# After contemplation, scratching is a real legit move



## KangTsai (Apr 16, 2017)

I think that scratching somebody's face in is a working move in fighting. I theorised what you can actually do with it.
-you can make opponent close eyes, this goes for slapping as well = tactical benefit and windows for more powerful strikes/techniques without risk of missing
-if they don't close eyes = blindness ensured for complete control
-it really really hurts, and you are not passing it off with adrenaline = pain reaction garuanteed
-if opponent grabs wrist in attempt to stop scratching = elbow to face. Remember that post?
-extra three inches to attack reach
-open wounds = biological warfare: enjoy infections

Seriously though, scratching is viable as supplementary techniques in a fight. I respect tiger claw kung fu a lot more now.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 16, 2017)

I think people probably figured this out 1000s of years ago.


----------



## jobo (Apr 16, 2017)

KangTsai said:


> I think that scratching somebody's face in is a working move in fighting. I theorised what you can actually do with it.
> -you can make opponent close eyes, this goes for slapping as well = tactical benefit and windows for more powerful strikes/techniques without risk of missing
> -if they don't close eyes = blindness ensured for complete control
> -it really really hurts, and you are not passing it off with adrenaline = pain reaction garuanteed
> ...


don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 16, 2017)

jobo said:


> don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option



With enough force no you don't.  You need to think of it not simply as "scratching" but also thrusting into the surface at the same time.  I did that once in desperation at work hanging onto the back of a weight lifter who outwieghed me literally by over 100 lbs (when I started on the job I would be as light as 150 at the end of a racing season) trying to get him off my partner.  When we got the suspect to the hospital he not only had the dislocated wrist (that happened when I took him down after the rake) but deep scratches on his face and serious petechiae within one eye, the petechiae also being a result of the rake.  If I had gone all out and wasn't just looking for that rake to get him off my partner and off balance I could realistically have blinded him in that eye.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 16, 2017)

Empty hands are tools, tools are weapons. The way they can be used is nearly limitless.

I have seen single knuckle strikes, open hand strikes, slaps, fingertip strikes, strikes with the base of the thumb, etc, etc. All work when done right.

One would suppose that an analysis of weak points on the body would reveal the eyes as a vulnerable target. They are required for fighting for most of us. Our instincts tell us to protect our eyes at all times. This makes the eyes a good target for feints as well as actual attacks.

My training teaches me to use the back fist for this purpose. You get good power and extention and can deliver it from a side stance. However, I can see where the two techniques could complement each other.


----------



## jobo (Apr 16, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> With enough force no you don't.  You need to think of it not simply as "scratching" but also thrusting into the surface at the same time.  I did that once in desperation at work hanging onto the back of a weight lifter who outwieghed me literally by over 100 lbs (when I started on the job I would be as light as 150 at the end of a racing season) trying to get him off my partner.  When we got the suspect to the hospital he not only had the dislocated wrist (that happened when I took him down after the rake) but deep scratches on his face and serious petechiae within one eye, the petechiae also being a result of the rake.  If I had gone all out and wasn't just looking for that rake to get him off my partner and off balance I could realistically have blinded him in that eye.


you've just admitted it was in desperation, which is what I said. Im not sure i would try to blind someone unless I was truly and deeply desperate. But we are taking about raking someone's eye not scratching them was the ops point.
I've finish any number of fights, to find myself covered in scratches, that I was completely obvious to at the time


----------



## Danny T (Apr 16, 2017)

Excellent for collecting DNA.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 16, 2017)

KangTsai said:


> Seriously though, scratching is viable as supplementary techniques in a fight. I respect tiger claw kung fu a lot more now.


 The tiger technique is widely misunderstood.  The technique doesn't use scratching it uses grabbing, the scratching occurs as the opponent is trying to escape from the technique.  For example.  With grab from tiger, I'm trying to grab your face and use your eye sockets the same way that I put my fingers into a bowling ball.  The fingers are bent the way that they are because it increased the possibility that my fingers will hook into your eye sockets.  If you look at the picture below each finger is like a tiny meat hook.  This rakes across your face in hopes that it will catch your eye sockets or hook into the loose skin of your face (basically grabbing a hand full of facial tissue and pulling). If the person escapes from the technique or the technique misses then it causes scratching.  In reality martial artist shouldn't have long finger nails as it interferes with the ability to create a proper fist.  If you look at hand conditioning and training requirements for the "Tiger Claw" you will see that there is no scratching involved.  All of of the training is designed so that the finger can hold the position while grabbing and hooking.  The Tiger claw is also use for striking, this is where the fingers are pulled back towards the palm






Self-defense classes for women usually screw up the purpose of the Tiger Claw and they use it to scratch the face


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> strikes with the base of the thumb


I recently did this about a month ago and it dazed my opponent .  I wasn't intentionally trying to strike with my opponent, but the way we make fist in Jow Ga caused the thumb to create a point.  The point from my thumb was significant enough for it to be felt through boxing gloves (what I was wearing at the time).  When my thumb struck you could hear it pop.  I was happy that I didn't break it because I don't train or condition to hit with my thumb.



jobo said:


> raking someone's eye not scratching them


Yeah there's a big difference between Raking and Scratching.  Scratching is going to cause surface damage while Raking is going to dig deeper and actually destroy tissue and muscle below the surface.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I think people probably figured this out 1000s of years ago.


