The U.S. Department of Justice recently launched an investigation in the handling of rape, sexual assault, and harassment complaints by the University of Montana at Missoula, the Missoula, Montana, Police Department, and the Missoula County Attorney’s Office. Such an investigation may shed light on the practices of these institutions and may result in improvements, but law enforcement and the legal system alone will not be able to protect you from violence.

According to 2008 U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics, township and municipalities employed an average of 2.3 sworn police officers per 1000 residents. Law enforcement officers are not personal bodyguards. Most women are sexually assaulted by men they know in places they generally consider safe. Most rapes and sexual assaults do not happen in the streets or other public locations, but in apartments, homes, and other private places. Alcohol is a factor in a large percentage of rapes and sexual assaults. Legally valid consent is usually the crucial issue for successful prosecutions of non-stranger sex crimes.

A prosecutor’s decision to charge someone with a sex crime must be based on her reasonable decision that she has a good chance of proving all of the elements of the crime. She must prove criminal intent and lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. If she doesn’t have a sufficient chance of proving the crime, it makes no sense to prosecute.

How about conducting your own investigation in how you can increase your personal safety? Rather than relying primarily on protection from law enforcement or the legal system, rely more on yourself. Investigate how you can increase your safety. Arm yourself with information on the avoidance of sex crimes. Educate yourself on managing risk. Work with your friends on looking out for each other. Think about setting and enforcing your boundaries. And as a back up, learn some basic physical self-defense if all of your avoidance strategies fail.

Your prevention training should include the following issues:

1. Statutory elements of sex crimes in simple terms; what is a sexual assault, a rape (sexual intercourse without consent), stalking, illegal sexual harassment, sexual abuse of minors, simple and aggravated assault;

2. Legally valid consent;

3. The roles of alcohol and drugs in rapes and sexual assaults (make sure you are up to date on what’s available and used in your communities);

4. Sexual assault and rape dynamics (non-stranger and the less common stranger dynamics);

5. Verbal and physical boundary setting and enforcing;

6. Justified use of force;

7. Risk awareness and recognition;

8. Risk reduction and avoidance strategies;

9. Basic physical self-defense;

10. After-care.

As a long-term civil liberties and civil rights advocate, I am dedicated to systemic change with the goals of gender equity and fairness.

But as a mother, who also happens to be a lawyer and a self-defense instructor, I did not want to rely on law enforcement and the legal systems alone to protect my daughters from violence. One now lives in Brooklyn, New York, and the other one is studying at Brown University. They both know that a realistic approach to personal safety requires that they assume primary responsibility for their safety. They both have encountered situations where their training has come in handy.

Susan B. Anthony said in 1871, “Woman must not depend on the protection of man but must be taught to defend herself.”

The Justice Department Announcement stated: “These investigations will seek to determine whether gender discrimination affected the prevention, investigation and prosecution of sexual assaults and sexual harassment in Missoula.”

The investigation includes a review of the response to sexual assault and harassment reports at the University of Montana at Missoula, where at least 11 student-related sex assault cases were reported in the last 18 months.

Title IX, intended to end sex discrimination in education, was enacted on June 23, 1972. The law is best known as a tool to assure equality for women in athletics. But its reach is much broader, extending to any other gender discrimination by any educational institution that receives federal funding.

Under Title IX, universities receiving federal funds are legally obligated to protect students from gender-based violence and harassment – including sexual harassment, assault, and rape.

Title IX states: ”No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual assault and sexual harassment, in education programs.

Sexual violence on campus is a civil rights issue; when students suffer from sexual harassment and sexual violence they are deprived of equal access to education.

The announcement by the Department of Justice states: ”People with information related to the sexual assaults or sexual harassment in Missoula are encouraged to contact the Department of Justice at 1-855-307-6103 or at community.missoula@usdoj.gov .”

Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website

Additional information about the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana is available on the USAO Mt website.

Click here for more information and related documents.

We are now scheduling our June, July, and August courses. For more information visit our Personal Safety and RAD Self-Defense pages. You can also call us at (406) 580-5190 or you can contact us through our website contact forms.

