# Don't tell them you know martial arts



## PhotonGuy

If you're ever involved in a physical altercation self defense situation and it goes to court, don't tell them or let them know in any way, shape, or form if you've got any background in the martial arts. It will probably work against you in court.


----------



## ballen0351

OR better advise is get a lawyer and let them talk for you.


----------



## Mephisto

I think they'll probably find out since I wear my gi 24/7 everywhere I go. Just so people know not to mess with me. But I'll consider Photonguy's sage advice. Next thing you know he's start saying its a bad idea for me to brandish  my sai in the courtroom.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> If you're ever involved in a physical altercation self defense situation and it goes to court, don't tell them or let them know in any way, shape, or form if you've got any background in the martial arts. It will probably work against you in court.




Is that a considered statement from a qualified legal professional?


----------



## Xue Sheng

I never tell anyone I train martial arts.......wait.... I told all of you...didn't I........... DANG IT!!!!!


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> I never tell anyone I train martial arts.......wait.... I told all of you...didn't I........... DANG IT!!!!!


Now you have to kill us


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> Is that a considered statement from a qualified legal professional?


No he heard it once and he decided to post it but he doesn't care if you like his post it's not his problem cause he's not changing how he posts cause he heard that he can post things and ..................now my brain hurts


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> Now you have to kill us



hey...don't even worry about it


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> hey...don't even worry about it


Worry about what?????????????


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> OR better advise is get a lawyer and let them talk for you.



Just make sure you've got a good lawyer.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Mephisto said:


> Next thing you know he's start saying its a bad idea for me to brandish  my sai in the courtroom.



You've got to get it in there in the first place.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yeah what were you talking about??????????


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> If you're ever involved in a physical altercation self defense situation and it goes to court, don't tell them or let them know in any way, shape, or form if you've got any background in the martial arts. It will probably work against you in court.


If you are in a self defence situation and you utilise your martial art skills, as long as you haven't stepped over the line between self defence and retaliation you shouldn't have any problem at all. You are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself.

If you are involved in a physical confrontation that is not involved in self defence you only have yourself to blame.


----------



## Steve

and never let them see you sweat!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carol

Mephisto said:


> I think they'll probably find out since I wear my gi 24/7 everywhere I go. Just so people know not to mess with me. But I'll consider Photonguy's sage advice. Next thing you know he's start saying its a bad idea for me to brandish  my sai in the courtroom.



Brandishing sai at your own backyard barbecue might be fair game.


----------



## Steve

Mephisto said:


> Next thing you know he's start saying its a bad idea for me to brandish  my sai in the courtroom.


Is that code???


----------



## Touch Of Death

PhotonGuy said:


> If you're ever involved in a physical altercation self defense situation and it goes to court, don't tell them or let them know in any way, shape, or form if you've got any background in the martial arts. It will probably work against you in court.


Better not tell Facebook, either.


----------



## Touch Of Death

The truth is, if you have told anyone, you may as well come clean. LOL


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> If you are in a self defence situation and you utilise your martial art skills, as long as you haven't stepped over the line between self defence and retaliation you shouldn't have any problem at all. You are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself.
> 
> If you are involved in a physical confrontation that is not involved in self defence you only have yourself to blame.



Unless they have a good lawyer.


----------



## PhotonGuy

K-man said:


> If you are in a self defence situation and you utilise your martial art skills, as long as you haven't stepped over the line between self defence and retaliation you shouldn't have any problem at all. You are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself.
> 
> If you are involved in a physical confrontation that is not involved in self defence you only have yourself to blame.



True, but there is debate as to what is "reasonable force."


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> True, but there is debate as to what is "reasonable force."


Which in itself is a good reason to train 'soft' techniques.


----------



## Carol

PhotonGuy said:


> True, but there is debate as to what is "reasonable force."



*Martial arts skills of the defender have nothing to do with use of force.*    This is a dangerous misconception.  This is what gives rise to the Hollywood-addicted people wringing their hands and whining at peace officers asking "Why can't the cop just shoot the gun out of the teenager's hand?"


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> True, but there is debate as to what is "reasonable force."


There is a debate where?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> There is a debate where?



Normally in the courtroom. Where he will say because you are a martial arts kill monster. And so your force was unreasonable where his was justified.


----------



## drop bear

George Zimmerman trial MMA-day in Trayvon Martin shooting case - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel

Mma used in the Zimmerman trial.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Normally in the courtroom. Where he will say because you are a martial arts kill monster. And so your force was unreasonable where his was justified.


I would be interested in knowing how many cases of that happening in Australia you could cite.

We even had the ludicrous case here where a well known Melbourne criminal shot and killed another well known Melbourne criminal with an illegal handgun in dubious circumstances and was still able to claim self defence and escape prosecution.

But is is reasonably clear cut here as to what you can do ...

Looking to self-defence in legislation, we can turn to s 10.4(2) of the _Criminal Code 1994 _(Cth) which states the following: 

A person carries out conduct in self-defence if, and only if, he or she believes the conduct is necessary:


to defend himself or herself or another person; or
to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person; or
to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or
to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises; or
to remove from any land or premises a person who is committing criminal trespass.
The general rule regarding self-defence is that a person is allowed to take any defensive or evasive steps that they believe to be necessary. Unlike other areas of law, self-defence isn’t reliant on a specific formulaic approach, but rather, is dependent on the facts of the matter, with the question left for the courts and a jury to decide.
Self-defence law in Australia

Nothing at all to do with a martial art background.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> The general rule regarding self-defence is that a person is allowed to take any defensive or evasive steps that they believe to be necessary. Unlike other areas of law, self-defence isn’t reliant on a specific formulaic approach, but rather, is dependent on the facts of the matter, with the question left for the courts and a jury to decide.


Finding a case will be hard. I found the Zimmerman one because I was following the trial. 

Here is the cheeky bit in that law. In that it becomes a lot more complicated than just citing the law. What is determined as a factor is argued in court.

And I don't think people realise how an adversarial system really works in practice. It is not a case where both sides present the facts or even the truth. It is basically a blood sport where the better lawyers have the unfair advantage.

So this idea that you followed your interpretations of reasonable and therefore you are safe is just not true.

So your case of dodgy guy with gun getting off. I had a friend throw a guy out get tackled by the guys mates the whole thing falls to the ground and the guy looses teeth.

My friend did two years.(which I am trying to hunt down now) that is not a martial artist matter but a general wtf just happened, matter.

The outcome is dependent more on how good your lawyer is than you would want to believe.


----------



## Steve

I don't know drop bear.   You might be right.   I heard somewhere that In most countries the legal system is a means of transferring money. That is where the money goes from your account to theirs.  I just can't seem to remember who said that....


----------



## Hyoho

Just say when attacked, 'Please don't beat me up. I have Dan grade'.


----------



## RTKDCMB

PhotonGuy said:


> If you're ever involved in a physical altercation self defense situation and it goes to court, don't tell them or let them know in any way, shape, or form if you've got any background in the martial arts. It will probably work against you in court.


Unless you train in absolute secrecy, if it comes up in court they will find out about your martial arts background. If it is an issue the lawyer for the opposing side, if he/she is competent, will do some basic research.


----------



## LibbyW

Perhaps the process should be;

Good Training - Good Self Defense - Good Discipline - Good Legal Defense - Good Bank Statement to pay for legal fees...

Isn't this why Nick Cage went to prison in Con Air? I remember him icing some guys at the beginning, and because of his high level of combat training  the court ruled he should have been able to overcome his opponents non lethally.
Poor Nicolas Cage. Steve Buscemi was creepy in that movie.

But seriously though, in college I was reprimanded for defending myself. Some jerk got a little "Grabby", I wrist locked him down onto the ground and knelt on his head until he said sorry. The Administration decided I acted inappropriately and called the police. Luckily though, even though "Grabby" he wasn't a complete *** and didn't press charges. But he could of done, and that is the point.
Which sucks
L


----------



## Tez3

The law on


LibbyW said:


> Perhaps the process should be;
> 
> Good Training - Good Self Defense - Good Discipline - Good Legal Defense - Good Bank Statement to pay for legal fees...
> 
> Isn't this why Nick Cage went to prison in Con Air? I remember him icing some guys at the beginning, and because of his high level of combat training  the court ruled he should have been able to overcome his opponents non lethally.
> Poor Nicolas Cage. Steve Buscemi was creepy in that movie.
> 
> But seriously though, in college I was reprimanded for defending myself. Some jerk got a little "Grabby", I wrist locked him down onto the ground and knelt on his head until he said sorry. The Administration decided I acted inappropriately and called the police. Luckily though, even though "Grabby" he wasn't a complete *** and didn't press charges. But he could of done, and that is the point.
> Which sucks
> L




Was that in the UK? If so the college was wrong, even if the boy decided he wanted to have you charged, it wouldn't have worked that way. The police would have taken further statements, investigated then taken it to the CPS who most likely would have thrown it out. I assume the boy attacked first, you defended yourself without injuring ( ?) him and did it with reasonable force which is allowed. People like college admin rarely if ever know the law and are only concerned about covering their backsides in case they get sued.
Here when people 'press charges' it's not a case of the police_ automatically_ doing that, they can as well if they feel it's warranted arrest anyway whether or not 'charges are pressed', the final arbiter on whether it goes to court is the CPS.

('Pressing charges' is not something you can actually do here, people use the expression because they've watched too many American films and television programmes. You can make a complaint to the police, this boy decided not to but you can't 'press charges' here.)


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I don't know drop bear.   You might be right.   I heard somewhere that In most countries the legal system is a means of transferring money. That is where the money goes from your account to theirs.  I just can't seem to remember who said that....


I'm not sure who would have said that but whoever it was must have a brilliant mind as it matches my thoughts completely. Well said that man! 

But seriously, my formal training was in contract law and as a senior barrister put it to me once as I stood to lose everything I owned ... "You are playing the litigation game". Win or lose in that arena and it still costs you money, big time.

When it comes to criminal law it is a little different. One of my senior guys is a retired cop. His explanation is similar to what *Tez* said applies in the UK. If there is an altercation the police will conduct a preliminary investigation, interview witnesses and decide whether there is a case to be answered. If yes, then they will prepare a brief for the prosecutor. If no, everyone goes home. Now if there is a party that sustains damages, as in the case cited by *Drop Bear* with the broken teeth, that person can sue for damages in the civil court.

However, in the case of self defence, unless the victim does something extreme, there is virtually no chance they will end up being charged.


----------



## LibbyW

Tez3 said:


> The law on
> 
> 
> 
> Was that in the UK? If so the college was wrong, even if the boy decided he wanted to have you charged, it wouldn't have worked that way. The police would have taken further statements, investigated then taken it to the CPS who most likely would have thrown it out. I assume the boy attacked first, you defended yourself without injuring ( ?) him and did it with reasonable force which is allowed. People like college admin rarely if ever know the law and are only concerned about covering their backsides in case they get sued.
> Here when people 'press charges' it's not a case of the police_ automatically_ doing that, they can as well if they feel it's warranted arrest anyway whether or not 'charges are pressed', the final arbiter on whether it goes to court is the CPS.
> 
> ('Pressing charges' is not something you can actually do here, people use the expression because they've watched too many American films and television programmes. You can make a complaint to the police, this boy decided not to but you can't 'press charges' here.)



Yes UK, I'm a Pompy girl.
I guess you could say he attacked first.
When I said "grabby" I meant in a pervy, copping a feel type way.
The guy didn't really mean me any harm, he wasn't in any way aggressive, just thought it was hilarious. Until he was on the ground of course 
Once I had explained to the police officer that arrived late that afternoon what had happened he seemed satisfied that I didn't do anything I shouldn't have and as long as I was happy for the situation to be dropped then both the guy in question and the college admin were happy also. 
I still got a caution from the college though, they ran a three strike system. It bugged me a lot because they didn't handle it very delicately, in the sense that EVERYONE knew about it and I then got a reputation. Not so much with other students, I honestly don't think they really cared all that much, but some of the staff treated me differently after.
L


----------



## Tez3

LibbyW said:


> Yes UK, I'm a Pompy girl.
> I guess you could say he attacked first.
> When I said "grabby" I meant in a pervy, copping a feel type way.
> The guy didn't really mean me any harm, he wasn't in any way aggressive, just thought it was hilarious. Until he was on the ground of course
> Once I had explained to the police officer that arrived late that afternoon what had happened he seemed satisfied that I didn't do anything I shouldn't have and as long as I was happy for the situation to be dropped then both the guy in question and the college admin were happy also.
> I still got a caution from the college though, they ran a three strike system. It bugged me a lot because they didn't handle it very delicately, in the sense that EVERYONE knew about it and I then got a reputation. Not so much with other students, I honestly don't think they really cared all that much, but some of the staff treated me differently after.
> L



I can imagine the college people running around like headless chickens not knowing how to deal with it, the anti bullying, anti abuse training seems to be very poor, the idea of the bully/abuser being a poor, unhappy soul who only needs a bit of love to set them on the right path is the one most current at the moment. While I'm sure a few are like that the majority are actually quite confident, self obsessed people who get off on hurting others is actually more like it. A little chat and everything will be fine doesn't work, much prefer your way of dealing with it!


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> The law on
> 
> 
> 
> Was that in the UK? If so the college was wrong, even if the boy decided he wanted to have you charged, it wouldn't have worked that way. The police would have taken further statements, investigated then taken it to the CPS who most likely would have thrown it out. I assume the boy attacked first, you defended yourself without injuring ( ?) him and did it with reasonable force which is allowed. People like college admin rarely if ever know the law and are only concerned about covering their backsides in case they get sued.
> Here when people 'press charges' it's not a case of the police_ automatically_ doing that, they can as well if they feel it's warranted arrest anyway whether or not 'charges are pressed', the final arbiter on whether it goes to court is the CPS.
> 
> ('Pressing charges' is not something you can actually do here, people use the expression because they've watched too many American films and television programmes. You can make a complaint to the police, this boy decided not to but you can't 'press charges' here.)



Interesting.  In the USA, in fact you can swear out a warrant and have someone arrested for just about anything.  Then it will be up to the prosecutor and the courts to make it stick or not.  I think it may vary from state to state if the prosecution has any leeway on whether or not they have to pursue or can request dismissal.

Institutions of "higher learning" may often have some rather unusual ways of handling things.  They don't want bad publicity which they fear may lead to lowering of enrollment, or the quality of students allowed in.  Colleges and universities are first businesses.  Then they may or may not be good at teaching.  But for the same reason, in today's society, they would fear a reputation of allowing sexual abuse to occur without reprisals against perpetrators.  I don't know if colleges and universities look at things the same in the UK or not.


----------



## Tez3

The police and the Crown Prosecution Service deal with all criminal cases in the UK, you can't swear out a warrant for arrest as a civilian if it's a criminal offence. If it's not criminal you can go to a civil court but you pay for it which can prove very costly. Civil courts cover things like libel/slander, civil disputes, debt ( though there is a cheap way to deal with smaller debts through the small Claims Court) damages and the like. Either Libby or the other student could in theory ( if well off enough) have taken the college to court for damages claiming the college was to blame in someway. We also have Employment Tribunals which deal with work cases, unfair dismissal, discrimination etc.
Reporting a Crime Victims and Witnesses The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## Mad_Dog

When I started on the job there was an old, salty bouncer we all called Murph.  Murph was a legend, revered with the same respect as a military or religious leader.  When he spoke we all listened.

One day, after a few drinks, he spilled to us what had been eating away at his mind.  Several years ago, while on the job,  multiple armed men descended upon the bar he was protecting.  Murph used his skills to protect the patrons within and killed several assailants.  Because he was trained in the martial arts the DA decided to prosecute.  Murph ended up doing five years in the pen.  Take that for what you will.


----------



## K-man

Mad_Dog said:


> When I started on the job there was an old, salty bouncer we all called Murph.  Murph was a legend, revered with the same respect as a military or religious leader.  When he spoke we all listened.
> 
> One day, after a few drinks, he spilled to us what had been eating away at his mind.  Several years ago, while on the job,  multiple armed men descended upon the bar he was protecting.  Murph used his skills to protect the patrons within and killed several assailants.  Because he was trained in the martial arts the DA decided to prosecute.  Murph ended up doing five years in the pen.  Take that for what you will.


Perhaps you could give us some details. I've just spent a bit of time looking for an incident like you described and found nothing. Surprising because I would have thought something like that would have been all over the press.

What I did find though was in the UK where a gang of armed thugs attacked a bouncer in his own home. He actually beat them off using an axe but ended up with five years jail for overstepping the line.



> A man who inflicted life-threatening injuries on a member of an armed gang who burst into his Carlisle house has been jailed for five years.
> News Star News Five years jail for Carlisle axe attack


----------



## Tez3

K-man said:


> Perhaps you could give us some details. I've just spent a bit of time looking for an incident like you described and found nothing. Surprising because I would have thought something like that would have been all over the press.
> 
> What I did find though was in the UK where a gang of armed thugs attacked a bouncer in his own home. He actually beat them off using an axe but ended up with five years jail for overstepping the line.




He certainly did overstep the mark, he used reasonable force right up to the point the attacker landed in a heap on the ground and the guy attacked him with the axe, that's beyond reasonable force. However mad you are with the attackers once you've seen them off you have to step back once the danger had gone, a man lying in a heap on the ground is not an attacker anymore.


_"Judge Batty told him that he accepted that “trouble came to you in your own home”.

But he added: “There came a point, fairly early on, when you were no longer under attack, but became the attacker yourself.

“There was repeated violence inside the house at a time when there was no threat to you and then it was continued outside.”

Judge Batty said Bowman, who used to work as a licensed doorman before getting a job with an events security firm, had been “perfectly entitled” to defend himself and even to “resort to extreme violence” and cause injury with the axe.

But he added: “You almost killed him inside the house and then you threw him out so that he landed in a heap in the garden. And then you struck him full force in the face with the axe.”_


----------



## Chrisoro

My two cents:
If in a situation where my gut feeling is that something is not right, my general strategy, if possible, is to exit the situation peacefully, attempting to withdraw from the situation at first sign of trouble, and making it very clear from the beginning that I'm not interested in wathever it is the person raising suspicions want. If the person let me exit the situation, even if the person(s) throws insults or obscenities after me, I consider the situation solved in a satisfactory way. If not, I try to deescalate the situation trough talking, and then exit.

If exit or deescalation is impossible, for whatever reason, I consider an preemptive attack fully within my legal and moral rights, regardless of my martial arts background, as I have then exhausted other reasonable options. And that is what I would say in court, if it ends up there. Also, it's probably much easier to land a suckerpunch (which I have never done in real life) if I have not announced anything related to my martial arts background beforehand.

Reasonable force in this situation is whatever is neccesary to let me exit or deescalate the situation with the least amount of injuries to myself or anyone I have a responsibility to defend. If we are talking several people, or someone armed, what I consider a reasonable level of force increases significantly, even to the point that I would attempt to kill if neccesary.

This is coming from someone who, outside of work, has not been in any situations that have escalated into serious violence or fights (and no, I don't consider sparring or any of the competitions I have participated in as "fights"), since elementary school. Take it for what its worth.


----------



## Mad_Dog

K-man said:


> Perhaps you could give us some details. I've just spent a bit of time looking for an incident like you described and found nothing. Surprising because I would have thought something like that would have been all over the press.



You won't find the story in any media outlets.  Big money was paid to keep the press quiet.


----------



## Tez3

Mad_Dog said:


> You won't find the story in any media outlets.  Big money was paid to keep the press quiet.




Well, of course.


----------



## Chrisoro

Mad_Dog said:


> You won't find the story in any media outlets.  Big money was paid to keep the press quiet.



By whom? And why? And what do you mean by "the press"?


----------



## Mad_Dog

Tez3 said:


> Well, of course.


Yes they did and they imprisoned a good man.  Murph taught me everything I know about bouncing.


----------



## Tez3

Mad_Dog said:


> Yes they did and they imprisoned a good man.  Murph taught me everything I know about bouncing.



Of course he did.


----------



## K-man

Where's that bloody rabbit with the pancake on his head when you need him?


----------



## Xue Sheng

K-man said:


> Where's that bloody rabbit with the pancake on his head when you need him?


----------



## K-man

Xue Sheng said:


>


Ha! Beautiful.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Mad_Dog said:


> When I started on the job there was an old, salty bouncer we all called Murph.  Murph was a legend, revered with the same respect as a military or religious leader.  When he spoke we all listened.
> 
> One day, after a few drinks, he spilled to us what had been eating away at his mind.  Several years ago, while on the job,  multiple armed men descended upon the bar he was protecting.  Murph used his skills to protect the patrons within and killed several assailants.  Because he was trained in the martial arts the DA decided to prosecute.  Murph ended up doing five years in the pen.  Take that for what you will.


Murph was an idiot.


----------



## ballen0351

Why does every tough guy story have a guy named murph in it?  Funny how that works.


----------



## Jenna

Mad_Dog said:


> When I started on the job there was an old, salty bouncer we all called Murph.  Murph was a legend, revered with the same respect as a military or religious leader.  When he spoke we all listened.
> 
> One day, after a few drinks, he spilled to us what had been eating away at his mind.  Several years ago, while on the job,  multiple armed men descended upon the bar he was protecting.  Murph used his skills to protect the patrons within and killed several assailants.  Because he was trained in the martial arts the DA decided to prosecute.  Murph ended up doing five years in the pen.  Take that for what you will.


That pesky DA!



Mad_Dog said:


> You won't find the story in any media outlets.  Big money was paid to keep the press quiet.


Those pesky bought-off press! 



Mad_Dog said:


> Yes they did and they imprisoned a good man.  Murph taught me everything I know about bouncing.


Another legend taken from us.. we are surely forsaken

Batman damnit where the hell are you when we need you!


----------



## Touch Of Death

Murph just taught me I could go to prison if I get to crazy.


----------



## mercmonster

ballen0351 said:


> Why does every tough guy story have a guy named murph in it?  Funny how that works.



^^^


----------



## Mad_Dog

Touch Of Death said:


> Murph was an idiot.


Say what you will of me, but don't speak ill of Murph.  He looked out for me, trained me, in many ways he was like a father to me.  My real father was a nebbish intellectual and was very disappointed in me for not following in his footsteps.  But book learning was not for me.  I chose another way, the way of the warrior.

Murph saw something in me and took me under his wing.  He showed me the best way to de escalate a situation was to knock out the guy causing it.  Sadly, Murph passed away a few years ago.  But, each time I knock out some drunk punk with one hit, I know he's looking down on me from Heaven, smiling.


----------



## Drose427

Mad_Dog said:


> Say what you will of me, but don't speak ill of Murph.  He looked out for me, trained me, in many ways he was like a father to me.  My real father was a nebbish intellectual and was very disappointed in me for not following in his footsteps.  But book learning was not for me.  I chose another way, the way of the warrior.
> 
> Murph saw something in me and took me under his wing.  He showed me the best way to de escalate a situation was to knock out the guy causing it.  Sadly, Murph passed away a few years ago.  But, each time I knock out some drunk punk with one hit, I know he's looking down on me from Heaven, smiling.



This sounds so much like a bad Roadhouse knockoff you may be in danger of a lawsuit


----------



## mercmonster

Isn't there a chance though that they'd discover you were a practitioner of martial arts? A good lawyer would probably try their best to dig up anything on you they can to work for them. Wouldn't it seem worse if it looked like you withheld that piece of information?


----------



## K-man

mercmonster said:


> Isn't there a chance though that they'd discover you were a practitioner of martial arts? A good lawyer would probably try their best to dig up anything on you they can to work for them. Wouldn't it seem worse if it looked like you withheld that piece of information?


It doesn't matter. Obviously you can't conceal the information regarding your MA status, but you don't have to promote it either.Whether you are trained in MAs or not, you can only use reasonable force and you must stop once the threat has gone. 

Where you will get into trouble is if you follow some of the advice being promoted here. If you start knocking guys out when you could just ask them to leave, CCTV evidence will soon see you needing a good lawyer. Knocking someone out is not de-escalating.


----------



## Hyoho

So what happened to the, "I don't want to fight with you, I should warn you I have a 'black belt".


----------



## drop bear

mercmonster said:


> Isn't there a chance though that they'd discover you were a practitioner of martial arts? A good lawyer would probably try their best to dig up anything on you they can to work for them. Wouldn't it seem worse if it looked like you withheld that piece of information?



It is back to this blood sport idea. You don't give the opposition. Be it the defence or the prosecution anything you can avoid giving them. 

It. Is not really looked at as being fair or unfair in that matter.  You don't even really get to present your case in the manner you want. You will just get shut down if you try. So you may have a fact that is important and it can just be not allowed due to something something.

Court is a very surreal place. It is not like an argument or debate. It has its own rules that can quite often not make sense. Which is why the lawyers get the big bucks.

Ultimately I agree with OP. But will expand that to you don't give them anything but the basic facts.


----------



## drop bear

Hyoho said:


> So what happened to the, "I don't want to fight with you, I should warn you I have a 'black belt".



In a statement once I had to say that I did not give the guy permission to fight me.

If you were going with some sort of pre fight declaration. I would work along those lines.

Otherwise you could open up ideas like " your honour he informed me he was a black belt and so I feared for my life"


----------



## drop bear

Mad_Dog said:


> Yes they did and they imprisoned a good man.  Murph taught me everything I know about bouncing.



So murphs method landed him in jail. And from all he taught you you did not learn that.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hyoho said:


> So what happened to the, "I don't want to fight with you, I should warn you I have a 'black belt".


If only that would work.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> If you're ever involved in a physical altercation self defense situation and it goes to court, don't tell them or let them know in any way, shape, or form if you've got any background in the martial arts. It will probably work against you in court.



It's fine, just as long as you also tell them that your hands are Registered as Lethal Weapons.


----------



## JR 137

Who "wins" legal cases?  The better attorney. 

Think Johnny Cochrane vs Marcia Clark.

It doesn't matter who was right; only who's more convincing.  In self defense cases, both parties most often have some guilt; it's about who is less guilty.


----------



## JR 137

Hyoho said:


> So what happened to the, "I don't want to fight with you, I should warn you I have a 'black belt".



Too many people got the crap beat out of them after using that line.  Reminds me of Eddie Murphy in Trading Places when he's in jail. 

I once heard a guy tell another guy "I'm an Navy SEAL; I'm trained to kill people with my bare hands" outside of a bar at the start of a fight.  Their was only one punch thrown - a pretty weak and pathetic one that knocked the "SEAL" out cold.  The crowd laughed and walked away.


----------



## ballen0351

Mad_Dog said:


> Say what you will of me, but don't speak ill of Murph.  He looked out for me, trained me, in many ways he was like a father to me.  My real father was a nebbish intellectual and was very disappointed in me for not following in his footsteps.  But book learning was not for me.  I chose another way, the way of the warrior.
> 
> Murph saw something in me and took me under his wing.  He showed me the best way to de escalate a situation was to knock out the guy causing it.  Sadly, Murph passed away a few years ago.  But, each time I knock out some drunk punk with one hit, I know he's looking down on me from Heaven, smiling.


Don't speak Ill of murph. Ha ha ha ha you owe me a new keyboard I spilled my drink laughing so hard at this post.  Thanks I needed a good laugh


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Mad_Dog why don't you tell us jurisdiction, county, prosecutor so we can read up on the case.  Should be very easy to find with a quick public records search?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Oh and give us murph's full name so as to make the public records search easy.


----------



## Mad_Dog

What is this, some kind of Guantanimo Bay enhanced interrogation?


----------



## Touch Of Death

The truth is, every guy thinks they know something that gives them the advantage; so, the act of omitting what you think you know will look bad. What's in your, "Wallet"?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Mad_Dog, your friend was arrested, tried and is in prison.  I would be curious to read the court documents to
find out what happened?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Mad_Dog, your friend was arrested, tried and is in prison. I would be curious to read the court documents to
> find out what happened?


