# Teen Black Belt Busted After Near-Deadly Kick



## Bill Mattocks

> http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Teen-Black-Belts-Arrested-for--125236984.html
> 
> A Miami Lakes teen didn't land enough kicks to win a match at a martial arts tournament, but the connection his foot made after the match might land him in jail.
> 
> The 16-year-old boy, who is not being identified because of his age, was charged with *assault with a deadly weapon for the incident,* which happened in San Jose over the weekend, reported the Mercury News.
> 
> The boy, who is a second-degree black belt in taekwondo, was allegedly upset because he had just lost a quarterfinal match to a New York teen on Saturday, San Jose police said.
> 
> After the loss, the boy went to the locker room but returned to the fighting area, walked up to the kid he had just lost to, and landed a single roundhouse kick to the face that knocked the boy out cold.
> 
> The strike hit just below the boy's nose, knocking out some of his teeth. The New York boy had to be rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery.
> 
> Doctors said if the kick would have landed on the boy's nose, the force of the impact would have likely killed him.



I noted that the charge is assault with a deadly weapon.  This lends credence to the theory that a trained martial artist's hands and feet are indeed 'weapons'.  It's also a very sad indictment on the boy, his upbringing, and perhaps his training.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Thank God I live in Washington State. Here, if you kick someone in the face you are in the same trouble a non-martial artist would be.


----------



## jks9199

Bill Mattocks said:


> I noted that the charge is assault with a deadly weapon.  This lends credence to the theory that a trained martial artist's hands and feet are indeed 'weapons'.  It's also a very sad indictment on the boy, his upbringing, and perhaps his training.



No.  It lends credence to the idea of a prosecutor charging heavy hoping for a plea deal.  As described in several places, under Virginia law, the most I'd expect would be malicious wounding.  Arguments that the kick "could" have been fatal are sketchy.  I'd like to hear what the doctor really said would have been the mechanism of death; I sure hope it wasn't "drive the nose bone into the brain" as one article listed.


----------



## tshadowchaser

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. I would suspect a plea to a lesser offense and maybe probation.


----------



## Thesemindz

Heh heh. "Nose bone." 

Other than that funny little tidbit, this is a sad, sad story. All around. A stupid kid makes a stupid mistake and will be paying the repercussions of that for a long long time. As will his victim. So sad. 

I did a lot of stupid things when I was sixteen. Nothing quite this stupid, but stupid. That's how sixteen year olds behave. Stupidly. Especially sixteen year old boys. They're the stupidest. Such a sad story.

I hope he learns from this. I hope other kids do. I hope we all do. Then at least something good might come out of all this. I hope his victim is ok.


-Rob


----------



## elder999

jks9199 said:


> No. It lends credence to the idea of a prosecutor charging heavy hoping for a plea deal. As described in several places, under Virginia law, the most I'd expect would be malicious wounding. Arguments that the kick "could" have been fatal are sketchy. *I'd like to hear what the doctor really said would have been the mechanism of death; I sure hope it wasn't "drive the nose bone into the brain" as one article listed*.



And, in fact, the _philtrum_, or medial cleft on the upper lip, is a more potentially deadly target than the nose. While the nose is potentially fatal-a strong strike to _anywhere_ on the head _might_ cause fatal braqin damage, or a nerve reaction causing vasodilation, or a basal skull fracture-a strike to the philtrum is even miore _potentially_ fatal, with all the same possible mechanisms of death, and an increased chance for the least likely one, the basal skull fracture.

Kid clearly missed a few trips to the woodshed. I *hate* sore losers, and calling him _that_ is a ridiculous understatement: I could understand (but not condone) an impulsive strike immediately after the decision was handed down, but to come out of the locker room like that.....sick.


----------



## Senjojutsu

Bill Mattocks said:


> I noted that the charge is assault with a deadly weapon. This lends credence to the theory that a trained martial artist's hands and feet are indeed 'weapons'.



FWIW, there are many US state criminal statutes, such as Massachusetts, who define using a "shod foot" during a kicking assault to raise it to a felony charge level (deadly weapon). So did the sore loser dress (change) in the locker room before he came out with revenge in his heart?

Wise karate lawyer sensei once say; "Only go looking for trouble while barefoot in the park, or with beach sand in between your toes." _[sarcasm]

_Not condoning the action but is this "juvie" any different than daily examples of the twenty-someting, spoiled, millionaire athletes playing professionally these days - being interviewed on ESPN's Sport Center regarding an "extracurricular incident" that occurred during the game and justifying their own boorish behavior??


----------



## jks9199

elder999 said:


> Kid clearly missed a few trips to the woodshed. I *hate* sore losers, and calling him _that_ is a ridiculous understatement: I could understand (but not condone) an impulsive strike immediately after the decision was handed down, but to come out of the locker room like that.....sick.



Absolutely.  The kid doesn't have a leg to stand on -- he was wrong as a sportsman, he was wrong in a criminal sense, and he'll be wrong in any civil action.  His coaches and instructors were also wrong; if they knew he had such a temper, they should have been on his butt to prevent anything like this from happening.  (We'll ignore the whole issue of preventing through proper instruction ahead of time...)  And I've got to wonder where his parents were, as well...


----------



## MA-Caver

elder999 said:


> And, in fact, the _philtrum_, or medial cleft on the upper lip, is a more potentially deadly target than the nose. While the nose is potentially fatal-a strong strike to _anywhere_ on the head _might_ cause fatal braqin damage, or a nerve reaction causing vasodilation, or a basal skull fracture-a strike to the philtrum is even miore _potentially_ fatal, with all the same possible mechanisms of death, and an increased chance for the least likely one, the basal skull fracture.
> 
> Kid clearly missed a few trips to the woodshed. I *hate* sore losers, and calling him _that_ is a ridiculous understatement: I could understand (but not condone) an impulsive strike immediately after the decision was handed down, but to come out of the locker room like that.....sick.


 The key line that jumped out at me was this one ... *the connection his foot made after the match *... this is a reflection (to me anyway) upon the kid's instructor more than on the kid themselves. The kid is a BB and he obviously hasn't learned restraint and acceptance that he lost after a match? Where were the instructor's teachings to learn restraint, control and acceptance of loss? Was this kid a "Cobra Kai" student? 
Black Belt... how does one obtain that rank in his school and learn nothing about restraint? 

Ok you lost the match... learn from it and deal with it and do better the next time. 
I'm more disgusted with the BB's teachers than I am with the BB who did this. Likewise I side with JKS on being disgusted with the parents as well.


----------



## Tez3

I assume this is the same incident?
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...o-contestants-have-altercation-before-contest


----------



## Buka

MA-Caver said:


> The key line that jumped out at me was this one ... *the connection his foot made after the match *... this is a reflection (to me anyway) upon the kid's instructor more than on the kid themselves. The kid is a BB and he obviously hasn't learned restraint and acceptance that he lost after a match? Where were the instructor's teachings to learn restraint, control and acceptance of loss? Was this kid a "Cobra Kai" student?
> Black Belt... how does one obtain that rank in his school and learn nothing about restraint?
> 
> Ok you lost the match... learn from it and deal with it and do better the next time.
> I'm more disgusted with the BB's teachers than I am with the BB who did this. Likewise I side with JKS on being disgusted with the parents as well.