We will offer courses at our location in Three Forks or at a location chosen by the participants.

No previous experience is required. You do not need to be in any particular physical condition to start training.

Participants need to be at least 13 years of age. Minors require written parental or guardian permission.

Contact us to schedule your group’s training at a time and on days convenient for your group. If you do not have a group, we can add you to another group that is looking for additional participants.

For any questions or to register, you can call us at (406) 580-5190 or by using the contact form on the website.

Martial arts training will keep you fit. Its many benefits include increased flexibility, strength, balance, cardio-vascular health, weight control, endurance, focus, self-control, self-confidence, and self-discipline, to name just a few. While Taekwon-do engages your body, mind, and spirit, class time includes minimal verbal instruction and focuses instead on hard physical training.

Some students pursue Taekwon-do for a lifetime, forming lasting friendships with instructors and other students. Year after year, they attend class multiple times a week. And with that amount of dedication and time commitment, they can develop extremely powerful self-defense skills.

Self-defense training is more goal-oriented – its purpose is to increase a student’s safety and self-defense options in a relatively short time. Rather than aspiring to the perfection of an art, self-defense training is utilitarian. You won’t learn any elegant or complicated techniques. Instead, we concentrate on basic, simple gross motor movements that are relatively easy to learn, retain, and apply. We work with your natural weapons, such as your hammer-fists, elbows, knees, and feet. Invest in some self-defense training, stay fit, and these weapons can become very effective.

R.A.D. Aggressor

The focus of our training is on two areas: first, what does real violence look like and how can you avoid it, and second, if you cannot avoid it, what can you do to increase your survival chances. About 95% of increasing your safety is risk management. That’s why we start out with risk awareness training, including a basic knowledge about violence dynamics.

You’ve all heard the phrase, “The missing woman was a victim of a random attack.” But violence is hardly ever random. Instead, violence is almost always a process – and that’s true whether it’s stranger violence, domestic violence, or other non-stranger violence. This process includes certain stages, pre-cursors, and violence dynamics. Knowledge about these stages and dynamics, such as the violence triangle, can significantly increase your safety.

Your most important self-defense tool is your brain. In personal safety training, we explore the roles of your cognitive and limbic brains. We review when you should probably trust your gut reactions, and when you might avoid violence by reigning in your limbic brain responses.

We also review Justifiable Use of Force law. The old maxim, “Better judged by 12 than carried by 6” no longer sounds so good when you need to spend your life savings for lawyers fees, and when you face prison and the loss of your family and your job. You may also suffer lifelong psychological trauma from having seriously injured or killed another human being. That’s why our self-defense training emphasizes boundary setting, risk awareness, reduction, recognition, and avoidance, and physical counter-attack only as a last resort.

Effective self-defense training will empower you. Your power will come not from false and potentially dangerous over-confidence, but from increased knowledge about risk and danger management and basic, realistic self-defense skills. Personal safety or self-defense training cannot guarantee your safety. What it can do is to increase your knowledge of violence dynamics, and your safety options, should you ever be attacked.

So back to the original question, which should you take – Taekwon-Do or Personal Safety and Self-Defense courses? If you are primarily interested in developing or maintaining physical fitness, I recommend Taekwon-Do. If your immediate goal is to learn some self-defense in a relatively short time, then enroll in a self-defense course.

Ideally, you should do both. Invest in self-defense training and commit to ongoing martial arts training. You’ll stay fit and you’ll maximize your physical and mental safety and self-defense options.

Mingle with our students and their families, learn a little bit more about Taekwon-do, personal safety, and self-defense, participate in some hands-on exercises at our try-out stations, and then join us for cake and ice cream.

We offer an Open House Special for new Taekwon-do students. Sign up for Taekwon-do lessons and receive a free dobok (uniform) and belt.