He was subjected to Murphy's law.


----------



## Mad_Dog

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Mad_Dog, your friend was arrested, tried and is in prison.  I would be curious to read the court documents to
> find out what happened?


He was arrested, tried and imprisoned years before I even met him.  He simply related the experience to me.  He didn't give specific court details, nor did I ask.  Now he's up there bouncing in the big saloon in the sky, no doubt laying the smack down on rowdy, drunken souls.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Okay shoot me a name, county here so I can check up on the story.  I am interested in the court report to see what actually happened.


----------



## ballen0351

Mad_Dog said:


> What is this, some kind of Guantanimo Bay enhanced interrogation?


Nope its just really easy to spot the BS in here


----------



## PhotonGuy

Here's the thing, the government has no business knowing if you've got a martial arts background.


----------



## BMhadoken

PhotonGuy said:


> Here's the thing, the government has no business knowing if you've got a martial arts background.


Here's the other thing. When you're sitting in the defendant's chair, your private life stops being private, and for good reason.


----------



## Transk53

You know what. This thread just highlights why some of us just never escape the public view, that we are all twats who are basically going to sledge someone just because they did not look at the shoes. Yeah even door staff these days are still expected to be able to mix it, the ultimate being the code Black, but gone are the days when you can even intimidate. I know because I had a few occasions where I had a few chaps with the coppers on duty for seemingly intimidating with a intent to strike. Completely far from the truth. I walk them out I don't batter them. Can't even do that anyway even in defence. At the end of the day, many bouncers did not learn, some did. Why, because they got thier SIA badges. The answer is many reasons, the most pertinent being some learned.

I came to late for the good old days, I got my Westminster badge six months before the SIA came in. Did a few doors though before that, and I had the privilege to work with some real decent blokes, and women, and that continued. Now I am an ex doorman, probably considered otherwise by some peoples definition. Don't get me wrong, the only problem I have with it all, is just the mindless thugs whom simply beat up on people because they liked it. They want that, they do it the ring was my answer. Sorry I waffling again. 

The point being that when on shift at The Font (formally The Font and Firkin) I started to chat with a gentlemen wearing clothes that did not just fit. He wore a full length overcoat (think it was leather) but the midriff was off. He noticed this and came for a chat. It transpired that he was a doorman from London. And he said to me (words to this effect) Son, just walk them out. If they are stupid enough to resist, then what's necessary. But above all walk them out. Thankfully I was (I should say) blessed with that ability to do so. Sorry but some of the posts have just irksome. Beating the crap out of someone just because you are a bouncer is lovely stupid and completely moronic.


----------



## PhotonGuy

BMhadoken said:


> Here's the other thing. When you're sitting in the defendant's chair, your private life stops being private, and for good reason.


And what is that good reason?


----------



## Hyoho

PhotonGuy said:


> Here's the thing, the government has no business knowing if you've got a martial arts background.


That would depend on what country you live in. I got my job because they know my background. It's why I got the job and other people didnt.


----------



## crazydiamond

My instructor told a bunch of us beginners, recently we would be considered lethal weapons by local law enforcement.

I did not know weather to laugh -  puff my chest out -  or delete my Facebook account.




P.S. I don't tell anyone I know outside of my family or best friends - that I practice martial arts. It would not be accepted very well I think.


----------



## Dirty Dog

crazydiamond said:


> My instructor told a bunch of us beginners, recently we would be considered lethal weapons by local law enforcement.



I hope your instructor isn't this big an idiot when it comes to other areas of your training...


----------



## PhotonGuy

crazydiamond said:


> My instructor told a bunch of us beginners, recently we would be considered lethal weapons by local law enforcement.
> 
> I did not know weather to laugh -  puff my chest out -  or delete my Facebook account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. I don't tell anyone I know outside of my family or best friends - that I practice martial arts. It would not be accepted very well I think.





Dirty Dog said:


> I hope your instructor isn't this big an idiot when it comes to other areas of your training...



Not necessarily. I know a case of a guy who was involved in a physical altercation and really got the book thrown at him when the court became aware of his martial arts background. He was a white belt who had started a little more than a month ago.


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> Not necessarily. I know a case of a guy who was involved in a physical altercation and really got the book thrown at him when the court became aware of his martial arts background. *He was a white belt who had started a little more than a month ago.*



Poppycock. More likely the white belt decided that he was Chucks cousin and went looking for it. Now should that be _"little more than a month_ _before"_?


----------



## BMhadoken

PhotonGuy said:


> Not necessarily. I know a case of a guy who was involved in a physical altercation and really got the book thrown at him when the court became aware of his martial arts background. He was a white belt who had started a little more than a month ago.



Citation please because I'm gonna go ahead and say "No he didn't." I'm far more willing to bet an entire paycheck that his hypothetical incident was not remotely self defense.



			
				Photonguy said:
			
		

> And what is that good reason?


Do you understand how prosecution works? What they do? How they collect evidence to build a case against you?


----------



## Hyoho

crazydiamond said:


> My instructor told a bunch of us beginners, recently we would be considered lethal weapons by local law enforcement.
> 
> I did not know weather to laugh -  puff my chest out -  or delete my Facebook account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. I don't tell anyone I know outside of my family or best friends - that I practice martial arts. It would not be accepted very well I think.


Sounds like something off the Karate Kid


----------



## PhotonGuy

BMhadoken said:


> Citation please because I'm gonna go ahead and say "No he didn't." I'm far more willing to bet an entire paycheck that his hypothetical incident was not remotely self defense.


I don't know the details but supposedly the judge was very anti martial arts.



BMhadoken said:


> Do you understand how prosecution works? What they do? How they collect evidence to build a case against you?



Yes and its an invasion of privacy that shouldn't be allowed whether somebody is in the defendant's seat or not.


----------



## BMhadoken

PhotonGuy said:


> I don't know the details but supposedly the judge was very anti martial arts.


That's.... you're not exactly showing any hard evidence here. Like, this is weak even for an anecdote. Also, the judge isn't the guy who determines guilt. You... you know that, right?



PhotonGuy said:


> Yes and its an invasion of privacy that shouldn't be allowed whether somebody is in the defendant's seat or not.


Sooooooooo we'll let all those murders, rapes, etc. go unsolved because pinning a suspect to the act tends to involve getting up in their business, then? You know, fingerprints, alibis, phone records, personal history...


----------



## Mad_Dog

BMhadoken said:


> Sooooooooo we'll let all those murders, rapes, etc. go unsolved because pinning a suspect to the act tends to involve getting up in their business, then? You know, fingerprints, alibis, phone records, personal history...


No.

What you do is tell those murderers and rapists that the Mad Dog is waiting for them.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> In a statement once I had to say that I did not give the guy permission to fight me.
> 
> If you were going with some sort of pre fight declaration. I would work along those lines.
> 
> Otherwise you could open up ideas like " your honour he informed me he was a black belt and so I feared for my life"


There is actually no problem here in the USA with agreeing in advance to engage in mutual combat.  We had a situation a few years back where our local superhero, Pheonix Jones, confronted a bad guy who was intimidating and harrassing people.  Bad guy talked some trash and the Seattle PD actually stood by and watched while the two engaged in mutual combat.  As long as both people agree to it, no bystanders are hurt, and no property is damaged, it's perfectly legal.


----------



## Steve

Mad_Dog said:


> What is this, some kind of Guantanimo Bay enhanced interrogation?


 There would be jello involved if this were gitmo.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> There is actually no problem here in the USA with agreeing in advance to engage in mutual combat.  We had a situation a few years back where our local superhero, Pheonix Jones, confronted a bad guy who was intimidating and harrassing people.  Bad guy talked some trash and the Seattle PD actually stood by and watched while the two engaged in mutual combat.  As long as both people agree to it, no bystanders are hurt, and no property is damaged, it's perfectly legal.


Is that U.S. wide or just Washington State? Here they would be charged with affray.


----------



## Drose427

K-man said:


> Is that U.S. wide or just Washington State? Here they would be charged with affray.



Assuming the other guy didnt go back on his word and try and sue you, itd be up to the discretion of the officers.

The state has the right to press charges, but they dont always


----------



## Tez3

Mad_Dog said:


> No.
> 
> What you do is tell those murderers and rapists that the Mad Dog is waiting for them.




This you then? Focus One killing too many for Mad Dog Adair UK news The Guardian


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Is that U.S. wide or just Washington State? Here they would be charged with affray.


 I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  I just know that we had a situation where the cops actually stood by and allowed Phoenix Jones to beat the snot out of a bad guy in what was described as "mutual combat."


----------



## Steve

Transk53 said:


> Hey less of the Clint Eastward and just shut up man! This is beyond responsibility.


Not okay, Transk53.  Don't let a stranger goad you into doing what you know isn't right.


----------



## Transk53

Steve said:


> Not okay, Transk53.  Don't let a stranger goad you into doing what you know isn't right.



Yeah point taken  Nothing wrong with calling someone out. Especially when I believe so many people are being wronged by testosterone filled posting activity. People need to be more honest Steve, not create a forum name that belies any real substance. Sorry I just have a problem with this kind of stuff!


----------



## PhotonGuy

BMhadoken said:


> That's.... you're not exactly showing any hard evidence here. Like, this is weak even for an anecdote. Also, the judge isn't the guy who determines guilt. You... you know that, right?


No but the judge obviously has an influence on the outcome of whether somebody is guilty. And the judge does have lots of power.



BMhadoken said:


> Sooooooooo we'll let all those murders, rapes, etc. go unsolved because pinning a suspect to the act tends to involve getting up in their business, then? You know, fingerprints, alibis, phone records, personal history...



I see your point about murders and rapes but a person should not have their privacy invaded just because they used self defense in a confrontation. Unlike murder and rape self defense is a legal right.


----------



## jks9199

1. The trier of fact may be a jury -- or a judge.  If it's a judge, it's called a bench trial.  There are all sorts of reasons why a defendant may choose one or the other...  You might choose a bench trial if the defense is going to be based around a complex legal issue, or a jury if it's a play on sympathy, for example.

2.  The judge, even in a jury trial, may have some influence on a finding of guilt or innocence -- but is supposed to be impartial.  Any significant influence is grounds for a mistrial, and most judges really don't like to find themselves questioned in an appeal.

3.  The anecdote may be true, but I think it's been largely exaggerated for effect.  Or the guy was an idiot, and represented himself, and left the door open to be hammered.   A halfway competent defense attorney could tear down that "month or a little more"  of training to be meaningless.  Something like this:
"You've trained in the martial arts?"
Yes.
"For how long had you trained at the time of this incident?"
Around 5 weeks. 
"How often did you attend classes, and how long were they?"
Twice a week, for an hour and a half.
"So, that's a total of around 15 hours of training?"
Yes.
"And what has that training consisted of?"
Stances, a few kicks...
.... and so on...​Then call the instructor to the stand... and again play up how little has been learned in that time frame.

So... if the guy really got hammered "just because he was a martial artist" -- there's almost certainly a lot more to the story.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  I just know that we had a situation where the cops actually stood by and allowed Phoenix Jones to beat the snot out of a bad guy in what was described as "mutual combat."



Amicable contest is the term used here. But there is a raft of laws that don't let you just do that in public. Sort of.


----------



## BMhadoken

PhotonGuy said:


> I see your point about murders and rapes but a person should not have their privacy invaded just because they used self defense in a confrontation. Unlike murder and rape self defense is a legal right.



Is the legal system just supposed to take your word for it when you claim self defense? Oh, and keep in mind that the other guy is _also_ probably claiming self defense. How are they to determine you acted legally, and aren't just a violent prick like the last 99 guys they encountered claiming self defense?


----------



## K-man

I haven't come across the term 'amicable contest' but we have the terminology of 'consensual violence'. Within this context two guys in the pub upset each other and 'agree' to have a dust up, no one is hurt and there is no damage to property, police may well give a verbal warning and use their discretion not to press charges knowing that something minor like that would in all probability be thrown out of court. There is an implied consent even though technically the contest is still illegal.

If in the scenario above one of the guys was not wanting to fight there is no consent and it becomes straight out assault. 

Where it gets murky is when two guys agree to fight and one is injured. At law, in many places, there was consent to the fight but there is not consent to the injury. In other words, you agree to fight with another idiot who has also been drinking. You hit him, he falls and hits his head and either dies or sustains life threatening injury. Your 'consent' just disappeared into thin air, go to jail, do not pass Go. Even the fact that one person had been drinking will make 'consent' a very shaky defence.

In other words, getting into any fight unnecessarily is a pretty dumb thing to do.

For anyone with some time on their hands and an interest in law as it may be interpreted in Australia, Canada or the UK ....

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWALawRw/1996/6.pdf


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I haven't come across the term 'amicable contest' but we have the terminology of 'consensual violence'. Within this context two guys in the pub upset each other and 'agree' to have a dust up, no one is hurt and there is no damage to property, police may well give a verbal warning and use their discretion not to press charges knowing that something minor like that would in all probability be thrown out of court. There is an implied consent even though technically the contest is still illegal.
> 
> If in the scenario above one of the guys was not wanting to fight there is no consent and it becomes straight out assault.
> 
> Where it gets murky is when two guys agree to fight and one is injured. At law, in many places, there was consent to the fight but there is not consent to the injury. In other words, you agree to fight with another idiot who has also been drinking. You hit him, he falls and hits his head and either dies or sustains life threatening injury. Your 'consent' just disappeared into thin air, go to jail, do not pass Go. Even the fact that one person had been drinking will make 'consent' a very shaky defence.
> 
> In other words, getting into any fight unnecessarily is a pretty dumb thing to do.
> 
> For anyone with some time on their hands and an interest in law as it may be interpreted in Australia, Canada or the UK ....
> 
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWALawRw/1996/6.pdf


This is pretty much my understanding of how it works here.   I could be wrong.


----------



## Transk53

BMhadoken said:


> Is the legal system just supposed to take your word for it when you claim self defense? Oh, and keep in mind that the other guy is _also_ probably claiming self defense. How are they to determine you acted legally, *and aren't just a violent prick like the last 99 guys they encountered claiming self defense?*



Probably take on the farming attitude (as I call it) and look at the criminal records and make a decision. Assuming that the guy would be construed as one of those 99.


----------



## MJS

PhotonGuy said:


> If you're ever involved in a physical altercation self defense situation and it goes to court, don't tell them or let them know in any way, shape, or form if you've got any background in the martial arts. It will probably work against you in court.



Well, if you want to get technical about it, the same could be said about anyone who carries a gun for SD purposes.  That said, I'll disagree with what you said here.  I'm late to this party, so I might say something that has already been said, but I'll still toss in my .02.  As it's been said, I would always consult with a lawyer.  Furthermore, after the confrontation, I'd exercise your right to remain silent, until you can talk with a clear head.  Nobody is going to be thinking clear after a violent confrontation, so why risk saying something right then and there?  I'm not saying to not cooperate with the police...yes, of course you should, but you need to think before you speak, as the saying goes.  I would also suggest to assess each situation and act accordingly.  It's rare that you'll see a martial arts school teach anything other than techniques, leaving out important things, such as what I call the 'before' and 'after' phases of a confrontation.  If you look at many techs, you'll see some pretty violent responses, to attacks that probably don't warrant such a brutal response.  If we, as martial artists, can't adjust/change a tech, then we've failed, as we've missed out on some pretty valuable lessons.


----------



## Tez3

Often the media will jump on a story ( as well as the internet) complaining that an innocent person was arrested for defending himself and many people start going on at the police. A recent case we had here was where the police were called to a farmhouse where someone was quite badly injured, both they and the householder were arrested. After investigation the householder was de arrested and wasn't prosecuted because he had told the truth about the injured person breaking in, attacking him and he defended himself. The problem the police have when they turn up to a house where everyone is unknown to them is that they have no way of knowing immediately who is telling the truth. Arrest isn't a huge thing here, it merely mean holding for investigation and is usually done when a serious crime has been committed otherwise you are just asked to accompany the police to the station. The media said the police should have known the householder was innocent, but how are they until they look into everything and find the evidence? The police take a neutral view and question everyone, would we want it any other way?
The CPS here have said that no genuine case of self defence has been prosecuted, we have had a couple of quite high profile cases that some people have got agitated about but despite what they think the evidence proved it wasn't self defence at all.


----------



## elder999

In the aftermath of an incident where one has used self-defense, "reasonable" or not (that's to be determined by the courts), after identifying themselves, one should simply tell the police something like this:

"I_ was in fear for my life. I defended myself. *I'm not going to say anything else*."

Then *don't.
*_
As for court-if it gets there, they're gonna know that you train already-it's the prosecutor's job (or the lawyer for the guy suing you, if it's a civil case) to use that against you. It will be your lawyer's job to use that in your favor.

Bottom line, if you ever wind up in court, _get a *lawyer*; get a *good* one, and *DO WHAT HE SAYS.*_


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> In the aftermath of an incident where one has used self-defense, "reasonable" or not (that's to be determined by the courts), after identifying themselves, one should simply tell the police something like this:
> 
> "I_ was in fear for my life. I defended myself. *I'm not going to say anything else*."
> 
> Then *don't.
> *_
> As for court-if it gets there, they're gonna know that you train already-it's the prosecutor's job (or the lawyer for the guy suing you, if it's a civil case) to use that against you. It will be your lawyer's job to use that in your favor.
> 
> Bottom line, if you ever wind up in court, _get a *lawyer*; get a *good* one, and *DO WHAT HE SAYS.*_



Not necessarily bad advice, since anything you say in the excitement of the moment, will be written down by the police.  Later, after you have had a chance to remember things your brain put in storage somewhere else in your brain, some people may accuse you of being untruthful in order to make yourself look better.

There is however, the chance that your attacker, and/or his cronies, may tell a vastly different story with lots of embellishments, and you my find yourself being the one charged, and possibly even arrested.

No easy choices other than if you say anything, be truthful.  It might be useful to point out if you are still excited, scared, stressed, or otherwise not your normal self, and tell any officers what you are saying is to the best of your recollection at that moment, but your are still under stress (if you are).


----------



## Mad_Dog

Lawyers...lawyers...LAWYERS!!!

If people spent more time worrying about justice, than lawyers, this world would be a better place.  At least that's what this warrior thinks.


----------



## Tez3

Mad_Dog said:


> Lawyers...lawyers...LAWYERS!!!
> 
> If people spent more time worrying about justice, than lawyers, this world would be a better place.  At least that's what this warrior thinks.




and perhaps you could spend less time sending PMs explaining why you are a 'real' man and why I should 'toughen' up, sending such things to a woman sounds very much like a threat.
I will repeat...any man who has to tell people he's a real man, isn't.


----------



## Mad_Dog

Oh you're not a dude?   Uhhhh...my bad.


----------



## Hyoho

There is a stigma about M.A. in the West. It just receives all the wrong  publicity. Someone does something stupid claiming to be a "Martial artist" or some idiot waving a sword about really screws it up for everybody else with a genuine spiritual interest. In countries like Japan it's of educational value and a qualification to get a job. People in the West need to re-assess why its done and it need to be promoted in a correct manner a take some emphasis of this silly black belt syndrome which in actual fact means you are a qualified beginner and not an 'expert'.

 When doing seminars in the West and being asked for the reason for my visit I always make sure invitations read as a Japanese cultural activity.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Is that U.S. wide or just Washington State? Here they would be charged with affray.


Here I can arrest for a fight even if both agreed, exceptions are sporting events or training purposes.  So if two guys get into a fight and I see it I can arrest both of them even of they both wanted to fight.  If I didnt see it with my own eyes I cant arrest on the spot but I can if I choose go file for charges then get a warrant and arrest them later.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> Here I can arrest for a fight even if both agreed, exceptions are sporting events or training purposes.  So if two guys get into a fight and I see it I can arrest both of them even of they both wanted to fight.  If I didnt see it with my own eyes I cant arrest on the spot but I can if I choose go file for charges then get a warrant and arrest them later.



I believe it is the same in NYS


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> Here I can arrest for a fight even if both agreed, exceptions are sporting events or training purposes.  So if two guys get into a fight and I see it I can arrest both of them even of they both wanted to fight.  If I didnt see it with my own eyes I cant arrest on the spot but I can if I choose go file for charges then get a warrant and arrest them later.




We can arrest both even if we didn't see the fight because arrest is a bit different here, we'd only arrest though if it looked like they were going to flee or be awkward, they'd certainly be brought in for interview though. I don't think a lot of people understand that a police officer doesn't have a crystal ball and can know immediately whether the fight is an attack and self defence or consensual without at least talking to all concerned. Of course it's not nice if you are innocent to be questioned and talked to as though you may be guilty but I can't think of any other way to ascertain the truth when both sides are telling you different things. If you are the innocent party be patient, if local customs are that you get a lawyer/solicitor get one but understand that the police officer's job is to get all sides first, they can't automatically know they other guy is lying and you are telling the truth.


----------



## Transk53

Mad_Dog said:


> Oh you're not a dude?   Uhhhh...my bad.



Should not a warrior of such esteem have known that lol.


----------



## Mad_Dog

Transk53 said:


> Should not a warrior of such esteem have known that lol.


We all make mistakes, as the innocent people I've mistakely hospitalized can attest to.


----------



## Tez3

Mad_Dog said:


> We all make mistakes, as the innocent people I've mistakely hospitalized can attest to.



Posting this just proves you are a troll...a not very good one.


----------



## Mad_Dog

Tez3 said:


> Posting this just proves you are a troll...a not very good one.


What I am is a warrior, and sometimes in battle there is collateral damage.  Am I proud of it?  No.  Would I change anything?  No.   My decisions have made me the man I am.

My heart longs for the glory of battle and the adulation of the crowd.  Though I know I will never set foot on the sands of the gladitorial arena, I make do with the beer-stained floor of the bar.  A floor where I know my life will end one day, my spilling across the tile as I experience the warrior's death and await my entrance to Valhalla.


----------



## Tez3

Mad_Dog said:


> What I am is a warrior, and sometimes in battle there is collateral damage.  Am I proud of it?  No.  Would I change anything?  No.   My decisions have made me the man I am.
> 
> My heart longs for the glory of battle and the adulation of the crowd.  Though I know I will never set foot on the sands of the gladitorial arena, I make do with the beer-stained floor of the bar.  A floor where I know my life will end one day, my spilling across the tile as I experience the warrior's death and await my entrance to Valhalla.




Bollocks.
Over my two careers I have known many people who were real warriors, not one of them waffled as much as you do, you aren't a warrior you are a Walt.
If you think battle is glorious then you are very much mistaken and you clearly have no idea what it entails. As a 'bouncer' (if) you are a liability to your fellow bouncers, someone who should never be allowed to work on the door. I know a good many door supervisors, male and female and they'd laugh you straight out of the door.
You are either someone who is romanticising  your life because you consider your real life boring or you are trolling. Either way you are laughable.


----------



## Tez3

mad dog, I don't date Walts, My husband now, he's a warrior, even been in real wars.
PMs not welcome.


----------



## Transk53

Dear oh dear MD. Think you need to step back a little. A brighter note, I have never laughed so much in my life. Even my cold feels a little better. Cheers DUDE


----------



## Transk53

Mad_Dog said:


> We all make mistakes, as the innocent people I've mistakely hospitalized can attest to.



You can't mistakingly hospolise people in the context you are trying to convey. More like you lost control and dropped the ball. To me you're attitude smacks of being juiced up and thinking that you will look cool with the birds. Either way looking to substantiate yourself on a forum is pretty daft to be honest. Alas I can't vent unfortunately, so I would ask that perhaps you be a little less gorilla like and be a bit more intelligent here.


----------



## Tez3

Something to consider if you are caught up in an altercation, attack etc, you may choose to stay silent but have you left words expressing opinions on the internet? The investigating authorities will check the social media so if you have left stuff as matey has here saying he's put innocent people in hospital, beaten people up, is a 'warrior' glorifying violence etc etc they will take a certain view of you that will be to your detriment if and mostly likely_ when_ it goes to court. Even if you are innocent the defence team will have a field day with comments like that and make out their guy to be the innocent party which it certainly will look like, expressing opinions on lawyers never helps either.


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> Something to consider if you are caught up in an altercation, attack etc, you may choose to stay silent but have you left words expressing opinions on the internet? The investigating authorities will check the social media so if you have left stuff as matey has here saying he's put innocent people in hospital, beaten people up, is a 'warrior' glorifying violence etc etc they will take a certain view of you that will be to your detriment if and mostly likely_ when_ it goes to court. Even if you are innocent the defence team will have a field day with comments like that and make out their guy to be the innocent party which it certainly will look like, expressing opinions on lawyers never helps either.


But would they go to all that trouble in the Children's Court?


----------



## Transk53

Oh well, thought it might get entertaining. Obviously @Mad_Dog is back in his kennel lol.


----------



## Tez3

K-man said:


> But would they go to all that trouble in the Children's Court?




Probably more so as the 'young ones' are on social media more.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Oh well, thought it might get entertaining. Obviously @Mad_Dog is back in his kennel lol.




Past his bedtime?


----------



## Mad_Dog

You all have no business judging me.  I've been there, done that, got the, t-shirt.  I've faced death and laughef in it's face.  If you have no respect for that you have no business on a martial arts forum.


----------



## Tez3

Mad_Dog said:


> You all have no business judging me.  I've been there, done that, got the, t-shirt.  I've faced death and laughef in it's face.  If you have no respect for that you have no business on a martial arts forum.




Of course you have dear.


----------



## K-man

Just watching the local news 5 minutes ago and a 'consensual fight' ended in the death of one of the participants. The 'winner' will now spend a considerable period of time away from his family. If you choose to fight you are stupid and deserve all you get.


----------



## LibbyW

K-man said:


> Just watching the local news 5 minutes ago and a 'consensual fight' ended in the death of one of the participants. The 'winner' will now spend a considerable period of time away from his family. If you choose to fight you are stupid and deserve all you get.



I think that has always been the point hasn't it? Those that don't have a choice to fight are usually those that are guilt free. Those who go in willingly are usually the people that end up having fingers pointed at them.
I think there is a movie quote somewhere in the back of my head, some thing about "there is always choice" but I don't know if that always applies. Whatever it was it was a good movie....getting side tracked 
L


----------



## Transk53

LibbyW said:


> I think that has always been the point hasn't it? Those that don't have a choice to fight are usually those that are guilt free. Those who go in willingly are usually the people that end up having fingers pointed at them.
> I think there is a movie quote somewhere in the back of my head, some thing about "there is always choice" but I don't know if that always applies. Whatever it was it was a good movie....getting side tracked
> L



Not necessarily. Yeah, if is genuine need to defend oneself, no I would not feel guilty. You do what is necessary, but that does not include toying with with people because it is fun. Yeah is a choice, but one that has to be informed. Pretty much why the world has prisons full of murderers etc


----------



## BMhadoken

LibbyW said:


> I think that has always been the point hasn't it? Those that don't have a choice to fight are usually those that are guilt free. Those who go in willingly are usually the people that end up having fingers pointed at them.
> I think there is a movie quote somewhere in the back of my head, some thing about "there is always choice" but I don't know if that always applies. Whatever it was it was a good movie....getting side tracked
> L


Sure it's always a choice. Sometimes the alternatives just suck more.

The question at hand: is the cost of doing violence greater or lesser than the cost of not doing violence?


----------



## ballen0351

Mad_Dog said:


> You all have no business judging me.  I've been there, done that, got the, t-shirt.  I've faced death and laughef in it's face.  If you have no respect for that you have no business on a martial arts forum.


What color is the tshirt.  I've always wanted a been there done that tshirt but all I ever seem to get are Polo's


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> What color is the tshirt.  I've always wanted a been there done that tshirt but all I ever seem to get are Polo's


What colour would you like?