*That's truth, right there.*


----------



## Stealthy

Every member of society is partially to blame for this incident since we live in a society that concents to violence and murder explicitly.

When a Police officer uses force on a person it is *justified* in our society, when a war criminal is sent back to the country of his origin and it is inevitable he will be found guilty and suffer the death penalty(think Saddam Hussein) *all* Countries responsible for overthrowing the regime are guilty of murder but society *justifies* it.

So if some teenager has trouble grasping the finer points of when violence and murder are okay it is societies fault for clearly teaching him that there are times it can be justified.

Personally I can think of no time when hurting another person can be justified, so take responsibility for the world you have created and realise sometimes your children will get wrong.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> *Personally I can think of no time when hurting another person can be justified*, so take responsibility for the world you have created and realise sometimes your children will get wrong.



I always have a hard time understanding when a so-called martial artist says something like this. Could you explain it?


----------



## Stealthy

Within Ninjutsu there is something called "Mushin" which essentially translates to a "no thought no emotion response" which is to say if someone were to pull a knife on me then I would be no more involved in the process which may result in an uncommon level of discomfort arising in the person than if that same person tried to climb Mount Everest naked in a thunder storm. The person may trigger reactions in the physical world by his actions but I personally would have no involvement in the result even though my physical body may be triggered to react accordingly.

In fact if I was thinking about the person at the time I would be wishing I could help them.


----------



## jks9199

Stealthy said:


> Within Ninjutsu there is something called "Mushin" which essentially translates to a "no thought no emotion response" which is to say if someone were to pull a knife on me then I would be no more involved in the process which may result in an uncommon level of discomfort arising in the person than if that same person tried to climb Mount Everest naked in a thunder storm. The person may trigger reactions in the physical world by his actions but I personally would have no involvement in the result even though my physical body may be triggered to react accordingly.
> 
> In fact if I was thinking about the person at the time I would be wishing I could help them.


Bull doo-doo.

I make no bones about it.  You try to hurt me or mine, and I will stop you.  With whatever level of force may be necessary.  That may mean hurting or even killing anyone.  Playing games about "it's not me, it's _reaction_" is dodging the reality of, just like the line about "shooting to stop the threat" is a nicety for public.   That doesn't mean that I want to kill someone, that doesn't mean that I enjoy hurting someone...  but I accept that if I do it -- *I *am the one doing it.  Their choices and their actions may have led to the situation, but in the end, I am the person who used force against them.  I accept that responsibility.

In the instant case, the kid lost his cool.  He couldn't handle having lost, and he struck out at the kid who beat him.  He did it in rather cowardly way, when the kid's attention was elsewhere, and he's going to have to accept his lumps upon conviction.  Honestly, my guess is it never goes to trial criminally, and he pleads to something along the lines of malicious wounding or even simple assault.  And I bet it doesn't go to a civil trial because Id' bet he'll be strongly advised to settle out early and generously.  There is very little available at the moment to give him any justification.


----------



## David43515

Senjojutsu said:


> FWIW, there are many US state criminal statutes, such as Massachusetts, who define using a "shod foot" during a kicking assault to raise it to a felony charge level (deadly weapon). So did the sore loser dress (change) in the locker room before he came out with revenge in his heart?
> 
> Wise karate lawyer sensei once say; "Only go looking for trouble while barefoot in the park, or with beach sand in between your toes." _[sarcasm]
> 
> _Not condoning the action but is this "juvie" any different than daily examples of the twenty-someting, spoiled, millionaire athletes playing professionally these days - being interviewed on ESPN's Sport Center regarding an "extracurricular incident" that occurred during the game and justifying their own boorish behavior??



You beat me to the punch. The first thing I thought of when I read the charge was that he must have put on shoes. It`s a fine point, but in some states it`s an important one backed up by a long history of caselaw.


----------



## Stealthy

jks9199 said:


> He did it in rather cowardly way, when the kid's attention was elsewhere.



You have certainly made it clear that you do believe there are times when violence can be justified which is something I will never concur with since at it's most basic level it gets down to the old, "two wrongs don't make a right".

While I can appreciate due to your profession for your own mental stability it may seem important to justify using force on someone but I believe any use of force is really resorting to poor tactics due to not having a better solution. I am pretty sure if you had a magic switch that could turn off a persons criminal intent you would use it rather than slap cuffs on them and write out a fine.

Rather than living in a society that spends "whatever it takes" to fix it's problems our society says oh well this is the best we have got lets just make do.

As an example I recently killed a Tiger snake that reared up to strike, I do not feel proud about it since it was my lack of ability that caused me to be in a position that for my own survival I had to kill it. With hind sight had I done a snake charmers course at the local zoo maybe I would have had the skills to better resolve the situation and the snake would still be alive.

Technically I would agree if you wanted to press the argument that using Mushin as an excuse is a cop-out and as an enlightened martial artist perhaps I could develop a fighting system that immobilized without causing injury or pain but this is the real world and I am not enlightened so the best I can do is hope I will never need it at all.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> Within Ninjutsu there is something called "Mushin" which essentially translates to a "no thought no emotion response" which is to say if someone were to pull a knife on me then I would be no more involved in the process which may result in an uncommon level of discomfort arising in the person than if that same person tried to climb Mount Everest naked in a thunder storm. The person may trigger reactions in the physical world by his actions but I personally would have no involvement in the result even though my physical body may be triggered to react accordingly.
> 
> In fact if I was thinking about the person at the time I would be wishing I could help them.



Hmmm. Don't think so. 

In fact, the way you state it, _mushin_ *is* justification for hurting another person.

Having an open mind, free of ego, fear or anger, doesn't mean that one isn't justified-color me cconfused.


----------



## Stealthy

elder999 said:


> Having an open mind, free of ego, fear or anger, doesn't mean that one isn't justified-color me cconfused.



Your confusion would come from an intentional omission on my part, not so much from the Mushin description which clearly indicates a no thought no emotion response but rather from my preceeding comments where it is omitted that I see societies responsibilities for the proliferation of violence stemming from "*conscious/sentient/deliberate/intentional*" acts of so called justifiable violence.

There is just no pulling the wool over your eyes.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> Your confusion would come from an intentional omission on my part, not so much from the Mushin description which clearly indicates a no thought no emotion response but rather from my preceeding comments where it is omitted that I see societies responsibilities for the proliferation of violence stemming from "*conscious/sentient/deliberate/intentional*" acts of so called justifiable violence.
> 
> There is just no pulling the wool over your eyes.



Nah. I'm still confused.I'd start by questioning which "societies" you're referring to, and point out that, colelctively, _*mankind*_'s history is an unending tale of the spilling of blood, from the earliest of our caveman ancestors to the present day.

Man's hands were made for *clubs*. Levers, caresses, other tools are all incidental to this, which was undoubtedly our very first tool.

If an act of violence doesn't justify a violent response-and please note, I'm not saying that violence is* always *the answer, just an answer that is often justified-then why learn to respond at all with violence, never mind violence without attachment to emotion or thought?


