Fact or Fiction: A Boxer's Hands Are Considered Weapons in a Court of Law

I remember a kid in Elementary school telling me his Brother who was a Marine had to 'register' his hands as lethal weapons he was so dangerous :rofl

 

Faction

 

There is no obligation for a boxer or martial artist in the U.S. to notify someone that they are trained. You aren't obligated to notify someone harassing you that are carrying a concealed gun, why would being trained be any different?

 

What lawyer told you that?

You don't have to have have a single bout. Your KO% - and indeed record of any sort - can be zero.

If you are trained and have sparred, you can be just as culpable in prosecution as the biggest KO artist in the pros. There is absolutely no such distinction made. That smacks of urban legend.

 

Yes but surely you're allowed to defend yourself the same way a normal person would be, it's only in the cases where you break the law that your training could be used against you in the court?

 

Correct.

 

I don't know, I think you're really supposed to be the one to walk the high ground and just avoid fighting as much as you can. Obviously self defense is self defense, if someone comes at you with a knife (or even a sucker punch) but if a bar argument heats up or someone walks up and starts to shove you in the chest you're supposed to just walk away. Otherwise, if you are trained in any manner of fighting (and that fact can be proven...ie by subpoenaing your coach or gymmates for testimony) you'll get the worst of it at court.

That's my understanding anyway.

 

It's 100% false, just like with black belts and servicemembers.

Being a pro boxer, a black belt, or a marine doesn't mean sh!t about your fighting ability in many cases.

I do recall when Gavin Rees was prosecuted for trashing a guy at a wedding that testimony was given that he was hitting the guy "like a trained fighter" or something to that effect.

Doesn't matter. A court might look at you a little more harshly if you're really laying the f%ck on somebody and have been trained to fight, but there's no legal precedent or law or whatever.

Additionally, telling someone you're a trained fighter is one of the dumbest things you can do when involved in a situation. It's pretty much a guarantee that it's going to kick off.

"Oh, you're a trained fighter, sorry, my bad, I really don't want to get my ass kicked. Please don't hurt me.," said no one ever.

 

"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. "