I know ladies did, thus the social acceptability of the fashion of having long, painted yet still pointy, fingernails.


----------



## DanT (Apr 16, 2017)

I have dozens of scars from being scratched when fighting or sparring. I didn't feel a single one until showering after. The tiger claw technique is for "pawing" (palm striking) the person, usually 45 degrees downward or horizontally like a hook. It's not a scratching motion, although the fingers can be raked over the eyes after palming the face. If you can scratch, you can punch or palm strike.


----------



## Headhunter (Apr 16, 2017)

You only just realised that?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 16, 2017)

jobo said:


> don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option



Depends where you are.  I wouldn't scratch if i can throw an elbow for example.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 16, 2017)

2 of the most devastating moves in our system are the "Tiger Swipe" and "Tiger Strike" that use the traditional Tiger Claw to tear down an opponent's face, gouging out the eyes and ripping the skin from the face. Tiger style practitioners condition their fingers by repeatedly striking hard objects to make their strikes even more powerful. They also train their grip so that when they grab something, it isn't escaping. 






skip to 7:16 to see the tiger grip in action.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 16, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> skip to 7:16 to see the tiger grip in action.


Don't you guys owe G.I. Joe some royalty kick-backs? I mean, he had the Kung Fu Grip copyrighted way back in 1974 and all...

Well, maybe Tiger Grip existed before that, but you have to do your paperwork.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 16, 2017)

jobo said:


> *don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching*, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option



No.  

Put a soft piece of cloth on one of your fingers and run it over one of your eyes.  Then come back and let us the effect.  And then consider a well trimmed fingernail which isn't soft at all.

In the Hapkido I studied, we have moves that rake the eyes.  One would be a simple front bear hug with the arms free.  Slip an arm to the small of the small of the opponent's back.  With the other hand strike up under the chin.  As you do so, you fingers should fall into the opponent's eyes.  Defense against the hand is difficult due to the pain in the neck.  I used to tell students to see how much eye matter they could collect under their fingernails.  If the opponent can't see, he can't fight.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 16, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> As you do so, you fingers should fall into the opponent's eyes.  Defense against the hand is difficult due to the pain in the neck.  I used to tell students to see how much eye matter they could collect under their fingernails.  If the opponent can't see, he can't fight.



Hapkido people are mean.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 16, 2017)

jobo said:


> you've just admitted it was in desperation, which is what I said. Im not sure i would try to blind someone unless I was truly and deeply desperate. But we are taking about raking someone's eye not scratching them was the ops point.
> I've finish any number of fights, to find myself covered in scratches, that I was completely obvious to at the time


I only said "in desperation" because typically that manuver would be an "unnecessary use of force".  I not only hit a red zone but I did so in a manner that easily could have permanently maimed the suspect.  Police, in theory, have training and tools that should make such a technique rare if ever used.

On the other hand, in an unarmed self defense situation a civilian, imo, would have more wiggle room.  The standard for self defense is that the force used is reasonable based on the defenders training and, more importantly, experience.  I regrettably have a lot of experience with violence so it is easier for someone to argue that I used a level of force that one may call "overkill".  On the other hand a civilian being assaulted for the first time would be able to argue that they had never faced violence before and so such a technique could be found reasonable in more varied circumstances.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The standard for self defense is that the force used is reasonable based on the defenders training and, more importantly, experience.


Not every country has the same laws, so it's far from 'standard'.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 17, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Not every country has the same laws, so it's far from 'standard'.


Well that's what the Crown Prosecutor's Web site says (UK).  



> _"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken _




Heck the Law Commission went so far as to say that such a standard is necessary otherwise a battered woman or abused child using excessive force because they are physically at a disadvantage and not under imminent attack, would be denied a defence. Further, an occupant not sure if violence to defend their property against invasion is reasonable, may feel forced to do nothing.

Australia says it has to be an objectively reasonable response to the circumstances as subjectively perceived them.

And the US obviously has this standard.  So it seems the Nations most of the contributors live in here are largely on the same page.  Not surprising since the self defense laws in all three are grounded in English Common Law.