----------



## Stealthy

elder999 said:


> I'd start by questioning which "societies" you're referring to, and point out that, colelctively, _*mankind*_'s history is an unending tale of the spilling of blood, from the earliest of our caveman ancestors to the present day.
> 
> Man's hands were made for *clubs*. Levers, caresses, other tools are all incidental to this, which was undoubtedly our very first tool.
> 
> If an act of violence doesn't justify a violent response-and please note, I'm not saying that violence is* always *the answer, just an answer that is often justified-then why learn to respond at all with violence, never mind violence without attachment to emotion or thought?



The society I refer to is the Global society which entails every person on Earth.

I wholeheartedly agree with your ascertion of man-kinds roots including the effective application of violence when necessary which has facilitated our survival throughout the ages.

It is my ascertion that modern-man needs to work harder to develop non-violent solutions to its problems rather than rely on the primitive and in some instances barbaric practices to stave off oppression in all its forms.

Therefore my official stance is "there is *never* an excuse" and resorting to the application of force onto another living being should be a source of shame.

As far as martial arts go I thoroughly enjoy studying them and sparring which is concentual and provides the framework for that concent. The failure of the BB in question was to operate outside that framework and perform an act of non-concentual violence.

It is with a real world understanding that there are problems that arise which currently only have solutions which involve the use of force that I train in self-defence and rely on Mushin but that is not to say I think it is okay just that it is the best solution currently available.

With Respect,
Stealthy.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> TheTherefore my official stance is "there is *never* an excuse" and resorting to the application of force onto another living being should be a source of shame..



A "justification" isn't an "excuse," it's a *reason*.


----------



## Stealthy

elder999 said:


> A "justification" isn't an "excuse," it's a *reason*.



Fair enough, in that sense I would say the reason is that as a society we are lacking and therefore resort to primitive solutions.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> Fair enough, in that sense I would say the reason is that as a society we are lacking and therefore resort to primitive solutions.



In what way were the actions of the boy in the original post attibutable to the lacks of "society," as opposed to lacks in his teaching and parenting?

What would have been an appropriate response that was not violent, or a "primitive solution?"


----------



## Stealthy

elder999 said:


> In what way were the actions of the boy in the original post attibutable to the lacks of "society," as opposed to lacks in his teaching and parenting?
> 
> What would have been an appropriate response that was not violent, or a "primitive solution?"



The actions of the boy are attributable to society as well as his parents and teachers due to the excessive proliferation of violence(including so called justifiable varients) which in no uncertain terms indicates that on some levels violence is okay.

Societies failure in general was in setting a bad example. I would argue that the boy in question was lacking in emotional skills and so rather than performing an act of violence on him(or even threatening to) which in essence validates his assumption that violence is okay education is the answer and at its most basic level he should be educated to the point of feeling empathy and therefore guilt for what he did.

While I can appreciate this is not some kind of punishment but a preventative measure, to insist he needs to be punished is merely an opportunistic expression of an inate thirst for causing pain onto others.

The true crime was that he was able to get to that age without developing even the most basic emotional skills of compassion and empathy. It is society as a whole that is responsible for ensuring that all of its constituents develop well.

On the whole humanity has some really serious problems and most of which are well beyond the scope of the application of retribution to correct. I would argue that this is not a fault in the application so much as that which is being applied.

We use an arbitrary system which basically says a little bit of hurt is okay but don't hurt too much. This opens the door wide open for subtle forms of oppression for which there is no tangible way of applying "reasonable force" and therefore the whole business of fear and punishment should be abolished in favour of a better solution(perhaps education).


----------



## Makalakumu

Who can know why the boy came out and kicked the other boy after the match.  Yeah, society is kinda screwy, but that doesn't change the fact that the boy made a choice to do this.  In kindergarten we learn to not hurt others, not steal, and not tell lies.  The fact that we unlearn it in so many ways after kindergarten doesn't change the fact that at one point, at some level, an individual should know this is wrong.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> The actions of the boy are attributable to society as well as his parents and teachers due to the excessive proliferation of violence(including so called justifiable varients) which in no uncertain terms indicates that on some levels violence is okay.



On some levels, violence *is* okay. On the level the boy was _perpetrating_ it, it is not, and the numerous examples of how massive a violation this is-from our general disapprvoal right down to his arrest-indicate how it was not-at all- "okay."




Stealthy said:


> Societies failure in general was in setting a bad example. I would argue that the boy in question was lacking in emotional skills and so rather than performing an act of violence on him(or even threatening to) which in essence validates his assumption that violence is okay education is the answer and at its most basic level he should be educated to the point of feeling empathy and therefore guilt for what he did.



Nah. The kid was a ****head. I never took a cheap-shot at someone for beating me at a match, and neither did my kids.

If they had, I'd have delivered a proper spanking-not to mention however grounded they'd have been-and they knew it. They also understood the value of losing, that the match wasn't just about winning, etc., etc., etc.-these are his parent's and his teacher's failings, not society's. While I'd agree with your assessment of his emotional skills, I would hesitate to make society at all respobsible-in fact, given our laws and mores, I'd say that assertion is basically *wrong*.



Stealthy said:


> While I can appreciate this not some kind of punishment but a preventative measure, to insist he needs to be punished is merely an opportunistic expression of an inate thirst for causing pain onto others.



pancake bunny,,



Stealthy said:


> The true crime was that he was able to get to that age without developing even the most basic emotional skills of compassion and empathy. It is society as a whole that is responsible for ensure that all of its constituents develop well.



And, while I'm not saying that this is the case here, there are individuals born completely without any innate capacity for compassion or empathy. 



Stealthy said:


> On the whole humanity has some really serious problems and most of which are well beyond the scope of the application of retribution to correct. I would argue that this is not a fault in the application so much as that which is being applied.



pancake bunny.




Stealthy said:


> We use an arbitrary system which basically says a little bit of hurt is okay but don't hurt too much. This opens the door wide open for subtle forms of oppression for which there is no tangible way of applying "reasonable force" and therefore the whole business of fear and punishment should be abolished in favour of a better solution(perhaps education).



pancake bunny-though, in this case, I know what you're saying, I just don't see how it's relevant.


----------



## Stealthy

maunakumu said:


> at some level, an individual should know this is wrong.



Agreed, I am merely pointing out that as an enlightened society we can not sit back and say well he should have known better, it's his parents and teachers fault but rather it is everybody's fault since we have all failed that kid that got kicked in the head.



elder999 said:


> And, while I'm not saying that this is the case here, there are individuals born completely without any innate capacity for compassion or empathy.



That's true but I would hope in time medicine can even correct physical limitations on developing full potential.

Sure you got me, the pancakes are really starting to pile up, seeing that picture makes it all worthwhile though so I would say that's exactly where the relevancy is.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> Agreed, I am merely pointing out that as an enlightened society we can not sit back and say well he should have known better, it's his parents and teachers fault but rather it is everybody's fault since we have all failed that kid that got kicked in the head.