----------



## elder999

balleI'm sure0351 said:


> What color is the tshirt.  I've always wanted a been there done that tshirt but all I ever seem to get are Polo's


In his case, I'm sure that it's B.S. brown...


----------



## drop bear

LibbyW said:


> I think that has always been the point hasn't it? Those that don't have a choice to fight are usually those that are guilt free. Those who go in willingly are usually the people that end up having fingers pointed at them.
> I think there is a movie quote somewhere in the back of my head, some thing about "there is always choice" but I don't know if that always applies. Whatever it was it was a good movie....getting side tracked
> L



You gotta know when to hold em
Know when to fold em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run


----------



## oftheherd1

Mad_Dog said:


> You all have no business judging me.  I've been there, done that, got the, t-shirt.  I've faced death and laughef in it's face.  If you have no respect for that you have no business on a martial arts forum.



I wonder if you laughed death in the face because you were so confident of your ability to overcome your opponent(s)?  Knowing confidence is a useful thing.  Of course that would not be what we usually mean by laughing death in the face.  

I never wanted a T-shirt, nor do I think I have no business in a martial arts forum; I am a martial artist.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Back to the original topic...
The notion that you're somehow exposing yourself to risk by admitting to MA training is silly. 
The fear is that a prosecutor will portray you as some sort of Superman and claim that you should have been able to magically subdue your attacker without effort.
Of course, a defense attorney will enjoy this, because it means they won't have to work very hard that day. 

This video is aimed at concealed carry, but what he says applies equally well to walking around "armed" with MA training.


----------



## Jaysonrd

K-man said:


> If you are in a self defence situation and you utilise your martial art skills, as long as you haven't stepped over the line between self defence and retaliation you shouldn't have any problem at all. You are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself.
> 
> If you are involved in a physical confrontation that is not involved in self defence you only have yourself to blame.



I agree completely with this.  If you are in a self defense situation legally you have the right to defend yourself.  Now once you have defended yourself and the attacker is on the ground and you go up and kick them in the head a few times  because you are pissed they attacked you. Well, now you are the attacker and can be punished in court.  So there is a self discipline and control component in regards to defending yourself in court and knowing that you won't get in trouble for properly defending yourself.


----------



## K-man

Jaysonrd said:


> I agree completely with this.  If you are in a self defense situation legally you have the right to defend yourself.  Now once you have defended yourself and the attacker is on the ground and you go up and kick them in the head a few times  because you are pissed they attacked you. Well, now you are the attacker and can be punished in court.  So there is a self discipline and control component in regards to defending yourself in court and knowing that you won't get in trouble for properly defending yourself.


Welcome to MT.


----------



## ballen0351

Again getting a lawyer and doing what they tell you is the best advice however I can make the case where admitting you have training can be more helpful then harmful.  I could see a defense atty bringing up and displaying your training as a positive.  "ladies and gentlemen of the Jury my client is a 100th deg black belt in multiple arts and could have your his skills to kill his attacker in 1/10th of a second. BUT he didnt he use the minimum amount of his training and did the least amount of damage he could to save himself.  So you see had my client not been the grand holy on high master of Karate jitz Fu  he would have been forced to just smash his attackers head in with a flip flop until he was dead."


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Back to the original topic...
> The notion that you're somehow exposing yourself to risk by admitting to MA training is silly.
> The fear is that a prosecutor will portray you as some sort of Superman and claim that you should have been able to magically subdue your attacker without effort.
> Of course, a defense attorney will enjoy this, because it means they won't have to work very hard that day.
> 
> This video is aimed at concealed carry, but what he says applies equally well to walking around "armed" with MA training.



You're a fan of The Yankee Marshal?


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> You're a fan of The Yankee Marshal?



I enjoy his videos. I like how he brings a sense of humor to his subjects.


----------



## Zero

Mad_Dog said:


> Say what you will of me, but don't speak ill of Murph.  He looked out for me, trained me, in many ways he was like a father to me.  My real father was a nebbish intellectual and was very disappointed in me for not following in his footsteps.  But book learning was not for me.  I chose another way, the way of the warrior.
> 
> Murph saw something in me and took me under his wing.  He showed me the best way to de escalate a situation was to knock out the guy causing it.  Sadly, Murph passed away a few years ago.  But, each time I knock out some drunk punk with one hit, I know he's looking down on me from Heaven, smiling.



Say what you will about this, but I think you got something going here, is there any chance you could turn this into some kind of book or something?  The story of a kid taken under the wing of an aging hard-man bouncer and the trials and tribulations they go through.  Kind of like a Road House version 2.0.


----------



## Zero

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Oh and give us murph's full name so as to make the public records search easy.


After all the hush money paid to keep this out of the press, I don't think Mad-Dog even has the authority to give more details.


----------



## Zero

Mad_Dog said:


> No.
> 
> What you do is tell those murderers and rapists that the Mad Dog is waiting for them.


Mad-Dog, you seem far stronger than the other guys on this website, is there any chance you have, or could open, a school up so we can train with you?  Some people would pay good money to learn real fighting skills passed down from old Murph.


----------



## Zero

K-man said:


> Just watching the local news 5 minutes ago and a 'consensual fight' ended in the death of one of the participants. The 'winner' will now spend a considerable period of time away from his family. If you choose to fight you are stupid and deserve all you get.



K-man, I generally agree but sometimes you are not "stupid" if you choose to fight.  I am definitely not at the Mad Dog's level but I have squared off for consensual non-sanctioned (ie outside of tournament) fights.  You need to appreciate the risks, there is no umpire to jump in if you get clocked and the guy keeps stomping you or if you hit the guy and he lands badly etc, you can find yourself facing penal consequences.

Now I am older and have spent years going to tournaments I would generally avoid such things but I wouldn't rule it out.

It's certainly your opinion whether that is "stupid" but for others, who may be quite intelligent, that is their prerogative.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> I enjoy his videos. I like how he brings a sense of humor to his subjects.



Considering the content of his videos, he doesn't seem like somebody you would take seriously, and some of the people, I don't remember if this includes you, didn't like what he says about Glocks.


----------



## PhotonGuy

If you're ever involved in a gunfight, what I heard is it can be described like this. Lets say you were to take out a hundred dollars and make a bet. If you lose you lose the $100. If you win you get to keep the $100 which was yours to begin with. Not the best deal. Another words, in a gunfight at the very best you just might walk away having lost nothing. At the very worst you can lose everything. Even if you manage to survive and stop the assailant then you've got to deal with criminal and civil charges in court. Even the most justified self defense shootings can ruin a person civilly and financially if not criminally. So, its best to avoid gunfights at all costs. 

Anyway, what Im talking about in this thread is not gunfights. Im talking about if you take somebody down with your bare hands and you have a background in the martial arts, or even if you don't have a background in the martial arts the fact is you didn't use any weapons so its not the same as a gunfight. A gunfight is at a whole different level. Therefore I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it. This isn't gunfights we're talking about, this is fights where you don't use any weapons so the courts shouldn't go crazy and come down hard on you for stuff like this. You shouldn't even have to go to court in the first place. Self defense is a right and a right is something you can do without being punished, that's what makes it a right. You don't punish people for refusing to be victims.


----------



## BMhadoken

PhotonGuy said:


> I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it.



Because the majority of the time you have good options available that don't involve beating someone back into diapers. If you can reasonably walk away from a confrontation and your ego demands you punch the guy instead, then you can sleep in the bed you made.


----------



## tshadowchaser

I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child


----------



## PhotonGuy

tshadowchaser said:


> I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child



Exactly. Beating an opponent who is down or otherwise incapacitated is excessive force and thus not self defense by law, but punching somebody once to stop them is not excessive if they're coming at you.


----------



## BMhadoken

tshadowchaser said:


> I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child


That's emotional monkey thinking. If you're punishing the guy, getting your licks in, or giving him "what he deserves," you are _not practicing self defense or any kind of justifiable violence. Unless you're a judge, it is not your place to punish anyone._


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> Therefore I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it.



Being a bully is not the same as being a unavoidable threat. If the person is a bully, you walk away. Laying them out is not self defense. It's assault. And you should be punished in accordance with the law for that assault.
Don't drop the soap.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Im talking about if you take somebody down with your bare hands and you have a background in the martial arts, or even if you don't have a background in the martial arts the fact is you didn't use any weapons so its not the same as a gunfight. A gunfight is at a whole different level.


No, it's not.  The level of force is immaterial to the methodology.  If I choke you out, hit you with a hammer, stab you, or shoot you, it's all lethal force.  Self defense is a justification for the use of force which would otherwise be unlawful -- and it doesn't matter what method of force was used.


> Therefore I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it. This isn't gunfights we're talking about, this is fights where you don't use any weapons so the courts shouldn't go crazy and come down hard on you for stuff like this. You shouldn't even have to go to court in the first place. Self defense is a right and a right is something you can do without being punished, that's what makes it a right. You don't punish people for refusing to be victims.


This is a childish and overly simplistic point of view.  If you are not facing imminent harm -- you are not justified in using force, with a very few exceptions.  As a culture/society/civilization, we've come to this crazy idea that we're not going to leave balancing things like this to the individual.  We've passed laws and created societal means to address them.  They range from purely social like versions of shaming and shunning (is a bully respected, even if they are feared?) as well as legal processes, both civil and criminal.  And if you take it into your own hands -- you're violating them.



tshadowchaser said:


> I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child



Formally -- this cannot happen.  Informally -- prosecutors and the police have discretion.  Judges and juries also have discretion and the duty to find guilt.  But you'd better be damn sure the "bad guy" really deserved it, and that everyone else would agree...


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> No, it's not.  The level of force is immaterial to the methodology.  If I choke you out, hit you with a hammer, stab you, or shoot you, it's all lethal force.  Self defense is a justification for the use of force which would otherwise be unlawful -- and it doesn't matter what method of force was used.


Shooting somebody or even stabbing them or hitting them with a hammer is much more likely to kill them than choking them out. Therefore I would think it would tip the scales much more in court if the defendant had shot or stabbed the assailant rather than if he had neutralized the assailant with his bare hands. If I was in court in such a situation I would say that I didn't use any weapons.



jks9199 said:


> This is a childish and overly simplistic point of view.  If you are not facing imminent harm -- you are not justified in using force, with a very few exceptions.  As a culture/society/civilization, we've come to this crazy idea that we're not going to leave balancing things like this to the individual.  We've passed laws and created societal means to address them.  They range from purely social like versions of shaming and shunning (is a bully respected, even if they are feared?) as well as legal processes, both civil and criminal.  And if you take it into your own hands -- you're violating them.


What's so childish about refusing to be a victim? This world would be a much safer place if people wouldn't get in trouble for using force against troublemakers who instigate. That way, people wouldn't instigate if they knew that their would be victim might be capable of, and allowed to, wipe the floor with them. I am not in favor of instigating or picking fights, I am in favor of using force to stop those that do. "You don't bother me, I don't bother you," is what I live by.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> What's so childish about refusing to be a victim? This world would be a much safer place if people wouldn't get in trouble for using force against troublemakers who instigate. That way, people wouldn't instigate if they knew that their would be victim might be capable of, and allowed to, wipe the floor with them. I am not in favor of instigating or picking fights, I am in favor of using force to stop those that do. "You don't bother me, I don't bother you," is what I live by.



The law DOES exactly that, by defining what an instigator is. That would be a person or persons who pose an immediate physical threat. Not someone who says something you don't like. Under your proposed rules, YOU would be the instigator as far as I am concerned, since you're suggesting using physical force against someone who is not an avoidable physical threat.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Shooting somebody or even stabbing them or hitting them with a hammer is much more likely to kill them than choking them out. Therefore I would think it would tip the scales much more in court if the defendant had shot or stabbed the assailant rather than if he had neutralized the assailant with his bare hands. If I was in court in such a situation I would say that I didn't use any weapons.


Force is assessed by whether it's reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.  You may "know" that simply choking someone out and releasing the choke is something that sometimes happens dozens of times in a judo or BJJ class -- but in the courtroom, it's almost certainly going to be painted as a lethal attack on the person.  And, when you assert the justification of self defense, you move the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant.  You'll have to overcome the picture they paint of your "vile attempt to choke the life out of your victim."  Especially if he's dead... or just suffered measurable brain damage because of that choke.  Again, the instrumentality doesn't matter -- it's only whether or not it was reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.


> What's so childish about refusing to be a victim? This world would be a much safer place if people wouldn't get in trouble for using force against troublemakers who instigate. That way, people wouldn't instigate if they knew that their would be victim might be capable of, and allowed to, wipe the floor with them. I am not in favor of instigating or picking fights, I am in favor of using force to stop those that do. "You don't bother me, I don't bother you," is what I live by.


Want to refuse to be a victim?  Walk away.  Don't tolerate being bullied.  Use your words. IF, and ONLY IF, the bullying rises to a physical attack, you may use the force reasonably necessary to safely end the attack and resolve the situation.  Your insistence on ideas like this is what is childish and overly simplistic.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> Force is assessed by whether it's reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.  You may "know" that simply choking someone out and releasing the choke is something that sometimes happens dozens of times in a judo or BJJ class -- but in the courtroom, it's almost certainly going to be painted as a lethal attack on the person.  And, when you assert the justification of self defense, you move the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant.  You'll have to overcome the picture they paint of your "vile attempt to choke the life out of your victim."  Especially if he's dead... or just suffered measurable brain damage because of that choke.  Again, the instrumentality doesn't matter -- it's only whether or not it was reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.


A choke will usually if not always knock somebody out before it kills them or causes permanent brain damage. So, if you do use a choke on an assailant as long as you let up after they're unconscious than you won't kill or irreversibly injure your assailant. However, Im not particularly talking about chokes. Lets say I punch somebody once and that's enough to stop the threat and I don't continue to beat on them after they're incapacitated, I shouldn't get in trouble for that.



jks9199 said:


> Want to refuse to be a victim?  Walk away.  Don't tolerate being bullied.  Use your words. IF, and ONLY IF, the bullying rises to a physical attack, you may use the force reasonably necessary to safely end the attack and resolve the situation.  Your insistence on ideas like this is what is childish and overly simplistic.


I know you can't strike somebody because of stuff they say but in the case of a physical altercation, force should be allowed.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> A choke will usually if not always knock somebody out before it kills them or causes permanent brain damage. So, if you do use a choke on an assailant as long as you let up after they're unconscious than you won't kill or irreversibly injure your assailant. However, Im not particularly talking about chokes. Lets say I punch somebody once and that's enough to stop the threat and I don't continue to beat on them after they're incapacitated, I shouldn't get in trouble for that.


It depends on the totality of the circumstance.  There are plenty of folks who are serving time or signing their paychecks over to someone's family for one punch...  Here's one example; you can find others via a search engine without any trouble.  Including some involving off duty cops.


> I know you can't strike somebody because of stuff they say but in the case of a physical altercation, force should be allowed.


And did I say anything different?  But you keep seeming to paint this picture that you "should be" able to use force against people who aren't threatening you.  I ain't the only one seeing that in your posts...


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> It depends on the totality of the circumstance.  There are plenty of folks who are serving time or signing their paychecks over to someone's family for one punch...  Here's one example; you can find others via a search engine without any trouble.  Including some involving off duty cops.


In the example you gave, the soccer player had no justification to punch the referee. The referee wasn't doing anything but throwing him out of the game and as such he probably had good grounds to throw him out. The referee wasn't being a bully he was just doing his job. Even if the referee didn't have good cause to throw him out that would not justify the player taking a punch at him, but if the referee had taken a punch at the player first, than the player would be justified in his actions. As it is, the referee died. Had the referee lived this might've played out different.



jks9199 said:


> And did I say anything different?  But you keep seeming to paint this picture that you "should be" able to use force against people who aren't threatening you.  I ain't the only one seeing that in your posts...



Than maybe Im not stating it properly. If somebody causes trouble and it involves physical contact you should be allowed to fight back.


----------



## BMhadoken

PhotonGuy said:


> A choke will usually if not always knock somebody out before it kills them or causes permanent brain damage. So, if you do use a choke on an assailant as long as you let up after they're unconscious than you won't kill or irreversibly injure your assailant.


I get the impression you don't actually know much about physiology. Cutting off oxygen to someone's brain is absolutely deadly and the line between "loss of consciousness" and "Disney coloring books" is thinner than you think. So yes, it constitutes deadly force.


PhotonGuy said:


> I know you can't strike somebody because of stuff they say but in the case of a physical altercation, force should be allowed.


It is. Provided, of course, you didn't help escalate the conflict by being an aggressive prick.


----------



## Jenna

PhotonGuy said:


> What's so childish about refusing to be a victim? This world would be a much safer place if people wouldn't get in trouble for using force against troublemakers who instigate. That way, people wouldn't instigate if they knew that their would be victim might be capable of, and allowed to, wipe the floor with them. I am not in favor of instigating or picking fights, I am in favor of using force to stop those that do. "You don't bother me, I don't bother you," is what I live by.


Is it not simply about balance and PROPORTIONATE defence??? all of which is permitted in most modern legal systems?

If they shove you and you "wipe the floor with them" then it is you who by virtue of your disproportionate action has become the instigator and not them.  They have instigated a shove.  It is you who would have in this case instigated potentially lethal use of force.  In which case it is you who is in the wrong and it is you who must accept legal consequences surely?  

I am not certain what is your argument beyond what is already permitted within the law of most western countries?


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> What's so childish about refusing to be a victim? This world would be a much safer place if people wouldn't get in trouble for using force against troublemakers who instigate.



So in you're mind, at what point do you become the bully?


----------



## oftheherd1

PhotonGuy said:


> A choke will usually if not always knock somebody out before it kills them or causes permanent brain damage. So, if you do use a choke on an assailant as long as you let up after they're unconscious than you won't kill or irreversibly injure your assailant.
> ...





BMhadoken said:


> I get the impression you don't actually know much about physiology. Cutting off oxygen to someone's brain is absolutely deadly and the line between "loss of consciousness" and "Disney coloring books" is thinner than you think. So yes, it constitutes deadly force.
> ...



Crank up your google machine and search for police and chokes.  Most departments strongly discourage if not actually prohibit them.  Too many deaths associated with use of chokes.  In fact, you may have seen video of a recent case in New York that garnered a lot of attention.  It may be something to have in your tool box, but I think you should only bring it out under dire circumstances.  

BMhadoken is correct and not correct.  From the little I know, the medical profession still hasn't found the link between the use of the choke and death hours later.  But the link has been found in enough individuals to cause concern.


----------



## PhotonGuy

BMhadoken said:


> Cutting off oxygen to someone's brain is absolutely deadly


Sure it is, but the person will lose consciousness before they die. You see it in MMA fights all the time, a person being choked out and losing consciousness, at which point the referee stops the fight, but I've never seen anybody die from it in MMA.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Jenna said:


> Is it not simply about balance and PROPORTIONATE defence??? all of which is permitted in most modern legal systems?
> 
> If they shove you and you "wipe the floor with them" then it is you who by virtue of your disproportionate action has become the instigator and not them.  They have instigated a shove.  It is you who would have in this case instigated potentially lethal use of force.  In which case it is you who is in the wrong and it is you who must accept legal consequences surely?
> 
> I am not certain what is your argument beyond what is already permitted within the law of most western countries?



In a situation like this I am taking into account that the person doing the shoving is a man. Not a woman or a child but a big grown man. If a man shoves you, you shouldn't get in trouble for punching them. If your punch incapacitates them and you continue to beat on them than that would be excessive but just punching them once would be self defense. They touched you so you should be allowed to hit them. 

Now, even if somebody touches you is not grounds for hitting them. You can't slug somebody for tapping you on the shoulder. But, if they touch you in a way that's attacking you, such as a shove, that should justify punching them in self defense.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Transk53 said:


> So in you're mind, at what point do you become the bully?



If you instigate. If you go and pick a fight with an innocent person who isn't bothering you. If you cause trouble or start a fight. That's what a bully is, somebody who instigates.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> Sure it is, but the person will lose consciousness before they die. You see it in MMA fights all the time, a person being choked out and losing consciousness, at which point the referee stops the fight, but I've never seen anybody die from it in MMA.



See a lot of referees in street fights, do you?


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> If you instigate. If you go and pick a fight with an innocent person who isn't bothering you. If you cause trouble or start a fight. That's what a bully is, somebody who instigates.



No, that is too Black and White. A bully rarely instigates anything, he has his lackeys for that. More often than not, his lackeys actually do the physical harm.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Sure it is, but the person will lose consciousness before they die. You see it in MMA fights all the time, a person being choked out and losing consciousness, at which point the referee stops the fight, but I've never seen anybody die from it in MMA.


Couldn't possibly be something about having a referee there to stop it... or medics on hand.  Nah... the potential for critical injury couldn't possibly be a reason for those folks to be there...


----------



## PhotonGuy

Transk53 said:


> No, that is too Black and White. A bully rarely instigates anything, he has his lackeys for that. More often than not, his lackeys actually do the physical harm.



In that case they're all bullies. You're just describing the difference between the leader and the lackeys.


----------



## K-man

oftheherd1 said:


> BMhadoken is correct and not correct.  From the little I know, the medical profession still hasn't found the link between the use of the choke and death hours later.  But the link has been found in enough individuals to cause concern.


I think you'll find that there is a clear link established between chokes and later deaths. Even with a properly applied choke there is always a chance that plaque can be dislodged from the wall of the carotid artery. That is probably more likely in older people but I remember years back they did research looking at the arteries of young guys killed in Vietnam and found most of them had the beginnings of coronary artery disease.

The thing I would be most worried about though is the badly applied choke like the NY cop was attempting recently where the guy died later in police custody. The vagus nerve is very close to the carotid artery. It is the nerve that controls the heartbeat. If it is damaged the heart can have all sorts of irregular beats develop or tachycardia. If medical treatment is available it may not be an issue but if you are left unattended in the back of a police vehicle anything can go wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

BMhadoken said:


> I get the impression you don't actually know much about physiology. Cutting off oxygen to someone's brain is absolutely deadly and the line between "loss of consciousness" and "Disney coloring books" is thinner than you think. So yes, it constitutes deadly force.



That must be quite the line, considering that there's been innumerable people choked out in Judo and Bjj  both in randori and competition for the better part of a century. I've yet to hear of a *single case *where someone has died or experienced brain damage from getting choked out while performing Bjj or Judo chokes.


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> In that case they're all bullies. You're just describing the difference between the leader and the lackeys.



Oh for crying out loud. Of course I am, I was bullied. No for some perverse or bizarre reason, the lackeys themselves are bullied. It is safer for them to hide under the protection _of the_ bully. At least try and understand the subject fully, before making assertions please.


----------



## BMhadoken

Hanzou said:


> That must be quite the line, considering that there's been innumerable people choked out in Judo and Bjj both in randori and competition for the better part of a century. I've yet to hear of a *single case *where someone has died or experienced brain damage from getting choked out while performing Bjj or Judo chokes.


Like dirty dog said, take away the ref, instructor or officiator, then add the influence of adrenaline and maybe alcohol if you're feeling spicy. Far too many people have been (accidentally) killed this way.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> That must be quite the line, considering that there's been innumerable people choked out in Judo and Bjj  both in randori and competition for the better part of a century. I've yet to hear of a *single case *where someone has died or experienced brain damage from getting choked out while performing Bjj or Judo chokes.


You may well be right but you are talking of chokes that are applied by relatively skilled people, often under supervision, and are released promptly after loss of consciousness.

Even so ... 
Amateur Fighter Dustin Jenson Dies Following Unregulated MMA Event in South Dakota - Cagepotato


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> That must be quite the line, considering that there's been innumerable people choked out in Judo and Bjj  both in randori and competition for the better part of a century. I've yet to hear of a *single case *where someone has died or experienced brain damage from getting choked out while performing Bjj or Judo chokes.



Heres 2 from a RNC

Man killed friend with rear naked choke hold - News - The Times-Tribune
Man 24 killed by his cousin 14 from a chokehold they did while watching Wrestlemania Daily Mail Online

Surely you remember the Eric Garner drama, RNC was used there

folks trying to re-enact or use chokes and having severe repurcussoins isnt a rarity.

You're either playing ignorant, or ignoring it to make grappling sound safer


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Heres 2 from a RNC
> 
> Man killed friend with rear naked choke hold - News - The Times-Tribune
> Man 24 killed by his cousin 14 from a chokehold they did while watching Wrestlemania Daily Mail Online
> 
> Surely you remember the Eric Garner drama, RNC was used there
> 
> folks trying to re-enact or use chokes and having severe repurcussoins isnt a rarity.
> 
> You're either playing ignorant, or ignoring it to make grappling sound safer



I was talking about people actually trained to choke, not drunken idiots imitating chokes they see on tv.

Also Garner died from several guys sitting on his chest while he was getting choked, not the choke itself.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I was talking about people actually trained to choke, not drunken idiots imitating chokes they see on tv.
> 
> Also Garner died from several guys sitting on his chest while he was getting choked, not the choke itself.



Yes, because in a controlled, safe environment people let go, and people _usually_ tap long before starting to lose consciousness. Or the ref ends it and they get broken up.

All it takes is to hold on for a few extra seconds and damage absolutely starts to set in.

I dont know of any fighter whos been killed by a ground and pound, Can I assume theres not a fine line between getting the KO and denting someones skull until theyre dead?

People dont die in Comps because of Tapouts, refs, and Sportsmanship.

None of which exist outside of it.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Yes, because in a controlled, safe environment people let go, and people _usually_ tap long before starting to lose consciousness. Or the ref ends it and they get broken up.
> 
> All it takes is to hold on for a few extra seconds and damage absolutely starts to set in.
> 
> I dont know of any fighter whos been killed by a ground and pound, Can I assume theres not a fine line between getting the KO and denting someones skull until theyre dead?
> 
> People dont die in Comps because of Tapouts, refs, and Sportsmanship.
> 
> None of which exist outside of it.



Nonsense. It takes far more than a "few seconds after unconsciousness" to do real damage to someone, and people getting continually choked after passing out has occurred plenty of times in competition, and they came out just fine. Machida vs Jones is a prime example. I've personally choked out plenty of guys who failed to tap, and were already unconscious when I released the hold. They're just fine.

In order to do real damage you need to hold the choke long after consciousness is lost. More in the realm of 15-20 seconds after the loss of consciousness depending on the physical condition of the person getting choked.However, brain damage or death instantly after passing out? BS.

Additionally you get cues to when to release a choke outside of just tap outs. Someone going limp is a pretty good indicator that your opponent is taking a nap.

In terms of ground and pound, you've never heard of it in the octagon, but it definitely happens on the street when your head is smacking concrete over and over again, or if someone is socking you in the head over and over again _while_ your head is smacking the concrete.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Nonsense. It takes far more than a "few seconds after unconsciousness" to do real damage to someone, and people get choked way after passing out had occurred plenty of times in competition, and they came out just fine. Machida vs Jones is a prime example. I've personally choked out plenty of guys who failed to tap, and we're already unconscious when I released the hold. They're just fine.
> 
> In order to do real damage you need to hold the choke long after consciousness is lost. More in the realm of 15-20 seconds after the loss of consciousness depending on the physical conditionHowever, brain damage or death instantly after passing out? BS.
> 
> Additionally you get cues to when to release a choke outside of just tap outs. Someone going limp is a pretty good indicator that your opponent is taking a nap.
> 
> In terms of ground and pound, you've never heard of it in the octagon, but it definitely happens on the street when your head is smacking concrete over and over again, or if someone is socking you in the head over and over again _while_ your head is smacking the concrete.





Again, _you let them go.

You looked for cues
_
If that guy on the street is gonna pound your head on the sidewalk (which he obviously will,) long after you're going limp, why would he magically let go of a choke?

Nobody said its immediate after losing consciousness, but again, on the street no ones there to stop it like in the ring. 