Or sign up for self-defense classes and receive a 25% Open House discount. For more information call us at 406.580.5190 or visit our Personal Safety, or Rape Aggression Defense (R.A.D.) Systems,  or Taekwon-do pages.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Three Rivers Defense is committed to combat sexual violence through personal safety education and self-defense training. Ask about our Special Discount for April sexual assault and rape prevention courses. Here are some resources that you may want to check out:

1. Information on Montana laws  and on issues related to sexual assault and rape (sexual intercourse without consent);

2. Information on R.A.D. (Rape Aggression Defense Systems) self-defense training options;

4. MSU VOICE Center ;

5. University of Montana SARC ;

6. Don’t Just say “No.”

RAD Training 2009

Call us at any time to watch a class. Or join us for our Spring Open House on April 13 to watch demonstrations and board breaking and talk with our students and instructors.   Fore more information, see our Taekwon-Do Page.

Also, criminal law differs from state to state. Tribal and federal law may also apply. Even statutes that are similar may be interpreted in a different way in another jurisdiction.

MONTANA STATUTES ON JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 2011

45-3-101. Definitions. (1) “Force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm” within the meaning of this chapter includes but is not limited to: (a) the firing of a firearm in the direction of a person, even though no purpose exists to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; and ? (b) the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which a person is riding. ? (2) “Forcible felony” means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

History: En. 94-3-101 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-101.

45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. History: En. 94-3-102 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-102; amd. Sec. 1643, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure. ? (2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if: ? (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or ? (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure. History: En. 94-3-103 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-103; amd. Sec. 1644, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person’s possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person’s immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

History: En. 94-3-104 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-104; amd. Sec. 1645, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

45-3-105. Use of force by aggressor. The justification described in 45-3-102 through 45-3-104 is not available to a person who: (1) is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony; or ?(2) purposely or knowingly provokes the use of force against the person, unless: (a) the force is so great that the person reasonably believes that the person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that the person has exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger other than the use of force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) in good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that the person desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History: En. 94-3-105 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-105; amd. Sec. 1646, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

45-3-106. Use of force to prevent escape. (1) A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in custody is justified in the use of force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer or other person would be justified in using if the officer or other person were arresting the person. ? (2) A guard or other peace officer is justified in the use of force, including force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, that the guard or officer reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a correctional institution of a person whom the guard or officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in the institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense. History: En. 94-3-106 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-106; amd. Sec. 1647, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

45-3-107. Use of force by parent, guardian, or teacher. A parent or an authorized agent of a parent or a guardian, master, or teacher is justified in the use of force that is reasonable and necessary to restrain or correct the person’s child, ward, apprentice, or pupil.

History: En. 94-3-107 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-107; amd. Sec. 1648, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

45-3-108. Use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest that the person knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if the person believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.

History: En. 94-3-108 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-108; amd. Sec. 1649, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

45-3-109. Execution of death sentence. A person who puts a person to death pursuant to a sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction is justified if the person acts in accordance with the sentence pronounced and the law prescribing the procedure for execution of a death sentence.

History: En. 94-3-109 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-109; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 411, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 1650, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

45-3-110.No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

45-3-111. Openly carrying weapon — display — exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon. ? (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon. ? (3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

45-3-112. Investigation of alleged offense involving claim of justifiable use of force. When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident that appears to have or is alleged to have involved justifiable use of force, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony concerning the alleged offense and that might support the apparent or alleged justifiable use of force.

History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

45-3-115. Affirmative defense. A defense of justifiable use of force based on the provisions of this part is an affirmative defense.

History: En. 94-3-112 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-112.

From the limited information that we have through the media at this point, I don’t think that Zimmermann would succeed in establishing justified use of force under Montana law. But there are a lot of questions that haven’t been answered yet. So it’s too early to draw any conclusions.

Let’s start with Montana’s general statute on justifiable use of potentially deadly force. That statute says

“Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” MCA 45-3-102 (2011) (Emphasis added)

This general statute must be read in conjunction with Montana’s version of the castle doctrine.  Montana extended the right-to-stand-your ground to any place that a person is lawfully in.  MCA 45-3-110 (2011)

Montana self-defense law says, “… a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force.” See MCA 45-3-110 (2011) (Emphasis added)

Does that mean that any time you are not trespassing somewhere and you feel physically threatened by someone you are automatically justified to draw your gun and shoot him? No.

