Self-defense law changes in Alaska
ByI just read this article here on a proposed expansion of the self-defense law in Alaska. if I’m getting it right, you have a duty to retreat in case of self defense. Meaning, if you can get away, you have to get away instead of stand there and use deadly force. There are some exceptions to this:
- When you’re home or at work.
- When you’re defending a child or family member.
- When you’re a guest or agent of the owner of the property you’re standing on when the encounter happens.
Makes sense to me so far.
The bill would add another exception: when you are somewhere where you have a right to be.
As in, you’re in the supermarket late at night and a guy pulls a knife on you. This doesn’t fall into any of the previous three categories, which means that as far as the law is concerned, you’re not defending yourself if you kick the guy’s ass big time. Because the law states you should have run.
In more cases than not, I believe you can run away in such situations. It’s not glamorous, it’s not cool or macho, but it keeps you alive. Standing there and trying to take on a knifer is less productive in that area. So the law has something going for it here. However, you don’t always have that chance. Or you might not have it right away.
The dumb-as-bricks knife-wielding attacker will pull his knife from across the aisle and give you plenty of opportunity to practice your Nike-Fu. Hooray for the law!
But not all of them are this dumb. The smarter ones will come up close and have the knife out before you can move away. Unless you’re Usain Bolt, chances are slim you can’t turn and run away before he gets to cut you. Because you’re already standing within the range of his knife, so you’re screwed right there if you try to bolt (Hehehe, get it? “Bolt.” Frikkin’ comedy genius, that’s what I am).
Create a diversion you say? OK, you snatch a bottle of wine from the rack and smash it over his head in one swift move. The thug goes down, hard, and cracks his skull on the floor as he falls unconscious. He dies. (He could have lived but I say he dies. It’s my story, I get to choose.)
So here’s the question: did you just commit murder or was it lawful self-defense. You had a duty to retreat, but you couldn’t because he could have stabbed you before you turned and ran. That’s why you used a diversion, to buy the time to run. But that turned ugly and now he’s dead. In the strictest sense, the law should exonerate you of any guilt. Your life was in danger and you couldn’t flee right away. But there’s the law and then there’s lawyers arguing it…
"I got $10 on the hot green chick with the sword!"
There’s more.
The even smarter attacker will not pull the knife until he is close enough to use it. And he’ll only pull it to perform his first strike. So by the time you know you’re in a knife attack, you’re already wounded. Let’s assume you’re tough as nails and manage to disarm the attacker even though your bleeding badly. OK, so now you have to run because it’s your duty to retreat. Have you ever tried to run with your arm cut so it’s dangling from your shoulder? With a long slash across your quadriceps? With blood pouring in your eyes? You probably won’t beat Usain’s record any time soon…
It would make more sense to immediately incapacity the attacker. Because once wounded, the disparity of force is such that you’re probably not going to be able to gain the upper hand anymore: you grow weaker due to your injury(ies), he stays just as deadly as long as he can wield that knife.
Makes sense to me. But will it make sense to the DA when he decides whether to apply the law and prosecute you or not? Dunno. What do you think?
The point is: dura lex,sed lex. Meaning, the law is harsh but it’s the law.
You may not like it, but it’s still the law.
You may disagree, it’s still the law.
You may refuse to observe it, it’s still the law.
Especially in the last case, the law usually wins. You can try and fight it but I’d say it looks grim when you go up against Lady Justice. I wouldn’t put my money on you but I’ll put $10 on that blind girl in the white sheet.
Here’s the thing:
This is just one bill being passed, in just one state. Around the world, bills like this are passed on a regular basis, changing the privileges and the regulations citizens have to follow. Which begs the question:
Does your training reflect the current status of the self-defense laws of the place you’re living in right now?
If so, when was the last time you checked to see if anything has changed?
If it does not, why not? Are you above the law? Can you draw your own knife and give that thug the death of a thousand cuts because that’s what you learned in Kali class and dammit it works so well and it’s frikkin’ cool!
Like I said, I have $10 on the blind woman…
Just some qualifiers:
- I’m not an Alaskan, I don’t pretend to know the legal code of that state. Just pointing out some stuff, that’s all.