----------



## jobo (Apr 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well that's what the Crown Prosecutor's Web site says (UK).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think there is a fare amount of difference between the UK and US laws, not least that the US have an objective test of reasonable ness and the UK a subjective one of necessity . You don't have to show your actions as reasonable in the actual circumstances, only that you believed them reasonable in the circumstances you thought were in play


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 17, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Hapkido people are mean.





I guess it seems that way sometimes.  But as I learned it, we do not normally initiate fights.  We can when our duty requires it, but it is not the norm. 

So if you have forced us to defend ourselves despite our attempts not to, we want to end it quickly, with no injury to ourselves, and ensure you don't really want to do it again either, or are incapable of doing it again.  What happens to the opponent in the process, is his/her responsibility.

I seem to recall you have studied Hapkido, so I guess you know what I am talking about, unless your style taught it differently.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I think there is a fare amount of difference between the UK and US laws, not least that the US have an objective test of reasonable ness and the UK a subjective one of necessity . You don't have to show your actions as reasonable in the actual circumstances, only that you believed them reasonable in the circumstances you thought were in play



The point I was addressing there was the fact that in all three places the idea of the defender being able to go overboard, if their relative experience with violence (or more importantly lack there of) is permitted.  A civilian isn't expected to have a RoboCop like UoF continuum scrolling in their brain.  They can go overboard... Such as shoot or stab someone over a slap BUT there is more "wiggle room" for them than a trained and experienced professional would enjoy.

Additionally at least the British case law on the matter continuously mentions the "reasonableness" standard.


----------



## jobo (Apr 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The point I was addressing there was the fact that in all three places the idea of the defender being able to go overboard, if their relative experience with violence (or more importantly lack there of) is permitted.  A civilian isn't expected to have a RoboCop like UoF continuum scrolling in their brain.  They can go overboard... Such as shoot or stab someone over a slap BUT there is more "wiggle room" for them than a trained and experienced professional would enjoy.
> 
> Additionally at least the British case law on the matter continuously mentions the "reasonableness" standard.


I'm not quite sure of your point, in the UK a trained professional non law enforcement would have exactly the same defence as an untrained person. The fact your a professional karate instructed would not change how the law viewed your actions.
the UK law is based on percieved necessity, your actions only have to be reasonable for the degree of risk you believed to exist.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 17, 2017)

_


Juany118 said:



			If there has been an attack so that self defence was reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken    .
		
Click to expand...

_This is not a reference to a persons training or level of experience.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 17, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> This is not a reference to a persons training or level of experience.



True, other than juries have, probably due to movies and TV, been given the impression that a student of MA just automatically always has control of him/her self and therefor all situations, and never fears anything anyway. 

At least that is how I have been led to believe it is so in the USA.


----------



## jobo (Apr 17, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> True, other than juries have, probably due to movies and TV, been given the impression that a student of MA just automatically always has control of him/her self and therefor all situations, and never fears anything anyway.
> 
> At least that is how I have been led to believe it is so in the USA.


 it may be in the US , hence my point on the differences. That not to say the prosicution may not try to make a point of your training / size etc. After an unfortunate incident a few years ago, the police sweated me for two hours trying to make me say I lashed out in temper, rather than fear, the difference being a not guilty or a prison stretch


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm not quite sure of your point, in the UK a trained professional non law enforcement would have exactly the same defence as an untrained person. The fact your a professional karate instructed would not change how the law viewed your actions.
> the UK law is based on percieved necessity, your actions only have to be reasonable for the degree of risk you believed to exist.



By trained professional I meant LE, sorry.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 17, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> This is not a reference to a persons training or level of experience.



It is indirectly though.  When the jury is weighing the facts they will be able to consider training and experience in regards to the "honestly and instinctively" bit.  You are already in front of a jury meaning the Prosecution charged you.  Whether the circumstances dictated the "honestly and instinctively" bit that the jury has to determine will be, in part, informed by your training and experience.


----------



## jobo (Apr 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It is indirectly though.  When the jury is weighing the facts they will be able to consider training and experience in regards to the "honestly and instinctively" bit.  You are already in front of a jury meaning the Prosecution charged you.  Whether the circumstances dictated the "honestly and instinctively" bit that the jury has to determine will be, in part, informed by your training and experience.


 no not it in n anyway is that a factor for the jury to consider. If your so charged its a necessary requirement that you hit them as hard as you could, you cant say I was in fear of my life and then that you gave them a bit of a slap, the too don't go together. That you can hit harder because you are trained is besides the point. You hit as hard as you could because you feared for your safety. Just keep saying that
we al know that being trained in martial arts mean precisely nothing as to your ability to hit people, and how have they found out anyway, unless you were wearing your clobber at the time or were daft enough to volunteer the infomation


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It is indirectly though.  When the jury is weighing the facts they will be able to consider training and experience in regards to the "honestly and instinctively" bit.  You are already in front of a jury meaning the Prosecution charged you.  Whether the circumstances dictated the "honestly and instinctively" bit that the jury has to determine will be, in part, informed by your training and experience.