You're last paragraph sums up the point pretty well if you change ground and pound to chokes.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Again, _you let them go.
> 
> You looked for cues
> _
> If that guy on the street is gonna pound your head on the sidewalk (which he obviously will,) long after you're going limp, why would he magically let go of a choke?



Ah I see, you misread my original post.

That figures.... 

I'm not talking about some untrained thug choking someone to purposely do harm to them. I'm talking about someone trained in choking who is using it to defend themselves.



> Nobody said its immediate after losing consciousness, but again, on the street no ones there to stop it like in the ring.



You did.....



Drose427 said:


> ] Yes, because in a controlled, safe environment people let go, and people _usually_ tap long before starting to lose consciousness. Or the ref ends it and they get broken up.
> 
> All it takes is to hold on for a *few extra seconds* and damage absolutely starts to set in.



........



> You're last paragraph sums up the point pretty well if you change ground and pound to chokes.



Actually it doesn't, because if you're trained to bash someone's brains in, you're going to bash their brains in regardless if you mean to or not. There's been plenty of cases where guys get knocked out, land on the concrete, and the defender rushes in to finish him off with a few punches to the head. Heck, some of the self defense icons love to show follow-up stomps to the throat or to the head after someone is laying on the ground. Either one of those could kill someone.

A person trained to choke someone is taught to release them either when they submit, or when they go limp. I know exactly when to release someone because I can feel when someone isn't resisting a choke anymore. And yeah, putting someone to sleep is far more humane than pounding them into submission with my fists.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Actually it doesn't, because if you're trained to bash someone's brains in, you're going to bash their brains in regardless if you mean to or not. There's been plenty of cases where guys get knocked out, land on the concrete, and the defender rushes in to finish him off with a few punches to the head. Heck, some of the self defense icons love to show follow-up stomps to the throat or to the head after someone is laying on the ground. Either one of those could kill someone.


Um, no. Someone taught self defence knows to stop when the threat is removed the same as someone choking in competition knows to release when the opponent loses consciousness. Perhaps you could show me someone trained in self defence advocating stomps to the head or throat once the attacker is incapacitated, and I do mean 'self defence', not 'combatives'.


----------



## BMhadoken

Hanzou said:


> I'm not talking about some untrained thug choking someone to purposely do harm to them. I'm talking about someone trained in choking who is using it to defend themselves.


Personally there aren't a lot of situations where I would want to set someone up for a prolonged choke instead of just using the setup to dip out, and of those I'm not sure how many would be legal.



Hanzou said:


> Actually it doesn't, because if you're trained to bash someone's brains in, you're going to bash their brains in regardless if you mean to or not. There's been plenty of cases where guys get knocked out, land on the concrete, and the defender rushes in to finish him off with a few punches to the head.


Per American law, that's not self defense, even if it started out that way it became an assault.


Hanzou said:


> Heck, some of the self defense icons love to show follow-up stomps to the throat or to the head after someone is laying on the ground.


That's attempted murder.

Prosecutors in this country are frequently...overzealous in the pursuit of easy prey. You have to be very, very careful what you do in a physical encounter, because otherwise they will eat you alive with glee.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Um, no. Someone taught self defence knows to stop when the threat is removed the same as someone choking in competition knows to release when the opponent loses consciousness. Perhaps you could show me someone trained in self defence advocating stomps to the head or throat once the attacker is incapacitated, and I do mean 'self defence', not 'combatives'.



They don't need to be incapacitated. If you knock someone to the ground and stomp their head or throat, you can kill them.

Here's one example that should look familiar to you;


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> They don't need to be incapacitated. If you knock someone to the ground and stomp their head or throat, you can kill them.
> 
> Here's one example that should look familiar to you;


Again, you didn't read what I posted. I specifically differentiated between self defence and combatives yet you ignored self defense and posted combatives. And, for what it's worth, we learned that stomp in karate decades ago as kakato geri and yes done with intent it can cause fatal injuries, as can a lot of other techniques. I'm surprised that you would actually acknowledge that we do train lethal techniques.

But again, just because we train potentially lethal techniques doesn't turn us into an out of control robotic killing machine. In a self defence situation I do advocate the stomp as the last technique you might utilise before running away, just that it is at the opposite end of the body on the inner ankle. Just means he's unlikely to be able to run after you.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> Ah I see, you misread my original post.
> 
> That figures....
> 
> I'm not talking about some untrained thug choking someone to purposely do harm to them. I'm talking about someone trained in choking who is using it to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> You did.....
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it doesn't, because if you're trained to bash someone's brains in, you're going to bash their brains in regardless if you mean to or not. There's been plenty of cases where guys get knocked out, land on the concrete, and the defender rushes in to finish him off with a few punches to the head. Heck, some of the self defense icons love to show follow-up stomps to the throat or to the head after someone is laying on the ground. Either one of those could kill someone.
> 
> A person trained to choke someone is taught to release them either when they submit, or when they go limp. I know exactly when to release someone because I can feel when someone isn't resisting a choke anymore. And yeah, putting someone to sleep is far more humane than pounding them into submission with my fists.



Not everybody who defends themselves is an "untrained thug". Most are untrained regular people. 

And in case you didn't notice, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with sport. It's about self defense. 
Stop trying to derail it with off topic posts. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## drop bear

tshadowchaser said:


> I understand what he current laws say regarding walking away when your opponent is down or incapacitated but I think there should also be something in the laws that says the SOB deserved what he/she got no matter if you are a martial artiest or not and your training should have nothing to do with the punishment you inflect on someone who endangers your family or an innocent child



It is sort of practiced in a good old boys manner. In that you may not get prosecuted if the other guy really deserved it.


----------



## drop bear

Street fighting is risky. People die. And you can't always control the difference.

In my opinion choking is a bit safer than hitting. Because you can let go and you can stop them falling.


----------



## PhotonGuy

drop bear said:


> Street fighting is risky. People die. And you can't always control the difference.
> 
> In my opinion choking is a bit safer than hitting. Because you can let go and you can stop them falling.



So, in court it will carry less weight against you if you choke somebody out rather than if you were to brain them with a hammer.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> So, in court it will carry less weight against you if you choke somebody out rather than if you were to brain them with a hammer.


Not always.  We have had a huge push here in the last few months to go very hard on Strangulation cases.  In a legal sense choking comes from inside the body you choke on food,  External pressure is strangulation.  Strangulation is a very common form of domestic abuse so we have been told to go for The felony assault if the victim says they were strangled. So your Best bet is dont do either one and just walk away.  Its not that hard to do.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> So your Best bet is dont do either one and just walk away.


Not always an option.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Not always an option.


It is however ALMOST ALWAYS an option


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> It is however ALMOST ALWAYS an option



That would depend. Lots of it depends on setting and location. For instance, its often not an option in college, especially if you live there.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> That would depend. Lots of it depends on setting and location. For instance, its often not an option in college, especially if you live there.


Nonsense.  Most people are fully capable of going their entire lives never needing to defend themselves.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Nonsense.  Most people are fully capable of going their entire lives never needing to defend themselves.



Nonsense.

Most people are fortunate enough to go their entire lives never needing to defend themselves....it has nothing to do with "capability," and more to do with circumstance.......karma?........*luck*.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Most people are fortunate enough to go their entire lives never needing to defend themselves....it has nothing to do with "capability," and more to do with circumstance.......karma?........*luck*.


Nope its common sense and the fact that there really isnt a boogie man lurking in every shadow.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Nope its common sense and the fact that there really isnt a boogie man lurking in every shadow.


Nope. There's boogie men sitting next to us on the bus, every day.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Nonsense.  Most people are fully capable of going their entire lives never needing to defend themselves.



Some people but I wouldn't say most and much of it depends on location. In places such as New York, New Jersey, Detroit Michigan, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and other such places you most likely will have to defend yourself sometime or another. If you're out in the middle of nowhere where the closest other resident is miles away than perhaps not. 

And, if you go to college you're more likely than not going to have to defend yourself sometime or another. College is a zoo. I know because I've been there.


----------



## crazydiamond

I lived just outside of the Detroit area - 9 mile road. I went to a large big 10 university. Afterwards I worked in a major US city (but lived in burbs). I have never been attacked or needed to defend myself - since I was over 18 (I had a few minor issues in grade and high school). Perhaps my physical size helped avoid this, or the fact I like to avoid serious conflict, or perhaps maybe lucky.


----------



## BMhadoken

PhotonGuy said:


> Some people but I wouldn't say most and much of it depends on location. In places such as New York, New Jersey, Detroit Michigan, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and other such places you most likely will have to defend yourself sometime or another. If you're out in the middle of nowhere where the closest other resident is miles away than perhaps not.


Those cities are not universally wretched hives. Stay out of the projects and you'll probably be fine. Middle-upper class neighborhoods and tourist hotspots tend to be rather low on violence.



PhotonGuy said:


> And, if you go to college you're more likely than not going to have to defend yourself sometime or another. College is a zoo. I know because I've been there.


Poppycock. Your early 20s college lads are concerned with status and respect, not kicking your *** for its own sake. Getting out of an honor-duel with them is the most trivial thing in the world.


----------



## drop bear

PhotonGuy said:


> So, in court it will carry less weight against you if you choke somebody out rather than if you were to brain them with a hammer.



In Australia if I am drunk hitting someone can carry a greater sentence than stabbing them. Because we just set up these one punch laws.


----------



## drop bear

BMhadoken said:


> Those cities are not universally wretched hives. Stay out of the projects and you'll probably be fine. Middle-upper class neighborhoods and tourist hotspots tend to be rather low on violence.
> 
> 
> Poppycock. Your early 20s college lads are concerned with status and respect, not kicking your *** for its own sake. Getting out of an honor-duel with them is the most trivial thing in the world.



Monkey dance fights are also predatory. Some people gain status and respect by beating up other people. Whether they are avoiding confrontation or not.

Coming from someone who has seen a few unnecessary victims of the above mentality.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Nope its common sense and the fact that there really isnt a boogie man lurking in every shadow.


So Fox News lied?!!!


----------



## BMhadoken

drop bear said:


> Monkey dance fights are also predatory. Some people gain status and respect by beating up other people. Whether they are avoiding confrontation or not.
> 
> Coming from someone who has seen a few unnecessary victims of the above mentality.



Those sorts of encounters tend to follow a different script than an escalating fight between two jerkoffs with too much pride. They're also comparatively rare.

That aside, I don't know your laws, but here if a group mobs on you then you're legally pretty much free to go completely hog wild until they start running or you can.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> In Australia if I am drunk hitting someone can carry a greater sentence than stabbing them. Because we just set up these one punch laws.



Depends what you are stabbing them with when your drunk I guess.


----------



## drop bear

BMhadoken said:


> Those sorts of encounters tend to follow a different script than an escalating fight between two jerkoffs with too much pride. They're also comparatively rare.
> 
> That aside, I don't know your laws, but here if a group mobs on you then you're legally pretty much free to go completely hog wild until they start running or you can.



You are projecting every fight into a mutual confrontation. Sometimes it is and could be considered avoidable. Sometimes it isn't.

Now regarding that I will engage in a fight or at least in force if the other persons bad behaviour is too extreme regardless as to whether they are an immediate threat or if I conceivably could have de escalated.


----------



## BMhadoken

drop bear said:


> You are projecting every fight into a mutual confrontation. Sometimes it is and could be considered avoidable. Sometimes it isn't.



I'm aware. You talking about things like wolf packs?


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Now regarding that I will engage in a fight or at least in force if the other persons bad behaviour is too extreme regardless as to whether they are an immediate threat or if I conceivably could have de escalated.


 
If you can deescalate and don't even try, then you're the problem, and I hope you get to spend a few years in an 8'x10' cell with a hairy backed knuckle dragging mouth breather named Bubba who wants to be your special friend.

There is never a valid reason to resort to force against someone who is not an immediate threat. Never.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Again, you didn't read what I posted. I specifically differentiated between self defence and combatives yet you ignored self defense and posted combatives. And, for what it's worth, we learned that stomp in karate decades ago as kakato geri and yes done with intent it can cause fatal injuries, as can a lot of other techniques. I'm surprised that you would actually acknowledge that we do train lethal techniques.
> 
> But again, just because we train potentially lethal techniques doesn't turn us into an out of control robotic killing machine. In a self defence situation I do advocate the stomp as the last technique you might utilise before running away, just that it is at the opposite end of the body on the inner ankle. Just means he's unlikely to be able to run after you.



I never said it turned you into an "out of control killing machine". I said that once you decide to stomp someone on the ground with enough force to incapacitate them, you're setting yourself up for potentially killing them as well. You simply can't fully control the outcome of that attack the way you can control a choke. 

In other words, you're more likely to kill someone from those self defense finishing moves you see in Krav Maga, Karate, etc. Than from a choke hold.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> Not everybody who defends themselves is an "untrained thug". Most are untrained regular people.



If you're trying to purposely kill someone with a choke, you're an untrained thug. It takes quite a bit of effort (and a bit of premeditation) to make a choke lethal



> And in case you didn't notice, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with sport. It's about self defense.
> Stop trying to derail it with off topic posts.



I was simply squashing the notion that people are instantly brain damaged from chokes, or that people are instantly brain damaged from chokes after losing consciousness. The fact that all of that happens in competition with no brain damage or deaths disproves that nonsense.


----------



## seasoned

This was the original post. Geared toward self defense...
_
*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_

Please, return to the original topic.

Wes Yager
Senior MT Moderator


----------



## MJS

PhotonGuy said:


> If you're ever involved in a gunfight, what I heard is it can be described like this. Lets say you were to take out a hundred dollars and make a bet. If you lose you lose the $100. If you win you get to keep the $100 which was yours to begin with. Not the best deal. Another words, in a gunfight at the very best you just might walk away having lost nothing. At the very worst you can lose everything. Even if you manage to survive and stop the assailant then you've got to deal with criminal and civil charges in court. Even the most justified self defense shootings can ruin a person civilly and financially if not criminally. So, its best to avoid gunfights at all costs.
> 
> Anyway, what Im talking about in this thread is not gunfights. Im talking about if you take somebody down with your bare hands and you have a background in the martial arts, or even if you don't have a background in the martial arts the fact is you didn't use any weapons so its not the same as a gunfight. A gunfight is at a whole different level. Therefore I don't see why somebody who refuses to be a victim by laying out a bully should get in trouble for it. This isn't gunfights we're talking about, this is fights where you don't use any weapons so the courts shouldn't go crazy and come down hard on you for stuff like this. You shouldn't even have to go to court in the first place. Self defense is a right and a right is something you can do without being punished, that's what makes it a right. You don't punish people for refusing to be victims.





BMhadoken said:


> Because the majority of the time you have good options available that don't involve beating someone back into diapers. If you can reasonably walk away from a confrontation and your ego demands you punch the guy instead, then you can sleep in the bed you made.



^^^^ Yes! I agree with this!  I'm of the mind that we shouldn't have to always walk in fear, ie: fear of a fight, fear of the aftermath, if you need to defend yourself, but as it was said, if you can walk away, well, may as well do it.  Of course, each situation will vary.  

PG, the reality is, even if you defend yourself against the bad guy, he'll still try to paint himself as the victim.  Him, his family, they'll all portray him as the innocent, even if he really isn't.  What would the reasonable person do?  This is why I talked about assessing what you do for each situation.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> If you can deescalate and don't even try, then you're the problem, and I hope you get to spend a few years in an 8'x10' cell with a hairy backed knuckle dragging mouth breather named Bubba who wants to be your special friend.
> 
> There is never a valid reason to resort to force against someone who is not an immediate threat. Never.



So I walk up and spit in your mums food.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Actually it doesn't, because if you're trained to bash someone's brains in, you're going to bash their brains in regardless if you mean to or not. There's been plenty of cases where guys get knocked out, land on the concrete, and the defender rushes in to finish him off with a few punches to the head. Heck, some of the self defense icons love to show follow-up stomps to the throat or to the head after someone is laying on the ground. Either one of those could kill someone.
> 
> A person trained to choke someone is taught to release them either when they submit, or when they go limp. I know exactly when to release someone because I can feel when someone isn't resisting a choke anymore. And yeah, putting someone to sleep is far more humane than pounding them into submission with my fists.



And IMO, the person who is trained, but can't control their actions, missed out on some valuable lessons.  I came from a Kenpo background...an art known for the 'over kill' in its techniques.  If we have to bust up the guys arm, gouge his eyes, etc, all for a simple shirt grab..lol..well, like I said, lessons lost IMO.  

As far as rushing in to hit them with a few more shots...tempting as it is, that's a no no.  That's akin to a LEO cuffing a guy, and while he's on the ground, getting in a few shots.  Tempting, especially after you had to chase after him, fight with him, etc,? Sure. Is it morally correct? Hell no.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> So I walk up and spit in your mums food.



Sorry that was half a concept. Say you do something that is awful and I act using force Eg. i jump up and slap you. 

You feel that deserves a to be a prison sentence and to be molested while inside.

And you think I have the moral vacuum?


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> You are projecting every fight into a mutual confrontation. Sometimes it is and could be considered avoidable. Sometimes it isn't.
> 
> Now regarding that I will engage in a fight or at least in force if the other persons bad behaviour is too extreme regardless as to whether they are an immediate threat or if I conceivably could have de escalated.



That is the problem bear. While you and I know that it is just as likely that once turned and walking away, one of those little darlings will jump on our backs. There is still no justification to knock them clean out. You have to let it happen in that context. The good thing is that the wolf pack is usually a poodle pack. So merely turning around and being impassive does the trick.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Sorry that was half a concept. Say you do something that is awful and I act using force Eg. i jump up and slap you.
> 
> You feel that deserves a to be a prison sentence and to be molested while inside.
> 
> And you think I have the moral vacuum?



Yes. I do. Because you believe in using violence against non-violent people. 

That's vile. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## BMhadoken

Transk53 said:


> That is the problem bear. While you and I know that it is just as likely that once turned and walking away, one of those little darlings will jump on our backs. There is still no justification to knock them clean out. You have to let it happen in that context. The good thing is that the wolf pack is usually a poodle pack. So merely turning around and being impassive does the trick.


Of course you don't literally turn around and stroll away from an escalato conflict. The other guy's likely to take that as just one more insult to his pile of grievances against you, and it makes it very hard to keep him in your sights until you're at a safe distance.

The point isn't that it's super easy, because pride's a hell of a thing to put aside. It's not even that it always works, because we all know it doesn't. But if things go bad and the cops show up to ask you why you've just beat a man with his own kneecaps, you really want to be able to reasonably explain why the high road wasn't working.


----------



## Transk53

BMhadoken said:


> Of course you don't literally turn around and stroll away from an escalato conflict. The other guy's likely to take that as just one more insult to his pile of grievances against you, and it makes it very hard to keep him in your sights until you're at a safe distance.
> 
> The point isn't that it's super easy, because pride's a hell of a thing to put aside. It's not even that it always works, because we all know it doesn't. But if things go bad and the cops show up to ask you why you've just beat a man with his own kneecaps, you really want to be able to reasonably explain why the high road wasn't working.



Pride I get. I have it in spades. That is the point being just mine. Projected pride is nothing more than arrogance if one cannot walk away due to pride. You do what is necessary nothing more. And no, it is not hard to get to a safe distance either, you use what's around you.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes. I do. Because you believe in using violence against non-violent people.
> 
> That's vile.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.



Your choice to live how you want I suppose. I don't agree with your stance just from a fundamental belief that human dignity can be protected with violence.

You of course don't have to stand up for yours. And can consider those who do as vile as you want.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> That is the problem bear. While you and I know that it is just as likely that once turned and walking away, one of those little darlings will jump on our backs. There is still no justification to knock them clean out. You have to let it happen in that context. The good thing is that the wolf pack is usually a poodle pack. So merely turning around and being impassive does the trick.



There is plenty of behavior that is demeaning and will intentionally cause damage without being violent or threatening.

You can be the sort of person who puts up with it or the sort of person who doesn't. 

Personally putting up with unacceptable behaviour only encourages people to continue that behaviour. 

I think you can be a nice guy and also not be a *****.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Pride I get. I have it in spades. That is the point being just mine. Projected pride is nothing more than arrogance if one cannot walk away due to pride. You do what is necessary nothing more. And no, it is not hard to get to a safe distance either, you use what's around you.





BMhadoken said:


> Of course you don't literally turn around and stroll away from an escalato conflict. The other guy's likely to take that as just one more insult to his pile of grievances against you, and it makes it very hard to keep him in your sights until you're at a safe distance.
> 
> The point isn't that it's super easy, because pride's a hell of a thing to put aside. It's not even that it always works, because we all know it doesn't. But if things go bad and the cops show up to ask you why you've just beat a man with his own kneecaps, you really want to be able to reasonably explain why the high road wasn't working.



Les about pride and more about respect. You can reasonably expect some I think.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes. I do. Because you believe in using violence against non-violent people.
> 
> That's vile.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.



Oh. Me and the pope believe in violence.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> There is plenty of behavior that is demeaning and will intentionally cause damage without being violent or threatening.
> 
> You can be the sort of person who puts up with it or the sort of person who doesn't.
> 
> Personally putting up with unacceptable behaviour only encourages people to continue that behaviour.
> 
> I think you can be a nice guy and also not be a *****.



Well in terms of people, there will always be more. That is the nature of the game, and while perhaps not strictly being a game, those same people will always view it as such. it makes no difference if you put up with or not, it is still there. You get a group of five people standing in front you giving the large. love em, let them do it, it makes no difference if they deem you are accepting it or not, they will continue. Either they get bored, or try something stupid. They try something stupid, the whole area becomes alive with the notion that they have done something stupid. IMHO, it not actually about whether someone is nice or not, the dice still fall the same way in any given situation. That is were professionalism comes into to play, and out of that what is necessary. Personally putting up with unacceptable behavior is wrong, hence why you act under that umbrella of professionalism, but no one needs any encouragement to act like a complete tool unfortunately.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Nope. There's boogie men sitting next to us on the bus, every day.


See thats why I ride my bike if he wants to go with me he needs to get on the handle bars then I can keep an eye on him


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Les about pride and more about respect. You can reasonably expect some I think.



You don't garner respect by sledging people outside of a ring. You would like to think that a human would have basic respect for the values that we all hold dear, but in the real world that don't happen with some people. being prideful is not wrong, but that same pride can get you seriously hurt, or even killed.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I never said it turned you into an "out of control killing machine". I said that once you decide to stomp someone on the ground with enough force to incapacitate them, you're setting yourself up for potentially killing them as well. You simply can't fully control the outcome of that attack the way you can control a choke.
> 
> In other words, you're more likely to kill someone from those self defense finishing moves you see in Krav Maga, Karate, etc. Than from a choke hold.


So, as usual, you avoid the question being asked and take off down another burrow.

You claimed people teaching self defence were advocating using a stomp to the head or chest as a finishing technique and I asked you to provide an example because, quite frankly, that is a ridiculous assertion. Anyone teaching self defence would know that it is no longer self defence to stomp on someone's neck or head if the threat has passed. I specifically asked you not to quote combatives. Then you post a Krav video.

But let me address this new assertion.
_"In other words, you're more likely to kill someone from those self defense finishing moves you see in Krav Maga, Karate, etc. Than from a choke hold."
_
Basically your statement is true ... except that those techniques have very little to do with self defence. But of course you already know that.

Your statement is as nonsensical as me saying that punches, kicks or elbow strikes to the head in an MMA competition are more likely to cause permanent brain damage than a choke. The statement is true but it has no place in the discussion.


----------



## PhotonGuy

The thing is, bullies often deserve to get pounded. I am all against instigating or picking fights with innocent people, but if somebody else decides to instigate they should get what they have coming to them and a person shouldn't get in trouble for giving them what they had coming to them. That way this world will be a much safer place because people will think twice before deciding to be bullies. Take for instance this guy, he deserved it.


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> The thing is, bullies often deserve to get pounded. I am all against instigating or picking fights with innocent people, but if somebody else decides to instigate they should get what they have coming to them and a person shouldn't get in trouble for giving them what they had coming to them. That way this world will be a much safer place because people will think twice before deciding to be bullies. Take for instance this guy, he deserved it.



Nice sentiment, but does not work that way. Social development has not reached Gene Rodenbury hieghts just yet.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> The thing is, bullies often deserve to get pounded.


No nobody deserves to "get pounded"  


> I am all against instigating or picking fights with innocent people


unless they say something you dont like then they a bullies and need pounding


> but if somebody else decides to instigate they should get what they have coming to them and a person shouldn't get in trouble for giving them what they had coming to them.


No once you are no longer in danger and continue to "teach" them a lesson your a criminal and are no better if not worse then the other person.


> That way this world will be a much safer place because people will think twice before deciding to be bullies. Take for instance this guy, he deserved it.



No it wouldn't there are many reason why people become bullies.  Your simplistic view of punch a bully in the face and they go away just isnt true its just something you tell kids to help their confidence but in real life its not that simple.  Fact is some people are just bad or evil standing up to them wont change that and will lead to more violence


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Monkey dance fights are also predatory. Some people gain status and respect by beating up other people. Whether they are avoiding confrontation or not.
> 
> Coming from someone who has seen a few unnecessary victims of the above mentality.


No.  In the context you're describing, you confuse things when you describe a Monkey Dance as a predatory attack.  Certainly, they can and are very targeted, and certain classes of Monkey Dances indeed select a victim in order to puff up the attacker's status -- but they're different than a predatory attack.  Predation is just that: resource driven violence.  The victim has money/food/sex that the attacker wants, and the attacker is going out to get it.  You want out of a targeted Monkey Dance, the solution is there. Walk away.  Lose face...  Or don't even play the game.


----------



## jks9199

Dirty Dog said:


> If you can deescalate and don't even try, then you're the problem, and I hope you get to spend a few years in an 8'x10' cell with a hairy backed knuckle dragging mouth breather named Bubba who wants to be your special friend.
> 
> There is never a valid reason to resort to force against someone who is not an immediate threat. Never.


I'll take a small exception to the last part.  There is sometimes a justification -- of course, the people who are given that authority and justification tend to be the cops, and sometimes security.  For example, you have someone who is passively refusing to leave a place.  Cops, security, or even the owner may use limited force to remove them from the property.  That's nowhere near "smash 'em for being rude", though...


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> I never said it turned you into an "out of control killing machine". I said that once you decide to stomp someone on the ground with enough force to incapacitate them, you're setting yourself up for potentially killing them as well. You simply can't fully control the outcome of that attack the way you can control a choke.


You can't "fully control the outcome" of a choke hold, either.  You don't know if they person has some invisible, inherent condition like an aneurism, damaged trachea, weak heart, or even just brain trauma from drinking or a ton of concussions, that might cause their death.  Guess what, you're liable and responsible for it.  "You take your victim as you find them" is a legal maxim...


> In other words, you're more likely to kill someone from those self defense finishing moves you see in Krav Maga, Karate, etc. Than from a choke hold.


Well, y'know, that just might be why they're called "finishing moves..."  Finishing is kind of the intent...  But it doesn't remove a choke hold from being considered lethal force.  (In fact, I'd swear some of those finishing moves in various arts are chokes or neck breaks...)


----------



## K-man

jks9199 said:


> Well, y'know, that just might be why they're called "finishing moves..."  Finishing is kind of the intent...  But it doesn't remove a choke hold from being considered lethal force.  (In fact, I'd swear some of those finishing moves in various arts are chokes or neck breaks...)


Using a choke here is considered 'attempted murder' under some circumstances. All my security mates have been told never to choke. As to your 'finishing moves in various arts' being chokes or neck breaks ... spot on.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> No.  In the context you're describing, you confuse things when you describe a Monkey Dance as a predatory attack.  Certainly, they can and are very targeted, and certain classes of Monkey Dances indeed select a victim in order to puff up the attacker's status -- but they're different than a predatory attack.  Predation is just that: resource driven violence.  The victim has money/food/sex that the attacker wants, and the attacker is going out to get it.  You want out of a targeted Monkey Dance, the solution is there. Walk away.  Lose face...  Or don't even play the game.



