You are here: Home / Archives for intent

0285 – Three Important Lessons to Take From Sanford, FL

March 27, 2012 by 6 Comments

There has been a lot of talk in the past week or so about self-defense and the law.  I’m sure that many of you are aware of the situation in Florida where Martin was killed by a C.O.P. named Zimmerman.  You know that this is not a current events show, however, there are times when current events need to motivate us to learn more about a set of circumstances.  In this case we need to understand the legal burdens that are upon us when we realize that our lives are worth defending.

0285 - Three Important Lessons to Take From Sanford, FL [ 42:19 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (631)

Admin:

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Legal, Podcast, Training Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0215 – FF Walmart Shooting Sparks Controversy

September 2, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Other than the pure the inconvenience of actually carrying a gun, self-defense related law is probably on of the biggest motivators for intelligent people to forgo carrying and using a gun for self-defense.  Especially in lethal force encounters the stakes are extremely high and folks are forced to make difficult decisions with incomplete information in fractions of seconds.  Quite possibly the most difficult aspect in this situation is the fact that after the events are over you could have lots of people who weren’t there judging your actions with your freedom and even your life on the line.  This is exactly the case in the recent shooting that took place in a Wal-mart parking lot.  Just another reason to shop at a locol mom and pop if you ask me!

0215 - FF Walmart Shooting Sparks Controversy [ 23:23 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (492)

Admin:

Templar Custom Arms

Dave Spaulding

Warrior Summit

Tristate K9 Services:

AOJP is the Name of the Game

Ability, Jeopardy, Opportunity, Preclusion is the standard by which individuals are judged in self-defense encounters.  Before we get into AOJP we have to understand why these concepts are so important.  Lets take a look at the Criminal Judicial system.

Self-Defense and Criminal Law

Disclaimer:  If you think I am an attorney, you are an idiot.  If you think I am giving you legal advice, you are an idiot.  If you think that you should check out everything I tell you today by reading your laws directly and confirming what you read and understand with an attorney, you are on the right track.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

  • Basis of criminal law in the US
  • Burden of proof is on the Prosecution
  • Beyond a reasonable doubt

Self-Defense is an Affirmative Defense

  • The burden is on you to prove that self-defense was a reasonable action
  • You must prove that it was more likely than not that you needed to act in self-defense
  • You prove this by meeting the 4 criteria for self-defense which are AOJP

AOJP: To Prove It We Must  Understand It

A is for Ability

Ability deals with your attackers physical ability to be able to hurt you.

  • Child vs. Adult
  • Infirm vs. Firm

O is for Opportunity

Opportunity primarily deals with time and distance

  • Proximity (21′ with a knife, club) Gun
  • 21′ with a knife or club and a 12′ chain link fence
  • 21′ with a gun and a 12′ chain link fence

J is for Intent

Does the person intend to hurt you

  • Does the person intend to harm you?
  • Water balloon fight
  • 14 yr old with a baseball bat

P is for Preclusion

Did you exhaust all other options before you chose self-defense

  • deescalation
  • compliance
  • escape
  • less lethal alternatives

The details of the Wal-Mart Shooting in Logan WV

Check out the links at WSAZ News.  Be sure to check out the Shooting Sparks Controversy link.

Jesus just cashed his paycheck when a  dirt bag approached him in the Wal-mart parking lot, got behind him, put a knife to his throat and told him to fork over the dough.

Lets take a look at AOJP:

Ability:  Dirt bag has the physical size and strength to carry out his threat.

Opportunity:  Think about time and distance.  Dirt bag has the knife at his throat.  Steel on flesh is good enough for me.

Intent:  It is tough to read minds, but all the indicators are there.  We don’t have to have verbal affirmation of intent.  Non verbal actions (like putting a knife to someones throat, producing or raising a weapon, or advancing could all be construed as intent depending on the circumstances.)

Preclusion:  Knife to the throat, from behind… running away is an option that is long gone.  Verbal interaction could help build your case.  But good news, WV is a stand your ground state.  This means you do not have the duty to retreat therefore you don’t have to prove preclusion as part of your affirmative defense.

