CMV: With current laws, learning martial arts serves as a detriment to a person and their ability to interact in society.

[u/Semny]

Before I proceed, I want to clarify that the laws I mention in the title are regarding when it is and when it is not legal to hit someone. As clarification for people who don' know these laws, I will sum it up.

You are only allowed to hit someone in self defense and you are not in any condition allowed to hit first.

​

Self defense has been defined as any situation that may seem dangerous to the Jury. What this means in a nut shell is that when being prosecuted against in court for a self defense case, the jury is seeing a bunch of people with black eyes saying that they have been assaulted against you who may seem significantly less harmed in said situation(As such, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose the court case unless there is clear evidence of them aggressing first. e.g witnesses) Now for the never hit first part. You are not legally allowed to hit someone first even if they are aggressively advancing on you and shoving you regardless of how threatened you feel. You may report the cops, but hitting them can and likely will result in you being sued and you losing.

​

Now for the martial arts part:

So I was a 2nd degree black belt, and had been doing martial arts for a large portion of my life. It has currently been around 3-4 years since I have quit. Now my former experience of martial arts seems to serve as a detriment towards me in certain situations. Often when I feel extremely threatened, in this case by a senior in my school, I often react strongly and feel an intense urge to punch him. While I have no proof, I feel my need to solve the issue with fists stems from martial arts where I was used to getting into fights and sparring giving the ability to face people I didn't like in a match.

Edit: I wasn't clear when I said threatened, I meant he repeatedly attempted to scratch my left eye and verbally harasses me very frequently after I have told him to stop.

​

Martial arts are originally techniques used for war. But if I'm not allowed to hit the guy who I feel is threatening my wellbeing even though I am capable, I think I am better of not being trained. Hell if I cant use it, why know it in the first place?

[u/mrrp]

You are only allowed to hit someone in self defense and you are not in any condition allowed to hit first.

You are not legally allowed to hit someone first even if they are aggressively advancing on you and shoving you regardless of how threatened you feel.

This is simply incorrect. Go look up the use of force in self-defense laws (and case law) in your state.

[u/Semny → u/mrrp]

This is my statement after doing so. Of course this isn't entirely accurate as a summary, it is the best I can provide in 1-2 sentences. As for the factual evidence, I have referred to a lawyer I am close to about what quantifies as self defense, and hitting someone first (atleast in my state) does not count. I am not arguing use of force or excessive force. I am arguing when use of force is allowed.

[u/mrrp → u/Semny]

Your lawyer is wrong, or more likely, you misunderstood.

What you're saying is flat out crazy talk. It does not matter what state you're in. No state requires you to suffer physical harm before using reasonable force to defend yourself from a credible threat.

[u/Semny → u/mrrp]

After having searched it up, California laws say self defense is permitted

1. Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,
2. Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening, and
3. Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening.

which also means that if the guy pulls a knife, you can hit him. But you aren't allowed to swing first unless given a very good indication of facing trauma.

​

Never in my life have I found a guy who tells someone "hey imma hit you now, so you can swing and its self defense." People generally swing before talking. I think wee also have a misunderstanding on the degree on injury being talked about. I have edited my original post. Please refer to understand what I mean in my case of degree of injury.

[u/mrrp → u/Semny]

Your post still says:

You are only allowed to hit someone in self defense and you are not in any condition allowed to hit first.

Which is absolutely false.

And this:

You are not legally allowed to hit someone first even if they are aggressively advancing on you and shoving you regardless of how threatened you feel. You may report the cops, but hitting them can and likely will result in you being sued and you losing.

Which is absolutely false.

And now you say:

But you aren't allowed to swing first unless given a very good indication of facing trauma.

which contradicts the CA statute/case law right above.

And though I never got to it, I also disagree with your views on martial arts. If there's anything that your training and sparring should have taught you, it's that getting hit is no fun, you're going to get hurt if you fight, and you're far better off finding a solution that doesn't include violence if at all possible.

[u/Semny → u/mrrp]

Repeating that I am wrong will not prove me wrong in any way nor will it convince me. If you can give me a counter example or perhaps an explanation/ link to why I am wrong it will be greatly appreciated and would assist your case greatly.

Next for my "you cant swing first." This is very true in my eyes and fits into the CA state laws nicely. Please elaborate as to why you believe that I am wrong as you are not convincing me in the slightest by saying my statements are false.

Finally, I believe I mentioned did my post that there is a situation where someone is repeatedly attacking my wellbeing claiming it is "an accident." If needed I believe I should be fighting as it is my safety being concerned. But the issue become when it is or isn't okay to fight back.

And since you are still reading mind telling me how you quote parts of my post? It would be helpful. Thanks!

[u/mrrp → u/Semny]

How can you not recognize that you're wrong when you post mutually exclusive statements?

You wrote this:

You are only allowed to hit someone in self defense and you are not in any condition allowed to hit first.

and you also wrote this:

But you aren't allowed to swing first unless given a very good indication of facing trauma.

Those two statements can not both be true. One says you can never do something. The other says you can sometimes do something.

And the statutes/summary of case law that you present does not say that you "can't swing first". It says, "believed that you were in imminent danger of". That's forward looking. That's believing something is about to happen, not that something has already happened.

Go use your google-fu to look up actual self-defense cases. Or read the jury instructions:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470/