In the world of law, there are essentially two types of crimes:  mala en se (Latin for evil in itself) crimes and mala prohibita (Latin for evil prohibited) crimes. The distinction is important, and most Americans don’t understand these concepts.

Image via Wikipedia

Mala en se crimes are obvious infringements upon the rights of others. This would include things like robbery, rape, or murder. I say that these crimes are obvious, because every organized society has laws against these crimes, and the harm they inflict is obvious and immediate.

These acts contain the element of mens rea (a guilty mind). Anybody of normal state of mind knows that they are violating these laws and thus understand they have committed a “wrong”.

Contrast that idea with mala prohibita crimes – acts that are crimes because somebody said so. These are laws like prostitution, drug use, etc.

You can argue the ills of these acts, but in themselves they do not infringe on anybody else’s rights. Mala prohibita laws are not universal in US states, across the globe, or historically. Why? Because mostly they enforce whoever is in power’s moral system. They try to replace self-regulation with government regulation of consensual activity.

The US constitution was originally drafted and has been amended to bind the federal government from creating and enforcing mala prohibita laws. The bill of rights is a stunning document outlining the types of things the government cannot infringe upon – freedom of speech, religion, freedom from self-incriminatiom, freedom from illegal detainment, search and seizure, the right to own and bear arms.

Mala prohibita laws are tricky because you can violate them with no mens rea. You can be in violation of mala prohibita laws without even knowing it quite easily. Think about the tens of thousands of pages of tax code.

You may have heard that ignorance of the law is no defense. That saying comes from 18th century British Law scholar Blackstone  who wrote:

“Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat.” (ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no man)

Most people have never heard the “which everyone is bound to know” part. What he’s talking about here is Natural Law. The idea of Natural Law is that you have certain rights by virtue of being born human – whether you think they are endowed by God, or simply extend from your status as a person. Everyone in society is bound to know that violating your personal or property rights is wrong. On the other hand, I may not know that whistling on Sunday is banned in certain towns, and I might get pardoned for whistling if I’m from out of town.

Why is understanding this important for self defense in Maine?

First, you should understand that your right to defend your person and your property from harm is a natural right. It extends from the very fact that you are human. All states have guidelines on what citizens may do to defend themselves. I’ll let the legal scholars argue about them. But you should read and understand what they are – and good luck.

Second, I think some of our mala prohibita crimes with regard to self defense are ridiculous. For example, if your kid has a slingshot in his backpack – technically he is committing a Class D crime in Maine and can be imprisoned for 364 days. A woman who has a concealed carry weapons permit allowing her to have a gun concealed on her person, she still could be arrested for having a stun gun in her purse.

I raise this because my students frequently ask about which self-defense weapons are legal to carry in Maine. I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice, but as I read the law it basically states that no item used for self defense can be carried concealed on or about your person except for a firearm by someone who has a permit or defensive sprays like pepper spray.

This is a bad law for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that there probably are many thousands of people inadvertently breaking this law every single day.

The real problem with outlawing objects is that it disarms the law abiding citizens, and creates a class of criminals who have never violated a law except for owning the object – and may not ever know they have broken the law. In general, laws restricting people’s ability to defend themselves from violence increase violent crime.

I have written to my state senator and state representative recently in hopes of opening a dialog to discuss Maine Statute Title 25 252. Section 2001A. “Threatening display of or carrying concealed weapon”. I will keep you informed, but I hope you go read and understand the laws of the state regarding self defense.

There are two basic self defense scenarios that I like to characterize as ambush or delayed. In an ambush attack, the assault happens immediately, the attacker leads with violence. Delayed is where there is some interaction prior to the violent act. In both cases, awareness of what’s going on should be your first tool to avoid trouble. Violence is to be avoided at all costs, unless you are in a profession which requires you to confront violence.

In a delayed violence scenario, there may be a few reasons why the attacker delays violent action. The bar fight where angry words are exchanged before violence erupts is one example. Another would be a  mugging where the attacker first uses intimidation before resorting to physical violence.