I should have said can be predatory. If we take sex as a resource then we take the whole range of emotional fulfillment as one. 

Bullies don't need an escalation to comit violence.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Using a choke here is considered 'attempted murder' under some circumstances. All my security mates have been told never to choke. As to your 'finishing moves in various arts' being chokes or neck breaks ... spot on.



Or punch,or push,or sit on a guy for too long,

I think security guards can now use firm words. But I am not sure.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> I should have said can be predatory. If we take sex as a resource then we take the whole range of emotional fulfillment as one.
> 
> Bullies don't need an escalation to comit violence.


Sex in this context isn't "she's into me and I might get laid later if she sees how manly I am"; it's rape.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Sex in this context isn't "she's into me and I might get laid later if she sees how manly I am"; it's rape.



So the guy who gets shut down and manufactures a fight to sooth his hurry hurt feelings is not being predatory.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> So the guy who gets shut down and manufactures a fight to sooth his hurry hurt feelings is not being predatory.


Not in this context. Look at it this way: Predatory violence is asocial. It's going go happen whether there is someone to see it or not.   In fact,  is are that predatory violence will not have witnesses, while any Monkey Dance, no matter how targeted, is really all about the people there to see it.  A guy gets shut down and starts a fight -- what's its really about?  Satisfying his sense of manhood,  no?  Will it happier if he's alone? About the one my way I see that turning asocial is if he waits in the parking lot and jumps the guy who did get the girl. ..

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Not in this context. Look at it this way: Predatory violence is asocial. It's going go happen whether there is someone to see it or not.   In fact,  is are that predatory violence will not have witnesses, while any Monkey Dance, no matter how targeted, is really all about the people there to see it.  A guy gets shut down and starts a fight -- what's its really about?  Satisfying his sense of manhood,  no?  Will it happier if he's alone? About the one my way I see that turning asocial is if he waits in the parking lot and jumps the guy who did get the girl. ..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



Which happens as well.

Knockout game. Predatory or monkey dance? How is it de-escalated.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Which happens as well.
> 
> Knockout game. Predatory or monkey dance? How is it de-escalated.


Variation of the Group Monkey Dance. It's done for the spectators., not to acquire any resource. One of the few times you can't really deescalate through contact and have to rely our  recognition, deterance, or axoidance.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Varia r of the Group Monkey Dance. It's done for the spectators., not to acquire any resource. One of the few times you can't really deescalate through contact and have to rely our  recognition, deterance, or axoidance.



Bullying predatory or monkey dance?


----------



## BMhadoken

drop bear said:


> Which happens as well.
> 
> Knockout game. Predatory or monkey dance? How is it de-escalated.


Group monkey dance, closest. You de escalate it by not being there. Change course, cross the street, do whatever you need to deny them attack positioning. If they're too determined then you hit first and hard the moment the kid cocks back, and you can at least justify to the cops why that was necessary.

And most bullying is purely monkey dance. It's all about claiming the respect (or fear) of everyone watching.


----------



## oftheherd1

K-man said:


> I think you'll find that there is a clear link established between chokes and later deaths. Even with a properly applied choke there is always a chance that plaque can be dislodged from the wall of the carotid artery. That is probably more likely in older people but I remember years back they did research looking at the arteries of young guys killed in Vietnam and found most of them had the beginnings of coronary artery disease.
> 
> The thing I would be most worried about though is the badly applied choke like the NY cop was attempting recently where the guy died later in police custody. The vagus nerve is very close to the carotid artery. It is the nerve that controls the heartbeat. If it is damaged the heart can have all sorts of irregular beats develop or tachycardia. If medical treatment is available it may not be an issue but if you are left unattended in the back of a police vehicle anything can go wrong.



You are right.  My post was poorly worded.  What I meant was that I did't think they had found a specific link.  Stimulation of the vagus nerves would no doubt be a likely suspect.

Maybe Dirty Dog could add some knowledge.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So, as usual, you avoid the question being asked and take off down another burrow.
> 
> You claimed people teaching self defence were advocating using a stomp to the head or chest as a finishing technique and I asked you to provide an example because, quite frankly, that is a ridiculous assertion. Anyone teaching self defence would know that it is no longer self defence to stomp on someone's neck or head if the threat has passed. I specifically asked you not to quote combatives. Then you post a Krav video.



So punches to the head, or foot stomps to the head are not being advocated in this Krav Maga self defense video?








> But let me address this new assertion.
> _"In other words, you're more likely to kill someone from those self defense finishing moves you see in Krav Maga, Karate, etc. Than from a choke hold."
> _
> Basically your statement is true ... except that those techniques have very little to do with self defence. But of course you already know that.
> 
> Your statement is as nonsensical as me saying that punches, kicks or elbow strikes to the head in an MMA competition are more likely to cause permanent brain damage than a choke. The statement is true but it has no place in the discussion.



The discussion revolved around chokes being used as a finishing move, and their inherent danger. I was pointing out that chokes are in fact less dangerous to their intended target that punches or kicks to the head of a person laying on the ground. I'm failing to see what sports or competition has to do with any of this. I was using sport examples to show cases of people really being choked out, and suffering no long term side effects.


----------



## BMhadoken

Hanzou said:


> So punches to the head, or foot stomps to the head are not being advocated in this Krav Maga self defense video?



Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. _That is not legal self defense. At all. *Ever.*_


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> You can't "fully control the outcome" of a choke hold, either.  You don't know if they person has some invisible, inherent condition like an aneurism, damaged trachea, weak heart, or even just brain trauma from drinking or a ton of concussions, that might cause their death.  Guess what, you're liable and responsible for it.  "You take your victim as you find them" is a legal maxim...



If a person has an aneurysm, damaged trachea, weak heart, or a brain issue, I seriously doubt they would be attacking you in a street encounter in the first place.



> Well, y'know, that just might be why they're called "finishing moves..."  Finishing is kind of the intent...  But it doesn't remove a choke hold from being considered lethal force.  (In fact, I'd swear some of those finishing moves in various arts are chokes or neck breaks...)



Again, I've applied numerous choke holds in my time within Bjj against a wide variety of people. In some cases, people were actually choked out because they didn't realize that the choke had been put on before its too late. To date, there's been no deaths, and no one has suffered any long term brain damage. In the end though, its better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6. If I need to stop someone, I will apply a choke. It's simply too effective to not use.


----------



## Hanzou

BMhadoken said:


> Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. _That is not legal self defense. At all. *Ever.*_



You're talking to the choir my friend. I advocate a gentle choke over bludgeoning someone in the head over and over again.






Savage (and hilarious).


----------



## jks9199

BMhadoken said:


> Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. _That is not legal self defense. At all. *Ever.*_


Nope; I can easily conceive of circumstances that might justify it.  (What if they have a gun... and that's just the biggest, easiest.)  Just like I can justify shooting someone in the back.  The key in instructing self defense is to give the students the tools to be able to respond appropriately in the moment -- with no more force than is reasonably necessary to allow them to safely resolve the situation and escape.


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> Nope; I can easily conceive of circumstances that might justify it.  (What if they have a gun... and that's just the biggest, easiest.)  Just like I can justify shooting someone in the back.  The key in instructing self defense is to give the students the tools to be able to respond appropriately in the moment -- with no more force than is reasonably necessary to allow them to safely resolve the situation and escape.









Throwing someone to the ground, smashing them in the side of the head, and then axe kick them in the head while they're down. Looks like a great great way to resolve a situation.


----------



## Transk53

Hanzou said:


> Throwing someone to the ground, smashing them in the side of the head, and then axe kick them in the head while they're down. Looks like a great great way to resolve a situation.




Yeah good luck in the Orange suit!


----------



## Dirty Dog

BMhadoken said:


> Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. _That is not legal self defense. At all. *Ever.*_



Really? What if you do it because you can already see his buddy coming at you from another angle? What if he's on the ground, but has a gun?

While situations warranting this sort of action are probably the exception, they certainly do exist.


----------



## pgsmith

Transk53 said:


> Yeah good luck in the Orange suit!



  That's one of the advantages of living in Texas. They're pretty free on how you can respond if attacked.


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> Throwing someone to the ground, smashing them in the side of the head, and then axe kick them in the head while they're down. Looks like a great great way to resolve a situation.


Just curious...  Did you actually read my post?  Did anything I wrote say that it was automatically okay, or even generally acceptable?  I don't believe so.  I believe I said that there could be circumstances which would justify extreme moves.  And, incidentally, I'll again note that a chokehold stands a VERY high likelihood of being found to be lethal force in many circumstances.  In the clip you've got here, you wouldn't be justified in choking the guy on the ground, either.  He's down, not posing any further threat.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a whole world of self defense beyond chokes and BJJ.  Maybe there are a lot of issues beyond the mere physical technique used in any use of force.  I mean, it's not like I'm not just slightly knowledgeable in the issues of use of force.  Being an instructor in LE firearms and LE defensive tactics, as well as an experienced officer and field trainer.,


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So punches to the head, or foot stomps to the head are not being advocated in this Krav Maga self defense video?


Perhaps you should turn the volume on when you watch these videos, that is assuming you watched it at all.  The guy did say to use two punches to the head to finish 'if needed'. Now obviously you have not taught self defence or been taught self defence. If you had any experience in that field you would know that you can use commensurate force, and you can take whatever action is necessary to remove the threat. That is exactly what was advocated. 



Hanzou said:


> The discussion revolved around chokes being used as a finishing move, and their inherent danger. I was pointing out that chokes are in fact less dangerous to their intended target that punches or kicks to the head of a person laying on the ground. I'm failing to see what sports or competition has to do with any of this. I was using sport examples to show cases of people really being choked out, and suffering no long term side effects.


In sports with referees there is little danger from chokes. In the real world there is every chance you will go to jail if you use a choke inappropriately. Unless my life was at risk I wouldn't do either kicks to the head, stomps or chokes. If my life was in danger I would do what ever necessary. That is what I teach and that is what the law allows.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> If a person has an aneurysm, damaged trachea, weak heart, or a brain issue, I seriously doubt they would be attacking you in a street encounter in the first place.


I seriously doubt you know what an aneurism is. If you did you would not have written what you did. 


Hanzou said:


> Again, I've applied numerous choke holds in my time within Bjj against a wide variety of people. In some cases, people were actually choked out because they didn't realize that the choke had been put on before its too late. To date, there's been no deaths, and no one has suffered any long term brain damage.


And nothing here has anything to do with self defence. In training I have done the same. It proves nothing.



Hanzou said:


> In the end though, its better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6.


Poor advice I'm afraid. You will be unlikely to find anyone who teaches self defence saying that.


----------



## K-man

BMhadoken said:


> Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. _That is not legal self defense. At all. *Ever.*_


Not true. You are entitled to use commensurate force and there are circumstances where it is justified.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You're talking to the choir my friend. I advocate a gentle choke over bludgeoning someone in the head over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Savage (and hilarious).


So when you have multiple attackers, potentially armed, you advocate a gentle choke over a violent encounter that gets you away safe?

I'm sorry, I teach, particularly against weapons (where I don't normally recommend trying to take the weapon immediately), that you continue striking until the danger no longer exists. You are not _"bludgeoning someone in the head over and over again."_ You are attacking them until they are no longer a threat. That is where self defence ends. 

You have a strange sense of humour if you think the clip above is _hilarious_ and no understanding at all if you think retaliation against an attack is not _savage_.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> No nobody deserves to "get pounded"


So people that try to rape and murder, they shouldn't be pounded? From what I know, in most places you are justified in using deadly force if you are in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Murder is self explanatory in that you're going to be dead if the person succeeds at it, rape falls under the category of grave bodily harm so both cases justify not only pounding the would be assailant but using deadly force too.



ballen0351 said:


> unless they say something you dont like then they a bullies and need pounding


No. When did I ever say that?



ballen0351 said:


> No once you are no longer in danger and continue to "teach" them a lesson your a criminal and are no better if not worse then the other person.


Well at that point it becomes excessive but using any level of force necessary to stop the bully when you are in danger shouldn't get you in trouble.



ballen0351 said:


> No it wouldn't there are many reason why people become bullies.  Your simplistic view of punch a bully in the face and they go away just isnt true its just something you tell kids to help their confidence but in real life its not that simple.  Fact is some people are just bad or evil standing up to them wont change that and will lead to more violence



That's why you need to use sufficient force to stop them which could go beyond punching them in the face. Sometimes you might even have to use deadly force.


----------



## PhotonGuy

BMhadoken said:


> ↑
> So punches to the head, or foot stomps to the head are not being advocated in this Krav Maga self defense video?
> 
> Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. _That is not legal self defense. At all. *Ever.*_



From what I know, Krav Maga was developed for military use in which case you would be taught to kick or stomp or in any way you can to finish off a downed opponent since that's what you would do on the battlefield. On the street kicking or stomping a downed opponent might be excessive.


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> Just curious...  Did you actually read my post?  Did anything I wrote say that it was automatically okay, or even generally acceptable?  I don't believe so.  I believe I said that there could be circumstances which would justify extreme moves.  And, incidentally, I'll again note that a chokehold stands a VERY high likelihood of being found to be lethal force in many circumstances.



How would it be found to be lethal force if the assailant isn't harmed in any way from it? Further, how would bludgeoning someone with your hands and feet while they're on the ground be a more favorable, or humane option than a choke that can have the assailant unconscious and unhurt in a matter of seconds?  



> In the clip you've got here, you wouldn't be justified in choking the guy on the ground, either.  He's down, not posing any further threat.



You wouldn't need to. From that position you can pin him with your legs and his trapped arm, and make sure he's no longer a threat. However, a choke is still an option, if you deem it necessary.



> Maybe, just maybe, there's a whole world of self defense beyond chokes and BJJ.  Maybe there are a lot of issues beyond the mere physical technique used in any use of force.  I mean, it's not like I'm not just slightly knowledgeable in the issues of use of force.  Being an instructor in LE firearms and LE defensive tactics, as well as an experienced officer and field trainer.,



So tell me Mr. LE officer, if given the choice, how would you finish off an assailant that had to be subdued? Would you choke him into unconsciousness, or would you *beat* him into unconsciousness?


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> Well at that point it becomes excessive but using any level of force necessary to stop the bully when you are in danger shouldn't get you in trouble.
> 
> That's why you need to use sufficient force to stop them which could go beyond punching them in the face. Sometimes you might even have to use deadly force.


Um. No, just no! You can't go around killing bullies because they deserve it.

I think you need to look at exactly what constitutes bullying. In the most extreme case it probably is present in domestic violence and yes, occasionally the victim has killed the perpetrator. 

In Australia we have just got rid of the defence of provocation where the bully has killed his victim because allegedly the victim provoced the bully. In effect that is what you are advocating in reverse.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Perhaps you should turn the volume on when you watch these videos, that is assuming you watched it at all.  The guy did say to use two punches to the head to finish 'if needed'. Now obviously you have not taught self defence or been taught self defence. If you had any experience in that field you would know that you can use commensurate force, and you can take whatever action is necessary to remove the threat. That is exactly what was advocated.



So when you start punching or kicking someone's face into the concrete, do you hold back, or do you go full force?



> In sports with referees there is little danger from chokes. In the real world there is every chance you will go to jail if you use a choke inappropriately.



As I stated earlier, in competition, in class, and in the street, you can tell when a person goes limp from a choke. When Ryan Hall choked out riff raff in front of a restaurant, he released him immediately, because he knew he had gone limp from the choke. Unlike most people being trained to stomp someone's face into the concrete until they're unconsciousness, Bjj and MMA exponents have actually choked out resisting opponents, and no the amount of force necessary.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> So when you start punching or kicking someone's face into the concrete, do you hold back, or do you go full force?
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated earlier, in competition, in class, and in the street, you can tell when a person goes limp from a choke. When Ryan Hall choked out riff raff in front of a restaurant, he released him immediately, because he knew he had gone limp from the choke. Unlike most people being trained to stomp someone's face into the concrete until they're unconsciousness, Bjj and MMA exponents have actually choked out resisting opponents, and no the amount of force necessary.



You keep saying "punching or kicking someones face into the concrete" but nobody else in this thread has endorsed, or stood by doing so for SD, not sure why you're making an argument based on a point nobody has made. XD

In combatives, yes it would be normal to "stomp into the concrete"

On the same coin, nobodys letting go of an armbar in combatives either XD

Even when K-man explained, you would be repeatedly beating them over and over, because theyd no longer be a threat long before that, you keep clinging to that argument.

You're trying to look for an argument, thats apples to oranges and nobody has made, using a youtube video so you can brag about BJJ.

if you're gonna contribute and ask for explanations pay attention to the ones given


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> So people that try to rape and murder, they shouldn't be pounded?


No they should be arrested taken to trial convicted and punished accordingly.


> From what I know, in most places you are justified in using deadly force if you are in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Murder is self explanatory in that you're going to be dead if the person succeeds at it, rape falls under the category of grave bodily harm so both cases justify not only pounding the would be assailant but using deadly force too.


true but pounding someone because they deserve it is different then defending yourself. I have no problem with self defense. I have a problem with your belief you shouldn't get in trouble for beating someone you deem deserved it



> No. When did I ever say that?


Multiple times on multiple threads you believe you have the right to punish people for bad behavior.



> Well at that point it becomes excessive but using any level of force necessary to stop the bully when you are in danger shouldn't get you in trouble.


No not ANY level of force but an appropriate level to stop the threat your correct.



> That's why you need to use sufficient force to stop them which could go beyond punching them in the face. Sometimes you might even have to use deadly force.


nobodys said anything otherwise


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So tell me Mr. LE officer, if given the choice, how would you finish off an assailant that had to be subdued? Would you choke him into unconsciousness, or would you *beat* him into unconsciousness?


Id break out the Taser


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So when you have multiple attackers, potentially armed, you advocate a gentle choke over a violent encounter that gets you away safe?



Nice straw man. I said that I advocate a gentle choke over continuously bashing someone's face into the ground in order to subdue them. If you enough time to start punching a downed target in the face, you have enough time for a choke. 

Multiple armed attackers? You're in a lot of trouble, regardless what your training is.



> I'm sorry, I teach, particularly against weapons (where I don't normally recommend trying to take the weapon immediately), that you continue striking until the danger no longer exists. You are not _"bludgeoning someone in the head over and over again."_ You are attacking them until they are no longer a threat. That is where self defence ends.



Bludgeoning someone in the head over and over, and "striking until they are no longer a threat" is beating someone until they're incapacitated in both cases. I'm still not seeing how beating someone unconscious is more safe than a choke.



> You have a strange sense of humour if you think the clip above is _hilarious_ and no understanding at all if you think retaliation against an attack is not _savage_.



It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Id break out the Taser



You're unarmed.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> You're unarmed.


then Im in my bed since thats just about the only time Im unarmed. And in that case IM not detaining anyone


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.



A downward elbow strike or good old rabbit punch stop my grappling friends dang near every time, usually before I really need to even start sprawling.

if the guys already on his back (in the way from your clip) hes not taking anyone down, nor was that implied in the clip, so idk where youre drawing that conclusion from


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> You keep saying "punching or kicking someones face into the concrete" but nobody else in this thread has endorsed, or stood by doing so for SD, not sure why you're making an argument based on a point nobody has made. XD



So you're saying that Krav Maga and other street-based martial arts don't advocate punching and kicking a downed target on the neck or head "if necessary"?



> In combatives, yes it would be normal to "stomp into the concrete"



Then you're simply arguing semantics.



> On the same coin, nobodys letting go of an armbar in combatives either XD



And an armbar isn't going to kill anyone. A stomping kick to the throat definitely could.



> Even when K-man explained, you would be repeatedly beating them over and over, because theyd no longer be a threat long before that, you keep clinging to that argument.



What?



> You're trying to look for an argument, thats apples to oranges and nobody has made, using a youtube video so you can brag about BJJ.



The argument was that a choke is some super dangerous act that can kill someone in a matter of seconds. I was simply correcting that faulty logic. Especially since it was coming from people who are perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground.


----------



## pgsmith

Hanzou said:


> It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.



  Spoken with utmost confidence as someone that has obviously never had to fight for their life. You should listen to those that know much more than you do. It's the only way to grow intellectually as a person.



Hanzou said:


> You're unarmed.



  I would be willing to bet that he is never in that situation.  As proven by the post he made while I was writing!


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> f a person has an aneurysm, damaged trachea, weak heart, or a brain issue, I seriously doubt they would be attacking you in a street encounter in the first place.



No. They still do. And ironically can include massive steroid pumpers.


----------



## Hanzou

pgsmith said:


> Spoken with utmost confidence as someone that has obviously never had to fight for their life. You should listen to those that know much more than you do. It's the only way to grow intellectually as a person.



Speaking as a person who has quite a bit experience stopping takedowns, I can assure you that you're not stopping a DLT attempt with that kind of kick. 

If anyone on here believes that they can, then they clearly don't know more about that than I do.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> No. They still do. And ironically can include massive steroid pumpers.



Well in that case there's nothing you can really do. Anything done physically to a person like that could kill them, much less a choke.



Drose427 said:


> A downward elbow strike or good old rabbit punch stop my grappling friends dang near every time, usually before I really need to even start sprawling.



An elbow strike and a rabbit punch is the same as performing a front stomping kick while someone is trying to tackle or DLT you?



> if the guys already on his back (in the way from your clip) hes not taking anyone down, nor was that implied in the clip, so idk where youre drawing that conclusion from



Yeah, you misread what I wrote.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Krav Maga and other street-based martial arts don't advocate punching and kicking a downed target on the neck or head "if necessary"?
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're simply arguing semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> And armbar isn't going to kill anyone. A stomping kick to the throat definitely could.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> The argument was that a choke is some super dangerous act that can kill someone in a matter of seconds. I was simply correcting that faulty logic. Especially since it was coming from people who are perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground.



Generally? no.

Go to any Street SD based seminar (be it for leos, women sd, or krav) and theyre gonna tell you once hes downed or incapacitated, you leave.

You try to grab me, I throw you, while youre sprawling in pain. I leave, find help, or both.

I hit you, you go down, I take the chance to leave.

You're average Street SD instructor isnt telling anyone to sit and beat on someone "if necessary" because frankly, in SD thats idiotic.

1.. Cops show up now Im the aggressor getting tased

2. Oh look, its billy the bandits brother or friends, now Im getting killed.

3. its just elongating the situation, which is the exact opposite goal of SD 101.


Again, nobody advocates a stomp to the throat for SD.

If you think Combatitves and SD are simply semantics, you're naive. By you're logic we should just be sending our troops to womens SD classes and save millions!

obviously I meant "wouldnt" and it was a typo, but comprehension isnt one of youre strong points I guess.

Nobody said a choke could kill in a matter of seconds, but it isnt some super safe method that makes it difficult to cause any serious harm. But hey whatever makes BJJ sound better right?

andddd one more time for good measure, nobody here has advocated striking or stomping an opponent who is already down. Actually several people in this thread have said quite the opposite. Once again, you're making up ideas when you have little actual experience.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Speaking as a person who has quite a bit experience stopping takedowns, I can assure you that you're not stopping a DLT attempt with that kind of kick.
> 
> If anyone on here believes that they can, then they clearly don't know more about that than I do.



Again, the clip with that kick had nothing to do with a DLT XD 

The attacker was already on his back

You''re making up scenarios here.

You can shutdown a guys shot for a DLT pretty dang well with strikes, but nobody (other than you of course) has endorsed doing so with a kick.


----------



## PhotonGuy

K-man said:


> Um. No, just no! You can't go around killing bullies because they deserve it.


In some cases you can. If you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm you can use deadly force.



K-man said:


> I think you need to look at exactly what constitutes bullying. In the most extreme case it probably is present in domestic violence and yes, occasionally the victim has killed the perpetrator.
> 
> In Australia we have just got rid of the defence of provocation where the bully has killed his victim because allegedly the victim provoced the bully. In effect that is what you are advocating in reverse.



No Im not. Im not saying a would be victim should keep beating on the bully if the bully is no longer a threat but they shouldn't get in trouble for using necessary force to stop the threat.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Again, the clip with that kick had nothing to do with a DLT XD
> 
> The attacker was already on his back
> 
> You''re making up scenarios here.



I'm talking about his vid ace;








> You can shutdown a guys shot for a DLT pretty dang well with strikes, but nobody (other than you of course) has endorsed doing so with a kick.



See above.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> No not ANY level of force but an appropriate level to stop the threat your correct.


Well obviously I can't shoot a woman for slapping me but if a grown man in any way gets physical with me I shouldn't get in trouble for using my bare hands to stop him.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Id break out the Taser



Those don't always work and they're illegal in some places.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> then Im in my bed since thats just about the only time Im unarmed. And in that case IM not detaining anyone



The bleeding heart liberals would coin you a coward for always having to be armed. Not that I would agree with them but that would be their take on it.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Well obviously I can't shoot a woman for slapping me but if a grown man in any way gets physical with me I shouldn't get in trouble for using my bare hands to stop him.


Depends on what you do with your hands.  If a guy walks up slaps you and walks away you cant do anything other then report it and file charges


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Those don't always work and they're illegal in some places.


OK


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Well in that case there's nothing you can really do. Anything done physically to a person like that could kill them, much less a choke.



Correct. But in the eyes of the law you can still be the bad guy.

I agree with you that hitting is a much more uncontrolled method of stopping someone than choking.

And after a while,once you cut out anything that is potentially lethal you are essentially left with harsh words pretty much.

And another reason I don't like compliant training. Because it gets used as the base for effective self defence. What that does is present an unrealistic idea of what will work based mostly on industry trainers trying to scam a buck.

So when you wind up in court for choking someone. You then have to climb this mountain explaining why you didn't just catch their punch out of mid air and wrist lock them like you have been trained.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> The bleeding heart liberals would coin you a coward for always having to be armed. Not that I would agree with them but that would be their take on it.


And?


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Depends on what you do with your hands.  If a guy walks up slaps you and walks away you cant do anything other then report it and file charges



How about if I was to block the slap and counter?


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> And?



Just pointing that out. Its good to be able to say something to counter their accusation.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> How about if I was to block the slap and counter?


Then in this state you both could be charged with assault


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Generally? no.
> 
> Go to any Street SD based seminar (be it for leos, women sd, or krav) and theyre gonna tell you once hes downed or incapacitated, you leave.
> 
> You try to grab me, I throw you, while youre sprawling in pain. I leave, find help, or both.
> 
> I hit you, you go down, I take the chance to leave.
> 
> You're average Street SD instructor isnt telling anyone to sit and beat on someone "if necessary" because frankly, in SD thats idiotic.
> 
> 1.. Cops show up now Im the aggressor getting tased
> 
> 2. Oh look, its billy the bandits brother or friends, now Im getting killed.
> 
> 3. its just elongating the situation, which is the exact opposite goal of SD 101.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody advocates a stomp to the throat for SD.
> 
> If you think Combatitves and SD are simply semantics, you're naive. By you're logic we should just be sending our troops to womens SD classes and save millions!



So again, are you saying that arts like Krav *never* teach students to stomp or punch a downed opponent? In every Krav vid i've posted, they're hitting downed targets.



> Nobody said a choke could kill in a matter of seconds..



Again, you did;



> Drose427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because in a controlled, safe environment people let go, and people _usually_ tap long before starting to lose consciousness. Or the ref ends it and they get broken up.
> 
> All it takes is to hold on for a few extra seconds and damage absolutely starts to set in.
Click to expand...


