It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Kalifornia - You Have A Right To Be Punched In The Face

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I find that many adherents to statism argue that we need the State to save us from violent criminals, such as thugs, rapists, murders, and other such ilk.

I'd like to shatter the myth that the State actually provides you protection from these people.

One great example of how the State forces you into a situation where you must give up your right to self-defense can be found in Kalifornia's "Mutual Kombat" law, which reads as follows:


A person who engages in mutual combat or who is the first one to use physical force has a right to self-defense only if:

1. (he/she) actually and in good faith tries to stop fighting;

[AND]

2. (he/she) indicates, by word or by conduct, to (his/her) opponent, in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that (he/she) wants to stop fighting and that (he/she) has stopped fighting(;/.)


[AND
3. (he/she) gives (his/her) opponent a chance to stop fighting.]

If a person meets these requirements, (he/she) then has a right to self-defense if the opponent continues to fight.


That is to say, in order for police to arrest someone for assaulting you, you must first give up the right to defend yourself against that assault.

Only then will the State interpose and arrest the person who hit you.

If you fight back and manage to kick the crap out of the person that assaulted you in the first place, the State deems this mutual kombat and will not arrest your aggressor.

The first time I heard about this law I thought it was a joke - but no no no - not in the great state of KA, where you must be a victim at all times.

We could apply this to attempted rapists and murders as well. For example, if you are a female that is assaulted by a man who intends to rape you, yet you manage to fight back and subdue your aggressor, the State could in fact deem this mutual kombat and not prosecute the attempted rapist.

Again, since no one (unless you are the president) has a personal police force following them around at all times, we can say the State deems you NOT protect yourself before it will help you. The State's interest is in maintaining its monopoly of force, not in ensuring you are protected from violent aggressors.








[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your fighter, rapist and attempted murders assertion goes right out the window here:
A person who engages in mutual combat or who is the first one to use physical force

Thereby and effectively placing sole blame and fault on those who engage in mutual combat or who is the first one to use physical force

A double-edged sword which cuts the "perp" both ways.


Don't initiate nor Initially engage and you're free to protect/defend yourself to the utmost degree.


[speeling]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


You aren't following all the "OR"s and "AND"s in the law.

The law is defining exactly what mutual kombat is.

Mutual kombat IS defending yourself if you were hit first.

That is to say, if someone hits me and I hit them back, I am now engaged in mutual kombat and neither of us will be arrested. The law stipulates that if I chose to exercise my right of self-defense, the State will not arrest my aggressor.

Indeed the law states that if I kick the crap out of my aggressor, I am the one who could be charged with a crime, not the aggressor.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Don't think so ... "mutual" being in accordance with and in agreeance to.

NOT whilst defending one's self upon being physically attacked, raped, or bodily harmed ... without provocation

[edit on 24-8-2010 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Don't think so ... "mutual" being in accordance with and in agreeance to.

NOT whilst defending one's self upon being physically attacked, raped or unprovoked and attempted bodily harm.


I'm not sure what part of the law you are having trouble understanding.

To me, its pretty clear.

If someone hits you and you hit them back in self-defense, the State will deem this as mutual kombat and not arrest your aggressor.

Its clear - right there in black and white.

If you are having trouble understanding any portion of the law, just point out which part you don't understand and I"ll explain it to you.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
No. Apparently it is You who fails to Read the letter of the law.

If you strike back and afford your attacker the verbal, spoken or knowingly accepted understanding that you do Not wish to fight or engage further ...


If a person meets these requirements, (he/she) then has a right to self-defense if the opponent continues to fight.


Then you are Free to defend yourself to whatever means necessary.

Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
No. Apparently it is You who fails to Read the letter of the law.

If you strike back and afford your attacker the verbal, spoken or knowingly accepted understanding that you do Not wish to fight or engage further ...


If a person meets these requirements, (he/she) then has a right to self-defense if the opponent continues to fight.


Then you are Free to defend yourself to whatever means necessary.

Simple as that.


12m8keall2c is actually correct in his interpretation. You can fight back with no legal repercussion if you make it known you really do not want to fight.

So, someone throws a punch at you and you try and walk away and say "I do not want to fight" and they continue to go at you, you may hit them back or do whatever it takes to defend yourself.

However, you chose to join in on a thug, er, street fight than you will be just as guilty as the first one who throws the punch.

[edit on August 24th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
No. Apparently it is You who fails to Read the letter of the law.

If you strike back and afford your attacker the verbal, spoken or knowingly accepted understanding that you do Not wish to fight or engage further ...