I'd say that the assumption that we are an enlightened society in any way is pretty far afield. I'd also say that placing the blame on society rather than *the kid,* his parents and teachers is far afield indeed......


----------



## Stealthy

elder999 said:


> I'd say that the assumption that we are an enlightened society in any way is pretty far afield. I'd also say that placing the blame on society rather than *the kid,* his parents and teachers is far afield indeed......



Well...*as well as*...but.....Indeed...


----------



## Tez3

I do find it wryly amusing that often the proposed punishment for actingly violently is spanking. I always imagine a parent hitting a child while repeating over and over again to it..... 'do not hit people, do not hit people'. 
If this teenager has been taught correctly by his parents in the first place and his instructors secondly of course he should have known better, he probably did afterwards but it's that 'heat of the moment' teeanage, hormonal rage thing which went too far. Hands up then who was perfect as teenagers? It's fine for us adults to sit and go tut tut but who knows what passion, what frustration, what disappointment lies in a teenage boy's chest? Of course he shouldn't have done it, he should have been taught Kipling's 'If', unless of course there was an immense amount of pressure on him to win, put there by people who should have known better. There may have been a cost to his losing according to them so he couldn't bear losing and cracked. It would be interesting to get some more insight into this whole situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> I do find it wryly amusing that often the proposed punishment for actingly violently is spanking. I always imagine a parent hitting a child while repeating over and over again to it..... 'do not hit people, do not hit people'.
> If this teenager has been taught correctly by his parents in the first place and his instructors secondly of course he should have known better, he probably did afterwards but it's that 'heat of the moment' teeanage, hormonal rage thing which went too far. Hands up then who was perfect as teenagers? It's fine for us adults to sit and go tut tut but who knows what passion, what frustration, what disappointment lies in a teenage boy's chest? Of course he shouldn't have done it, he should have been taught Kipling's 'If', unless of course there was an immense amount of pressure on him to win, put there by people who should have known better. There may have been a cost to his losing according to them so he couldn't bear losing and cracked. It would be interesting to get some more insight into this whole situation.



Growing up, my father beat the snot out of me on a nearly daily basis.  I mostly had it coming.  I turned out fine and have never done anything like this little oxygen thief did.  I can only say that corporal punishment worked in my case. I recommend it.


----------



## Tez3

Never touched my kids, ones in his thirties, the other is 26, turned out wonderfully, my brother and I were never beaten either, no one has ever been in my family, at least not by family, mother got beaten by Germans though, I imagine beatings were popular at that time. I'd recommend not beating children. Discipline yes, beating never.To my mind beating children is every bit as bad if not worse than what this teenager did, at least he could probably say he did it in the heat of the moment not in cold blood. Perhaps this teenager had been beaten too and thought it acceptable to then beat someone else, perhaps that's what he learned by being beaten, that violence *is* acceptable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps this teenager had been beaten too and thought it acceptable to then beat someone else, perhaps that's what he learned by being beaten, that violence *is* acceptable.



Since, as I said, I was beaten by my father and I did not and do not think it is acceptable to do what this toerag did, then no, I reject that argument.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> I do find it wryly amusing that often the proposed punishment for actingly violently is spanking. I always imagine a parent hitting a child while repeating over and over again to it..... 'do not hit people, do not hit people'.




Glad you caught that-from the age of about 2, all I had to say to my son was _Don't do that, or I'll sink your ship_, sometimes just _I'll sink your ship!_ and he would behave. Never had to raise a hand to him beyond a swat on the butt early on. Same with my daughter-on the other hand, they both were taught how to behave. WHen they did misbehave or disobey, there were consequences, and that was usually the talk we had before hand, whether it was a grounding or taking away one of their favortite toys.It's as I said-_this kid *missed *a few trips to the woodshed,_ and it's far too late for any "spanking" to do any good now-it's not about "spanking," or even punishment-it's about establishing limits early on, and maintaining them. Frankly, I think even jail won't turn this one around.

THis kid clearly never had any limits established-never was taught that his actions had consequences-never experienced having consequences to his actions, or he wouldn't have behaved in such a shameful manner.



Tez3 said:


> If this teenager has been taught correctly by his parents in the first place and his instructors secondly of course he should have known better, he probably did afterwards but it's that 'heat of the moment' teeanage, hormonal rage thing which went too far. Hands up then who was perfect as teenagers? It's fine for us adults to sit and go tut tut but who knows what passion, what frustration, what disappointment lies in a teenage boy's chest? Of course he shouldn't have done it, he should have been taught Kipling's 'If', unless of course there was an immense amount of pressure on him to win, put there by people who should have known better. There may have been a cost to his losing according to them so he couldn't bear losing and cracked. It would be interesting to get some more insight into this whole situation.



It doesn't sound like an impulsive heat of the moment thing to me-he went back to the locker rooom, changed clothes, and then came back out and kicked the kid. 

And yeah, Irene-I was a perfect teen ager:lfao: I learned early on, though, what disappointment is, and how to live with it-and that there really is no choice in the matter, because life is full of disappointments, just as it's full of happiness.If there was too much pressure on him to win, then-*again*, it's a faiilure in parenting and teaching. 

Kid didn't behave like a black belt. Didn't behave like a sportsman. Didn't behave like a citizen. Barely behaved like a human being, and displayed one of our less desirable human traits at that.


----------



## MaxiMe

I'm with Bill on this one. Some times you need to apply the hand of learning to the seat of knowledge.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> I do find it wryly amusing that often the proposed punishment for acting violently is spanking. I always imagine a parent hitting a child while repeating over and over again to it..... 'do not hit people, do not hit people'.



I have to agree with Tez3 on this.  Striking a child to force them to obey is a form of child abuse.  It sends mixed messages and is probably responsible for all kinds of mental trauma that can play its way out in many ways.  I don't spank my children and have always been able to teach them proper behavior.


----------



## Twin Fist

i got beat to hell on a near daily basis too, and i deserved everyone one of those beatings and guess what? they worked. Clean criminal record and no violence in my past or present. the thing is, SOME kids dont need a beating. great. But dont assume that they ALL dont just cuz your's didnt. My case proves that some kids just need a good beating to get the message to sink in


----------



## Makalakumu

Maybe this discussion is getting too far off topic, so I'll keep this brief.  I got my share of beatings as a child and one thing I've come to recognize through therapy is that the effects of these acts don't have to express as direct physical violence.  Beatings cause a lot of emotional trauma that affects your mind and shapes your thoughts.  Our society uses violence against all kinds of people everywhere.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if these are connected.


----------



## Tez3

I think one thing that was said and I know this is opening the can of worms that has kicked off arguments here before....is that this lad didn't act like a black belt. My and my instructor's belief as well as a lot of people I know is that black belts aren't for children and this lad is still a child. Black belts are for adults who understand the point of being awarded/given/earning a black belt. 
There's a lot of things I'd like to know more about in this case, what were the expectations laid on this boy? His and/or others expecattions, is he just a sore loser of a fight or is there more to it that that, has he been given a sense of entitlement that he should win everything? Is he the best in his training establishment who beats everyone and his instructor has told him he is so good he can never lose? In MMA the well known saying is 'if you win every fight you aren't fighting the right people', perhaps this lad feels hard done by because he's been told he can't lose and by losing has lost more than the fight he's lost his ego, his balance, his belief in instructors and maybe parents. As they say 'it's complicated'. Punish the lad for what he did of course but also he must be made to understand that losing isn't the end of the world.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> I think one thing that was said and I know this is opening the can of worms that has kicked off arguments here before....is that this lad didn't act like a black belt. My and my instructor's belief as well as a lot of people I know is that black belts aren't for children and this lad is still a child.



