windwalker wrote:I would imagin that whether one had any training or not it would still apply, the fact that one has had some type of training tends to work against them and might cause people to hold them to a higher standard then would be otherwise applied.
The following supports what you and Bao mentioned (not sure of original source):
Research has failed to reveal any statutory, regulatory or other requirement that boxers -- or anyone skilled in martial arts -- "register" their hands or any other body part as "lethal weapons" in the U.S., UKoGBaNI, Canada, or any other common law nation. However, a criminal defendant's experience in boxing, karate, or other forms of hand-to-hand combat may be relevant to determining various legal issues.
First, in the United States at least, the question of whether hands (or other body parts) of a boxer, martial artist or any other person even qualifies as a "deadly" or "lethal" weapon depends largely upon how "deadly weapon," "lethal weapon," or "deadly force" is defined (usually by statute, which is then interpreted by the courts). _See,_ _e.g.,_ Vitauts M. Gulbis, "Parts of the Human Body, Other Than Feet, as Deadly or Dangerous Weapons for Purposes of Statutes Aggravating Offenses Such as Assault and Robbery," 8 A.L.R.4th 1268 (1981 and supplements); Christpher Vaeth, "Kicking as Aggravated Assault, or Assault With Dangerous or Deadly Weapon," 19 A.L.R.5th 823 (1995 and supplements). Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met. For example, in _Minnesota v. Bastin_, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997), the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the trial court's conclusion that the left fist of the defendant, a former licensed professional prize fighter, was a "deadly weapon."
Some courts in the United States have concluded, however, that a criminal defendant's experience in boxing or martial arts should be considered when deciding whether s/he possessed a required intent to cause harm. For instance, in _Trujillo v. State_, 750 P.2d 1334 (Wyo. 1988), the Wyoming Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault after he punched someone in the head. His history as a trained boxer was one bit of evidence supporting the jury's findings on his mental state. Likewise, in _In the Matter of the Welfare of D.S.F._, 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of the defendant, who had "substantial experience in karate," were sufficient to demonstrate his knowledge that he was hitting the victim with sufficient force to break the victim's jaw.
Similarly, a criminal defendant's boxing or martial arts experience may be relevant to determining the validity of a self-defense claim. For instance, in _Idaho v. Babbit_, 120 Idaho 337, 815 P.2d 1077 (Idaho App. 1991), the defendant shot the victim and claimed self-defense. The trial court admitted evidence regarding the defendant's past training and experience as a boxer, concluding that it was relevant to a determination of whether the defendant truly believed it was necessary to shoot the victim in order to protect himself and others. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed.
Documented: A criminal defendant's experience in boxing or the martial arts may be relevant to deciding whether the elements of a criminal offense have been proven. "
An article discussing some of this topic, Self-Defense and the Law
A Roundtable Interview, from https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sel ... nd-the-law:
Steven Graff Levine has specialized in California state criminal law for more than 23 years. He was a Los Angeles County district attorney for 13 years, a staff lawyer for the California Supreme Court for three years, and now has an ongoing criminal law defense practice to help those in need of legal assistance in all types of criminal matters. . . .
Sam Harris: Does anything change about a person’s claim to self-defense if he has a 20-year background in the martial arts?
Steven Levine: If someone is highly trained in a martial art, he will probably have a much better sense of when to fight and know how to defend himself quickly. To the extent that you, as a martial artist, can convince the responding officer that you were in real peril, I don’t think anybody is going to begrudge you having that background and defending yourself. But what exactly did you do? That’s still the question. Did you resort to deadly force immediately? Did you break the guy’s arm in three places? If your assailant just walks away with a bruise on his cheek, no one is going to care that you hit him. While throwing a punch is generally considered a misdemeanor, it is a result-oriented crime, meaning that the same act can be a misdemeanor or, like my client above, a state prison felony case. A battery shouldn’t necessarily be result-oriented, but it is. Generally speaking, everything depends on the result of whatever actions you took to defend yourself.
Rory Miller: Steve, you already pointed out that “great bodily harm” can be defined very differently (two bruises under the eye versus Georgia Code § 12-5-53, where serious bodily injury means “bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty”). How much does intent play into it? I’ve seen policies that define deadly force as “that force in which death or great bodily harm is likely/intended/foreseeable/etc.” How little or profoundly does the wording of local statute change self-defense law?
Steven Levine: GBI in California is particularly broad: For example, a cut lip can be GBI, a broken bone of any kind, a bruise under the eye, and DAs have no qualms about alleging what to common sense seems like a minor injury as GBI. But the basic fact is that if you cause serious injury to your assailant in the course of defending yourself—if you stab or shoot him, for instance—your actions are going to be heavily scrutinized, and the DAs will err on the side of caution. This means that they will at least file the case, and you are going to find yourself hiring a lawyer. Then you will have to worry whether you have a good lawyer or a bad lawyer—but you’ll need a lawyer who you trust to get you through this. . . .