Interesting that more than one person from the UK tells you it is not, and you still try to argue with us that it is.  Although a not inconsiderable amount of my self protection training time is spent on UK self defence law, I would not attempt to argue the finer points of US Law, particularly when more than one person from that country is telling me I am wrong.  But that's just me.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I guess it seems that way sometimes.  But as I learned it, we do not normally initiate fights.  We can when our duty requires it, but it is not the norm.
> 
> So if you have forced us to defend ourselves despite our attempts not to, we want to end it quickly, with no injury to ourselves, and ensure you don't really want to do it again either, or are incapable of doing it again.  What happens to the opponent in the process, is his/her responsibility.
> 
> I seem to recall you have studied Hapkido, so I guess you know what I am talking about, unless your style taught it differently.



I would be more inclined to cripple someone who was trying to scratch my eyes out.  Rather than less so.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I would be more inclined to cripple someone who was trying to scratch my eyes out.  Rather than less so.



I'm sure anyone would given the opportunity.  We are not trained to give such opportunities.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm not quite sure of your point, in the UK a trained professional non law enforcement would have exactly the same defence as an untrained person. The fact your a professional karate instructed would not change how the law viewed your actions.
> the UK law is based on percieved necessity, your actions only have to be reasonable for the degree of risk you believed to exist.



A court case is won by effective argument as much as the written law.  Which is why good lawyers drive Ferrari's.

If they can damage your argument by bringing up martial arts they will.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm sure anyone would given the opportunity.  We are not trained to give such opportunities.



Unrealistic expectations there. Especially when both hands are not protecting your head in your kill move.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 17, 2017)

*We have seen many an mma* fight stopped or stopped for a period of time for the athlete to recover from a gouge.  We have also seen mma fighters curl up in the fetal position after a strike to the eye.  Scratching, gouges, etc. may be a fight ender or give a person a significant advantage.  I can remember getting eye gouged in a competition some time in the early 1990's.  It was awful and took a minute or two to recover and continue thank goodness for adrenaline.  A while later I was in the hospital of course getting checked out to make sure there wasn't permanent irreversible damage.  After a month I was back to normal but that month included a few weeks with a patch and pain pills.  *Scratches, gouges and anything around the eyes is going to give you an advantage if it is successful*.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> no not it in n anyway is that a factor for the jury to consider. If your so charged its a necessary requirement that you hit them as hard as you could, you cant say I was in fear of my life and then that you gave them a bit of a slap, the too don't go together. That you can hit harder because you are trained is besides the point. You hit as hard as you could because you feared for your safety. Just keep saying that
> we al know that being trained in martial arts mean precisely nothing as to your ability to hit people, and how have they found out anyway, unless you were wearing your clobber at the time or were daft enough to volunteer the infomation



You do not understand the full ramifications of "training and experience.". It's not about hitting hard, or knowing where to hit, it's also about the psychological and emotional capacity to deal with violence.  I think people are getting way to wrapped up simply in the direct use of violence and are thus missing the forest for the trees.

In short the Prosecution can argue, and the Jury consider, that based on training *and* experience the defendant claiming self defense was capable of instinctively NOT plucking out the eye of an attacker who simply slapped them and that, for whatever reason, they chose to do so where they may not be able to do so to someone unaccustomed to violence.  In both cases the Prosecution would not be referencing skill in techniques, rather the defendants state of mind during the incident, a state of mind which is informed in part by training and experience.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *We have seen many an mma* fight stopped or stopped for a period of time for the athlete to recover from a gouge.  We have also seen mma fighters curl up in the fetal position after a strike to the eye.  Scratching, gouges, etc. may be a fight ender or give a person a significant advantage.  I can remember getting eye gouged in a competition some time in the early 1990's.  It was awful and took a minute or two to recover and continue thank goodness for adrenaline.  A while later I was in the hospital of course getting checked out to make sure there wasn't permanent irreversible damage.  After a month I was back to normal but that month included a few weeks with a patch and pain pills.  *Scratches, gouges and anything around the eyes is going to give you an advantage if it is successful*.



Had a guy sent to hospital from face punching on the weekend. Broken eye socket mabye needs a plate. Got tagged in the first ten seconds or so. 

Fighting is not about moves that work. 

It is about creating and denying opportunities.

It is for example unrealistic to suggest that you can train in a manner that prevents opportunities for counters. 