- I’m no lawyer, I don’t give legal advice here. Just offering a perspective.
- If you dare to comment with “better be judged by twelve than carried by six” I’m going to make you stand in the corner wearing a “I’m stupid” hat.
Just some thoughts after talking to a student about Silat, Kali, Kuntao and self-defense. So it’s really all your fault Drew! ;-)
.
Loading ...
Alaska resident for a couple or three years now-
1. My experience with Alaska LE personnel has been uniformly excellent. Sensible people who treated the citizenry with respect and did their job to a high professional standard. This state has a very common sense approach to life in general. Hell, if you didn’t, you’d die. It gets chilly up here, and we have bear, wolves, and moose running around everywhere. I’ve been late to work because a moose was on the porch eating my flowers, and I couldn’t get the door open.
So, that said, they understand (as a guideline) when you couldn’t run away.
2. Fall, winter, and spring, you aren’t running away unless you have spikes on your feet. It’s chilly up here, and some days it snows. The snow comes in October, and melts in April. Between times, you walk on ice everywhere. No helping it. Running on ice results in falling on ice, which results in injury and then being knifed. Running is something you could do with a *big* head start, maybe…as you can’t turn quickly at all. This is also something the local LEOs are familiar with, as most to all have fell and busted their ass trying to catch someone.
3. It’s not hard to stay out of trouble here. The assholes do a decent job self-segregating. Seems only polite I give them the same treatment.
Thanks for the insights Aaron. Good to hear common sense still reigns in Alaska’s LE personnel. Also: ” The assholes do a decent job self-segregating. Seems only polite I give them the same treatment.” Amen!
I’ve found that experiences with city cops in Alaska is far less pleasant than Troopers (in general.) Now, let me clarify, I’m not a criminal, simply an observer. I don’t hate cops, I just firmly believe in the due process model of justice. As Wim stated, it’s crucial that people account for ice and other hazardous conditions we experience here. I agree that common sense actually remains common in this state, unlike those coastal states. Also, another factor that must be considered during a self-defense case is whether or not a firearm was used. Up here concealed carry is legal as soon as you turn 21. No paperwork or licensing needed, therefore it must be assumed the perpetrator is carrying a weapon when you’re attacked. Plus, the majority of people in this state hunt, they know how to shoot, so fleeing may actually be more dangerous than facing the criminal.
Excellent, thanks for the additional information.
“So here’s the question: did you just commit murder or was it lawful self-defense. You had a duty to retreat, but you couldn’t because he could have stabbed you before you turned and ran.”
You answer your own question Wim, and a sensible legal system would recognize that.
As I suspected when I first read your post, the change is in response to some people’s perceptions that the self-defense defense is being abused by some. The article alludes to that. With the best of intentions people begin the process of trying to fix a problem they think needs fixing. They approach the process with a list of reasonable and semi-reasonable assumptions. Then they bring in all the stakeholders, run it by their superiors who have to check with their supports, etc., etc. The folks who cause the problem are suppose to be caught in the snare; anyone could get caught though and everyone is suppose to be more thoughtful and more careful.
It’s actually the same issue faced by professional martial artists, and law enforcement all the time. A two edged sword you might say. On the one hand because of, say, a boxer’s capabilities, he/she is exposed to more liability if he “defends” himself and as a result someone is injured (at least that’s the way it used to be in this State – I assume it still is to some extent (making your other point:-). On the other hand a cop can take you in and arrest you but he is only allowed to control you with so much force. We have recent cop-on-black- (or maybe it was brown)-guy photos of Seattle cops kicking a guy that is held down and no longer a threat. Not good (on a whole bunch of counts).
From my point of view, whether in Alaska, or anywhere else these days, self-segregating can no longer be counted on. Self defense laws are there for a reason, and criminals – at every possible opportunity – need to be very aware that they too are at risk, and that there may be a very high price to be paid for their behavior. (Did you notice that in Alaska deadly force can be used against someone who is robbing you?) Violent crime needs to be a very dangerous occupation.
But it’s about balance: isn’t it always? I wouldn’t want to be the cop who has to go through all the thought processes to do their job – dealing with violent criminals how ever often that has to occur – while carefully not going over the line (they can use these techniques in these situations but not those; in these other situations they can use those techniques, etc.). Day after day, week after week.
