Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)
JAM is a an acronym for, “Jeopardy, Ability and Means,” used to determine if one is being interviewed for a resource predation type attack (example, not just for this type of attack; used to determine if and when violence is going to occur). AOJ is an acronym for, “Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy,” also used to determine if and when violence is going to occur. In truth it is a matter of which the individual uses to stay within the self-defense square.
The five stages are the stages of violent crimes, i.e., what to look for along with JAM/AOJ in determining whether someone is going to go violent on you. Marc MacYoung states, “Short version, the person crosses a psychological boundary and moves closer to physical violence - and his body reflects it.” The five stages of violent crime are, “Intent, Interview, Positioning, Attack and Reaction.”
AOJ (Ability: Opportunity/Means: Jeopardy)
- Ability: In that your attacker has the power to attack, kill, or cripple (weapon or physical ability including disparity of force).
- Opportunity or Means: In that your attacker or potential assailant is able to immediately deploy that ability (depending on circumstances - obstacles, distance, etc.).
- Jeopardy: In that the elements of ability, opportunity, and means are present, you must also be able to explain why the level of force used was reasonable in that situation. (when the attacker is acting in such a way that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude the attacker intended to kill or cripple. OR when the attacker acts in a manner consistent with what it takes to commit a crime or attack someone.)
- Intent: In that the determination or resolve to do certain things, or the state of mind with with something is done. OR When a person crosses a mental boundary that gives self-permission for violence and the human body prepares for physical violence (adrenaline and involuntary physiological reactions). Changes in the body language and physiological indicators such as skin color, pupil size, and unconscious muscle tension.
- Preclusion: In that could you have done anything other than the use of force to ensure your safety? Could you have done something to remove yourself from the situation or did you have no other choice than to use force? Base answers on time available, exits, terrain, attacker numbers, and positions.
- Totality of Circumstances: In that it suggests that there is no single factor to base a use-of-force decision on. You must take into consideration all the facts and context to conclude from the whole picture that you acted appropriately (Massad Ayoob quote). Totality is the best strategy in dealing with the prosecutor’s nitpicking each item of your defense.
Five Stages of Violence
These help considerably especially in regard to AOJ's, jeopardy. This is about crime avoidance because knowing this process provides you an out, avoidance, because you can still derail it before it reaches the violence level.
- Intent.
- Interview. (how they determine if you are a good target, safe to attack)
- Position. (how they put themselves in a position to successfully attack)
- Attack. (when they can they use a physical assault or threat of overwhelming force.
- Reaction. (your response to his actions in setting you up to attack)
This model provides you extra tools to use so that you can better describe the dangerous circumstances.
MM's Three Stages of Self-Defense
- The build-up/set-up;
- The Physical;
- The Aftermath.
They overlap and influence one another, the first stage will affect what happens in the other two (includes if they don’t happen). Things of great importance in the third stage influence actions in the other two stages. To function on this level requires strategic thinking, not tactical (being the more physical). Make sure you have what you need, i.e., an overview, planning and logistics.
The factors establishing a disparity of force include:
- Age (bring with it weakness of muscle, slowed reflexes, and some loss of the aggression which once lent authority to our actions in protection-defense.)
- Overwhelming size
- Overwhelming strength
- Force of numbers
- Advanced skill in unarmed combat (Note: martial artists must consider how belts, rank or levels of skill apply against them when protecting one self in relation to these principles of an attacker, etc.)
- Males against females (Note: although modern social realities are changing in this regard the social concept of males being stronger, faster and more inclined to do damage over females still rule in the legal system, it is considered a norm even when strong evidence is demonstrated that a female would have more force and ability, etc.)
Note: Who decides what “Overwhelming” means as to size and strength. Is there a number that designates force of numbers. What and who decides what is considered advanced skills and what type of unarmed combat. When it comes to age, what ages to what ages and how many years determine the type of disparity, etc. This can be similar to how sport oriented fights are determined by size, weight, etc. as to the classes one competes in, ergo similar to levels of forces appropriate and don’t forget that the legal system and its jurors, etc., are all going to be affected by their perspective and perceptions based on television, movies and the sport industries.
Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.
Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.
Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.
In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.
Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.
The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.
Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.
Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent [https://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html]” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.
It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.
Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.
Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.
In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.
The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.
Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.
Always remember:
- The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
- Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
- Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
- If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.
Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.
California Self-Defense Laws
California self-defense laws provide that you can't be found guilty of a violent crime that you committed in order to protect yourself, as long as your conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.
For purposes of the self-defense legal defense, “reasonable under the circumstances” means that you need to have:
- Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully;
- Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening; and
- Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening.
Moreover, thanks to California's “stand your ground laws,” you are under no obligation to “retreat” – that is, to run away or try to escape – before you use self-defense to protect yourself.
Note/Caveat: Understand, this is not legal advice and its intent is strictly to convince the reader to seek out legal advice and direction from fully qualified and certified legal representatives. Also understand, as you can imagine and probably know already, this is general and each county, city and municipal all have their own laws on the books regarding such legal proceedings such as self-defense law.
Note II/Caveat II: visit the source for Cali-Defense Law here: https://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html because it provides a great deal more on this law such as how AOJ/JAM can fit the bill as it relates to things like;
- What is imminent danger;
- Of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched;
- Reasonable belief in threat;
- Reasonable response …
This site and the above are all excellent sources for self-defense law in Cali, it should inspire the readers to seek out, learn and understand the laws in their state and local communities for their training, practice and especially in the actual applications in the real world of defense ’n’ protection.
Note III/Caveat III: Remember, nothing is written in stone; nothing in the legal system or the chaos of aggression and violence is written in stone; there is NO ONE ANSWER; the repercussions of defense-protection far exceed what is taught in most self-defense courses and as the law does not allow for ignorance the practitioner and adherent of martial skills MUST seek out and find answers long before applying skills in the reality of violence for defense-protection. It is also necessary in regard to, as you probably already know from today’s headlines, that psychological aggression and violence also results in injury and harm.
For reference and sources and professionals go here: Bibliography (Click the link)
No comments:
Post a Comment