So while we go to training or jump on forums and get all exited about how our kill move will pop a guys head like a pimple. So far nothing has been discussed about if the other guy is fighting back. And for me anyway that is the important part of a move. 

So yeah john jones could eyegouge everyone on this forum.  But the reason for that really has little to do with the eyegouge.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 17, 2017)

*Agreed drop bear*.  We all should understand that scratches, eye gouges, etc. can be debilitating.  However, if our skill sets and attributes are better than our opponents.  Then we should have the advantage and prevail!


----------



## JP3 (Apr 17, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I guess it seems that way sometimes.  But as I learned it, we do not normally initiate fights.  We can when our duty requires it, but it is not the norm.
> 
> So if you have forced us to defend ourselves despite our attempts not to, we want to end it quickly, with no injury to ourselves, and ensure you don't really want to do it again either, or are incapable of doing it again.  What happens to the opponent in the process, is his/her responsibility.
> 
> I seem to recall you have studied Hapkido, so I guess you know what I am talking about, unless your style taught it differently.


Yes, when I said "Hapkido people are mean," I have to admit I resemble that remark.

But, the quip is something we used to say at the school down here in Seabrook, TX when we'd be working on something and.... Holy Smoke that freakin' hurt! And, after a while, you get to enjoy the training, even when it's you that are getting the wrong end of the... whatever. I think it breeds meanness, myself.  It's probably why the OKC people (lots of high ranks in one spot in Tomiki aikido in OKC)  my  organization call my technique "crisp" and they don't mean it in a positive way.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> In short the Prosecution can argue, and the Jury consider, that based on training *and* experience the defendant claiming self defense was capable of instinctively NOT plucking out the eye of an attacker who simply slapped them and that, for whatever reason, they chose to do so where they may not be able to do so to someone unaccustomed to violence.


Doesn't matter if you are trained or untrained there is no way you are going to be able to successfully argue in a U.K. Court that it was reasonable to pluck an attackers eye out just because they slapped you.

Also, it would be tremendously difficult for the jury to consider anything, as unless you kill your attacker (and are therefore charged with murder or manslaughter) self defence cases are usually heard in magistrates court, which doesn't have a jury.  Not every country handles or interprets their laws in the same way yours does, which is what is trying to be explained, and yours is certainly not the "standard" as you originally claimed.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 18, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Doesn't matter if you are trained or untrained there is no way you are going to be able to successfully argue in a U.K. Court that it was reasonable to pluck an attackers eye out just because they slapped you.
> 
> Also, it would be tremendously difficult for the jury to consider anything, as unless you kill your attacker (and are therefore charged with murder or manslaughter) self defence cases are usually heard in magistrates court, which doesn't have a jury.  Not every country handles or interprets their laws in the same way yours does, which is what is trying to be explained, and yours is certainly not the "standard" as you originally claimed.



I think you are getting a bit pedantic now.  I was giving a hyperbolic example to keep the scenario simple rather than writing an entire incident report.  All I am saying is that a jury will likely give more slack to a stereotypical civilian than a LEO, active MMA competitor ect. because there will be an assumption that the later, being more familiar with real violence, will be less apt to "instinctively" go overboard in a panic.  Thats all I am saying.  The same would apply to a trial by judge/magistrate.  In the US system, in some States, you actually have a choice between a "bench trial" (a trial by only a Judge) or a Jury trial.

In theory the only difference is the Jury may be more easily swayed by emotional arguments and if you can hang just one or two jurors you get a mistrial, with the Judge it's all or nothing and, again in theory, less apt to have emotion sway them.  BUT the same standards of evidence and law should be applied and thus you are more than likely to have the same outcome.

The US Legal System vs GB and Australia really seems to be an example of the old axiom..."the more things change, the more they stay the same."


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 18, 2017)

Plucking eyeballs out is a lot harder than people imagine, however if you need to put one back an army medic I know put one back when a soldier was injured in Afghan by using his racing spoon.


----------



## jobo (Apr 18, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think you are getting a bit pedantic now.  I was giving a hyperbolic example to keep the scenario simple rather than writing an entire incident report.  All I am saying is that a jury will likely give more slack to a stereotypical civilian than a LEO, active MMA competitor ect. because there will be an assumption that the later, being more familiar with real violence, will be less apt to "instinctively" go overboard in a panic.  Thats all I am saying.  The same would apply to a trial by judge/magistrate.  In the US system, in some States, you actually have a choice between a "bench trial" (a trial by only a Judge) or a Jury trial.
> 
> In theory the only difference is the Jury may be more easily swayed by emotional arguments and if you can hang just one or two jurors you get a mistrial, with the Judge it's all or nothing and, again in theory, less apt to have emotion sway them.  BUT the same standards of evidence and law should be applied and thus you are more than likely to have the same outcome.
> 
> The US Legal System vs GB and Australia really seems to be an example of the old axiom..."the more things change, the more they stay the same."