First, the Montana statute specifically limits the right to stand your ground to people who are not the initial aggressors.  Aggressors must still first try every reasonable means to escape rather than using physical force.  See, MCA 45-3-105 (2011)

From the information on the phone calls by both George Zimmerman to 911 and by Trayvon Martin to his girlfriend, it appears that at least initially, Zimmerman was following Martin. He apparently did so even after the 911 dispatcher had specifically told him not to do so.

While Zimmermann had no legal duty to follow the dispatcher’s instructions, this evidence goes to the issue who pursued whom and also to the issue of both men’s intent. So far, I’ve seen no information that Zimmerman expressed any fear of imminent injury to the dispatcher or to anyone else. But again, we don’t have all the evidence yet.

On the other hand, Trayvon Martin’s calls to his girlfriend indicate that he was being followed and that he felt threatened.  A person who threatens someone and causes him reasonable apprehension of physical injury commits an assault under Montana law.

So under Montana law, there might be a question if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, in which case he would have had to seek every reasonable means to escape and could not rely on the stand-your-ground doctrine.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Zimmermann was not the initial aggressor. In that case, he did not have to try to escape or seek help from law enforcement first.  But could he establish justifiable use of force, arguing simply that he felt threatened by a 17-year old black kid that happened to walk through a neighborhood that had recently been burglarized? It depends on how objectively reasonable his belief of an imminent threat was.

The stand-your-ground statute doesn’t stand alone. It must be read in context with the rest of Montana’s Justifiable Use of Force law.  And under that law, you can use lethal force only when and to the extent that you reasonably believe it’s necessary to avoid imminent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another or to avoid the commission of a “forcible felony.”

Zimmerman would need to show that his belief of being threatened with imminent serious bodily injury or death was objectively reasonable. So a subjective, racist belief that all young black kids in hoodies pose a physical threat obviously wouldn’t be enough.

So far, the information available in the news suggests that Martin might reasonably have believed that Zimmerman was threatening him, rather than the other way around. But again, media reports aren’t the same as comprehensive evidence. At this point, we don’t have all of the facts to make an informed decision.

The shooter also has to show that the shooting was necessary to avoid imminent injury. What exactly was the threat of bodily injury that Zimmerman perceived? His call to the 911 dispatcher doesn’t seem to suggest any fear of imminent serious bodily injury. He apparently followed the boy – not the reaction of a person who’s afraid of being seriously injured.

But the situation may have changed. Zimmerman apparently claims that he eventually began to return to his car and he might claim that Martin at some point turned towards him. We don’t know yet if Zimmerman might have claimed that he thought Martin was armed. Even a mistaken belief of a threat of imminent harm can be deemed  objectively reasonable if the totality of the evidence supports that conclusion.

Apparently, Zimmerman was bleeding and had some injuries to his head. Was he the aggressor and did Martin justifiably feel threatened and hit him in self-defense? Zimmerman probably claims that Martin became the aggressor. Statements by witnesses that heard possibly more than one shot and screams may contradict this claim.

What were the relative body weight and strength of Zimmerman and Martin? Who was yelling for help? Did these screams stop immediately after the shooting?

While Zimmerman may not have a had a duty to retreat under Montana law, from the information we have at this point, I think he might have a hard time establishing that his belief of imminent harm was objectively reasonable and that the shooting was necessary to avoid imminent harm. But we don’t have enough evidence yet to decide these issues.

In Montana, we had a case where a man shot an unarmed co-worker at a Billings Walmart. People quite often refer to this case as an outrageous example of  the stand-your-ground statute allowing someone to get away with shooting an unarmed man. But if you look at the evidence in that case, including medical records, your view might change. Mine did.

From a lawyer’s perspective, it will be interesting to see how the legal case develops.

From a personal, human point of view, Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy and it might be a sad example of how far we still have to go as a nation in overcoming  racism.  Let’s start in our own state in combatting overt and covert racial prejudice wherever we encounter it.

But equally important, let’s not pre-judge a man by media reports. That’s also a vigilante-style action.

Note:

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal questions, I recommend that you seek legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state.

Criminal law differs from state to state. Tribal and federal law may also apply. Even statutes that are similar in several states may be interpreted differently in each jurisdiction.