I earned shodan grades in kyokushin and tae kwon do at 16. 

I was hardly a child at 16. I could drive. Was on my way to earning a college degree that year. Was pretty much emancipated from my parents. Was having sex, working, drinking, and making a variety of adult decisions. In spite of all that, I was hardly an adult-and, while I may have been exceptional in some ways, I was pretty typical in lots of others-and I wasn't the only 16 year old black belt in 1976; there were quite a few of us...... in any case, I knew that my actions had consequences.


*050*


Tez3 said:


> Black belts are for adults who understand the point of being awarded/given/earning a black belt.



Maybe. How about black belts are for _those_ who understand, etc.? I mean, I know a lot of adults at 50 who still wouldn't understand.Conversely, while I'm not totally against the idea of a "junior" black belt, I've also known quite a few teenagers who had the maturity and dedication to attain shodan.



Tez3 said:


> . As they say 'it's complicated'. Punish the lad for what he did of course but also he must be made to understand that losing isn't the end of the world.



It's too late for that, I'm afraid......this was *criminal* behavior, and will be treated as such. Odds are good the kid will be charged as an adult, in adult court, facing adult consequences for his actions.


----------



## Tez3

You certainly wouldn't be driving here at 16, nor drinking legally. School leaving age here isn't till 16 at the earliest quite often it's 18, when you can drink, smoke,vote, drive, marry and die for your country ( you can join the forces at 17 but you don't go to a warzone until after you are 18)
If this lad didn't know there would be consquences who's fault is that? Or perhaps the consquences of losing were greater than those of his action in kicking the other lad? The association to which he and his instructor belongs to should be having a good look to see whether this is an isolated incident or all the students from there have the idea they are entitled to win. It may be that this lad is just a complete yob but it also maybe that he's the product of his school and their teaching. Not sure whether it was this thread or the other one dealing with this incident but it was asked what the association was going to do about it, some thought nothing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

maunakumu said:


> I have to agree with Tez3 on this.  Striking a child to force them to obey is a form of child abuse.  It sends mixed messages and is *probably responsible* for all kinds of mental trauma that can play its way out in many ways.



PROVE IT.



> I don't spank my children and have always been able to teach them proper behavior.



Good for you.  I don't doubt you.  You will note that I do not insist that parents strike their children as a form of discipline, but those parents who do not for some reason seem to think they have the right to tell others what to do with their own children.  _"Probably responsible?"_  In your mind, perhaps.  In reality, no.  But that 'probably' gives liberals the right, in their own minds, to tell others how to live.  It's an old story.  My way is better, therefore I get to tell you how to live.


----------



## punisher73

back to the original topic.

Even though there isn't a SPECIFIC law in most states that state that someone with training is a deadly weapon.  It IS used as a mitigating factor and will bump up the charges very quickly.

I sat in on a domestic violence case with an inmate.  He punched his girlfriend and broke her eye socket.  The charges were bumped up from the normal injury because he was a kickboxer.  The prosecutor looks at that type of training on a two prong approach.  1) You have formal training and should know better and 2) because you have formal training you are more capable of inflicting serious injury.

Michigan also has the "shod foot" law which makes it a felony as well.

Off topic as to spanking children.  Kids DON'T have the capability of understanding reason at a young age, they only understand pleasure/pain.  A swat on the butt will correct behavior much better than a stern talking to, because they DON'T understand what they did.


----------



## punisher73

Also, saying that society as a whole failed this young man, I feel, is a load of poo.  That's part of the problem right there.  We shift the blame from the wrongdoer and their individual responsibility for their act and place it on everyone else that we didn't teach them better.  Guess what?  Unless, you literally have some crossed wires in your brain every kid after kindergarten knows it is wrong to go up and punch/kick Johnny because you are mad.  How much time do we have to spend on this topic?  I don't know his instructor, but I'm guessing his instructor has probably covered that same topic as well.

As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water...".  If you teach these lessons and they aren't absorbed the onus is on the wrong doer. PERIOD and they take full blame and responsibility for their actions.  If we shift that responsibility it takes away from the wrongdoer as if they to are a victim in all of this.  They aren't, they are the wrongdoer and they need to own up for their mistakes.  You see we ALL have freewill and ALL make choices in life.


----------



## Tez3

If, and that's the nub of the question, others are to blame for this it will be those who are much closer to the teenager than 'society' in general. The parents and the instructors _could_ be looked at for sharing the blame but it is generally accepted that in competitive sports one should be a good sport in public about losing. You can go off and bash your head off a wall or swear like a trooper in private but in public it is the done thing to be gracious in defeat. For most the feelings losing bring only last a little while, with most people vowing to come back better next time or even giving up if they are really bad lol, no one likes losing even good sports don't but it's part of life if you are in a competitive sport. 
I find it interesting that the teenager kicked the competitor who defeated him rather than judges or refs, must admit I'd like to know who he blamed and why for his defeat.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> You certainly wouldn't be driving here at 16, nor drinking legally.




Well, here he almost certainly would be driving at 16-in some states as young as 14. Nowhere would he be drinking legally, and, when I was 16, I wasn't drinking legally either-but I knew it, and chose to face the consequences, which might have been substantial had I been caught, or stupid enough to drink and drive. The drinking age was 18 at the time, though, and I had a fake ID that I rarely had to use. As for leaving school, I was the exception, not the rule, but such things aren't ruled by age as much here, I think.



Tez3 said:


> If this lad didn't know there would be consquences who's fault is that?



I've been saying all along: _his parents and his teachers._



Tez3 said:


> Or perhaps the consquences of losing were greater than those of his action in kicking the other lad?



In his *mind* perhaps. 



Tez3 said:


> The association to which he and his instructor belongs to should be having a good look to see whether this is an isolated incident or all the students from there have the idea they are entitled to win.



Maybe. The kids going to court, though, and should go to jail. If *I* kicked everyone in the face that made me angry or disappointed me, I'd be in jail.



Tez3 said:


> It may be that this lad is just a complete yob but it also maybe that he's the product of his school and their teaching.



Quite right-he's a "complete_ yob_," *and* the product of his school and their (lack of) teaching. 

And he should go to jail.



Tez3 said:


> Not sure whether it was this thread or the other one dealing with this incident but it was asked what the association was going to do about it, some thought nothing.



Besides kicking him out-and, in a just world, they won't really have to do that, because he's going to jail- what should they do?


----------



## Tez3

No idea what his association should do, it's not mine, I was just curious what people thought it should do! there's two threads on this incident going at the same time, I don't know if they can be merged or not though.
Me, I love knowing the why's of people's actions, as I said I'd love to know why he kicked the competitor and why he thought he should, I'd like to know the pressures if any on him to win etc etc. I really like understanding people's motives and reasons for their actions, just saying he's a yob isn't enough for me, I like to delve into minds lol!