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Id break out the Taser


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


>


and? nothing is 100%


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> You keep saying "punching or kicking someones face into the concrete" but nobody else in this thread has endorsed, or stood by doing so for SD, not sure why you're making an argument based on a point nobody has made. XD
> 
> In combatives, yes it would be normal to "stomp into the concrete"
> 
> On the same coin, nobodys letting go of an armbar in combatives either XD
> 
> Even when K-man explained, you would be repeatedly beating them over and over, because theyd no longer be a threat long before that, you keep clinging to that argument.
> 
> You're trying to look for an argument, thats apples to oranges and nobody has made, using a youtube video so you can brag about BJJ.
> 
> if you're gonna contribute and ask for explanations pay attention to the ones given



It gets done from a sideways sidle. You teach ground stomps you then stress that a street fight is super serious life or death. You create a non sport,rules,ref,mentality.

Suggesting that you are not setting up over reactions is dishonest


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> and? nothing is 100%



Ok. So then we are back to the validity of unarmed techniques and can move away from the gun ego stroking?


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about his vid ace;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above.



Well then I apologize for that post

But still,

If you catch them pre shot like that and connect HARD, that will absolutely stop them.

We've seen fighters in MMa get hit with strikes like that while going for a leg or clinch and ger dropped. What do you think will happen to the average joe?

I do it to many of my BJJ friends who dont set up takedowns properly.

Mid shot, eh maybe. Really only if you're lucky enough to hit the button on the chin and put them on their back. Usually at that point its hard to extend properly and makes it significantly less effective.




Hanzou said:


> So again, are you saying that arts like Krav *never* teach students to stomp or punch a downed opponent? In every Krav vid i've posted, they're hitting downed targets.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you did;




No thats not what I said. Heck one of those videos very blatantly is focusing on  combative......

Mild Brain damage can begin to seep in in as little as one minute without blood flow to bring it oxygen, I've seen very few people start to pass out in bragged 3-5 secs. Its nearly always closer to 20-25, even at the gracie school I go to every now and then.

not to mention theyre worse for anemics.

Also note how I said "extra seconds" because you know, not letting go after they already passed out was what I was talking about, not overall choke time.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Depends on what you do with your hands.  If a guy walks up slaps you and walks away you cant do anything other then report it and file charges



Luckily in this instance I am a vile thug of a man. Who might even give him a slap back.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> It gets done from a sideways sidle. You teach ground stomps you then stress that a street fight is super serious life or death. You create a non sport,rules,ref,mentality.
> 
> Suggesting that you are not setting up over reactions is dishonest



Yes we do,

But we also have all said in this thread and teach to walk away the second they can once their incapacitated, dont stay and pound on them when theyre down.

BJJ SD instructors stress the same thing, but they dont tell their guys to keep choking once hes out do they?

No,

Its 2 sides of the exact same teaching, nobodys being dishonest in any sense here


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Ok. So then we are back to the validity of unarmed techniques and can move away from the gun ego stroking?


LOL a taser is far more effective then any unarmed techniques. Most of the time all I need to do is take it out and the person gives up.  THey want no part of taking the ride


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Luckily in this instance I am a vile thug of a man. Who might even give him a slap back.


And you would be charged with assault so........


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> LOL a taser is far more effective then any unarmed techniques. Most of the time all I need to do is take it out and the person gives up.  THey want no part of taking the ride



Yeah I saw it being effective in that video. And the results of complacency in its use.

It is better to have one and not need it than need it and not have one.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> And you would be charged with assault so........



Not here. At most affray. And even then in a practical sense no one would bother.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Yeah I saw it being effective in that video. And the results of complacency in its use.
> 
> It is better to have one and not need it than need it and not have one.


We can play the Youtube game all day for every clip of it not working Ill post 2 showing it does.  However since I actually have one and use one Im speaking from real life experience not your fantasy land youtube evidence


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Not here. At most affray. And even then in a practical sense no one would bother.


So That makes is ok?


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> Yes we do,
> 
> But we also have all said in this thread and teach to walk away the second they can once their incapacitated, dont stay and pound on them when theyre down.
> 
> BJJ SD instructors stress the same thing, but they dont tell their guys to keep choking once hes out do they?
> 
> No,
> 
> Its 2 sides of the exact same teaching, nobodys being dishonest in any sense here



The ground is not incapacitated. A head stomp is less able to be controlled than a choke. I can hold a guy in a choke without applying pressure. Say if they are on the ground but not incapacitated.

I cannot hold a guy in a head stomp.

But of course super serious street fight you cant hold a guy because flying monkeys apear and start kicking you in the head.

As I said it is the technique combined with the methodology.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> We can play the Youtube game all day for every clip of it not working Ill post 2 showing it does.  However since I actually have one and use one Im speaking from real life experience not your fantasy land youtube evidence



No I have a post from someone who says that it is not 100% effective.

Ballen I think his name was.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Then in this state you both could be charged with assault



But why? The counter was done in self defense. He took the first punch, or in this case slap.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> No I have a post from someone who says that it is not 100% effective.
> 
> Ballen I think his name was.


correct nor are chokes, arm bars, punches, kicks, guns, knives, OCspray.........So again your point?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> So That makes is ok?



Yes. That is why it is mostly ignored. Or factored in to the law.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> The ground is not incapacitated. A head stomp is less able to be controlled than a choke. I can hold a guy in a choke without applying pressure. Say if they are on the ground but not incapacitated.
> 
> I cannot hold a guy in a head stomp.
> 
> But of course super serious street fight you cant hold a guy because flying monkeys apear and start kicking you in the head.
> 
> As I said it is the technique combined with the methodology.



No the ground is not.

But if If knocked, kick, punched, elbowed, thrown, etc. THe guy to the point that he is down, he is most likely incapacitated.

As for your monkey point, I never said you couldnt hold a guy but whatever

Yes it is tech combined with methodology.

But if you think any styles (other than combat krav) methodology is to sit and pound a guy whos already  not a real threat, you havent been paying attention


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> correct nor are chokes, arm bars, punches, kicks, guns, knives, OCspray.........So again your point?



That unarmed defence still has relevance. And your tazer comment is nice but not a solve all.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> But why? The counter was done in self defense. He took the first punch, or in this case slap.


because it would still be an assault.  In this state your 1st duty is to leave not defend yourself.  Every state is different this one both of you could be charged


----------



## PhotonGuy

drop bear said:


> Yes. That is why it is mostly ignored. Or factored in to the law.



If only the USA would become more like Australia in the use of force.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> because it would still be an assault.  In this state your 1st duty is to leave not defend yourself.  Every state is different this one both of you could be charged


You must be in a very liberal state. Anyway, things need to change in regard to that, wherever you're at.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> No the ground is not.
> 
> But if If knocked, kick, punched, elbowed, thrown, etc. THe guy to the point that he is down, he is most likely incapacitated.
> 
> As for your monkey point, I never said you couldnt hold a guy but whatever
> 
> Yes it is tech combined with methodology.
> 
> But if you think any styles (other than combat krav) methodology is to sit and pound a guy whos already  not a real threat, you havent been paying attention



The never go to ground is a classical street sport distinction. 

The solution seems to be head stomping to a fairly major extent.

For something that is never used it sure gets demonstrated a lot.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> That unarmed defence still has relevance. And your tazer comment is nice but not a solve all.


 The question was asked as a Law Enforcement officer how would you subdue a combative suspect the potions were choke or strikes.  The answer is neither as a Law Enforcement officer Id use a taser. 

2ndly the taser is just as relevant as unarmed defense if not more relevant since used properly can be a great equalizer.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> You must be in a very liberal state. Anyway, things need to change in regard to that, wherever you're at.


Why?  You dont want to be charged stay out of fights its really not hard.  Ive managed to do it for decades other then at work


----------



## drop bear

PhotonGuy said:


> If only the USA would become more like Australia in the use of force.



I say the same thing.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Why?  You dont want to be charged stay out of fights its really not hard.  Ive managed to do it for decades other then at work



Depends where you're at. If you're in college fights are almost guaranteed. As I said earlier, college is a zoo.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> The question was asked as a Law Enforcement officer how would you subdue a combative suspect the potions were choke or strikes.  The answer is neither as a Law Enforcement officer Id use a taser.
> 
> 2ndly the taser is just as relevant as unarmed defense if not more relevant since used properly can be a great equalizer.



And that is what is wrong with law enforcement. And why police can't put an armlock on a guy anymore.

Seriously I saw two cops do it the other night. And the guy wasn't even resisting much.


----------



## drop bear

PhotonGuy said:


> Depends where you're at. If you're in college fights are almost guaranteed. As I said earlier, college is a zoo.



Which I understand. There is sometimes a level of badness needed to keep the wolves off you.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> And that is what is wrong with law enforcement. And why police can't put an armlock on a guy anymore.


I had no idea you were an expert on law enforcement tactics in the US please tell me more


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Which I understand. There is sometimes a level of badness needed to keep the wolves off you.


Oh boy I feel a Murph story coming on


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> The never go to ground is a classical street sport distinction.
> 
> The solution seems to be head stomping to a fairly major extent.
> 
> For something that is never used it sure gets demonstrated a lot.




Why in the world would a striking style ( or any non-newaza style for that matter) NOT teach staying on your feet?

Unless you have BJJ or submission training its suicide..... its got nothing to do with Street sport.



























Where exactly are you thinking its demonstrated a lot? XD


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> I had no idea you were an expert on law enforcement tactics in the US please tell me more



I just call it like I see it. And yes too much tool reliance. Not enough common sense.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> In this state your 1st duty is to leave not defend yourself.  Every state is different this one both of you could be charged



In addition to what I said before I would like to say this. Duty to retreat is ridiculous. If Im in a public place I have as much as a right to be there as he does and I shouldn't have to leave. It is just outright absurd that I should be required to run.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> So again, are you saying that arts like Krav *never* teach students to stomp or punch a downed opponent? In every Krav vid i've posted, they're hitting downed targets.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you did;



To further add to this point, 


Drose427 said:


> Well then I apologize for that post
> 
> But still,
> 
> If you catch them pre shot like that and connect HARD, that will absolutely stop them.
> 
> We've seen fighters in MMa get hit with strikes like that while going for a leg or clinch and ger dropped. What do you think will happen to the average joe?
> 
> I do it to many of my BJJ friends who dont set up takedowns properly.
> 
> Mid shot, eh maybe. Really only if you're lucky enough to hit the button on the chin and put them on their back. Usually at that point its hard to extend properly and makes it significantly less effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thats not what I said. Heck one of those videos very blatantly is focusing on  combative......
> 
> Mild Brain damage can begin to seep in in as little as one minute without blood flow to bring it oxygen, I've seen very few people start to pass out in bragged 3-5 secs. Its nearly always closer to 20-25, even at the gracie school I go to every now and then.
> 
> not to mention theyre worse for anemics.
> 
> Also note how I said "extra seconds" because you know, not letting go after they already passed out was what I was talking about, not overall choke time.



Heres one vide of various chokes in Street Fights.

In a couple parts ( the headlock and rear naked specifically) the guys get close to the 20 sec mark without passing out, they start to tap, but arent out. Since theyre tapping, theyre obviously having a hard time breathing. If theyve gone that long without much air already, its pretty dang plausible theyll be close to that danger zone of brain damage before they complete go limp. Awake or not thats lack of oxygen


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> Why in the world would a striking style ( or any non-newaza style for that matter) NOT teach staying on your feet?
> 
> Unless you have BJJ or submission training its suicide..... its got nothing to do with Street sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly are you thinking its demonstrated a lot? XD



I don't have the credit for bulk YouTube at the moment. I just assume you found videos without head stomps.

But then from an image on the first on we are going to ground. I assume the relevant ground skill is taught and that wasn't a technically terrible knee ride?


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> I just call it like I see it. And yes too much tool reliance. Not enough common sense.


So tell please tell me what training in use of force policy and 4th amendment and supreme court case law used by US Law Enforcement and what training with tools like the taser you have to make that brilliant opinion


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> In addition to what I said before I would like to say this. Duty to retreat is ridiculous. If Im in a public place I have as much as a right to be there as he does and I shouldn't have to leave. It is just outright absurd that I should be required to run.


It's outright absurd you would rather stay and fight it out because your pride got hurt. Me I'm taking my kids, telling the upset dude I'm sorry and I'm leaving.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> It's outright absurd you would rather stay and fight it out because your pride got hurt. Me I'm taking my kids, telling the upset dude I'm sorry and I'm leaving.



If its a public place I have as much of a right to be there as he does. Depending on the situation for some reason(s) I might want to stay. Im not saying I necessarily would always stay, but I shouldn't be required to run.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> I don't have the credit for bulk YouTube at the moment. I just assume you found videos without head stomps.
> 
> But then from an image on the first on we are going to ground. I assume the relevant ground skill is taught and that wasn't a technically terrible knee ride?


 
The first  was police combatitves, which has some degree of wrestling typically.

But my point,

the ground and pound until attacker is dead

isnt taught in the civilian world anywhere near as much as people assume.

If I've already hurt you enough to put you on your bum, you're no longer a serious threat (unless you go for a weapon, get back up to attack again, etc)

I can walk/run away, call for help, etc.

No one teaching proper SD is having their guys extend the incident by staying on a guy who isnt a threat anymore


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> So tell please tell me what training in use of force policy and 4th amendment and supreme court case law used by US Law Enforcement and what training with tools like the taser you have to make that brilliant opinion



None. I make do without the tazer,cuffs,gun and Legal protections.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Well then I apologize for that post
> 
> But still,
> 
> If you catch them pre shot like that and connect HARD, that will absolutely stop them.



Except the chances of you ever catching someone like that pre-shot is slim to none. ESPECIALLY if the person pulling the shot on you knows what they're doing.

Check out some wrestling tutorials on shooting for the legs, or tutorials on football tackling and then compare it to that laughable garbage in that Krav video. No one shoots or tackles like that except for compliant partners in bad martial arts videos.



> We've seen fighters in MMa get hit with strikes like that while going for a leg or clinch and ger dropped. What do you think will happen to the average joe?



Yes, once in a blue moon. It also helps that the person doing the striking also has solid takedown defense which allows them to stay up while the takedown is taking place. If the only thing you're learning is how to strike out of a takedown without actually learning takedown defense, you're wasting your time.



> I do it to many of my BJJ friends who dont set up takedowns properly.



That isn't surprising considering that you have years of wrestling experience, which actually makes you a better takedown artist than they are. You can't compare yourself to a typical martial artist who has zero wrestling experience.




> No thats not what I said. Heck one of those videos very blatantly is focusing on  combative......
> 
> Mild Brain damage can begin to seep in in as little as one minute without blood flow to bring it oxygen, I've seen very few people start to pass out in bragged 3-5 secs. Its nearly always closer to 20-25, even at the gracie school I go to every now and then.



It's nearly always closer to 20-25 seconds? Are you serious?






In this vid here, Jones chokes out Machida in a little over10 seconds. Machida is a professional martial artist in prime condition.



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


In this vid, the boy goes limp in about 8 seconds after the choke is applied at around the 23 second mark.

I don't know what Gracie school you're attending, but someone isn't doing chokes properly.



> Also note how I said "extra seconds" because you know, not letting go after they already passed out was what I was talking about, not overall choke time.



Yeah, and like I said, letting go a few seconds after someone passes out isn't going to cause permanent damage. Not letting go after 30 seconds to a minute after passing out is a different situation altogether.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Except the chances of you ever catching someone like that pre-shot is slim to none. ESPECIALLY if the person pulling the shot on you knows what they're doing.
> 
> Check out some wrestling tutorials on shooting for the legs, or tutorials on football tackling and then compare it to that laughable garbage in that Krav video. No one shoots or tackles like that except for compliant partners in bad martial arts videos.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, once in a blue moon. It also helps that the person doing the striking also has solid takedown defense which allows them to stay up while the takedown is taking place. If the only thing you're learning is how to strike out of a takedown without actually learning takedown defense, you're wasting your time.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't surprising considering that you have years of wrestling experience, which actually makes you a better takedown artist than they are. You can't compare yourself to a typical martial artist who has zero wrestling experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nearly always closer to 20-25 seconds? Are you serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this vid here, Jones chokes out Machida in a little over10 seconds. Machida is a professional martial artist in prime condition.
> 
> 
> 
> Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
> 
> 
> In this vid, the boy goes limp in about 8 seconds after the choke is applied at around the 23 second mark.
> 
> I don't know what Gracie school you're attending, but someone isn't doing chokes properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and like I said, letting go a few seconds after someone passes out isn't going to cause permanent damage. Not letting go after 30 seconds to a minute after passing out is a different situation altogether.



Its actually a heck of a lot simpler than you think considering people are trained to throw a push kick the second an attacker moves in shot or not....You arent magically out of the way because youre shooting (unless youre going outside) your levels just changed.

Again, you didnt read what I said, I conceded if theyre already inside and  started the takedown you cant kick.

And my grappling experience means little when Im not catching, or sprawling. Im just stuff them with strikes the second they try to come inside until theyre close enough that I cant.

and I posted a compilation video where several people didnt even start to tap for 15-20 seconds, nevermind going limp

The magical 5-10 seconds before passing out doesnt apply to everyone, I've seen wrestlers stay in a perfect headlock being choked out for half a period and still not pass out.

And one more time, not everyone passes out at that 5-10 second mark, thats your disconnect here.  Even with grapplers who have proper technique, peoples bodies are different.

If it takes a guy 45 seconds to go limp and few extra secs before you let go youre dangerously close to the minute mark of brain cell death ( according to U of M's transplant center) TransWeb.org

The 4 minute mark we all know and love is the code red danger zone of permanent severe damage, damage can start well before that


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> If you can deescalate and don't even try, then you're the problem, and I hope you get to spend a few years in an 8'x10' cell with a hairy backed knuckle dragging mouth breather named Bubba who wants to be your special friend.
> 
> There is never a valid reason to resort to force against someone who is not an immediate threat. Never.


Never is a pretty absolute statement.  But I guess it depends on how you define "immediate threat."


PhotonGuy said:


> Depends where you're at. If you're in college fights are almost guaranteed. As I said earlier, college is a zoo.


i  didn't even get into an argument in college.   What the hell are you doing at college that you're getting into fights all the time?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So when you start punching or kicking someone's face into the concrete, do you hold back, or do you go full force?


Well for a start you have provided a scenario where we are on concrete but you haven't given the circumstances. So, is the attacker armed, does he have accomplices, do I actually have to fight to get away or can I simply leave? Remember, this thread is about self defence. 

But I will ask you, in any competition fight like the recent Mayweather/Pacquiao bout, if you asked them do they hold back or go full force what do you think they might say? That is in a competitive environment. Don't you think you fight go full force if your life is on the line?



Hanzou said:


> As I stated earlier, in competition, in class, and in the street, you can tell when a person goes limp from a choke. When Ryan Hall choked out riff raff in front of a restaurant, he released him immediately, because he knew he had gone limp from the choke. Unlike most people being trained to stomp someone's face into the concrete until they're unconsciousness, Bjj and MMA exponents have actually choked out resisting opponents, and no the amount of force necessary.


I have yet to see anywhere, and I have quite a library of very violent DVDs, where anyone is training people to stomp on anyone once the danger is past and I can't recall even seeing someone stomping more than once. Like many other areas where you have very little knowledge, self defence is not your strongpoint, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing competition BJJ and MMA into the discussion.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Steve said:


> i  didn't even get into an argument in college.   What the hell are you doing at college that you're getting into fights all the time?



I did nothing to get into fights in college except to be there. As for college being a zoo, this is why. College is full of guys in their late teens/early twenties who experience all this new found freedom and will sometimes, actually quite often, go quite wild. Also there is often booze and drugs at college. All too often, being turned loose the way they are, some people don't handle it responsibly and bullying takes on a whole new level, more so than in high school or before.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Nice straw man. I said that I advocate a gentle choke over continuously bashing someone's face into the ground in order to subdue them. If you enough time to start punching a downed target in the face, you have enough time for a choke.


Depends on context doesn't it? So in a dirty back alley where you have no idea of who you are fighting, whether they are armed or not and whether they have friends to come to his assistance, you are advocating a gentle choke. Mate, that *is* hilarious!



Hanzou said:


> Multiple armed attackers? You're in a lot of trouble, regardless what your training is.


Yes you are, but that is why we continually train for the worst case scenario. At least I teach people to have a chance of escape. Your gentle choke is irrelevant.



Hanzou said:


> Bludgeoning someone in the head over and over, and "striking until they are no longer a threat" is beating someone until they're incapacitated in both cases. I'm still not seeing how beating someone unconscious is more safe than a choke.


No one but you is suggesting otherwise. Any form of fighting, outside of training or the ring, has consequences. If my life is threatened I will do whatever is necessary even if I end up in court. I teach people to use proportional force, not excessive force so that is unlikely.



Hanzou said:


> It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.


Firstly, I didn't recognise it was a takedown being attempted and secondly it wasn't a stomping kick. What is hilarious is that you even thought it was.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Krav Maga and other street-based martial arts don't advocate punching and kicking a downed target on the neck or head "if necessary"?


No one has has suggested otherwise, the operative word being 'necessary'.




Hanzou said:


> Then you're simply arguing semantics.


And you are not?




Hanzou said:


> And an armbar isn't going to kill anyone. A stomping kick to the throat definitely could.


The relevance is? In a self defence situation you often need to escape from the location you are in. A disabling kick to the throat may help you accomplish that, an armbar will not.



Hanzou said:


> The argument was that a choke is some super dangerous act that can kill someone in a matter of seconds. I was simply correcting that faulty logic. Especially since it was coming from people who are perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground.


Please show where anyone was stating that a choke will kill in seconds. There was no faulty logic because no one except you has brought up the idea. As for it coming from people _"perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground"_, well just name one.


----------



## Drose427

K-man said:


> No one has has suggested otherwise, the operative word being 'necessary'.
> 
> 
> And you are not?
> 
> 
> The relevance is? In a self defence situation you often need to escape from the location you are in. A disabling kick to the throat may help you accomplish that, an armbar will not.
> 
> Please show where anyone was stating that a choke will kill in seconds. There was no faulty logic because no one except you has brought up the idea. As for it coming from people _"perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground"_, well just name one.



He was referring to where I said a "few extra seconds" in another post

And assuming everyone passes out at around 10 seconds.. When in a clip I posted, and in the article here How Do Rear Naked Chokes Work University of Calgary Study Explains - Bloody Elbow there were people who didnt even begin to tap at or until the 25 second mark. Waiting till they go limp, and a few seconds after that, is dangerously close to hitting that one minute mark where damage starts occuring


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> In some cases you can. If you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm you can use deadly force.


Yes, but that is not what bullying is normally about. A bully is one who picks on a person who for one reason or other can't stand up for themselves so the bully comes back time after time. That is why the advice you often see is to stand up to the bully and the bully will stop. It may be good advice in some cases but is not likely if you are at a physical disadvantage. A bully normally doesn't pick on people bigger or stronger than themselves. Also, a big proportion of bullying is verbal.  The likelihood of a bully killing the victim, outside of domestic violence, is probably low so to suggest that you would use deadly force against a bully is not realistic.


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> How would it be found to be lethal force if the assailant isn't harmed in any way from it? Further, how would bludgeoning someone with your hands and feet while they're on the ground be a more favorable, or humane option than a choke that can have the assailant unconscious and unhurt in a matter of seconds?


Lethal force is a specific definition.  It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  Multiple jurisdictions have held that choke holds are lethal force.  You seem intent on ignoring this, and locked into your argument that "chokes are gentle."  Dude -- chokes are chokes.  You're depriving someone of something that is essential for life, whether breath or blood circulation.  IF you release it early enough, you may not kill someone.  Slip a couple of seconds, and maybe they wake up -- but they've suffered brain damage.  I think most reasonable people would identify brain damage as a serious bodily harm...  If I shoot someone in the foot, it probably won't kill them -- but the gun remains lethal force.


> You wouldn't need to. From that position you can pin him with your legs and his trapped arm, and make sure he's no longer a threat. However, a choke is still an option, if you deem it necessary.


Or a stomp to the skull -- if you can articulate it.  Gee...  seems an awful lot like what I already said.


> So tell me Mr. LE officer, if given the choice, how would you finish off an assailant that had to be subdued? Would you choke him into unconsciousness, or would you *beat* him into unconsciousness?


Bluntly -- I'm going to try to avoid either.  However, if I must use force, I will balance the force I use against the likelihood of injury vs. obtaining control.  It's not a black & white bright line equation.  But, since my agency and most in my area, classify chokes as lethal force... if I can't articulate justification to support lethal force, I'm not choking them.  Honestly, I like the Taser (C).  If all goes tolerably well, it results in control of the subject with minimal risk of injury to either of us.  If I go hands on, it's typically a combination of tactics including various locks (but not chokes) and strikes.


----------



## K-man

Drose427 said:


> Mild Brain damage can begin to seep in in as little as one minute without blood flow to bring it oxygen, I've seen very few people start to pass out in bragged 3-5 secs. Its nearly always closer to 20-25, even at the gracie school I go to every now and then.
> 
> Also note how I said "extra seconds" because you know, not letting go after they already passed out was what I was talking about, not overall choke time.


I've taken one of my guys out in about 3 seconds. I wasn't expecting it and he didn't tap. I've not seen anyone last more than about 10 seconds from when the choke is applied.

As to the time for the brain cells to be damaged, well again *Dirty Dog *might be the best to refer to but I would suggest that under most conditions three to five minutes would be more the time frame. I'm not saying damage couldn't happen sooner, just unlikely.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Yeah I saw it being effective in that video. And the results of complacency in its use.
> 
> It is better to have one and not need it than need it and not have one.


Absolutely -- the Taser can fail.  When I teach the Taser Operator Course -- I stress that.  I stress the need to have a plan for if the Taser fails.  That doesn't mean that it's not a very reliable force option with less chance of serious injury to either the subject or the officer.  (Yeah, folks, cops are NOT required to get hurt.  In fact, my chief kind of prefers that we don't.  Workman's comp is a lot of paper work for an on duty injury...)


----------



## Dirty Dog

K-man said:


> I've taken one of my guys out in about 3 seconds. I wasn't expecting it and he didn't tap. I've not seen anyone last more than about 10 seconds from when the choke is applied.
> 
> As to the time for the brain cells to be damaged, well again *Dirty Dog *might be the best to refer to but I would suggest that under most conditions three to five minutes would be more the time frame. I'm not saying damage couldn't happen sooner, just unlikely.



As a matter of fact, I put a guy to sleep last night. Methamphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy and a bad attitude. He lasted about 15 seconds before he went out, but the circumstances of the takedown forced me to apply a less than perfect hold. And I generally release before they're actually completely out. They're wobbly enough that we can get them restrained, and that's what matters.

The possibility of brain injury starts immediately. The longer the hold is maintained, the higher the chances of brain injury.
It's possible that a blood choke can dislodge a chunk of plaque, and the person will have a stroke.
It's also possible (though again, it is unlikely) for the hold to cause a tear in the artery, causing the tunica intima to separate from the media. Blood flowing through this tear causes the intima to continue tearing loose from the media. This is a dissection. As the false passage gets bigger, the true passage gets smaller, which obviously is not a healthy thing. Dissections are a surgical emergency.
The more common brain injury from chokes are (as is likely obvious) caused by the simple fact that the hold restricts or halts the flow of blood to the brain. The lack of blood flow leads to tissue ischemia (inadequate oxygen levels), which is what leads to unconsciousness. The thing is, tissue ischemia is also _*exactly*_ the same thing that happens during a (non-hemorrhagic) stroke. Exactly how long this will take is a crap shoot. If the persons perfusion is marginal to begin with (as can happen with various pulmonary or vascular diseases, for example) then tissue death will occur much sooner.
Within a couple of minutes, it is almost certain that there will be at least some degree of brain damage. How extensive and how significant is unpredictable. They might loose their ability to speak, or they might loose all memory of March 3rd, 1998 between noon and 12:04PM. By the time you reach the 3-5 minute time frame, the chances of having significant brain injury are very high, and death becomes a real possibility.

