It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 - A rant

Most people, especially martial artists, have heard the expression "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".  What this means is that it's better to survive an encounter and be tried in a court of law than to lose you life and be carried by 6 pall bearers.

I heard it again last week.  Then I heard it in a women's self defense setting not long after.  In fact, I've heard it said in a variety of reality based self defense seminars, in traditional martial arts clubs, and even on t.v.

"It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

Well, yes it is.  So why a rant?  

Because most people who say it are being irresponsible.  Most people use it as a blanket statement to avoid answering legitimate questions over the reasonable use of force in self defense.  In one 'reality-based' women's self defense seminar, the statement was used when someone was hesitant to throat stomp their attacker after throwing multiple strikes to the face and legs. The attack on her was a wrist grab.  Instead of answering the question, the instructor fell back on the good old 12/6 response.  That was irresponsible and misleading. 

Women in the class would either come out thinking any amount of force is fine in self defense, or would still question what is reasonable, which could translate into hesitation in an actual encounter.  Actually, neither outcome would be desirable.

This is but one of the examples.  In a life and death situation, when your own life is in imminent danger, the statement hold up.   If you can't get away, fight with everything you've got.  Let the chips fall where they may afterwards.  

The problem is that the statement is rarely examined or broken down.  And usually it's used as an 'out' for an irresponsible instructor, or by one that doesn't have a clue about the law.  Sadly, these 'teachers' are often providing instruction to impressionable beginners who believe they are qualified to provide accurate and responsible direction.

In my Mind the Gap series, I talked about how your motivation, goal, or desired outcome in an attack should be to get away.  The question of using force was the subject of one of the posts.  Basically you can use as much force as you need to in order to negate the threat enough to allow you to get away.  

Knowing that, be cautious of any instructor who tells you "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" when you have questions or concerns.

In truth, this is but one part in a larger rant I have on the state of women's self defense instruction,  but that's a post for another day.

Train responsibly.

Welcome new readers and followers of my blog.

Mind the Gap - Part V - The Law - a follow up

It was fairly challenging to write a single post that would capture how the law looks at self defense.  The content applied to the laws of several countries, and as such, hit mainly on the commonalities of the law and advice to keep you, the reader, safe and in a strong legal position.

John Coles left the following comments on my post on the law.  I've decided to respond to his concerns and comments in this post.  John's comments are in italics and I'll follow in bolded regular text.


"When you defend yourself against another person, you are assaulting that person. The law is based on assuming that is an illegal act, but then provides a defence against that act - self defence.


Most laws regarding assaults include the following elements - (1) the deliberate application of force to another, (2) directly or indirectly, (3) without their consent.  Self defense techniques therefore do fit John's point.  You are assaulting the person, but self defense is an area in law that justifies that use of force, exempting you from criminal liability, as long as it was reasonable.


Your point #2 needs clarification. You can use as much force as necessary to defend yourself - but no more. The law is about proportionality. However, humans have evolved to over react. In evolutionary terms, if you entire destroy the threat or do enough simply to nullify it, they are one and the same. For evolution, make sure and ensure the survival of the species - over react and destroy the threat outofsight. This then brings evolved behavioural patterns into conflict with modern law.


You can use as much force as necessary to defend yourself - but no more.  I stand by my comment as it is correct.  Perhaps for clarification, I could have said that you can use the minimum amount of force as is necessary to defend yourself.  I didn't choose this wording as I feared it could confuse the matter as the minimum amount of force will vary for each situation and for each person, based on the totality of the circumstances.  


From an evolutionary perspective, there may be a more basic animal reaction in some, but I doubt that most people would resort to shooting someone in the head if they shoved them to ensure the survival of the species.  I don't necessarily disagree with John's point, but I'm referring to getting out of a dangerous situation intact, where there is a degree of evolved thought.


Pre-emptive 'attacks' to defend oneself. You have a legal problem there. You assaulted another person. You need to find a defence. Given the legal system is based on legislated law and precedent, you need to find a legistlated law or precedent that supports your case. Given the person did not attack you, that often becomes problematic. How many women have been jailed for killing their abusers when their abusers were not actually attacking them at the time?

You may have a problem with pre-emptive attacks, you may not.  Yes, you've completed the essential components of how an assault is defined.  There is a fairly significant body of case law, or precedent which supports some pre-emptive action.  There are a couple of areas that need to be factored in to the discussion.  When did the assault begin?  If someone is advancing on you with the intent and ability to hurt you, in my opinion, the assault has begun.  You also must understand that each situation would be examined on a case by case basis, which must factor in all the circumstances of the event.  Who are you?  What did you perceive?  Who was your attacker?  Where were you?  Were there weapons?  Drugs?  Alcohol?  The list goes on and on.  

You will have to explain yourself, but again, you are likely going to be successful if your only motivation was to get away to safety, not to hurt or punish your opponent.

As for the domestic abuser comments. There have been women who have been sent to jail for killing their abusers when they weren't actively being attacked, but there are also ones who have been found not guilty due to the history and all the circumstances surrounding the abuse and the individuals.


