Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Assalt by Black belt ,sues us for defending self and family.

It seems the other man cursed your mother-in-law but didn't threaten her. Even if what he said could be considered a threat it was not a threat of immediate harm, which is the only type that legally justifies a violent response. Your husband may be able to defeat the claim, but probably not by making this argument.

A better strategy is probably to claim self-defense. This type of argument usually doesn't work (people often claim self-defense in response to much less serious conduct), but it seems likely to succeed here. The plaintiff technically battered your husband several times before being hit by bumping and pushing him; one who has already struck should expect to be struck back. If your husband knew at the time that this man had a black belt (and if your husband has no similar training) he had good reason to fear imminent harm, and thus acted reasonably in defending himself.

Of course, my analysis presumes that everything you have said is accurate and that there are no other relevant facts -- especially facts which would have made it seem unlikely that the situation would escalate. The plaintiff will probably tell a different story, and a judge or jury may believe his version rather than your husband's.

Even jurors who accept your husband's testimony may feel he acted uncreasonably -- especially if they feel he was reacting to the comment about his mother and not to being pushed -- and side with the plaintiff.