The answer varies, once again, from state to state. Federal courts have a general rule, “An affirmative, unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences.” Wow, decipher that one will ya.

First, affirmative means bumping into someone is not provocation.

Second, behavior must be unlawful. 

Third, it must be calculated to produce an affray (an instance of fighting in a public place that disturbs the peace). You must have a premeditated desire to create physical conflict.

Fourth, the act must have the potential for “injurious or fatal consequences.” 

Now regarding states, in general, words that threaten is provocative. 

When words are not enough, any even slight physical conduct can qualify you as an aggressor.

Some use “imminent or actual physical force to start a fight means no self-defense.

Note: if you strike first you will need to have a well-articulated explanation for why it was necessary to do so. 

If the fight ends and you start it again.

Mutual combat, the parties agree to fight ahead of time, and both lose the right to argue self-defense. 

A long standing grievance with the other guy, i.e., bad neighbor; argumentative coworker, girlfriends x, etc.

Remember: staying cool and objective when the other guy is obviously not can help support a self defense claim even years later. 

If you escalate the fight. 

In California: “If you decide that the defendant started the fight using non-deadly force and the opponent responded with such sudden and deadly force that the defendant could not withdraw from the fight, then the defendant had the right to defend himself with deadly force and was not required to stop fighting.”

To stop or deescalate you must, 1) stop fighting, 2) withdraw and 3) effectively communicate to him that you are withdrawing. 

First principle of law of self defense is innocence. Legitimate self defense is available only if you are an innocent party to the confrontation. If you initiate, sustain, or escalate a confrontation, your actions cannot be justified as self-defense. Play the role of the innocent, live the role of the innocent, and you will receive enormous dividends should you ever have to argue self-defense. 

California:

A person does not have the right to self-defense if he or she provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create an excuse to use force. CALCRIM 3472

An aggressor whose victim fights back in self-defense may not invoke the doctrine of self-defense against the victim's legally justified acts. CALCRIM 505

… there was evidence that defendant was the initial aggressor, in that he struck both Arnold and then Moses with his bicycle before either of them engaged in physically aggressive conduct toward him. People  v. Guajardo, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5234

No one disputes that he was the initial aggressor by circling in front of Hughes’s house and threatening the occupants. People  v. Halford, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5106