It’s prudent to self-segregate as best we can (as in “if you stand in a barber shop long enough you will probably end up with a hair cut”, so stay out of seedy bars close to closing time:-). And we have to trust that our legal systems – and individual law enforcement officers – have common sense as a substrate for their processing of cases and actions (whether they do or not) because we don’t have a whole lot of choice. Beyond that we have to take whatever security measures we can.
I can’t remember whatever else I was going to say, and I have said enough anyway. My wife keeps interrupting, so….
Hi Dennis,
“The folks who cause the problem are suppose to be caught in the snare; anyone could get caught though and everyone is suppose to be more thoughtful and more careful.”
That was what I was trying to point out. Anyone can get caught up by the changing laws. But a more omportant point is that so many martial artists and SD practitioners have no clue as to what self-defense really is in the eyes of the law. As these are the eyes that will determine whether you go to jail or not after you punch out an attacker, it seems common sense to look into it. But in reality, very few seem to do that.
As for doing a LEOs job: I hear you. I wouldn’t want to trade with them anytime soon. Respect.
Hey Wim,
Let me first ask what is the hot green chick with the sword’s phone number? :)
Ok – mind back to this post, I’d like to say as I am currently about 45 pounds overweight – I won’t be running anywhere. There is no reasonable expectation that I can outrun anyone! I would try to back away and diffuse the situation like I would anyway but failing that – I am going to be Custer (hopefully not fully emulating his plight). :)
I took a look at the article and as usual the devil is going to be the wording but if this language is in the law:
“if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area.”
I think the old salty dogs among us (like me who cannot get away) will be ok.
But if I am wrong and California passed a similar law – I would hope Alaska also has the reasonable man standard we have here. Laws are generally interpreted by how a reasonable man would react in a similar situation.
Now this issue concerns me because as a former fighter (crossing my fingers), I know if someone gets inside my critical distance and launches an attack with initial movement (Joe Lewis terms for distance and moving the hand or foot before the body – you can’t see the strike inside the distance before you get nailed) – you are a dead duck! No two ways about it unless you can survive the first attack.
So my premise would be to NOT let an unsavory but threatening character inside my distance and I WOULD launch a preemptive attack! You can see my dilemma. I would have to depend on educating an officer, DA, Judge, and possibly a jury!
I would take my chances I guess but I value my life over a robber any day. I’m just hoping if push comes to shove – I can spend my days as a free man!
Thanks for another thought provoking article Wim.
Crap, I wish I had her number too… :-)
Yup, those are some difficult choices. That’s the point I wanted to ake though: it’s not always black and white or clear cut. the way the law sees SD is not necessarily accurate for what happens. And even if it is, lawyers and DAs might choose to interpret them differently. So you can end up screwed anyway, even if you do everything right.
John makes a great point – and I agree that if there is a “reasonable person” standard, which we can usually count on around here, what’s reasonable can be worked out.
A lot can turn on that distance issue (as Wim has talked about extensively here) – whether you can run well or not.
When I was last threatened by someone with a knive, I closed the distance and moved slightly around to his right my left. I did that precisely because I had a very reliable left jab at the time and I did not want him to be able to get that knife out of the sheath before I could get to him. (As soon as I did that, I figured I had him and it surprised him so much that he hesitated.)
At that point, I was able to talk him out of the knife thing and diffuse the whole situation. And even if I had planned to run, and I would have wanted to and would have if I had been alone.
But circumstances and context always trump good intentions and planned expectations. My mate, a recently discharged ex-marine at the time, who had been inadvertently knocked to the ground was on his way back up onto his feet: he with a fuse the length of a knat’s whisker. Now it was the knife guy who had to be protected from my friend… and all because of a big misundertanding, wouldn’t you know it:-)
I totally agree Dennis, circumstances and context are a huge part of the equation. Like you said, had you been alone, you’d probably have chosen running away. for argument’s sake, replace your friend with your wife/child/mother and the way you react is once again different. And each time, the law is still there: you still have to take it into account.
It’s a can of worms, a big one.