AKS Quarterly Newsletter

Michael A. Sullenger 9th Dan
Chief Instructor Emeritus

The Right to Self-Defense;

Does it differ between trained and untrained, civilian and law enforcement?

Michael A. Sullenger
Chief Instructor - Emeritus

This article that was previously published in the September, 2009 Punchline. While it will be familiar to some, it will be new to others.

As a veteran of both the martial arts and the law enforcement communities for a number of decades, the topic of self-defense takes on different meanings depending on the audience. When I teach use of force tactics to my fellow cops, the criteria applied is more restrictive than what the average citizen is held too. Police officers are allowed to use the amount of force necessary to apprehend someone or stop them in the commission of a crime. Over the years, the application of force and the tools provided cops have changed.

What about civilians? What are their rights to self-defense? What justifications must they have, and how hard are they looked at once they've used force? This raises the question of what state they're from, as well as any training they may have received in the realm of self-defense, whether empty hand or with a weapon.

In every state of our country, citizens have the right to defend themselves, their homes and property, and their loved ones. This is a concept as old as man. The level and degree of this right, however, differs.

For the purposes of this discussion I'll be covering my home state of Texas, since that's what I'm most familiar with. You should make every effort to educate yourself and your students (if you teach self-defense or classes in concealed carry) about your respective state laws in this area.

Texas has always had laws allowing self-defense; part of our rustic frontier history. Up until 1974, there was no requirement to retreat, if possible, when confronted by assailants. In 1974, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring a person to retreat if possible. It made no difference if you were somewhere you had a right to be, save your home. In 2007, the "Castle Doctrine" was passed allowing a person to stand their ground. The key concept behind the Castle Doctrine was based on old English law that inferred a man's home was his castle. There has always been the understanding a person has the right to defend himself and loved ones in his own home. What sets the Castle Doctrine apart from some other states, with a few exceptions, in addition to being able to stand your ground, is the loss of civil litigation on the part of the injured or their relatives as the result of your defense. In other words, if you seriously injure or kill your attacker you cannot be sued in a court of law. Some twenty states have the same or similar types of self-defense laws. The objective is to give more credence and protection to the victims and less to the criminals.

What's important to understand in this arena is the legal concept of when a "reasonable" and/or "prudent" individual feels they are in peril of serious bodily injury or death by the person or persons confronting them. If you use a firearm, the odds of killing the assailant are pretty good, depending on your skill and the caliber handgun you've chosen. But what if you've taken self-defense classes; or better yet you're a truly qualified black belt? Are you able to defend yourself without killing the individual? Are you able to cease your response once you know your attacker is no longer a threat? How long have you studied? What is your degree of expertise? These are important questions and considerations, since the legal system will be using them as they analyze the circumstances surrounding what precipitated your need to use your skills. The police and prosecuting attorneys will also attempt to determine if "Mens Rea" applies, or whether there was any criminal intent in your mind either before or during this event. This is a Latin term meaning you knew at some point what you were doing or did was against the law, yet you did it anyway. Another legal term for this is culpability, which is just another way of saying the same thing.

The legal system in Texas and its related environment tend to be more lenient towards civilians defending their home, person, loved ones and property.

The Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, describes deadly force as justified to prevent arson, robbery, theft, or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent a suspect from fleeing if the property owner "reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

So this brings us to the question of what to consider when planning for, or training for, self-defense situations. You should study your state laws and cases where self-defense has been used. There are regular articles in gun magazines, and the NRA's America's 1st Freedom that give accounts of average citizens who used a gun to defend themselves that were deemed justifiable.

As martial artists, we train to use our skills in our own defense, or the defense of loved ones. We practice against a variety of situations and weapons. As a senior black belt, I can tell you honestly in my 53 years of training not one of my instructors ever taught me how to block a bullet. If I'm placed in a situation where I feel deadly force is needed to defend myself or a loved one and I'm carrying my pistol the attacker is dead. If I don't have the weapon with me, I'll respond quickly and effectively using the training and skills I've developed over these many years.

I teach my students and fellow officers to use good communication skills when talking with people. The best gift we all have is the art of BS. Entering a situation with a chip on your shoulder or trying to act like you're the meanest bull on the block will only result in you having to resort to self-defense in the majority of cases. There are always those ready to test your metal. However, when all else fails you must make a decision. I tell my trainees to decide whether they'd rather be carried by six, or judged by twelve. Once you've settled that issue in your mind - train. Train realistically, train hard and train often. If you hurt from bumps and bruises or a bloody nose in the classroom or dojo, you're less likely to do so or worse in the street. Remember, in addition to your training and preparation, learn about the laws of your respective state. Develop a clear understanding of what constitutes self-defense there and what is expected of you based on the training you've acquired. In other words, learn where the line is between you defending yourself and becoming the assailant. To do less is to place yourself in the possible situation where you will cross that line between justifiable and culpability.

This country was founded on the concept of freedom. Each of us, as Americans, must choose how we use those freedoms. This country is also one of laws. Sadly there are those who ignore the law in order to profit in whatever manner possible. There are also those who have been elected to office who betray the trust of those who put them there. No matter where your feelings lie regarding the protection of your loved ones, your property, or yourself, never allow anyone to dictate to you based on their beliefs and values. Follow your heart. Those against guns and the right of self-defense use the argument that we have police to protect us. As a cop for over 40 years I can tell you, unequivocally, that our responses are 99.9% reactive. In other words, we respond when the call for help comes in. By the time we get there much can happen. It is your responsibility to be prepared. How you decide to do that is your choice, but prepare you must. In my government classes I ask my students, "If you called 911 and no one responded, how capable would you be of being your own 911?" I'll leave you with that question to ponder.

Respectively yours in Budo,
Mike Sullenger, 9th Dan
AKS Chief Instructor Emeritus