4 posts / 0 new
Last post
nielmag
nielmag's picture
Crime Stopped Using MMA

I think this started out as self protection (or protecting a friend/coworker) but got a little excessive.  But kind of cool to see a crime stopped.

John
John's picture

I don't know if it would ever happen but maybe they should add "self defense and the law" to mma academies/schools or something (it really should be in public schools too). They have no guide on when is it enough, when does it stop being self defense, and when going physical is a bad idea. I remember hearing of another case where a mma practitioner tried to take on an armed thief and was shot and killed for his troubles, and I think everything would have been fine if he had reconized that going physical was innapropriate at that time.

I say this as I know mma hotheads are going to use this as fuel to their "mma is the ultimate self defense training" fire.

Paul_D
Paul_D's picture

John wrote:
I don't know if it would ever happen but maybe they should add "self defense and the law" to mma academies/schools or something (it really should be in public schools too).

The problem with that is it is everyone sees the law differently.  I have been told and taught some utter rubbish such as "you are only allowed to hit someone once" or "you can't hit someone once they are on the floor".  None of this is true (talking UK law here) but it is taught because the person either believes what they read in the media, or they look at the law and interpret it incorrectly.

If people start teaching law in MMA classes you won't actually get taught the law, you will just be taught what your instructor thinks the law is which could actually be more harmful.  Imagine if your instructor believed they were not allowed to strike pre-emptively for SD, how dangerous would that be to teach your students?  I was at a seminar recently and one hour of it was devoted to someone who was setting up a Self Defence club.  Some of the stuff he was telling us about the law was not just totally incorrect, but it was obvious that the  guy hadn’t just mis-intereted the law, he had clearly done no research what-so-ever on what UK law actually is.

There is, as far as I know, no qualification for becoming either an MMA instructor, or a SD instructor.  Anyone and everyone can set up a club and teach whatever they hell they want, based on no fact or research at all.  Getting insurance against injury seems to be the only requirement. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi All,

One thing to note here is that the gentleman who stops the robbery states that, “I thought he may have a knife or gun so I needed him to stop moving” when explaining why he repeatedly kicks the guy left behind. And he does indeed stop kicking him the instant he stops moving. He could also make a good case that he was also wishing to protect his customers and the public.

Under UK law the basic right to defend yourself comes from the following law:

Criminal Law Act 1967 Sect 3 (1):Any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of a crime, or in effecting or assisting in the arrest of offenders or suspected offenders unlawfully at large.”

So we have a right to stop crime being committed against ourselves; but also others. So, if this had happened in the UK, then his desire to protect others (co-workers, customers, public, etc), stop a crime, and facilitate arrest would all be legal.

As to regards whether the force was reasonable, the following would apply:

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – Section 76:

(3)The question whether the degree of force used by D [Defendant] was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.

(4)If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—

(a)the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but

(b)if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—

(i)it was mistaken, or

(ii)(if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.

(5)But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.

(6)The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

I would say in this circumstance it would be possible to demonstrate a genuine belief that the robber may have been armed and hence that the force used was reasonable.

It does however look “bad” when he walks back and kicks him. The defence that the force used was “instinctive” would therefore be more difficult to call on, but he would be on much firmer ground with “honestly” part:

(7)In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—

(a)that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and

(b)that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

The other key thing to keep in mind is that the CPS has to decide if it is in the public interest to prosecute. I very much doubt that a prosecuting a guy protecting his co-worker from a criminal attack would be thought to be in the public interest.

I feel sure that this would be deemed legal in the UK and that no attempt to prosecute would be made … and even if it were, he would find it easy enough to show what he did was legal and reasonable.

John wrote:
I don't know if it would ever happen but maybe they should add "self defense and the law" to mma academies/schools or something (it really should be in public schools too).

Paul_D wrote:
The problem with that is it is everyone sees the law differently.  I have been told and taught some utter rubbish such as "you are only allowed to hit someone once" or "you can't hit someone once they are on the floor".  None of this is true (talking UK law here) but it is taught because the person either believes what they read in the media, or they look at the law and interpret it incorrectly.

I’d take a slightly different approach to the above. I would say that self-defence law is irrelevant to the combat sport of MMA. MMA coaches therefore have no obligation to teach it and it’s not something they need to be familiar with. They would be best served spending their time teaching the rules of the sport and the techniques and tactics that will lead to victory within that context. This is of course dependent on the coach knowing what he is teaching (including its specific objectives and limitations) and not passing MMA combat off as being one and the same as self-defence; which has very different objectives and “rules” that carry prison sentences if you don’t abide by them.

MMA is MMA. Martial arts are martial arts. Karate is karate. And Self-defence is self-defence. If you are going to claim to teach self-defence, then you’d better know what you are doing, specifically teach self-defence (including awareness, de-escalation, law, escape, home security, vehicle security, crime statistics, etc) and not be passing off physical combat skills (for another objective) as the “complete package”.

The bottom line is that the physical side of self-defence is a very small part of it and, instead of educating themselves, martial arts instructors (of all stripes) have a very bad habit of passing off their existing knowledge as being the perfect solution. What they should do is seek to understand the true nature of the problem and work from there. We rarely see that though and pre-existing “solution” tends to lead to groupthink and self-interested delusions about the nature of the problem.

All the best,

Iain