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> No.  It lends credence to the idea of a prosecutor charging heavy hoping for a plea deal.  As described in several places, under Virginia law, the most I'd expect would be malicious wounding.  Arguments that the kick "could" have been fatal are sketchy.  I'd like to hear what the doctor really said would have been the mechanism of death; I sure hope it wasn't "drive the nose bone into the brain" as one article listed.



I couldn't agree with you more.The charge,the analriffic politics,the public ignorance regarding the lethality of kicks...all reek to high Heaven and the lowest bowels of Hell with extreme stupidity. I swear this prosecutor is beyond extremely stupid and callously grandstanding using the ridiculous childishness of a kid who made a remarkably stupid decision...this prosecutor guy went and had a long loud dufus-gasm in public.The kid deserves jail time,but we're not looking at a kid who's a graduate from the OZUNU CLAN from NINJA ASSASSIN the movie.We're looking at a kid who needs 3-6 months in jail and working on his temper.I also think that it's more than premature to start making assumptions and generalizations about his teacher and/or parents...some kids have solid teachers and parents,and they WILL be good kids in the future but right now? They have anger problems and they need help coping.They need to be punished for their excesses,but they also need help with permanently removing the root of their problem...or else they'll just get better at NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

I teach and have taught a decent amount of gang members.These kids have anger problems for the most part.They haven't done good things and by the time they come to me? They're in need a swift boot in the behind and iron discipline.It's not unheard of for me to put a physical exclamation on my point if these kids in any way defy my orders or don't jump to it fast enough or perform well enough when I give them the order.The results I get is very much like the results that old skool military training bequeathes to the formerly wayward: greater discipline,much stronger character and self control,real world confidence and oftentimes a genuine love for martial arts sports etc. I have a 86% success rate regarding sharp academic performance within the first  months of training with me (my kids go from "failing" to generally 2.0+ before their academic quarter and semester is over).They frequently break ties with their gang or are no longer active in "retaliation revenge and git back" or "puttin in work for the hood"...but their lethality keeps their rep amongst their homies high and they rarely suffer from social backlash in their gang because they're now moving on to better things and most guys respect and appreciate that.

If I just handed out severe *** whompification on these kids for their transgressions and sent them to jail? They'd get better at not being caught,they'd go deeper into their sets (gangs) and they'd be impossible to reach and turn around. So yeah they get sent to jail.When you break the law? You generally DESERVE to be punished and if it's severe enough for jail time? You generally DESERVE TO GO. Same for them.But you gotta arm them with something else besides the threat of jail to combat the pressures that they're under. The threat of jail? Not scarin them.It's oftentimes a badge of honor amongst their set; you get props for NOT being caught and you get props for takin your time like a man and not flippin on ya set ( not rattin anybody out).


----------



## Carol

California Penal Code 245(a)(1)  defines a person who commits "assault with a deadly weapon" as:



> a person who commits an assault with a deadly weapon or instrument or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury



The kid was knocked out cold, his teeth were knocked out, and he was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery.   Was that alone not a means of force likely to produce great bodily injury?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Carol said:


> California Penal Code 245(a)(1)  defines a person who commits "assault with a deadly weapon" as:
> 
> 
> 
> The kid was knocked out cold, his teeth were knocked out, and he was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery.   Was that alone not a means of force likely to produce great bodily injury?



No it wasn't.I've seen these kinds of injuries in tournaments over the decades and all involved knew that there shouldn't be any legal action going on.I remember the riot at the LONG BEACH INTERNATIONAL KARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS years ago.People were gettin beat down everywhere.Way more than 90% of the combatants didn't press charges on each other.This kid caught a hard knockout kick,and the kid who threw it maliciously caught him unawares.The kid who threw the kick needs to go to jail,but the charges are deliberately inflated for political purposes.The charge should be assault.Because that's what happened.The hospitalized kid was assaulted.


----------



## Tez3

ATACX GYM said:


> I couldn't agree with you more.The charge,the analriffic politics,the public ignorance regarding the lethality of kicks...all reek to high Heaven and the lowest bowels of Hell with extreme stupidity. I swear this prosecutor is beyond extremely stupid and callously grandstanding using the ridiculous childishness of a kid who made a remarkably stupid decision...this prosecutor guy went and had a long loud dufus-gasm in public.The kid deserves jail time,but we're not looking at a kid who's a graduate from the OZUNU CLAN from NINJA ASSASSIN the movie.We're looking at a kid who needs 3-6 months in jail and working on his temper.I also think that it's more than premature to start making assumptions and generalizations about his teacher and/or parents...some kids have solid teachers and parents,and they WILL be good kids in the future but right now? They have anger problems and they need help coping.They need to be punished for their excesses,but they also need help with permanently removing the root of their problem...or else they'll just get better at NOT GETTING CAUGHT.
> 
> I teach and have taught a decent amount of gang members.These kids have anger problems for the most part.They haven't done good things and by the time they come to me? They're in need a swift boot in the behind and iron discipline.It's not unheard of for me to put a physical exclamation on my point if these kids in any way defy my orders or don't jump to it fast enough or perform well enough when I give them the order.The results I get is very much like the results that old skool military training bequeathes to the formerly wayward: greater discipline,much stronger character and self control,real world confidence and oftentimes a genuine love for martial arts sports etc. I have a 86% success rate regarding sharp academic performance within the first months of training with me (my kids go from "failing" to generally 2.0+ before their academic quarter and semester is over).They frequently break ties with their gang or are no longer active in "retaliation revenge and git back" or "puttin in work for the hood"...but their lethality keeps their rep amongst their homies high and they rarely suffer from social backlash in their gang because they're now moving on to better things and most guys respect and appreciate that.
> 
> If I just handed out severe *** whompification on these kids for their transgressions and sent them to jail? They'd get better at not being caught,they'd go deeper into their sets (gangs) and they'd be impossible to reach and turn around. So yeah they get sent to jail.When you break the law? You generally DESERVE to be punished and if it's severe enough for jail time? You generally DESERVE TO GO. Same for them.But you gotta arm them with something else besides the threat of jail to combat the pressures that they're under. The threat of jail? Not scarin them.It's oftentimes a badge of honor amongst their set; you get props for NOT being caught and you get props for takin your time like a man and not flippin on ya set ( not rattin anybody out).




Could we have a translation please for the non American speakers?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ATACX GYM said:


> No it wasn't.I've seen these kinds of injuries in tournaments over the decades and all involved knew that there shouldn't be any legal action going on.I remember the riot at the LONG BEACH INTERNATIONAL KARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS years ago.People were gettin beat down everywhere.Way more than 90% of the combatants didn't press charges on each other.This kid caught a hard knockout kick,and the kid who threw it maliciously caught him unawares.The kid who threw the kick needs to go to jail,but the charges are deliberately inflated for political purposes.The charge should be assault.Because that's what happened.The hospitalized kid was assaulted.