you Americans' seem convinced that a martial artist will be treated differently by the court than a regular guy. That may be the situation in the states, though I deeply suspect it isn't. But its not the situation in the uk. You would have to have multiple standards of justice. One for the girl who has just done a defence course. One for the guy who used to box at school, one for the white belt one for a green belt , one for the guy who left the army last year, another for the guy who left the army 10 years ago. etc etc

there is a principals in English law, that you take Your victim as you find them. If you attack somepne with a very thin scull, that's manslaughter, if you attacked a martial arts expert and be beats you up, that's tough luck. Should have stuck to old ladies that can't fight back


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 18, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> All I am saying is that a jury will likely give more slack to a stereotypical civilian than a LEO, active MMA competitor ect. because there will be an assumption that the later, being more familiar with real violence, will be less apt to "instinctively" go overboard in a panic.  Thats all I am saying.


And all we are saying is that that isn't the case.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 18, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Agreed drop bear*.  We all should understand that scratches, eye gouges, etc. can be debilitating.  However, if our skill sets and attributes are better than our opponents.  Then we should have the advantage and prevail!



Exhibit A being Yuki Nakai defeating Gerard Gordeau after being permanently blinded in one eye by Gordeau's illegal eye gouges. Gordeau had size and sociopathy on his side, but Nakai had technique and indomitable fighting spirit.


----------



## Buka (Apr 19, 2017)

Comparing courts of law in different countries? That might not work out well. 

As for eyes, here's a little test to try at home. Put your fingers in a flick position.


 

Then, as hard as you can, flick it against every part of your body. Let me know what you find out when you get to the eyeball.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2017)

Buka said:


> Comparing courts of law in different countries? That might not work out well.
> 
> As for eyes, here's a little test to try at home. Put your fingers in a flick position.
> 
> ...


Nose is pretty funny as well.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> you Americans' seem convinced that a martial artist will be treated differently by the court than a regular guy. That may be the situation in the states, though I deeply suspect it isn't. But its not the situation in the uk. You would have to have multiple standards of justice. One for the girl who has just done a defence course. One for the guy who used to box at school, one for the white belt one for a green belt , one for the guy who left the army last year, another for the guy who left the army 10 years ago. etc etc
> 
> there is a principals in English law, that you take Your victim as you find them. If you attack somepne with a very thin scull, that's manslaughter, if you attacked a martial arts expert and be beats you up, that's tough luck. Should have stuck to old ladies that can't fight back



No, Not martial artists.  Read what I actually wrote "LEO and active MMA COMPETITOR."

A LEO, a bonafide MMA fighter, not simply someone who studies MMA fighting, have not only training BUT *real experience with violence on a regular basis.* That experience, and the state of mind such experience will influence, is definitely relevant in terms of any criminal investigation.  How might I know what is relevant to a criminal investigation?  Not because I am a martial artist but because for almost 20 years now I have investigated crimes for a living.  This is simply a fact of law.  It's hard to say "I feared for my life" from someone your size or smaller punch you in the face if you have extensive experience in REAL fighting and have come out the other side.


----------



## jobo (Apr 19, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> No, Not martial artists.  Read what I actually wrote "LEO and active MMA COMPETITOR."
> 
> A LEO, a bonafide MMA fighter, not simply someone who studies MMA fighting, have not only training BUT *real experience with violence on a regular basis.* That experience, and the state of mind such experience will influence, is definitely relevant in terms of any criminal investigation.  How might I know what is relevant to a criminal investigation?  Not because I am a martial artist but because for almost 20 years now I have investigated crimes for a living.  This is simply a fact of law.  It's hard to say "I feared for my life" from someone your size or smaller punch you in the face if you have extensive experience in REAL fighting and have come out the other side.


no you said a Leo mma competitor ETC. What is this etc? Why would a mixed martial arts competitor be treated more harshly that a martial arts competitor ? All that said you haven't investigated crimes in the uk, and clearly have no idea of the law here. Why you keep pontificating on a topic you have no idea about is beyond me


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> no you said a Leo mma competitor ETC. What is this etc? Why would a mixed martial arts competitor be treated more harshly that a martial arts competitor ? All that said you haven't investigated crimes in the uk, and clearly have no idea of the law here. Why you keep pontificating on a topic you have no idea about is beyond me


Pedantic to the max... Translation if you actually have  experienced real violence on a regular basis, you will be cut less slack than the person who has never experienced real violence in a court of law when it comes to self defense.  If you don't get that I have nothing else to say.