Here is the Rub

Jesus gave up the dough which was the right call.  We know it was the right call because toilet scum took the knife away from his throat and walked away.  The moment that he walked away one of the elements of AOJP disappears.  He is still phyisically able to kill Jesus.  The opportunity is still there for at least the next seven paces.  It is the jeopardy that is gone.  His non verbal action of walking away tells Jesus everything he needs to know.  At this point he no longer is able to prove AOJP beyond a preponderance of the evidence which means he will not be able to claim self-defense as a reasonable action if he acts.  If it isn’t self-defense then what is it?

Jesus takes it even further, he follows the nasty man who a few minutes ago needed to get shot into the Wal-MArt and puts a round into his head.  Remember, WV is a stand your ground state not a feel free to pursue the attacker and take law into your own hands state.

Balance

We must act quickly and aggressively enough to preserve innocent life, but we must act with restraint so as not to put our wealth and our freedom at risk.

Jesus has been charged with murder.  All I can base my opinions on is what is being reported by the media.  Facts may be twisted or missing but based on the information available, Jesus is gonna get locked up.  If you are one of the 92% that think Jesus is being wrongly charged, do yourself a favor, a couple of favors:

  1. Bone up on the law
  2. Work to separate what my be desirable and legal

 

Filed Under: CCW, Every Day Carry, Firearms Training, General Safety, Listener Email, Podcast, Training, Unarmed Combat Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0156 – Third Party Defense

April 25, 2011 by Leave a Comment
0156 - Third Party Defense [ 10:50 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (228)

Today’s show is the third in a pretty loose series of episodes designed to help us to decide if we should get involved in situation that are taking place around us.  Remember that to even have the opportunity to make a choice in the situations we are referring to in these shows, we have to be aware.  Without awareness we are simply going to be bumbling in and out of situations without conscious control.  We never want to give up control of our destiny so start out by being aware.

We really have three choices when things go to crap around us.

  1. Dive in:  Get directly involved.  Do it instantly, do it decisively.
  2. Get out:  Our primary duty is to protect us and ours.  If we can’t act instantly and decisively, we may be better off getting out.
  3. Middle ground:  Often the best choice.  Use strategic positioning to protect yourself, be a good witness and call the cavalry.

Today is all about deciding whether or not you can legally DIVE IN!

We we get involved in a violent encounter on behalf of another person we are engaging in third party defense.  Depending on the circumstances the defense of another can be a ethical, moral and legal action.  When we evalutate third party defense scenarios here is what we need to look at:

  1. Clean hands doctrine:  The party that you defend MUST be the innocent party.
  2. AOJP:  The burden of AOJP must be met for the party you are defending
  3. Reasonable Man Standard and Totality of the Circumstances

Keep in mind that this can be a lot of information to process especially when you are viewing it real time from the outside.  Rarely do we witness situations from the outset.  This means we are missing pieces.  We will be judged on all the pieces whether we have them or not.

There are certainly times when we can clearly evaluate a situation.

  1. Uniformed officer being assaulted, shot etc.
  2. Small child being punched and kicked by an adult
  3. A situation we have witnessed from the start

But there are TONS of situations that we cannot clearly evaluate.  If we get directly involved in these situations we must understand that we are on shaky legal ground.

The bottom line is, if you put yourself in the third parties shoes would it be legal to defend yourself?  If the answer is yes, then it is legal for you to defend the third party.

Remember I’m not a lawyer and this podcast is my opinion and not legal advice.  Self-defense is a difficult legal topic and one of the areas where people can get them selves tripped up pretty easily is in third party defensive situations.  If you aren’t sure, take the middle ground and get help from the folks who get paid to sort this stuff out.  Violence is fast, ugly and chaotic.  The best way to avoid the negative consequences of violence is to avoid it all together.  The only thing worse than getting beaten, cut and shot, is getting beaten, cut, shot and locked up because you misunderstood the situation.

 

Filed Under: CCW, Every Day Carry, General Safety, Podcast, Unarmed Combat Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0145 – FF A Discussion of Violence and AOJP

April 8, 2011 by Leave a Comment
0145 - FF A Look at Violence and AOJP [ 19:05 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (239)

CK sent this video in suggesting it as a possible FF Video.  I thought that it was a great example of some do’s and dont’s when it comes to violent encounters so into the que it went.