In a delayed violence scenario, you may still be able to avoid violence, or prepare yourself to mitigate some of the violence. Becoming aware that violence is about to happen is the key. Here are some body language cues that someone may be about to attack:

• Target staring or glancing – A person may narrow their eyes and stare at a part of your body (such as the chin) looking at the target they intend to strike. They may also begin to look around at other people in the vicinity or exit routes
• Looking through you – Also known as the “thousand yard stare”
• Blading the body back – Instead of facing you straight on, someone places their body more or less 45 degree angle, the knees may be slightly bent. THink of a boxer’s stance or Karate ready stance.
• Hands to the Head, or on hips – Some people who are extremely angry will unconsciously touch their head, some may place both hands behind their head
• Hands touching or patting potentially hidden weapon locations – Under a threat, people who are carrying a weapon may instinctively move their hands to check the weapon – usually at the belt-line, pockets, or jacket area
• Suddenly looking away, or turning partially away – This is the typical “sucker punch” maneuver
• Clenching the fists – Clenching and unclenching, or holding balled fists
• Bearing the teeth – Particularly the canine teeth
• Dropping the head – Chin tucked and eybrows dropped
• Face becoming red, or pale – Rapid changes in blood flow to the face may indicate an emotional change
• Rapid, deep breathing through tight lips or flared nostrils – May be accompanied by puffing the cheeks
• Rocking or bobbing back and forth – usually on the balls of the feet, may be combined with looking for targets on your body
• Shedding clothing - such as removing a shirt or jacket
• Profuse sweating – watch for sweat of the forehead
• Excessive blinking – Also a fairly good lie indicator, excessive blinking may indicate emotional stress

These are just a few pre-violence indicators, and it definitely pays to learn them. Most of them are unconscious behaviors, so a potential attacker will not realize they are doing them at the time.

Obviously some other indicators include things like making verbal threats, raising the voice, being intoxicated, and other things we may already know.

Now, what do you do if you pick up on some pre-violence indicators? That depends on the situation, but your guard and your attention should go up immediately. It’s a good idea to make some distance, and take on a safer non-violent posture. Always be aware of what the person’s hands are doing, look for weapons, and accomplices. Look for your best exit.

Again, depending on the situation, you may still be able to avoid a violent encounter by safely leaving the area, talking the person down, or creating some distance.

Whether or not you’d be justified in striking a person first if you sensed them about to attack is a very sticky area of law that I can’t get into as I’m no lawyer. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the law is that nothing is 100% sure. Most, if not all, jurisdictions allow the use of reasonable force against the threat of violence. Some people who should be within their rights to defend themselves have undoubtedly wound up in prison. Imagine yourself in front of a jury explaining why you stomped a guy who hadn’t even thrown a punch at you yet. Research the law in your area, talk to a cop and a criminal lawyer sometime,  and use your best judgment.

Here’s a video from Turkey showing a man fighting off multiple attackers (warning: somewhat graphic violence). While every encounter is definitely different, I’d like to use this video to illustrate a few points relevant to  preparing for self-defense.

Since I don’t speak Turkish, I really don’t know the context of this video. I don’t know who these people are, why they are fighting, what preceded this, or what happened after. Watch:

OK, so some of the things I’d like to point out.

1. This person held his own against multiple people who appeared to be trying to hurt him. He kept on his feet, he kept mobile, and he kept attacking as the attackers came at him. He constantly repositioned himself so that his attackers were in front of him – a good thing.
2. He didn’t execute a double leg takedown, mount one of the attackers, and attempt to choke him out. We could imagine what might happen if he attempted that particular tactic. He stayed on his feet the whole time, and kept moving.
3. Even though a few of the attackers’ blows landed, he appeared to absorb them and move .
4. None of that attackers appears to be armed, or they all appear to be attacking empty handed. had weapons been involved, even the glancing blows might have been deadly for the defender.
5. The defender did not get tied up with an individual attacker, he struck and moved, always repositioning himself at an advantage. The attackers began to get in each other’s way. These are tactics we practice in multiple opponent drills.
6. The defender appears to have some kind of training. He keeps his hands up, strikes at incoming blows, and delivers some effective straight and hook punches.
7. The man in the white shirt appears to try to kick the defender twice to the body, neither attack is very effective. the first time he is held back by somebody. The second time it looks as though he’s knocked out bya strike to the jaw, or from hitting his head on the ground.
8. The fight, for lack of a better term, is chaotic. There are no perfect techniques, stances, or katas. There are no rules and no mats. The environment contains very real and deadly obstacles (moving cars, immovable objects).