----------



## jobo (Apr 19, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Pedantic to the max... Translation if you actually have  experienced real violence on a regular basis, you will be cut less slack than the person who has never experienced real violence in a court of law when it comes to self defense.  If you don't get that I have nothing else to say.


for someone in law enforcement you seem to have a hate of detail. Mma isn't real violence,real violence doesn't have a ref


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> for someone in law enforcement you seem to have a hate of detail. Mma isn't real violence,real violence doesn't have a ref



And how many other activities beyond boxing etc do you know where someone willing says "yes I will risk someone punching or kicking me in the head with know violence, looking for at least a concussion if not a KO"?

Ref or not that is what they call pressure testing.  I don't practice MMA, I practice Wing Chun and Kali, but all the respect to those who will step into that octagon and risk a tbi while other people try to claim falsly that such has nothing to do with their psychology and thus a potential court case


----------



## jobo (Apr 19, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And how many other activities beyond boxing etc do you know where someone willing says "yes I will risk someone punching or kicking me in the head with know violence, looking for at least a concussion if not a KO"?
> 
> Ref or not that is what they call pressure testing.  I don't practice MMA, I practice Wing Chun and Kali, but all the respect to those who will step into that octagon and risk a tbi while other people try to claim falsly that such has nothing to do with their psychology and thus a potential court case


well just about any of the striking martial arts done full contact, you have a pretty good chance of being kicked in the head. An even better one of being punched in the head. I'm not surprised your confused by real violence doing wing chun. You only in danger of getting a nasty slap, if you don't keep you guard up


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2017)

Check this video at 2:25 on to 2:35 or so.


----------



## Buka (Apr 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> you Americans' seem convinced that a martial artist will be treated differently by the court than a regular guy. That may be the situation in the states, though I deeply suspect it isn't. But its not the situation in the uk. You would have to have multiple standards of justice. One for the girl who has just done a defence course. One for the guy who used to box at school, one for the white belt one for a green belt , one for the guy who left the army last year, another for the guy who left the army 10 years ago. etc etc
> 
> there is a principals in English law, that you take Your victim as you find them. If you attack somepne with a very thin scull, that's manslaughter, if you attacked a martial arts expert and be beats you up, that's tough luck. Should have stuck to old ladies that can't fight back



Juany118 was speaking about courts from where he is from, the United States. As for the "you Americans" line, really, "you Americans"?


----------



## jobo (Apr 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> Juany118 was speaking about courts from where he is from, the United States. As for the "you Americans" line, really, "you Americans"?


no he wasn't, he has spent two pages telling us about courts in the uk, a topic he know nothing at all about. Not that he lets complete ignorance stop him


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> As for eyes, here's a little test to try at home. Put your fingers in a flick position.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think I've mentioned it before, but I've taken an (accidental) hard poke to the eyes three times so far in my sparring.

One time I stopped, stepped back, and asked for a minute to make sure I was okay and let my eye stop watering. In a real fight I would have kept fighting, but my opponent would have had opportunities to land some extra strikes while my vision was impaired. (Side note - for the next 6 months I saw random flashing circles of light in that eye at nighttime. Kind of worrisome, but they eventually went away.)

One time I immediately dropped to the ground in excruciating pain. Given the painkilling effects of the extra adrenaline in a real fight, I might have kept going in an actual self-defense situation, but it almost certainly would have been a fight-winning move regardless.

One time the eye immediately watered up and closed while the other eye mostly closed in sympathy - however I had already gotten a hand on my sparring partner and was able to use feel to take him down and armbar him without the use of my eyes.

Bottom line - my experience suggests that attacking the eyes can be very effective, but is not a guaranteed win even if you do land a clean attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 20, 2017)

KangTsai said:


> I think that scratching somebody's face in is a working move in fighting. I theorised what you can actually do with it.
> -you can make opponent close eyes, this goes for slapping as well = tactical benefit and windows for more powerful strikes/techniques without risk of missing
> -if they don't close eyes = blindness ensured for complete control
> -it really really hurts, and you are not passing it off with adrenaline = pain reaction garuanteed
> ...


Where are you getting that pain suppression from the psycho-physiological fight response wouldn't dampen or entirely suppress a scratch to the face?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 20, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Plucking eyeballs out is a lot harder than people imagine, however if you need to put one back an army medic I know put one back when a soldier was injured in Afghan by using his racing spoon.


What the hell is a "racing spoon", Tez??


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> What the hell is a "racing spoon", Tez??



Racing Spoon - ARRSEpedia


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 20, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Racing Spoon - ARRSEpedia


You military Brits are weird.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You military Brits are weird.



