Are martial artists legally marked as weapons?

Okay... Let's see if I can answer this cleanly and without the misconceptions.

There is no certification required of martial arts or martial artists. If there were, there'd be no such thing as McDojo(s).

Pugpaws is absolutely right -- if you commit a crime, you are held to the same standards as everyone else. Now, where this gets complicated is dependent upon your state.

[ALL MARTIAL ARTISTS SHOULD PAY ATTENTION HERE:]
So allow me to give an example. In California, assault is defined as "an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person." (Penal Code 240) This means that assault could be the perception of the ability to commit a violent injury in addition to a present threat of injury. ADW (Assault with a Deadly Weapon, or Aggravated Assault) is defined as "an assault that is committed with any type of deadly weapon or by means of force that is likely to cause great bodily injury to another." (Penal Code 245(a)(1)).

According to http://www.shouselaw.com/assault-weapon.html
The decision as to whether an assault is an aggravated assault is commonly brought upon 1 of 3 factors:

1.) the type of weapon or instrument used to commit the alleged ADW.
2.) whether the person whom you allegedly assaulted sustained an injury (and if so, the severity of the injury)
3.) the nature of the victim (that is, whether the alleged victim an officer, firefighter, or other "protected" person)

245(a)(1) defines a deadly weapon as "an object, instrument, or weapon that is capable of producing and likely to produce death or great bodily injury." Now, since hands, feet, and other body parts are not an object, instrument, or weapon, it is commonly argued that they do not qualify as deadly weapons. However, prosecutors have argued, successfully, that if the hands, feet, or other body parts were "capable of producing and likely to produce death or great bodily injury", they qualify as deadly weapons.

This is the same sort of argument gun control advocates make: Is the emphasis of the language on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," or is it on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? You can see that a whole country is divided over this issue, and lawyers and judges on both sides, adept in interpreting the law, can not agree. Vague language can be easily manipulated.

Back on point: If you were arrested for and charged with aggravated assault, the prosecution may argue that your background in a martial art made you "capable of producing and likely to produce death or great bodily injury". Now... Let's say that the person in this situation was a drunk, off-duty, police officer, who was killed as a result of your fight (two hits -- you hit him, and he hit the ground. It happens.) and you were arguing self-defense (an affirmative defense) and lost (say because the jury felt your training meant you should be held to a higher standard -- again, this happens). So your aggravated assault would be a felony, and a death occurring during the commission of a felony is murder, and you are S.O.L.

As a martial artist, you have a responsibility, whether you like it or not, to use restraint, and it's a jury that determines whether you've lived up to that responsibility. 12 citizens, statistically unlikely to have any martial arts background, are going to decide whether or not you are behaving in a responsible manner. But, you are not held to any different a standard than any other law-abiding citizen otherwise would be. Everyone has the potential to cause grievous bodily harm to another with no weapons at all.

I believe strongly that, as a martial artist, you have a responsibility to know the laws in your area and in any area you may find yourself. Assume the worst, and you'll live a lot longer.

NO! the same laws apply to a martial artist that apply to anyone else. If a person is charged for violence, they look at the facts. If you use no more force than is necessary to stop an attack, that is fine. If you abuse your skills, bully someone, or do more than is necessary to keep safe, that is another matter.


...

Strictly speaking, no. There is no legal designation of a martial artist as a weapon. Such a thing would be impossible to define let alone enforce.

However, if a martial artist is arrested for assault (even if it was self-defense) you can expect the prosecution to use their martial arts training against them. Depending on the situation, a martial artist may be held to a higher standard than a person with no training.

nupe.

however, just like policemen who end up convicted would result in a longer jail sentence than the average joe because of their knowledge of the law and some hand to hand defense techniques, the martial artist would probably get a harsher lecture by the judge and a slightly more severe punsihment...

it depends, if it is used to defend oneself or other people, it shouldnt considered a weapon, thus not guilty, but if martial arts is used to attack someone unprovoked, it should be considered a weapon and will be met with deadly force

Not per say although if you are incarcerated for any length of time and you have a martial arts background then it will put you in a higher category as far as security is concerned. This category is reserved for those prisoners who are particularly dangerous, violent, or are escape risks and have shown a history of any of those things. This becomes more of a factor when transporting you or moving you and then its in leg irons, waist chain and waist cuffs so that you can't move your hands more than a few inches from your body or lift a leg higher than your own knee. Guide lines stipulate that you can't be transported or moved this way otherwise unless you are in this category.

Besides this it does also put you more at risk liability wise as far as getting sued for damages like medical costs, etc. if you get into a fight with someone or hurt them seriously if involved in some kind of physical altercation with them.

This idea is thought to come from when martial arts instructors and their students in Japan were required to register with the military provisional government after the end of WW II during the US occupation of it and Okinawa. Martial arts schools where even closed and shuttered and martial arts were not allowed to be taught during this time frame. Some instructors continued to do so underground in spite of this even though they could have been charged and jailed.

Martial artists are not legally marked as a weapon. You are allowed to defend yourself as long as you do not start the fight, use excessive force. Basically use common sense :)

No, but use of martial arts are prohibited unless it was for necessary defense and even then it is frowned upon.

I would never say that we are legally marked as weapons but many martial artists I know or have heard of lost legal battles in court even though the evidence is clear that defense was needed. Our techniques are considered too dangerous in most circumstances as many only have basic idea of what these techniques are capable of.

It is amazing to read just how little people really know.

Ever see that movie, Con Air?

If one earns a Black Belt like 1st Degree (Dan) They have become "certified" to teach.

Does a holder of a Black Belt need to go to the local police station, and "register" themselves?
No.

But, if a Black Belt ever gets into a fight, then they will most likely be charged with additional charges.
Because, that Black Belt has been "trained" and is certified of a Black Belt.

Just like a boxer, who gets into a fight, and also, gets charged as a felony because his hands are considered Lethal Weapons. Because he is a professional, and has been trained to fight.

So, YES! Yes, martial artists are considered to be lethal weapons if>>>>>>>

This depends on the damage they do in the actual situation. There have been cases where if the attacker was badly injured in the struggle that the martial artist in question could be charged with assault with the use of a deadly weapon. Despite the fact that this has occured before, unless the person is severely injured it is very unlikely to happen.