Here is a question that may intrigue. If you punch someone in the street, that is an assault and you'll be arrested for it. Why is it any different when you do it in a class or a tournament? Why is it any different when a football player (Aussie Rules of course) punches an opposing football player? Why aren't F1 drivers arrested for assault when they attack each other, or soccer players, basketball players, etc. when they engage in fisticuffs in their sports?


The answer is important for the teaching of marital arts."


Sports violence is an interesting side issue.  The reason that a certain degree of violence is tolerated in martial arts or sports is due to the issue of consent.  One of the elements of proving an assault is that the force applied was without the other person's consent.  If two sports players basically 'agree' to fight, it's sometimes ok.  Having said that, there's an important caveat.  The law states that you cannot consent to major or serious injury.  That's why sports figures who seriously injure the other player often face criminal charges, especially if it's a 'sneak attack'. 


It is an interesting area in law, and martial artists should understand how it applies to their study.


I thank John for his comments on my post.  I welcome any other questions or comments on the topic.


Also, please be advised that John has just launched a new blog on The School of Jan de Jong.  Check it out.

Mind the Gap - Part V - The Law

Use of Force

(disclaimer time - As with any issue that touches on the law, I encourage everyone to learn about the laws where they live.  Some laws will vary from place to place.  My interpretations are based on my experiences dealing with North American law and my exposure to the laws of several international countries.)

Most martial artists are pretty decent people.  In a somewhat paradoxical fashion, many martial artists are very concerned that they are going to hurt someone in an altercation.  Others believe that they can't use their skills to defend themselves because they would be criticized in a court of law.  Others even believe that black belts need to register their hands as deadly weapons. They don't.  That one gives me a chuckle.

Most laws in most countries are very similar in the area of use of force for self defense.

How much is too much?

How much force can you use to defend yourself?  How much is too much? What if your attacker gets hurt?  These are all good questions and show a responsible mind.  During an attack however, such thoughts breed hesitation. And hesitation spells disaster.  So what to do?

The Rules:

Well, here's three simple rules that will hopefully free your mind to train safely, responsibly and effectively.

#1.  Your right to defend yourself is not affected by your ability to do so.  

- Everyone has a right to defend themselves from harm (or to defend someone else).  It doesn't matter who you are or what you know.  

#2.  You can use as much force as is necessary to stop the threat.  

- This is a little more difficult to absorb.  First, there must be a threat.  You must believe you are in danger and that the other person has the ability to carry out whatever that threat is.  You are justified in using as much force as is needed to stop the threat, but that's it.  As soon as the threat has abated, you must stop.  If you don't, your use of force shifts from defense to assault in the eyes of the law.

Point #1 and #2, while accurate, will still cause many of you to have questions. There are lots of 'What if...' questions that can come up.

So here is probably the most important point of all:

#3.  If your only goal or motivation in a violent encounter is to get away, chances are the rest will take care of itself.

In Part IV, I talked about how the goal of true self defense, or the definition of success was a) surviving, b) getting away, and c) minimizing or avoiding injury.  With this in mind, let's review the first two points.

Point #1 said your right to defend yourself is not affected by your ability to do so.  So the better you are, the easier it will be to create an opportunity for you to get away.  You may end up creating an opportunity to escape using much less force than an untrained person.

Point #2 said you can use as much force as is necessary to stop the threat. You have stopped the threat when you have created an opportunity to get away.  Assuming all your other avoidance strategies didn't work, do whatever you have to do to create an exit point.  If this is the only goal of the force you use, chances are you'll be o.k.

There are also the optics of the situation.  If onlookers observed the altercation and they saw you try to talk your way out of a situation, and then when you were attacked, they watched you respond but immediately take the first opportunity to escape and get to safety and call for help, they are now positive witnesses.  On the other hand, if you stuck around and gave your attacker a couple of shots to punish them for picking the wrong guy (or gal), how would that look?  Even if the same level of injury was sustained by your attacker in both scenarios, one would be a lot easier to explain to a court.

The law typically has two parts, the criminal act and the criminal intent. Typically both must be proven to convict someone of a crime.  Acts are easier to determine.  You punched your attacker.  That was the act.  The intent is a bit trickier.  And that's where we need to observe rule #3.  If your intent was to hurt your attacker, you might be questioned about the amount of force you used, you might even be charged with assault.  If your intent was to provide an opportunity to get away and get help, chances are you won't.  It's really that simple.

Conclusion:

If your only true goal in a violent encounter is to survive and get away, chances are the law will be on your side.  Beyond the law, you'll also be comfortable in the knowledge that whatever force you used was legally, morally and ethically sound.  When your mind is unclouded by all the 'What if questions', you will respond more quickly and more effectively to any attack. The rest will just sort of fall into place.

I hope this helps to pull together all the parts of the Mind the Gap series into a somewhat cohesive package.

Train effectively, train responsibly, train safely.