If a person meets these requirements, (he/she) then has a right to self-defense if the opponent continues to fight.


Then you are Free to defend yourself to whatever means necessary.

Simple as that.


no, you are missing the "or"s and "and"s in the statement.

If you strike back - now you are in mutual kombat - and your attacker will not be arrested.

Period.

In order for your attacker to be prosecuted for assault, you must:

-Declare your intention to stop fighting.
-Attempt in good faith to stop fighting.
-Give your opponent a chance to stop fighting.

and then, on top of this, your attacker must continue the assault in order for him to be prosecuted for assault.

For example:

If someone hits me, I hit them back, then the person ceases to hit me and runs away - the State will not prosecute them for assault. It is considered mutual kombat.

I must NOT HIT THEM BACK in order for them to be charged with assault.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I don't think either of you is understanding this correctly.

Lets say person A attacks person B. Person A can only claim 'self defense' if they try to stop fighting person B and person B ignores this and continues to retaliate.

This basically lets an aggressor have rights to self defense if whoever they attacked refuses to stop fighting.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The problem here is this line:


A person who engages in mutual combat or who is the first one to use physical force


What exactly entails mutual combat?

www.lectlaw.com... Gives a detailed explanation with examples.

Essentially though, mutual combat is exactly what it sounds like; two people fighting for the sake of fighting.

I don't exactly see what is wrong with this law.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Trust me here, "mutual combat" or not, you can and will be charged with assault for getting into fights in the state of California.

Nevermind how I know this. Just trust me here!



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by acid1789
 


Dude, the law is crystal clear.

If you hit back, you are engaged in mutual kombat.

Period.


A little anecdote, I found out about his law from a cop that was dealing with a bar fight.

Because the guy who was assaulted hit back, it was deemed mutual kombat and his aggressor was let go.




[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by acid1789
 


Dude, the law is crystal clear.

If you hit back, you are engaged in mutual kombat.

Period.



No. You are reading it wrong.

If you make it know to your attacker you do NOT want to fight and your attacker persists, you may defend yourself.

Ways to let them know:
Walk away saying "I do not want to fight".

The point of this law is to prevent "street fighting" type of confrontations IE "mutual combat"


[edit on August 24th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


So the cop that let the guy go was wrong and I'm not really reading what I'm reading.

That's what you're saying.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


So the cop that let the guy go was wrong and I'm not really reading what I'm reading.

That's what you're saying.



I do not know the full story you give - meaning both sides. I would need to hear the story from both sides in order to form a judgement on it.


For all we know the "victim" was egging the attacker on instead of saying "I do not want to fight" and making an attempt to not fight.


[edit on August 24th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


You aren't following all the "OR"s and "AND"s in the law.

The law is defining exactly what mutual kombat is.

Mutual kombat IS defending yourself if you were hit first.

That is to say, if someone hits me and I hit them back, I am now engaged in mutual kombat and neither of us will be arrested. The law stipulates that if I chose to exercise my right of self-defense, the State will not arrest my aggressor.

Indeed the law states that if I kick the crap out of my aggressor, I am the one who could be charged with a crime, not the aggressor.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Did you read it all?
This concerns the defendant's ability to claim self-defense. That is all.
If you were dumb enough to send someone to the hospital because they slapped you in the face, you deserve punishment.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Voluntary (Mutual) Combat
Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. However, if one falls, and the other takes advantage of the situation by kicking him and causing injury, that act may well be considered to be an excessive use of force which would support a cause of action.
Mutual Combat



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In order for your attacker to be prosecuted for assault, you must:

-Declare your intention to stop fighting.
-Attempt in good faith to stop fighting.
-Give your opponent a chance to stop fighting.

and then, on top of this, your attacker must continue the assault in order for him to be prosecuted for assault.


EXACTLY what I just said. ?
?

You convey to your "attacker" that you no longer wish to engage/fight...

If they persist ... You're free to do whatever is deemed necessary to DEFEND yourself ... emphasis on DEFEND.

No more. No less.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Mutual Combat

Jerk A: "Do you want to take this outside and I'll whip your butt"

Jerk B: "Yeah. Let's go outside and I'll whip your butt"

Pretty simple.

Now, the law as written allows Jerk A to punch Jerk B, then step away and announce his intention to stop fighting. If Jerk B then chooses to continue fighting, Jerk A may claim self defense, for stopping Jerk B with physical force.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
all ive learned from watching cops is the guy with no shirt usually goes to jail.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join