It's not a statistically valid sample, but in my own experience, I see more people brought to the ER because of strikes than from chokes. It's also true that strikes are more commonly used than chokes, so I cannot say what percentage of fights involving each will result in a trip to the ER. However, the notion that you can (as one poster claimed) apply a "gentle" choke hold is, in a word, idiotic.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Not here. At most affray. And even then in a practical sense no one would bother.


Not really. The reason it is affray, not assault is that assault can be verbal and whether it is truly assault depends on distance. It used to be 'assault and battery', now it would be 'assault causing actual bodily harm'. That's good for a two year holiday sharing the shower with your new best friend. Affray is a different offence for as little as a minor scuffle but ranging to all out violence. Penalty in NSW is up to 20 years for affray.


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> If only the USA would become more like Australia in the use of force.


Except the basic premise is not right. Our law is much the same as yours. What *Drop Bear* is referring to is what is called a 'consensual violence'. That is where two guys agree to fight. As long as no one is injured and no property damage occurs the protagonists might not be charged, at the discretion of the police. However, to the best of my knowledge it is not the same as the Washington state law that the police stood back and allowed a fight to occur. That wouldn't happen here and it wouldn't happen in the rest of the U.S. if my understanding is correct.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> The never go to ground is a classical street sport distinction.
> 
> The solution seems to be head stomping to a fairly major extent.
> 
> For something that is never used it sure gets demonstrated a lot.


You have no idea of self defence. A head stomp could only occur if you are in position to head stomp. As to how many times you see it in practice? Well for a start I would say not often. Why? Well not many styles teach it and the great majority of people learning it are not going to be involved in street fights in the first place. I also teach other potentially lethal techniques and you won't see many of them being used either. Why? Well we teach that you cannot use disproportionate force. Using a potentially lethal technique out of context will land you in jail.


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> Depends where you're at. If you're in college fights are almost guaranteed. As I said earlier, college is a zoo.


You keep repeating this but when I was in college, and here I am talking a residential college in a university, I didn't see even one fight in three years. I never even heard of one.


----------



## K-man

Drose427 said:


> Why in the world would a striking style ( or any non-newaza style for that matter) NOT teach staying on your feet?
> 
> Unless you have BJJ or submission training its suicide..... its got nothing to do with Street sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly are you thinking its demonstrated a lot? XD


I agree with the point you are making but can I call BS on this video? It contains one move in particular that will never work as shown. I tell everyone that if anyone ever shows it as a viable SD move, leave immediately. I don't believe any of the moves as demonstrated will work against a stronger non compliant attacker.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> I just call it like I see it. And yes too much tool reliance. Not enough common sense.


The 'common sense' training you are talking about caused more injury and compensation claims in the Police Academy than violence on the street. Hence the training now is move back and use your 'tools'. Makes for far less injury to police, particularly now with the ice epidemic.


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> In addition to what I said before I would like to say this. Duty to retreat is ridiculous. If Im in a public place I have as much as a right to be there as he does and I shouldn't have to leave. It is just outright absurd that I should be required to run.


No, it is common sense. It is easy to be dead right, like stepping onto a pedestrian crossing in front of a speeding truck. You have very 'right' to cross the road. It doesn't mean it was the sensible thing to do.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> I don't have the credit for bulk YouTube at the moment. I just assume you found videos without head stomps.
> 
> But then from an image on the first on we are going to ground. I assume the relevant ground skill is taught and that wasn't a technically terrible knee ride?


You really are confused! The first video was of police arrest tactics. Nothing to do with self defence.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> He was referring to where I said a "few extra seconds" in another post
> 
> And assuming everyone passes out at around 10 seconds.. When in a clip I posted, and in the article here How Do Rear Naked Chokes Work University of Calgary Study Explains - Bloody Elbow there were people who didnt even begin to tap at or until the 25 second mark. Waiting till they go limp, and a few seconds after that, is dangerously close to hitting that one minute mark where damage starts occuring



Uh if you read your own article, it says that the mean time for being choked out was 9.5 seconds. Yeah, there were four guys in the study who didn't pass out until after 20+ seconds, but a medical examination noted that they were in the same condition as those that had been choked out much faster. Their anatomy was simply different than the other participants.

Additionally, the study also said this;



> The researchers conclude by saying something along the lines of "Within the confines of this study, this choke hold is a pretty safe way for police to put people to sleep or get them subdued.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Well for a start you have provided a scenario where we are on concrete but you haven't given the circumstances. So, is the attacker armed, does he have accomplices, do I actually have to fight to get away or can I simply leave? Remember, this thread is about self defence.



Why would I need to give a scenario? I'm simply comparing the inherent danger of finishing someone off with a choke, versus finishing them off with blows to their head.



> But I will ask you, in any competition fight like the recent Mayweather/Pacquiao bout, if you asked them do they hold back or go full force what do you think they might say? That is in a competitive environment. Don't you think you fight go full force if your life is on the line?



In the case of two competitors, I would imagine that it would be full force, since their goal is to knock their opponent out as quickly as possible.



> I have yet to see anywhere, and I have quite a library of very violent DVDs, where anyone is training people to stomp on anyone once the danger is past and I can't recall even seeing someone stomping more than once.



But they do train to stomp on them correct? They do train to stomp or punch on them until the "danger has passed" correct? Further, they are trained to stomp or punch the head and other vital areas while the person is down correct?

Please let me know if any of that is an inaccurate portrayal of your training methods.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> As a matter of fact, I put a guy to sleep last night. Methamphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy and a bad attitude. He lasted about 15 seconds before he went out, but the circumstances of the takedown forced me to apply a less than perfect hold. And I generally release before they're actually completely out. They're wobbly enough that we can get them restrained, and that's what matters.
> 
> The possibility of brain injury starts immediately. The longer the hold is maintained, the higher the chances of brain injury.
> It's possible that a blood choke can dislodge a chunk of plaque, and the person will have a stroke.
> It's also possible (though again, it is unlikely) for the hold to cause a tear in the artery, causing the tunica intima to separate from the media. Blood flowing through this tear causes the intima to continue tearing loose from the media. This is a dissection. As the false passage gets bigger, the true passage gets smaller, which obviously is not a healthy thing. Dissections are a surgical emergency.
> The more common brain injury from chokes are (as is likely obvious) caused by the simple fact that the hold restricts or halts the flow of blood to the brain. The lack of blood flow leads to tissue ischemia (inadequate oxygen levels), which is what leads to unconsciousness. The thing is, tissue ischemia is also _*exactly*_ the same thing that happens during a (non-hemorrhagic) stroke. Exactly how long this will take is a crap shoot. If the persons perfusion is marginal to begin with (as can happen with various pulmonary or vascular diseases, for example) then tissue death will occur much sooner.
> Within a couple of minutes, it is almost certain that there will be at least some degree of brain damage. How extensive and how significant is unpredictable. They might loose their ability to speak, or they might loose all memory of March 3rd, 1998 between noon and 12:04PM. By the time you reach the 3-5 minute time frame, the chances of having significant brain injury are very high, and death becomes a real possibility.
> 
> It's not a statistically valid sample, but in my own experience, I see more people brought to the ER because of strikes than from chokes. It's also true that strikes are more commonly used than chokes, so I cannot say what percentage of fights involving each will result in a trip to the ER. However, the notion that you can (as one poster claimed) apply a "gentle" choke hold is, in a word, idiotic.



"Gentle" because there are chokes that are applied where the person they're being applied on doesnt even know they're being choked. It's also gentle because it puts them to sleep with no damage being done to them.

By your own admission above you state that damage doesn't occur on the person being choked until minutes have passed. A trained practicioner isn't going to hold a choke nearly that long when it only takes usually 5-10 seconds to put someone to sleep with a properly applied choke. So I'm not seeing how my statement is "idiotic". We have a method where you can safely put an assailant to sleep that won't harm either party. How is that not gentle compared to punching or stomping someone on the face?


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> Lethal force is a specific definition.  It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  Multiple jurisdictions have held that choke holds are lethal force.  You seem intent on ignoring this, and locked into your argument that "chokes are gentle."  Dude -- chokes are chokes.  You're depriving someone of something that is essential for life, whether breath or blood circulation.  IF you release it early enough, you may not kill someone.  Slip a couple of seconds, and maybe they wake up -- but they've suffered brain damage.  I think most reasonable people would identify brain damage as a serious bodily harm...  If I shoot someone in the foot, it probably won't kill them -- but the gun remains lethal force.



Again, absolute nonsense. There are millions of people around the world learning, applying, and getting chokes place on them. There are people who forget to tap and pass out from the choke. There are schools who purposely tell their students not to tap out so that they can get choked out on purpose and understand their limitations. And yes, people slip a few seconds, it happens.

This practice has gone on for over a century, and I honestly can't think of a single practicioner that has suffered brain damage or death, and if it has occurred the numbers are incredibly small. Your statement above simply does not line up with the facts.



> Or a stomp to the skull -- if you can articulate it.  Gee...  seems an awful lot like what I already said.



So are you saying that a stomp to the skull is as "safe" as a choke or even a dislocation of a joint?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Why would I need to give a scenario? I'm simply comparing the inherent danger of finishing someone off with a choke, versus finishing them off with blows to their head.


Which of course was a red herring with no relevance to the current discussion. In an attempt to make it relevant I asked for context. My mistake.



Hanzou said:


> In the case of two competitors, I would imagine that it would be full force, since their goal is to knock their opponent out as quickly as possible.


So in a competition where your life is not at stake the competitors are going full force but you question the right of someone in fear of their life to use full force and finish the altercation as soon as possible. Not up there for logic I'm afraid.



Hanzou said:


> But they do train to stomp on them correct? They do train to stomp or punch on them until the "danger has passed" correct? Further, they are trained to stomp or punch the head and other vital areas while the person is down correct?


First sentence ... yes, and you might even have learned it in Shotokan if you had stayed around longer. I have difficulty believing a black belt in Shotokan was never have been taught kakuto geri but there we are.

Second sentence is deliberately misleading. In the same vein as your MMA fighter keeps punching until his opponent is defeated we teach that you continue to strike until the danger has passed, especially when your attacker has a weapon. But of course we teach restraints as well so if at any time you feel that ii is appropriate you can choose another option.

Third sentence is again being misleading. Yes, if the threat remains after the attacker is down, we train to continue striking. That doesn't mean we always have to take that action and whatever action we takes may be tested in court later. I have never taught anyone to stomp more than once and mostly the stomp is to temporarily disable by stomping on the ankle.

Why do you twist everything we say to mean something that you must know is totally different?



Hanzou said:


> Please let me know if any of that is an inaccurate portrayal of your training methods.


As usual, it is totally unrepresentative of our training methods and yes, an inaccurate portrayal.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Which of course was a red herring with no relevance to the current discussion. In an attempt to make it relevant I asked for context. My mistake.



It was actually very relevant since various posters were making inaccurate and wild claims about chokes.



> So in a competition where your life is not at stake the competitors are going full force but you question the right of someone in fear of their life to use full force and finish the altercation as soon as possible. Not up there for logic I'm afraid.



Where did I question someone's right to do what they deem necessary to get out of a bad situation? Like I said, better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6. Again, I'm simply pointing out that punching and kicking someone's head is far more dangerous than a choke.



> First sentence ... yes, and you might even have learned it in Shotokan if you had stayed around longer. I have difficulty believing a black belt in Shotokan was never have been taught kakuto geri but there we are.



FYI, Kakuto geri is an axe kick, not a stomping kick.



> Second sentence is deliberately misleading. In the same vein as your MMA fighter keeps punching until his opponent is defeated we teach that you continue to strike until the danger has passed, especially when your attacker has a weapon. But of course we teach restraints as well so if at any time you feel that ii is appropriate you can choose another option.



So in other words the answer is "yes". How is that deliberately misleading when that's exactly what you do, and how you're trained?



> Third sentence is again being misleading. Yes, if the threat remains after the attacker is down, we train to continue striking. That doesn't mean we always have to take that action and whatever action we takes may be tested in court later. I have never taught anyone to stomp more than once and mostly the stomp is to temporarily disable by stomping on the ankle.



I never said it was an action you had to take, simply that you were trained to take that action. Additionally, I simply don't believe that you or one of your students would choose the ankle over the head or throat. Just saying.....



> Why do you twist everything we say to mean something that you must know is totally different?
> 
> As usual, it is totally unrepresentative of our training methods and yes, an inaccurate portrayal.



How is it totally unrepresentative of your training methods when you confirmed everything I asked? Granted, you guys aren't killers looking to brutalized people, but you are trained to purposely stomp or bludgeon someone who is laying on the ground, and to keep doing so until YOU deem them to be no longer a threat. 

And yet for some reason, people feel that that is "safer" and more humane than putting someone to sleep in a matter of seconds with a choke? I find that quite interesting.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Well for a start you have provided a scenario where we are on concrete but you haven't given the circumstances. So, is the attacker armed, does he have accomplices, do I actually have to fight to get away or can I simply leave? Remember, this thread is about self defence.
> 
> But I will ask you, in any competition fight like the recent Mayweather/Pacquiao bout, if you asked them do they hold back or go full force what do you think they might say? That is in a competitive environment. Don't you think you fight go full force if your life is on the line?
> 
> 
> I have yet to see anywhere, and I have quite a library of very violent DVDs, where anyone is training people to stomp on anyone once the danger is past and I can't recall even seeing someone stomping more than once. Like many other areas where you have very little knowledge, self defence is not your strongpoint, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing competition BJJ and MMA into the discussion.



Should you be stomping on people at all?


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Lethal force is a specific definition.  It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  Multiple jurisdictions have held that choke holds are lethal force.  You seem intent on ignoring this, and locked into your argument that "chokes are gentle."  Dude -- chokes are chokes.  You're depriving someone of something that is essential for life, whether breath or blood circulation.  IF you release it early enough, you may not kill someone.  Slip a couple of seconds, and maybe they wake up -- but they've suffered brain damage.  I think most reasonable people would identify brain damage as a serious bodily harm...  If I shoot someone in the foot, it probably won't kill them -- but the gun remains lethal force.
> 
> Or a stomp to the skull -- if you can articulate it.  Gee...  seems an awful lot like what I already said.
> 
> Bluntly -- I'm going to try to avoid either.  However, if I must use force, I will balance the force I use against the likelihood of injury vs. obtaining control.  It's not a black & white bright line equation.  But, since my agency and most in my area, classify chokes as lethal force... if I can't articulate justification to support lethal force, I'm not choking them.  Honestly, I like the Taser (C).  If all goes tolerably well, it results in control of the subject with minimal risk of injury to either of us.  If I go hands on, it's typically a combination of tactics including various locks (but not chokes) and strikes.



Ok. But standing punches kill people as well. Throwing people. We yet yelled at for pushing people.

Mostly because every now and then someone ups and dies. But it makes life very hard to defend yourself with safe techniques.

My view on the choke is you control the amount of force and you control where the head goes. You can't do that with striking.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> The 'common sense' training you are talking about caused more injury and compensation claims in the Police Academy than violence on the street. Hence the training now is move back and use your 'tools'. Makes for far less injury to police, particularly now with the ice epidemic.



I have seen the police use tazers twice. In all the physicals that I have seen the police involved in. 

So meh tazer is hardly a factor. Hand to hand control is still the most common response.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Should you be stomping on people at all?


Should we be choking anyone at all? Should we be hitting anyone at all? Maybe we should all take up knitting instead.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Should we be choking anyone at all? Should we be hitting anyone at all? Maybe we should all take up knitting instead.



Sounds fair. As now all of these life and death deadly streets have turned into responsible use of force with rules and a ref.

Isn't assault by kicking singled out as an extra offence?


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Sounds fair. As now all of these life and death deadly streets have turned into responsible use of force with rules and a ref.
> 
> Isn't assault by kicking singled out as an extra offence?



Not sure, but a kick would almost certainly be construed as being a deadly move with the intent to seriously injure or worse.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> It was actually very relevant since various posters were making inaccurate and wild claims about chokes.


Which is a red herring.



Hanzou said:


> Where did I question someone's right to do what they deem necessary to get out of a bad situation? Like I said, better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6. Again, I'm simply pointing out that punching and kicking someone's head is far more dangerous than a choke.


And exactly who are you arguing with?



Hanzou said:


> FYI, Kakuto geri is an axe kick, not a stomping kick.


And FYI kakuto geri is a heel kick. The axe kick is a variation, Japanese of course. Heel kick could be fumikomi but that is more of a thrusting heel than a downward heel which we know as kakuto.



Hanzou said:


> So in other words the answer is "yes". How is that deliberately misleading when that's exactly what you do, and how you're trained?


It's about as accurate as saying MMA is all about kicks to the head. Your taking on small part and claiming it to be a major event. For what it's worth, I managed to get through an entire class tonight without getting anyone to stomp on their partner.



Hanzou said:


> I never said it was an action you had to take, simply that you were trained to take that action. Additionally, I simply don't believe that you or one of your students would choose the ankle over the head or throat. Just saying.....


And as is so often the case, you would be wrong. You have no idea how or what I teach so either accept what I say, come and see for yourself or simply shut up.



Hanzou said:


> How is it totally unrepresentative of your training methods when you confirmed everything I asked? Granted, you guys aren't killers looking to brutalized people, but you are trained to purposely stomp or bludgeon someone who is laying on the ground, and to keep doing so until YOU deem them to be no longer a threat.


Your reading skills are abysmal. I countered everything you said yet you call that confirmation. Strange! What you have written here is a gross exaggeration. As well you talk about 'bludgeoning' someone. Of course a bludgeon is actually a weapon and no, we don't actually train to bludgeon anyone.



Hanzou said:


> And yet for some reason, people feel that that is "safer" and more humane than putting someone to sleep in a matter of seconds with a choke? I find that quite interesting.


Where on earth did you get this from? It is totally irrelevant in this discussion.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Which is a red herring.



Not if it was being talked about before I entered the thread.



> And exactly who are you arguing with?



The people who previously argued that choking could cause brain damage in a matter of seconds. I would further argue that punching or kicking a downed target in the head is far more likely to cause brain damage or death than a choke would.



> And FYI kakuto geri is a heel kick. The axe kick is a variation, Japanese of course. Heel kick could be fumikomi but that is more of a thrusting heel than a downward heel which we know as kakuto.



Well first off its Kak*a*to geri, not Kak*u*to geri. Thanks for helping me misspell it.

Secondly, Kakato geri looks like this;







Which seems to be a rather superfluous motion to hit a downed opponent in the head. Fumikomi looks like this;






Which is more akin to the stomps I saw those Krav guys doing. I don't know where you get the idea that one is a variation of another. The two are quite different from each other in about every respect.



> It's about as accurate as saying MMA is all about kicks to the head. Your taking on small part and claiming it to be a major event. For what it's worth, I managed to get through an entire class tonight without getting anyone to stomp on their partner.



It appears to be the go-to finisher for Krav and similar arts. I never said that its the only thing you do, but it is a pretty clear characteristic of such styles. In every Krav vid I posted, the demonstrator finished with a stomping kick or punch to the head area. I'm sure if I bothered to look, I'd find far more. In the absence of chokes, such moves make sense. Again, I'm simply pointing out that a kick or punch to the head against someone who is laying on the ground can have lethal consequences. Far more lethal than someone passing out from a choke.



> And as is so often the case, you would be wrong. You have no idea how or what I teach so either accept what I say, come and see for yourself or simply shut up.



And what exactly are you saying? That you only perform these techniques when necessary? Okay, where was I disputing that?



> Your reading skills are abysmal. I countered everything you said yet you call that confirmation. Strange! What you have written here is a gross exaggeration. As well you talk about 'bludgeoning' someone. Of course a bludgeon is actually a weapon and no, we don't actually train to bludgeon anyone.



So agreeing with what I stated is "countering" me? That's an interesting way of looking at it.

BTW, Bludgeoning is simply beating something. And yes, you can bludgeon something with your fists and feet. Those are weapons too you know.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Uh if you read your own article, it says that the mean time for being choked out was 9.5 seconds. Yeah, there were four guys in the study who didn't pass out until after 20+ seconds, but a medical examination noted that they were in the same condition as those that had been choked out much faster. Their anatomy was simply different than the other participants.
> 
> Additionally, the study also said this;



4 in 24 is 1 out of 6.

That isnt some miniscule number bub.

If you go to any public space you're usually gonna be surrounded by far more people than that,

Anyways you really proved the point I was making, that it all comes down to anatomy and the 10 second rule doesnt apply to everyone.

They were in the same condition, their brain simply went longer without oxygen. 22 seconds in and they didnt pass or tap. You wait till they pass, and youre sending them coloring books for Christmas.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> 4 in 24 is 1 out of 6.



It's also 16%.



> That isnt some miniscule number bub.
> 
> If you go to any public space you're usually gonna be surrounded by far more people than that,



I guess you missed the part where the researchers stated that the people who got choked out at the 20 second mark sustained the same level of "damage" as the other participates. Their anatomy simply made them more resistant to chokes than the general population.



> Anyways you really proved the point I was making, that it all comes down to anatomy and the 10 second rule doesnt apply to everyone.



The average was still 9.5 seconds, so the rule applies to the general population.



> They were in the same condition, their brain simply went longer without oxygen. 22 seconds in and they didnt pass or tap. You wait till they pass, and youre sending them coloring books for Christmas.



Except your very own article disproves that very argument. The people who went out at 22 seconds were no different than the ones who went out at 5, 10, or even 1.5 seconds.


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> Again, absolute nonsense. There are millions of people around the world learning, applying, and getting chokes place on them. There are people who forget to tap and pass out from the choke. There are schools who purposely tell their students not to tap out so that they can get choked out on purpose and understand their limitations. And yes, people slip a few seconds, it happens.
> 
> This practice has gone on for over a century, and I honestly can't think of a single practicioner that has suffered brain damage or death, and if it has occurred the numbers are incredibly small. Your statement above simply does not line up with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a stomp to the skull is as "safe" as a choke or even a dislocation of a joint?



I don't care what goes on in a sporting environment.  I don't care what happens in a training hall.  I am telling you that, if you choke someone in the street, you'd better be ready and able to defend that action as a use of lethal force.  Or be very prepared to go into the courtroom, and successfully educate the jurors (or judge, in a bench trial) that it is not lethal force.  Because multiple jurisdictions have repeatedly held that it is -- because you are depriving someone of something essential for life.  

But I'm really starting to feel that you don't care what anyone says.  You "KNOW."  I can't top that, anymore than I can change your religious beliefs.  And I'm really starting to wonder if simply disrupting these discussions is your primary goal...


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Ok. But standing punches kill people as well. Throwing people. We yet yelled at for pushing people.
> 
> Mostly because every now and then someone ups and dies. But it makes life very hard to defend yourself with safe techniques.
> 
> My view on the choke is you control the amount of force and you control where the head goes. You can't do that with striking.


"Lethal force" is a legal definition.  It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.  Serious bodily injury is generally defined along the lines of significant impact and restriction on normal life functions.  A punch to the chest is not generally likely to cause death -- but it may in a freak chance.  An arm lock is not typically likely to cause permanent loss of the use of the limb -- but freak nerve damage can happen.  Hell, you can choke on a feather and die.  A pillow fight isn't a lethal force event -- because it's not something that a reasonable person would foresee as a likely outcome.

Chokes certainly have a place -- so long as you can justify the action and its potential outcomes.  The Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint is a carefully designed and taught technique authorized in some departments.  It's your classic sleeper hold.  There are a few other versions being taught, from various origins, but the article I linked spells out what separates it from a choke hold pretty well.  And the majority of departments still aren't too accepting of it...


----------



## jks9199

By the way -- I'm not saying simply using a choke hold will kill someone.  But the courts will view it as a potentially lethal use of force.  The two things are very different...


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> "Gentle" because there are chokes that are applied where the person they're being applied on doesnt even know they're being choked. It's also gentle because it puts them to sleep with no damage being done to them.



I have never been choked without knowing it was happening. Nor have I ever known anybody who didn't notice they were being choked.
And there absolutely IS damage being done. It may be an insignificant amount, but it's there. Just because the stroke from the plaque you knocked loose doesn't happen instantly doesn't mean you didn't cause it.



Hanzou said:


> By your own admission above you state that damage doesn't occur on the person being choked until minutes have passed.



Go back and read what I wrote. Ask someone for help if you don't understand it. Because this is most definitely NOT what I wrote.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> I have never been choked without knowing it was happening. Nor have I ever known anybody who didn't notice they were being choked.



I Love BJJ - Have you ever been choked unconscious or done... Facebook

From the mouth of various horses.



> And there absolutely IS damage being done. It may be an insignificant amount, but it's there. Just because the stroke from the plaque you knocked loose doesn't happen instantly doesn't mean you didn't cause it.



So all those people I just linked to are going to be retards at some point?


----------



## pgsmith

Hanzou said:


> I Love BJJ - Have you ever been choked unconscious or done... Facebook
> 
> From the mouth of various horses.
> 
> So all those people I just linked to are going to be retards at some point?



  Probably not, but it seems pretty obvious to me that getting choked out too often *does* seem to cause a serious lack of reading comprehension.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I Love BJJ - Have you ever been choked unconscious or done... Facebook
> 
> From the mouth of various horses.
> 
> 
> 
> So all those people I just linked to are going to be retards at some point?



Not remembering what happened after being knocked unconscious isnt the same thing as not know what was going on during the choke XD

Its pretty common for people to be dazed and confused after a car crash, but until they hit their head they know they were crashing haha


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> I Love BJJ - Have you ever been choked unconscious or done... Facebook
> 
> From the mouth of various horses.
> 
> So all those people I just linked to are going to be retards at some point?



If they can be choked and not notice there is an arm (or hands, or whatever) wrapped around their throat, then I suspect there is already some degree of brain damage.

Of course, it's not at all uncommon for people not to remember events immediately surrounding a period of unconsciousness. Doesn't mean they were not fully aware of what was happening at the time, just that (in choking cases) the anoxia affected their memory.

I'd say that anytime there's enough anoxia to both render you unconscious AND affect your memory of the event, there's good reason to be concerned.

How many times have you personally been choked out? The answer might be revealing...


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Not remembering what happened after being knocked unconscious isnt the same thing as not know what was going on during the choke XD
> 
> Its pretty common for people to be dazed and confused after a car crash, but until they hit their head they know they were crashing haha



Actually if you read some of the accounts, the choke was on before they realized it. It definitely happens in competition and training. It's definitely more likely to happen when the grip is in place, and you haven't realized it has sunk in, and you begin to try to fight it off.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Actually if you read some of the accounts, the choke was on before they realized it. It definitely happens in competition and training. It's definitely more likely to happen when the grip is in place, and you haven't realized it has sunk in, and you begin to try to fight it off.



Not a simgle account on the first page of comments was like that. 

They all knew what choke they where in and what was coming.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Not a simgle account on the first page of comments was like that.
> 
> They all knew what choke they where in and what was coming.





> Walter Mack Really, the two times I've gone out, I thought I was defending well so I didn't tap. I didn't know I was out until I woke up, so it didn't feel like anything.



He even provided the video (watch how fast the choke hits him);


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> He even provided the video (watch how fast the choke hits him);



"Thought I was defending well"

Still knew he was being choked bud


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> "Thought I was defending well"
> 
> Still knew he was being choked bud



Uh, if you think you're defending a choke, you're not realizing you're being choked. There's a difference.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> Perhaps you could show me someone trained in self defence advocating stomps to the head or throat once the attacker is incapacitated, and I do mean 'self defence', not 'combatives'.



Well ... I've seen plenty of people who _claim_ to be teaching self-defense demonstrating stomps to the head of an incapacitated opponent. Some Kempo instructors are particularly guilty of this.

I'd agree with you that in most cases this would not actually _be_ self-defense.