As always, it is simple for us to make judgement on a video as Monday morning QBs.  Remember we only have part of the picture, none of the stress or danger.  So, as always,  my comments both positive and negative are intended with respect and are intended for all to learn from as oppsed to criticize the performance of another who is in it while we sit on the side lines and watch.

Take a look at the video

We have several possible responses to violence:

  • Fight
  • Flight
  • Freeze
  • Posture
  • Submit

What we watch in the majority of the video is posturing on the part of both individuals.

Punk – boisterous, chest bumping, shouting

Vet – cool, standing his ground

AOJP -

Start with the P today.

We don’t have the totality of the situation, however, if we ASSUME that the Vet’s home is directly through the door to his six, preclusion could be required by law, and it may be his best option.

AOJ – at :27, in my opinion, the requirements are met with regards to ability, opportunity and jeopardy(intent.)

Vet remains stoic which works effectively for this situation, however, we must consider the negatives:

  • Violence has the potential to escalate quickly
  • The longer violence lasts, the more likely we are to suffer the consequences of the chaotic nature of violence

You can watch the progression move from shouting, to chest bumping to grappling, to shoving.

Finally, the Vet decides to act in a decisive manner.

The way the vet handled himself may have been the best course of action and it appears to have worked out well for him.

Keep in mind a couple of thoughts:

  • we want to end violent encounters as quickly as possible
  • when we respond to violence we want to respond with an instantaneous change from apparently passive to ultra-violent
  • we want to respond with the maximum level of force that we are justified to use under the law
  • when retreat is an option, consider it.  Avoidance of violence is usually the best option.

Filed Under: FF, General Safety, Listener Email, Podcast, Unarmed Combat Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0095 – FF Oakland Bus Fight (violent content)

January 28, 2011 by Leave a Comment
0095 - FF Oakland Bus Fight (violent content) [ 14:32 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (193)

Get yourself registered for The Warrior Summit.  One day or both will deliver critical self-defense training to you with one goal in mind:  To help you DOMINATE a violent encounter.

Thanks to Carmen from Cleveland ATA Black Belt Academy for sending me a link to today’s Friday Film.

Oakland Bus Fight Video

I’m not a lawyer so don’t take any of today’s podcast as legal advice.  It is simply my opinion.  If you have specific legal questions you need to consult an attorney.  David Arnold is an atorney, you will find him at The Warrior Summit.

My favorite part of the video is when the woman tells the bloody guy that she has it all on video and they can press charges.  Yes, the video would help in pressing charges,  however, I’m not so sure the guy who lost would have much success pressing charges at all.

There are four reasons why: AOJP

Ability : can some one hurt you.  Do they have what it takes to cause injury?

Opportunity:  is that person in a location where thay can use that ability to hurt you right now?

Jeopardy:  (intent) do you have reason to believe that the individual is going to act on their ability and their opportunity?

Preclusion:  can you get away?

Most people that are in our immediate vicinity most of the time have the ability and opportunity to harm us.  What they are missing is the intent.  Good thing for us that most people don’t have the intent to harm us.

Obviously in the opening moments of the conflict, both men have the Ability and the Opportunity to harm the other.  The big difference comes to play when the loser gets up to follow the winner.  In just a few moments the legal justification for self-defense is established for the winner of the fight.

First, when the winner stands up and walks away he demonstrates that he no longer wishes to be engaged.  This starts a whole new encounter.  I think he could have done a better job of verbal deflection, but he probably meets the verbal standard for preclusion.  He is able to leave and he does.

At the same time the loser clearly establishes Jeapoardy, or his intent to cause harm.  He follows the man who is trying to disengage from the situation and he clearly states his intention to put his foot up the mans ass.

Ability

Opportunity

Jeopardy (intent)

Preclusion

The response of the winner when he can no longer retreat is to aggressively defend himself with an instant and decisive response which we see is quite effective.

Cessation of the threat may be a bit of an issue here.  When the threat isn’t, our response needs to end just as quickly as we put it into play.

Filed Under: FF, Podcast Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 Name: Email: We respect your email privacyPowered by AWeber Autoresponder 
 Name: Email: We respect your email privacyPowered by AWeber Autoresponder 
Close
loading...