A spoon is indispensable (you can eat anything with it), it has to have a deepish bowl, a long handle and be indestructible. It must also be easy to pack away in a pocket or pack. It's called 'racing' because you have to shovel the food down as fast as you can on exercise/in action. My other half can still eat chicken curry, oat biscuits, tinned cheese, custard and fruit pudding all together from one dish in a matter of minutes. They used to be wood which didn't 'clink' off the mess tin and didn't burn your mouth. Long discussions can be held when on stag ( guard duty) as to which the best one is, a solid silver one nicked from the officer's mess and wrapped around the handle with black and nasty ( duct tape) is considered good. It has to be a good size to get the food in your mouth quickly, plate is balanced on bottom lip and food shoved in. You can sharpen the end of the handle and have a weapon ( or knife/fork) as well, quite often it has a bit of string attached.


----------



## Buka (Apr 20, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think I've mentioned it before, but I've taken an (accidental) hard poke to the eyes three times so far in my sparring.
> 
> One time I stopped, stepped back, and asked for a minute to make sure I was okay and let my eye stop watering. In a real fight I would have kept fighting, but my opponent would have had opportunities to land some extra strikes while my vision was impaired. (Side note - for the next 6 months I saw random flashing circles of light in that eye at nighttime. Kind of worrisome, but they eventually went away.)
> 
> ...



I'm not of the "rip his eyeballs out" school. (More power to those that are) all I want from an intentional strike to the eye is to get the reaction of turning the head for a brief second. Obviously, I'm not talking about sparring or competition. As for sparring, can't possibly remember how many times I've caught something in an eye. But that's over many years. The ones you worry about are the ones that still bother you the next morning. But, fortunately, each time, the worry was for naught.

Always made my students have clipped finger nails and toe nails. Periodically checked them, too. I think that is very important.

Caught a few in competition over the years, it happens. Just clinched and hung on. And hoped it stopped watering before catching one upside the head. I've found that when something hit my eye and I had a lot of watering, I was always susceptible to strikes that came up from below from an angle, like a shovel hook or a hybrid roundhouse/front kick kind of thing, while my vision was still a little wet. One time I got poked (completely unintentional) by a Kung Fu guy. Right afterwards I got hit with one of those dragon whip spin kick things (for lack of a better term on my part), fortunately, I had my guard married to my cheek and weathered it okay.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> Caught a few in competition over the years, it happens. Just clinched and hung on.


Yeah, if I can get hold of my opponent, being blinded isn't going to stop me. If I'm at striking range and can't close or get away, then I'm in trouble.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 20, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> A spoon is indispensable (you can eat anything with it), it has to have a deepish bowl, a long handle and be indestructible. It must also be easy to pack away in a pocket or pack. It's called 'racing' because you have to shovel the food down as fast as you can on exercise/in action. My other half can still eat chicken curry, oat biscuits, tinned cheese, custard and fruit pudding all together from one dish in a matter of minutes. They used to be wood which didn't 'clink' off the mess tin and didn't burn your mouth. Long discussions can be held when on stag ( guard duty) as to which the best one is, a solid silver one nicked from the officer's mess and wrapped around the handle with black and nasty ( duct tape) is considered good. It has to be a good size to get the food in your mouth quickly, plate is balanced on bottom lip and food shoved in. You can sharpen the end of the handle and have a weapon ( or knife/fork) as well, quite often it has a bit of string attached.



I followed your link and some related links in utter amazement.  Who knew?  I could relate to a couple of things though.  If I could only have one silver ware item, I would want a spoon like your describe; at least like we used to have when I first joined the US Army.  Amazing tool and you  could use  it to eat with too.  When I was on Okinawa, our houseboys used to use them to make rings from half dollars (more silver then) by holding them on edge and striking the top of the edge with the bottom of the spoon as they rotated the coin.  They would then sand the inside.  As to eating mixed food in a hurry, my first three years were in the airborne.  Seemed like we almost never had time to stop and eat.  And if we did, we would likely have to start moving in the middle of eating.  Since we only had cans, it was difficult to mix items.  Cans were opened with P38 openers.

As to smocks, in the US, that would normally be something like an apron, but could be smocked women's dresses as well.  We would have called that 'coat' a field jacket, which also had removal inner liners as well.  Usually liners, trousers and such used buttons rather than zippers or snaps.  Smart solders carried a sewing kit in the field.

Anyway, thanks for the link and the education that came with it.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 21, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, if I can get hold of my opponent, being blinded isn't going to stop me. If I'm at striking range and can't close or get away, then I'm in trouble.



Yeah well loosing a fight to someone who is trying to blind you is the last thing you want to do.


----------



## Buka (Apr 21, 2017)

Yes, but if you're a fighter, and someone is trying to blind you, it's really going to piss you off. That's not good....for them.


----------