PhotonGuy said:


> Depends where you're at. If you're in college fights are almost guaranteed. As I said earlier, college is a zoo.



I don't think I ever even _saw_ a fight the whole time I was in college. I'm not discounting your experience, but I am saying it's far from universal.



Drose427 said:


> When in a clip I posted, and in the article here How Do Rear Naked Chokes Work University of Calgary Study Explains - Bloody Elbow there were people who didnt even begin to tap at or until the 25 second mark. Waiting till they go limp, and a few seconds after that, is dangerously close to hitting that one minute mark where damage starts occuring



If someone takes 25 seconds to pass out, then the blood flow and oxygen to their brain were not fully obstructed the whole time.



Hanzou said:


> Like I said, better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6.



While I agree, I dislike the saying because it promotes the idea that those are likely to be your only two choices. This is rarely the case.



Dirty Dog said:


> I have never been choked without knowing it was happening. Nor have I ever known anybody who didn't notice they were being choked.



I have actually choked someone unconscious who had no idea he was being choked. Afterwards he told me that if it happened again he still wouldn't have tapped because he felt in absolutely no danger.

Of course, that's only happened once out of all the countless times I've choked people, so it's not exactly a common occurrence.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> Depends where you're at. If you're in college fights are almost guaranteed. As I said earlier, college is a zoo.



Where did you go to school, Shittown U? Or were you just a dickhead to everybody?

I've spent more than a little time on the campus of various colleges and universities. And never once been in a fight on or near those facilities, nor even felt threatened.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have actually choked someone unconscious who had no idea he was being choked. Afterwards he told me that if it happened again he still wouldn't have tapped because he felt in absolutely no danger.



Again, being rendered unconscious can screw with your memory of events. 

For that matter, I've dropped people with strikes they didn't remember being hit with. 

By some peoples logic, I guess those were "gentle" strikes, and perfectly safe.


----------



## Drose427

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well ... I've seen plenty of people who _claim_ to be teaching self-defense demonstrating stomps to the head of an incapacitated opponent. Some Kempo instructors are particularly guilty of this.
> 
> I'd agree with you that in most cases this would not actually _be_ self-defense.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I ever even _saw_ a fight the whole time I was in college. I'm not discounting your experience, but I am saying it's far from universal.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone takes 25 seconds to pass out, then the blood flow and oxygen to their brain were not fully obstructed the whole time.
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree, I dislike the saying because it promotes the idea that those are likely to be your only two choices. This is rarely the case.
> 
> 
> 
> I have actually choked someone unconscious who had no idea he was being choked. Afterwards he told me that if it happened again he still wouldn't have tapped because he felt in absolutely no danger.
> 
> Of course, that's only happened once out of all the countless times I've choked people, so it's not exactly a common occurrence.



Blood flow doesnt need to be completely cut off to cause damage via ischemic stroke, only obstructed.

Cutting off the blood supply to the brain. Vascular biology Brain vessels squeezed to death Nature Nature Publishing Group

Ischemic Strokes Clots 

Now Im sure DD can chime in more, but whether bloked by plaque or by pinching the blood vessel shut, its still obstructed I believe.

Not to mention theres a decent chance of knocking the  plaque loose and them having a stroke after you even let go.

So in this case, holding that person until you expect them to go limp could very well have serious repurcussions


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Again, absolute nonsense. There are millions of people around the world learning, applying, and getting chokes place on them. There are people who forget to tap and pass out from the choke. There are schools who purposely tell their students not to tap out so that they can get choked out on purpose and understand their limitations. And yes, people slip a few seconds, it happens.
> 
> This practice has gone on for over a century, and I honestly can't think of a single practicioner that has suffered brain damage or death, and if it has occurred the numbers are incredibly small. Your statement above simply does not line up with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a stomp to the skull is as "safe" as a choke or even a dislocation of a joint?


The second you start strangling someone in this state your committing a felony 1st deg assault if not attempted murder.  We go so far as finding alternative light sources to photograph marks not visible to the eye.  That has been a huge push here in the last 2 years.The victim doesn't need to pass out or even be injured the courts have decided that act of strangulation shows intent to kill or serious bodily harm.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> I did nothing to get into fights in college except to be there. As for college being a zoo, this is why. College is full of guys in their late teens/early twenties who experience all this new found freedom and will sometimes, actually quite often, go quite wild. Also there is often booze and drugs at college. All too often, being turned loose the way they are, some people don't handle it responsibly and bullying takes on a whole new level, more so than in high school or before.


I was in the USMC infantry which is everything you stated times 10 and well every fight Igot into was of my own choice and I could have easily avoided it had I wanted too.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Considering the situation discussed earlier about being slapped, if some guy tried to slap me I would do what the Bible says and turn the other cheek. If he tried something else such as if he tried to punch me or if he charged at me I would take proper action to neutralize him. To just stand there and let him do it flies in the face of common sense.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> The second you start strangling someone in this state your committing a felony 1st deg assault if not attempted murder.  We go so far as finding alternative light sources to photograph marks not visible to the eye.  That has been a huge push here in the last 2 years.The victim doesn't need to pass out or even be injured the courts have decided that act of strangulation shows intent to kill or serious bodily harm.



What if that person is a woman performing a triangle choke to defend herself from getting raped? Is that still considered a felony 1st degree assault?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> What if that person is a woman performing a triangle choke to defend herself from getting raped? Is that still considered a felony 1st degree assault?


  If she's still actively defending her life then no deadly force is acceptable defense to stop a rape.  But you and some other dude get Into a fight and you are able to us a triangle on him then You better be able to show why your life was in serious danger ( like he had a knife or weapon or he was beating your brains in or there were multiple attackers )  if you do it because you can well your going to need a good lawyer.  

I can't use a choke hold period at work it's against out general orders and if I were to use it I better have a deadly force reason why or I'd be in big trouble.  Some guy just resisting or trying to fight me wouldn't be a valid reason


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Again, being rendered unconscious can screw with your memory of events.
> 
> For that matter, I've dropped people with strikes they didn't remember being hit with.
> 
> By some peoples logic, I guess those were "gentle" strikes, and perfectly safe.



Different process to being knocked out.


----------



## drop bear

So people had different experiences of college.

And anecdotal evidence does not define a trend.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> If she's still actively defending her life then no deadly force is acceptable defense to stop a rape.  But you and some other dude get Into a fight and you are able to us a triangle on him then You better be able to show why your life was in serious danger ( like he had a knife or weapon or he was beating your brains in or there were multiple attackers )  if you do it because you can well your going to need a good lawyer.
> 
> I can't use a choke hold period at work it's against out general orders and if I were to use it I better have a deadly force reason why or I'd be in big trouble.  Some guy just resisting or trying to fight me wouldn't be a valid reason



So if some guy tackles me in a parking lot, and starts trying to turn my face into hamburger, but instead I'm able to choke him out with a triangle or whatever from my back with him on top of me, I'm in the clear right?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Not if it was being talked about before I entered the thread.


The thread for your information, was about not telling anyone that you are a martial artist. Chokes were mentioned in passing and you took it from there.



Hanzou said:


> The people who previously argued that choking could cause brain damage in a matter of seconds. I would further argue that punching or kicking a downed target in the head is far more likely to cause brain damage or death than a choke would.


There was ONE person saying something like that and enough people have commented that the topic is now more than covered.



Hanzou said:


> Well first off its Kak*a*to geri, not Kak*u*to geri. Thanks for helping me misspell it.
> 
> Secondly, Kakato geri looks like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which seems to be a rather superfluous motion to hit a downed opponent in the head.


So axe kick can only be performed at what height? Bearing in mind that 'kakato' translates as downward heel even you might understand you can circle the leg and drive the heel down to a lower target but thanks for the lesson.



Hanzou said:


> Fumikomi looks like this;


Well to be honest, and I admit that my knowledge of all things karate is way below yours, the picture looks like what I would call kansetsu geri. We call it 'knee joint kick' in English. Sokuto geri is a higher version of the same kick which we would call 'side kick'. Kekomi geri is a thrusting version of the same, which leaves us Fumikomi, a thrusting heel kick which we train to the front unlike all the previous which are to the side or at least a 45 deg angle in the case of kansetsu geri. Kakato geri is a downward heel strike and we train it by lifting the foot up and across then down in a stomping motion, like an axe kick if you lifted the leg and dropped it down to strike a target 10 inches off the floor.



Hanzou said:


> Which is more akin to the stomps I saw those Krav guys doing. I don't know where you get the idea that one is a variation of another. The two are quite different from each other in about every respect.


Only to the untrained eye.



Hanzou said:


> It appears to be the go-to finisher for Krav and similar arts. I never said that its the only thing you do, but it is a pretty clear characteristic of such styles. In every Krav vid I posted, the demonstrator finished with a stomping kick or punch to the head area. I'm sure if I bothered to look, I'd find far more. In the absence of chokes, such moves make sense. Again, I'm simply pointing out that a kick or punch to the head against someone who is laying on the ground can have lethal consequences. Far more lethal than someone passing out from a choke.


And has anyone ever claimed otherwise? As I have said time after time. If the force is proportionate you have nothing to fear. If it is excessive you will have to justify your action in court.



Hanzou said:


> And what exactly are you saying? That you only perform these techniques when necessary? Okay, where was I disputing that?


Mainly all the way through this and in previous threads. I remember you saying, "we fight as we train. If you train it that way you will do it that way". Quite clear cut. No one can vary their action, it's all locked in on auto pilot regardless of the situation ... not!



Hanzou said:


> So agreeing with what I stated is "countering" me? That's an interesting way of looking at it.


I haven't agreed with anything you have said. Your twisting the meaning ensured that. Your lack of comprehension causes the same problem in every thread you disrupt.



Hanzou said:


> BTW, Bludgeoning is simply beating something. And yes, you can bludgeon something with your fists and feet. Those are weapons too you know.


Funny, I always thought of bludgeon as a club, but then English is my first language.


> noun
> 1.
> a short, heavy club with one end weighted, or thicker and heavier than the other.
> Bludgeon Define Bludgeon at Dictionary.com


So bludgeoning someone if you don't have a blunt instrument in your hand is really a metaphor similar to 'hammering' someone if you don't have a hammer. Not something you would use if you are accurately describing a martial art technique.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So if some guy tackles me in a parking lot, and starts trying to turn my face into hamburger, but instead I'm able to choke him out with a triangle or whatever from my back with him on top of me, I'm in the clear right?


No one has suggested otherwise.


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well ... I've seen plenty of people who _claim_ to be teaching self-defense demonstrating stomps to the head of an incapacitated opponent. Some Kempo instructors are particularly guilty of this.


Can I just clarify. Many of the styles teach a sequence of moves that you might perform in a particular scenario. The simplest of these might be 360 defence of Krav and the other end, the bunkai of a kata like Suparenpei.

So, the first move in Krav to defend against a downward slash with a weapon is 'bursting' or a simultaneous strike to the wrist and neck. If you connect it's game over. If it fails, you overhook the arm and drive the knee repeatedly into the lower abdomen. If that connects it's likely game over but if it fails and we need more we start hitting the back of the neck, assuming he has bent over from the knees. Strikes to the back of the neck or skull with the forearm are likely to knock him down but if they haven't I'll give him a knee in the face. He is a real tough sucker if he hasn't gone down by now but I'm up to the arm lock and disarm at this point. If that fails I'll take him to the ground and kick to the back of the neck.

Against an untrained attacker just how long will he remain a threat? The chances of getting all the way through to the stomp are practically zero.

Similar with karate bunkai. You do the first technique and hopefully it is game over. If not you go to the second and so forth. It is only after a failed technique that you proceed.

Aikido is the same. Something as simple as kote gaeshi is only performed in theory if the punch to the head, inherent in the technique has failed.

What I am saying, in a very roundabout way, is that the 'finishing' technique of a stomp is the last technique in a a sequence of techniques.  Hopefully the conflict has resolved well before that, even though the sequence is practised to its conclusion.


----------



## Tez3

Sex attacker Mark Willis picked on kickboxer who was given 500 reward Daily Mail Online


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So if some guy tackles me in a parking lot, and starts trying to turn my face into hamburger, but instead I'm able to choke him out with a triangle or whatever from my back with him on top of me, I'm in the clear right?


The ultimate decision would be up to the states attorney's office but in my opinion you would be ok provided you released the choke when he no longer was a threat.  Basically you can't claim your defending yourself when your no longer in danger.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Sex attacker Mark Willis picked on kickboxer who was given 500 reward Daily Mail Online



Good for her.


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> Considering the situation discussed earlier about being slapped, if some guy tried to slap me I would do what the Bible says and turn the other cheek. If he tried something else such as if he tried to punch me or if he charged at me I would take proper action to neutralize him. To just stand there and let him do it flies in the face of common sense.



Yeah great answer. The bible is a great book to slam into someones cheek. Very sturdy books them!


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Sex attacker Mark Willis picked on kickboxer who was given 500 reward Daily Mail Online



I would have to say good for her. Anyway had this happened in the USA she should not be charged or get in trouble but unfortunately that might be the case in some places. She had choked him out and as its been said on this thread choking somebody can be seen as deadly force. Sexual assault is not something, however, that should not be taken lightly and men can be victims too. In cases of sexual assault a would be victim should use any means to stop the attacker up to and including deadly force, as sexual assault is a serious matter, and they shouldn't get in trouble for it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So if some guy tackles me in a parking lot, and starts trying to turn my face into hamburger, but instead I'm able to choke him out with a triangle or whatever from my back with him on top of me, I'm in the clear right?


I wanted to expand on my first answer but it's too late to edit.  Taking this back to the original question I think this scenario is a time you definitely want to tell the police and Lawyers all about your training and skills.  If I were to choke someone out through my lawyer talking for me I'd explain all my training in the use of chokes, I'd explain the difference between blood chokes and air chokes, I'd explain how I've used chokes 100s of times in training or tournaments, I'd tell them I've been choked out a few times and know the effects, I'd be as detailed as I could about my training including ranks and any tournaments I've done. I'd explain how badly I could have hurt the person and why I didn't.  So yeah in this case I'd definitely tell everyone about my training.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> I wanted to expand on my first answer but it's too late to edit.  Taking this back to the original question I think this scenario is a time you definitely want to tell the police and Lawyers all about your training and skills.  If I were to choke someone out through my lawyer talking for me I'd explain all my training in the use of chokes, I'd explain the difference between blood chokes and air chokes, I'd explain how I've used chokes 100s of times in training or tournaments, I'd tell them I've been choked out a few times and know the effects, I'd be as detailed as I could about my training including ranks and any tournaments I've done. I'd explain how badly I could have hurt the person and why I didn't.  So yeah in this case I'd definitely tell everyone about my training.



That might not be the smartest thing to do. "Anything you say can be used against you." You might want to exercise your right to remain silent.


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> That might not be the smartest thing to do. "Anything you say can be used against you." You might want to exercise your right to remain silent.


So when you are justified in your actions and you can explain your actions you would conceal your side of the case and allow the prosecution to have a field day. Remind me never to consult with you for legal advice.


----------



## PhotonGuy

K-man said:


> So when you are justified in your actions and you can explain your actions you would conceal your side of the case and allow the prosecution to have a field day. Remind me never to consult with you for legal advice.



Any explanation of my actions and mention any fighting background I've got would be done through my lawyer.


----------



## extrion

ballen0351 said:


> If I were to choke someone out through _my lawyer talking for me_ I'd explain all my training in the use of chokes,



PhotonGuy, He did say it would be done through his lawyer.  You should really take time to read things thoroughly before responding.


----------



## K-man

extrion said:


> PhotonGuy, He did say it would be done through his lawyer.  You should really take time to read things thoroughly before responding.


And my reply was supporting what *ballen* posted.


----------



## PhotonGuy

extrion said:


> PhotonGuy, He did say it would be done through his lawyer.  You should really take time to read things thoroughly before responding.


Alright, my bad. Anyway, if my lawyer wanted to share information about my martial arts background with the court I would trust in his experience and judgement.


----------



## Steve

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright, my bad. Anyway, if my lawyer wanted to share information about my martial arts background with the court I would trust in his experience and judgement.


If you don't trust your lawyer, you're paying the wrong lawyer.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Steve said:


> If you don't trust your lawyer, you're paying the wrong lawyer.



Exactly. And that's why I do thorough research when choosing a lawyer.


----------



## Steve

PhotonGuy said:


> Exactly. And that's why I do thorough research when choosing a lawyer.


Jeez, photonguy... how often do you need a lawyer???


----------



## PhotonGuy

Steve said:


> Jeez, photonguy... how often do you need a lawyer???



Well as it is I do know a really good lawyer who is licensed to practice in my area and when I get around to it I will see him about filing a lawsuit against this guy who conned me. Aside from that I am looking for a good lawyer in Missouri to press charges against these police officers who planted false evidence on me.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Jeez, photonguy... how often do you need a lawyer???



You can get carry insurance. I am not sure if that would also be SD insurance.

But it can cost you if you mess it up. And the process is not fair from a laymans viewpoint.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Well its interesting how young people are being charged as adults for physical confrontations. Some people such as pgsmith have pointed out that young people are naive and that they think they know more than they do. If that's so than they should be able to use that as a defense in court, "Im young, I didn't know better. After all being young and all I think I know more than I do so I didn't know this was wrong," yet more and more people who are under the ages of 18 or 21 are being charged as adults, such as in this case.

In The Spotlite Six Teen Girls Gang Beat 16-year-old for YouTube Video


----------



## Steve

PhotonGuy said:


> Well its interesting how young people are being charged as adults for physical confrontations. Some people such as pgsmith have pointed out that young people are naive and that they think they know more than they do. If that's so than they should be able to use that as a defense in court, "Im young, I didn't know better. After all being young and all I think I know more than I do so I didn't know this was wrong," yet more and more people who are under the ages of 18 or 21 are being charged as adults, such as in this case.
> 
> In The Spotlite Six Teen Girls Gang Beat 16-year-old for YouTube Video


PhotonGuy, do you think that these teens were too young to know that what they were doing was wrong?  Do you think they deserved to be tried as adults?

Personally, I think you raise an interesting point.  People have to be accountable for their actions.  We have juvenile laws precisely because sometimes good kids do really stupid things, because they're half baked adults.  But, sometimes, the things they do are so agregious that they are not excusable.  In some cases, the actions are so bad that they can change the course of that child's life forever.  As a parent, I'll say my goal isn't to create perfect children who never make mistakes.  Rather, it's to guide them and prevent them from making mistakes that they can't learn from or recover from. 

Considering this occurred so long ago, I looked up the results.  There were actually 8 teens involved, some as young as 15, and the oldest was, I believe 19 at the time.  Interesting that none received punishment that would ruin their lives, although it certainly could have turned out worse.  The victim in all of this, Victoria Lindsay, seems to have some personal issues, as well.  Her mugshot is below from a few years later.

Error

As for the teens involved, a summary of the final court decisions for each are below:


> NAME: Brittini Hardcastle, 18
> 
> ROLE: Hardcastle has been described by witnesses as the main attacker in the video. In it, she can be seen wearing pink pants and a white shirt.
> 
> PUNISHMENT: She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and three years' probation. She pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and battery.
> 
> NAME: Mercades Nichols, 18
> 
> ROLE: Prosecutors say Nichols 'partially arranged' for a fight to take place. The beating occurred at her grandmother's Highland City home. Nichols can be seen sitting on a couch during the attack.
> 
> PUNISHMENT: Nichols was sentenced to three years' probation and 100 hours of community service. She pleaded guilty to battery and tampering with a witness. She also pleaded guilty to violating an injunction, battery and assault charges in an unrelated case.
> 
> NAME: April Cooper, 15
> 
> ROLE: Cooper can be seen arguing with Lindsay on the video and striking her ó including the initial punches of the attack. She is wearing a red shirt and jeans.
> 
> PUNISHMENT: Cooper was sentenced to two years of juvenile probation. She pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor battery.
> 
> NAME: Brittany Mayes, 18
> 
> ROLE: Mayes has been described by witnesses as being responsible for filming the attack.
> 
> PUNISHMENT: Mayes was sentenced to one year of juvenile probation and 50 hours of community service. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery.
> 
> NAME: Kayla Hassall, 16
> 
> ROLE: Hassall can be seen screaming at Lindsay on the video. She is wearing a gray shirt and jean shorts. She told prosecutors her mother's video camera was used to record the beating. She denied doing any filming.
> 
> PUNISHMENT: Hassall was sentenced to one year of juvenile probation. She pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery.
> 
> NAME: Cara Murphy, 17
> 
> ALLEGED ROLE: Accused of being present during the attack.
> 
> OUTCOME: Prosecutors dropped charges last year because of insufficient evidence.
> 
> NAME: Zachary Ashley, 18
> 
> ALLEGED ROLE: Accused of serving as a lookout during the fight.
> 
> OUTCOME: Prosecutors dropped charges last year because of insufficient evidence.
> 
> NAME: Stephen Schumaker, 19
> 
> ALLEGED ROLE: Accused of serving as a lookout during the fight.
> 
> OUTCOME: Prosecutors dropped charges last year because of insufficient evidence.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Well its interesting how young people are being charged as adults for physical confrontations. Some people such as pgsmith have pointed out that young people are naive and that they think they know more than they do. If that's so than they should be able to use that as a defense in court, "Im young, I didn't know better. After all being young and all I think I know more than I do so I didn't know this was wrong," yet more and more people who are under the ages of 18 or 21 are being charged as adults, such as in this case.
> 
> In The Spotlite Six Teen Girls Gang Beat 16-year-old for YouTube Video


Waiving a juvenile to adult court is not all that common, and far from easy.  Generally, it's limited to very serious offenses, often committed by offenders who have a long history.  Almost always, it's violent offenses.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> Well its interesting how young people are being charged as adults for physical confrontations. Some people such as pgsmith have pointed out that young people are naive and that they think they know more than they do. If that's so than they should be able to use that as a defense in court, "Im young, I didn't know better. After all being young and all I think I know more than I do so I didn't know this was wrong," yet more and more people who are under the ages of 18 or 21 are being charged as adults, such as in this case.
> 
> In The Spotlite Six Teen Girls Gang Beat 16-year-old for YouTube Video



There is a huge difference between being a fool and not knowing right from wrong. It should shock me that you'd make a suggestion like this, but it really doesn't.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> There is a huge difference between being a fool and not knowing right from wrong. It should shock me that you'd make a suggestion like this, but it really doesn't.



So you're saying I don't know the difference between being a fool and what's right and wrong? Interesting you should make such assumptions about me since you don't know me from Adam.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> Waiving a juvenile to adult court is not all that common, and far from easy.  Generally, it's limited to very serious offenses, often committed by offenders who have a long history.  Almost always, it's violent offenses.



Well there's this other case which also was in Florida which occurred just a few years after the Victoria Lindsay case was this other case where Wayne Treacy smashed in Josie Lou Ratley's skull and ended up getting a 20 year prison sentence. Wayne was 15 at the time. I posed this story before but here is the link.
Wayne Treacy Teenager jailed for 20 years for stomping on girl s head with steel-toed boots outside school Daily Mail Online


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Well there's this other case which also was in Florida which occurred just a few years after the Victoria Lindsay case was this other case where Wayne Treacy smashed in Josie Lou Ratley's skull and ended up getting a 20 year prison sentence. Wayne was 15 at the time. I posed this story before but here is the link.
> Wayne Treacy Teenager jailed for 20 years for stomping on girl s head with steel-toed boots outside school Daily Mail Online


At 15 your old enough to know kicking someone on the head with a steel toe boot is wrong and can cause serious bodily injury or death.  In this state some crimes if committed by juveniles are automatically waved to adult court.  15 year old stopping a girls head in with boots would qualify.  I'm not sure what juveniles being waved to adults have to do with your topic however BUT this is a classic example of why your threads go off topic like I said before it's normally you that derail your own threads


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> So you're saying I don't know the difference between being a fool and what's right and wrong? .


Based on your posts yes that's exactly what is being stated


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> At 15 your old enough to know kicking someone on the head with a steel toe boot is wrong and can cause serious bodily injury or death.  In this state some crimes if committed by juveniles are automatically waved to adult court.  15 year old stopping a girls head in with boots would qualify.  I'm not sure what juveniles being waved to adults have to do with your topic however BUT this is a classic example of why your threads go off topic like I said before it's normally you that derail your own threads



Right but those girls who beat up that cheerleader really badly, supposedly even though they were initially going to be charged as adults they all got lighter sentences and supposedly some or all of them are not going to have permanent records. Wayne Treacy on the other hand is getting a 20 year prison sentence and a permanent record. It probably has something to do with the fact that Wayne Treacy was a boy and he was stomping a girl's head. When a boy commits such an act against a girl you can expect a heavier sentence.

As for me derailing threads I can be random.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> PHOTONGUY SAID: ↑
> So you're saying I don't know the difference between being a fool and what's right and wrong? .





ballen0351 said:


> Based on your posts yes that's exactly what is being stated



A fool is a person who lacks good sense or judgement. That can include not knowing right and wrong.

And its hard to make assumptions about somebody when you don't know them from Adam.


----------



## drop bear

Mens rea - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Men's rea or guilty mind.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Right but those girls who beat up that cheerleader really badly, supposedly even though they were initially going to be charged as adults they all got lighter sentences and supposedly some or all of them are not going to have permanent records. Wayne Treacy on the other hand is getting a 20 year prison sentence and a permanent record. It probably has something to do with the fact that Wayne Treacy was a boy and he was stomping a girl's head. When a boy commits such an act against a girl you can expect a heavier sentence.
> 
> As for me derailing threads I can be random.


All that can depend on hundreds of different factors including state and local laws, who got better lawyers, who got better prosecutors, judges mood that day, what please deals were worked out, victims wishes, suspects remorse, past police contact, who got paid what under the table, how the stars and moon were aligned that day.  SO just remember two cases are ever alike and you can't really compare them.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> A fool is a person who lacks good sense or judgement. That can include not knowing right and wrong.
> 
> And its hard to make assumptions about somebody when you don't know them from Adam.


You right all I can judge are your posts and well..............


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Well there's this other case which also was in Florida which occurred just a few years after the Victoria Lindsay case was this other case where Wayne Treacy smashed in Josie Lou Ratley's skull and ended up getting a 20 year prison sentence. Wayne was 15 at the time. I posed this story before but here is the link.
> Wayne Treacy Teenager jailed for 20 years for stomping on girl s head with steel-toed boots outside school Daily Mail Online


This contradicts my post how?  Waiving is rare enough to be newsworthy,  and I think the offense here would qualify as rather serious. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> As for me derailing threads I can be random.


Most certainly. It does make communication with you unique. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Mens rea - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Men's rea or guilty mind.


Your point?  Many of us are quite familiar with mens rea as well as actus reus... and also mala in se and mala prohibida.  I'm not even sure what your resonding to here...


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Your point?  Many of us are quite familiar with mens rea as well as actus reus... and also mala in se and mala prohibida.  I'm not even sure what your resonding to here...



You get young enough and it becomes almost impossible to pin a kid for a crime. 

So it factors in regarding children and legal responsibility for their actions.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> You get young enough and it becomes almost impossible to pin a kid for a crime.
> 
> So it factors in regarding children and legal responsibility for their actions.


True. The general rule is that a child below the she of reason (typically age 7) cannot commit a crime. Serious misbehavior that might be more criminal in nature is dealt with in other ways. Even into the early teens, it's not that common for criminal punishment. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## MaxRob

The issue often is use of excessive force, but in the end I would only use my tequniques to defend my life and those I love.... Don't see an issue in Court you have aright to defend your life.However not disclosing your practice in martial arts has its advantages,when the time comes for real self defense your opponents don't see you coming, you have a surprise advantage.Avoiding one using a firearm against you simply because they know they cannot mess with you in an unarmed attack


----------