I'd say having your teeth knocked out is great bodily injury.  Just an opinion.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'd say having your teeth knocked out is great bodily injury.  Just an opinion.



Okay...but I wouldn't.I've seen that numerous times in regular street fights and in martial arts tourneys.Contusions,fractures that aren't hairline fractures,broken bones,concussions,and worse is what I would call "great bodily injury" and that description is more consistent with the kind of contact that these guys are used to.We've seen NFL players get a tooth knocked out by hits,and nobody starts bandying about talk of felony charges. Remember when Joe Theismann got hit by Lawrence Taylor and his thigh snapped like kindling? Remember that football player who got PARALYZED for Christ's sake by one hit? Guys...THAT'S great bodily harm.Look at the definition (according to the California Penal Code) again:

"a person who commits an assault with a deadly weapon or instrument or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury"

Knife and gun attacks.Bat and broken bottle attacks.Being stomped by a gang of attackers.Getting cracked by crowbars.The use of instruments like lug wrenches hub caps and irons.golf clubs. Etc.These things are "deadly weapons or instruments" that "produce great bodily harm". Folks,a roundhouse to the mouthpiece doesn't equate here.It's ASSAULT but unless he kept cracking the kid while he was down or caused severe life threatening or multiple bone breaking or vital bone injuring (the spine,say,or neural damage) damage? We're talking ASSAULT and NOT assault WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.The prosecutor knows this better than you and I ever will,but he's getting his politics on.
Now,what was this surgery for? To replace his tooth? I bet there isn't a medical validation for this kid's life being in danger and I bet this kid doesn't have any severe after-effects from the kick.

Give the kicker 4-6 months and 2 years of probation,mandatory anger counseling,etc.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Tez3 said:


> Could we have a translation please for the non American speakers?



TRANSLATION INTO INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH:

The prosecutor is politically grandstanding,the charges are exaggerated for political effect and are inherently unjust,the prosecutor is probably not the brightest guy in the universe.Jailing isn't the primary answer,crime prevention is. Blaming the kids' parents and/or teachers and/or society as a whole is too pat of an answer that may be doing the parents,teachers and society as a whole a great disservice.We may be talking about a kid with a temper who in a fit of anger did something stupid that will and should land him in jail,so don't have a cow about it and start lamenting about the great woes of society.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay...but I wouldn't.I've seen that numerous times in regular street fights and in martial arts tourneys.Contusions,fractures that aren't hairline fractures,broken bones,concussions,and worse is what I would call "great bodily injury" and that description is more consistent with the kind of contact that these guys are used to.



Except that this was not tournament fighting.  There is no difference in reality if the attacker had taken out a person who was walking past the venue on the sidewalk.  The fact that the victim is familiar with methods of self-defense does not change what the perpetrator did - inflict great bodily injury.  If it was done in the ring, that's one thing.  After the bout is over, outside the ring?  That's no different that applying the same kick to the victim's grandmother.  It's not who it was done to, it's what was done.


----------



## Tez3

Good grief we don't have teeth knocked out in MMA in or out of the cage/ring! Fighting in a competition is fighting with consent, both parties agree to fight and if they get injured during a fair fight then that's accepted by all parties. This attack is quite simply assault, here the CPS would decide whether it's ABH -actual bodily harm or GBH - grevious bodily harm, the charge depending on the damage inflicted by the assault as well as the intention behind the assault. There would be no charge of using a weapon, a charge of malicious wounding could be added if the charge is GBH which basically means the assault was intended to hurt someone badly.
Giving the teenager the benefit of the doubt that it was a fit of temper I'd say it was ABH, big fine, community service, suspended custodial sentence with tagging and compensation to victim. 
If it was pre-meditated and the teenager meant to hurt the other lad it will be GBH with malicious wounding so custodial sentence.
The victim in either case would receive compensation from the court, a couple of thousand pounds usually for his injuries.


----------



## punisher73

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay...but I wouldn't.I've seen that numerous times in regular street fights and in martial arts tourneys.Contusions,fractures that aren't hairline fractures,broken bones,concussions,and worse is what I would call "great bodily injury" and that description is more consistent with the kind of contact that these guys are used to.We've seen NFL players get a tooth knocked out by hits,and nobody starts bandying about talk of felony charges. Remember when Joe Theismann got hit by Lawrence Taylor and his thigh snapped like kindling? Remember that football player who got PARALYZED for Christ's sake by one hit? Guys...THAT'S great bodily harm.Look at the definition (according to the California Penal Code) again:
> 
> "a person who commits an assault with a deadly weapon or instrument or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury"
> 
> Knife and gun attacks.Bat and broken bottle attacks.Being stomped by a gang of attackers.Getting cracked by crowbars.The use of instruments like lug wrenches hub caps and irons.golf clubs. Etc.These things are "deadly weapons or instruments" that "produce great bodily harm". *Folks,a roundhouse to the mouthpiece doesn't equate here*.It's ASSAULT but unless he kept cracking the kid while he was down or caused severe life threatening or multiple bone breaking or vital bone injuring (the spine,say,or neural damage) damage? We're talking ASSAULT and NOT assault WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.The prosecutor knows this better than you and I ever will,but he's getting his politics on.
> Now,what was this surgery for? To replace his tooth? I bet there isn't a medical validation for this kid's life being in danger and I bet this kid doesn't have any severe after-effects from the kick.
> 
> Give the kicker 4-6 months and 2 years of probation,mandatory anger counseling,etc.



In the first paragraph you list ALL serious injuries were parties were competing voluntarily in a sport.  I *guarantee *if LT would have put a hit on a guy in the parking lot AFTER the game after they were all dressed out because he didn't like the call DURING the game he would have had criminal charges brought as well.

Second part I highlighted, this wasn't a roundhouse kick to the mouthpiece.  This was AFTER the match, the defendant went to the locker room, changed and CAME BACK into the arena and KO'd an unsuspecting victim.  This wasn't even an argument that got escalated.  This was cold and maliscious and would be charged that way in almost any area.  

Here is a website that talks about California's "great bodily harm" and also the charge ADW s/ GBH.





> http://www.shouselaw.com/gbi.html



Notice the following quote on what courtcases in CA have ALREADY ruled is great bodily harm.



> As previously stated, what constitutes great bodily harm is determined on a case-by-case basis. This means that even though an injury qualifies as GBI in one case, the same injury caused under different circumstances...or evaluated by a different jury...may not.
> That said, here are just a few examples of injuries where the court imposed a great bodily injury enhancement.
> 
> 
> broken bones[SUP]22[/SUP] (specifically including...but not limited to...jaw fractures,[SUP]23[/SUP] a broken nose,[SUP]24[/SUP] and a broken hand[SUP]25[/SUP]),


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Imagine I get into the ring with Mike Tyson.  He agrees to fight me, and I smack him a good one and knock out his teeth.  Assault?  No, we are both agreed to engage in mutual combat of this nature.  The law recognizes this.

Now imagine that I meet Mike Tyson's mom on the street and smack her a good one and knock out her teeth.  Assault?  You betcha.

Some here are arguing that if I met Mike Tyson on the street and knocked out his teeth, it would be a DIFFERENT crime than if I knocked out his mom's teeth, because he is a trained fighter.  NONSENSE.  The crime would be completely the same.  It would be based on my intent and the actual damage done, not on who I did it to.

Please note, I did say 'imagine'.  Of course I would never be so foolish as to assault either Mike Tyson or his mom.  Nor would I get into the ring with either one.  Just an example.


----------



## Makalakumu

After some thought, I decided to come back and reply to this...



Bill Mattocks said:


> PROVE IT.



Google fu alone turns up thousands of scholarly articles about studies that demonstrate the emotional trauma of spanking and corporal punishment.  You can't act like this body of research doesn't exist.   Does this "prove" that beatings cause emotional trauma?  No, that's impossible, but there is a good case for it.

Child abuse is like a bomb in the brain when it comes to violence.  It matters.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> Good for you.  I don't doubt you.  You will note that I do not insist that parents strike their children as a form of discipline, but those parents who do not for some reason seem to think they have the right to tell others what to do with their own children.  _"Probably responsible?"_  In your mind, perhaps.  In reality, no.  But that 'probably' gives liberals the right, in their own minds, to tell others how to live.  It's an old story.  My way is better, therefore I get to tell you how to live.



In reality, yes.  I feel comfortable in stating that beatings cause emotional (and physical) trauma in children.  Does this mean that parents don't have a choice to beat their children if they wish?  Sure, but they will pay the consequences later.  The parents suffer, the child suffers, and society suffers when we agress against the young.  And I believe that parents have the right choose, just as anyone has the right to choose, even if the choice is...well...evil.

My argument against beating a child is a moral one.  Children are humans who have rights, wishes and goals.  When we beat a child to force them to conform to our expectations, we literally stomp on those rights, wishes and goals.  We make them into our slaves.  If beating was the *only *way to control children, there would be little to argue about.  The fact that people can raise their children without resorting to violence begs the question, why would anyone choose to beat their children at all?  

Imagine teaching the young ones from an early age that it's bad to use force to get what you want and then breaking that principle in order to get what you want.  What kind of view of violence is this child going to develop?  Imagine a society filled with people that have this drummed into their heads.  What would they do?  At the very least, they probably will continue to beat their children.  At the very least, they might even commit assault after loosing in a karate tournament.

At some point, I believe humanity will realize that child abuse is the largest obstacle to living in a free society.  It's not enough for slaves to decide not to be slaves.  The masters need to decide not to be masters.


----------



## punisher73

maunakumu said:


> After some thought, I decided to come back and reply to this...
> 
> 
> 
> Google fu alone turns up thousands of scholarly articles about studies that demonstrate the emotional trauma of spanking and corporal punishment. You can't act like this body of research doesn't exist. Does this "prove" that beatings cause emotional trauma? No, that's impossible, but there is a good case for it.
> 
> Child abuse is like a bomb in the brain when it comes to violence. It matters.
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, yes. I feel comfortable in stating that beatings cause emotional (and physical) trauma in children. Does this mean that parents don't have a choice to beat their children if they wish? Sure, but they will pay the consequences later. The parents suffer, the child suffers, and society suffers when we agress against the young. And I believe that parents have the right choose, just as anyone has the right to choose, even if the choice is...well...evil.
> 
> My argument against beating a child is a moral one. Children are humans who have rights, wishes and goals. When we beat a child to force them to conform to our expectations, we literally stomp on those rights, wishes and goals. We make them into our slaves. If beating was the *only *way to control children, there would be little to argue about. The fact that people can raise their children without resorting to violence begs the question, why would anyone choose to beat their children at all?
> 
> Imagine teaching the young ones from an early age that it's bad to use force to get what you want and then breaking that principle in order to get what you want. What kind of view of violence is this child going to develop? Imagine a society filled with people that have this drummed into their heads. What would they do? At the very least, they probably will continue to beat their children. At the very least, they might even commit assault after loosing in a karate tournament.
> 
> At some point, I believe humanity will realize that child abuse is the largest obstacle to living in a free society. It's not enough for slaves to decide not to be slaves. The masters need to decide not to be masters.



I wouldn't compare appropriate spanking with "beating a child" or "child abuse".  Again, you can find just as many psychologists that feel that in the earlier years a swat on the bottom is much more effective at shaping behavior than anything else because a child CANNOT use logic or understand what you are trying to say, in fact, they really don't understand what you mean when you say "you're disappointed" in them.  A small amount of pain will curtail behavior, just as if they touch a hot stove they have now learned not to ever do that again.  Intellectually explaining things to a small child is like trying to lecture your dog.


----------



## Tez3

I've actually known dogs who are more intelligent than some people!

I think actually we have some cultural differences with Europe and America where the raising of children are concerned, at least it seems like that. I think we feel that Americans have been heavily influenced by Dr. Spock and certainly 'teenagers' were invented in America where they seem to be far more affluent than certainly our children are. In martial arts certainly America seems to be light years ahead of us in the marketing of it to families and especially children, as well as 'exploring' the more entertainment and show business side of the arts. (I'm trying to be diplomatic about the dancing styles and the weapons comps)


----------



## punisher73

Tez3 said:


> I've actually known dogs who are more intelligent than some people!
> 
> I think actually we have some cultural differences with Europe and America where the raising of children are concerned, at least it seems like that. I think we feel that Americans have been heavily influenced by Dr. Spock and certainly 'teenagers' were invented in America where they seem to be far more affluent than certainly our children are. In martial arts certainly America seems to be light years ahead of us in the marketing of it to families and especially children, as well as 'exploring' the more entertainment and show business side of the arts. (I'm trying to be diplomatic about the dancing styles and the weapons comps)



I would agree with that.  There is a lot backlash of child psychologists of alot of what Dr. Spock said (at least when I was earning my bachelor in psych.) and stuff that hasn't panned out.  I remember a big newstory here was some Europeans (can't remember from where exactly) left their child in a stroller outside the restaurant while they went in to eat.  There was a HUGE public outcry here about how "bad" it was, then they dismissed the charges when it was found out that this was perfectly acceptable where they were from and were only doing what was the norm there.


----------



## Makalakumu

punisher73 said:


> I wouldn't compare appropriate spanking with "beating a child" or "child abuse".  Again, you can find just as many psychologists that feel that in the earlier years a swat on the bottom is much more effective at shaping behavior than anything else because a child CANNOT use logic or understand what you are trying to say, in fact, they really don't understand what you mean when you say "you're disappointed" in them.  A small amount of pain will curtail behavior, just as if they touch a hot stove they have now learned not to ever do that again.  Intellectually explaining things to a small child is like trying to lecture your dog.



I've worked with humans from age 6 to 19 in the course of my career.  At all ages they were capable of reason and logic to some degree.  The challenge with parenting is that often we don't know how to talk to young humans so that they will understand.  They aren't adults and they have different brains.  A parenting class is a great way to bridge the gap and I highly recommend that everyone give it a try.  Pain doesn't have to be part of our communication.

Striking a child is a choice. It's not the only choice and it certainly isn't the best choice, IMO.


----------

