# Old man defeats burglar with his hands.....



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 1, 2009)

Before messing with an old man, you probably should learn what kind of young man he was........so learned would-be burglar Gregory McCalium, 24, when, armed with a knife, he attempted to burglarize the home of Frank Corti, 72.

What he didn't know was that Frank Corti was a boxer in his younger years........and McCalium's face speaks volumes about Corti's current punching ability after only two punches.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...Four-And-A-Half-Years/Article/200906415325104

A good example of the power of boxing and punching for self-defense, and about how those skills aren't entirely perishable.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 1, 2009)

Strength may come and go, but technique and muscle memory stays for much longer. The burglar got what he deserved.


----------



## Stac3y (Jul 1, 2009)

Hooray for old donkey-kickers!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 1, 2009)

It is the UK - I'm amazed they didn't throw the homeowner in prison for daring to assault an innocent young man who merely wanted to stick a small knife in the homeowners.  Someone had best act quickly, or common sense is likely to return to England.


----------



## Catalyst (Jul 1, 2009)

I like it when the good guys win


----------



## arnisador (Jul 1, 2009)

That's great! Sent to prison by an old man!


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 1, 2009)

The only thing better than sending a criminal to jail is sending a criminal to jail with an ***-whupping.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 1, 2009)

Outstanding!


----------



## clfsean (Jul 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is the UK - I'm amazed they didn't throw the homeowner in prison for daring to assault an innocent young man who merely wanted to stick a small knife in the homeowners.  Someone had best act quickly, or common sense is likely to return to England.



No joke... especially considering how bad that idiot got jacked up. 

Good on the old man though!!!


----------



## yak sao (Jul 1, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Before messing with an old man, you probably should learn what kind of young man he was...
> 
> 
> 
> That just may be one of the best things I've read on this forum


----------



## girlbug2 (Jul 1, 2009)

Hah, I love it! Old guys rule!

And it just goes to show that MA training can never truly go to waste, no matter one's age.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 1, 2009)

It has been posted here before, but this is a 72 year old former Golden Gloves boxer who caught a pickpocket red-handed:

[yt]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mafN9E6AR2Q&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mafN9E6AR2Q&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
[/yt]


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 1, 2009)

Good job. Thats 1 for the team.     
As far as perishability of a skillset, I dont believe too firmly that anything really perishes accept the natural degeneration of the human body...  Some skills last a lifetime...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 2, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Good job. Thats 1 for the team.
> As far as perishability of a skillset, I dont believe too firmly that anything really perishes accept the natural degeneration of the human body...  Some skills last a lifetime...



Exactly......Not once it's truly ingrained......I truly believe that's why the skills of boxers are so enduring, is because they practice their few basics thousands and thousands of times to the point where they remain indelible.


A rather morbid, but still compelling example of the indelibility of some skill sets is the example of Verne Gagne..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verne_Gagne

Though the incident was tragic, it does illustrate that skills acquired after years of practice remain even while cognitive ability and conscious memory decline.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 2, 2009)

It happens with walking, riding a bike, over the years we may become slow or unsteady, but it is still there.


----------



## Shinobi Teikiatsu (Jul 2, 2009)

This guy is the Clint Eastwood of the U.K!

EDIT: Woo hoo! 100 posts!


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is the UK - I'm amazed they didn't throw the homeowner in prison for daring to assault an innocent young man who merely wanted to stick a small knife in the homeowners. Someone had best act quickly, or common sense is likely to return to England.


 
That's an uncalled for snide remark, I have been trying to point out to you all that self defence is encouraged here and people don't get done for it but you will persist in believing these fables that we aren't allowed to defend ourselves. I don't know why on earth you should believe it but for crying out loud i wish you would bloody stop it and actually believe the truth as shown by this case, for once.
I don't know who's told you or lead you to believe this crap but you do not get done for defending yourself here. The judge actually commended this guy for defending himself.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> That's an uncalled for snide remark, I have been trying to point out to you all that self defence is encouraged here and people don't get done for it but you will persist in believing these fables that we aren't allowed to defend ourselves. I don't know why on earth you should believe it but for crying out loud i wish you would bloody stop it and actually believe the truth as shown by this case, for once.
> I don't know who's told you or lead you to believe this crap but you do not get done for defending yourself here. The judge actually commended this guy for defending himself.



I agree that it's unfair to say that the UK doesn't allow 'self defense'.........I think the issue is probably the definition of 'self defense' and, and it's limits, and a difference of opinion on where the benefit of the doubt should fall.

In some parts of the US it is considered self-defense to shoot a burglar, armed or not, for the implied threat of even being present in your residence.......that certainly would not be considered self-defense in the UK.


----------



## David43515 (Jul 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I agree that it's unfair to say that the UK doesn't allow 'self defense'.........I think the issue is probably the definition of 'self defense' and, and it's limits, and a difference of opinion on where the benefit of the doubt should fall.
> 
> In some parts of the US it is considered self-defense to shoot a burglar, armed or not, for the implied threat of even being present in your residence.......that certainly would not be considered self-defense in the UK.


 
Can you tell us what parts of the US that might be? I was always taught that although some places have the "castle doctrine" which says people have no requirement to retreat from danger in thier own homes, self defense could only be claimed if a "reasonable person" would be in fear of death or grevous bodily harm to themselves or others. You can`t shoot people just for trespassing.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 6, 2009)

In common law here self defence is called an 'absolute defence', it doesn't just mitigate a crime it means that no crime exists in the first place, therefore if you defend yourself there is no crime. 
However to justify self defence two conditions have to apply, one subjective, the other objective. Firstly, did you genuinely believe that force was necessary to protect yourself and secondly having that belief was the degree of force reasonable to meet the threat as you saw it.


----------



## Stac3y (Jul 6, 2009)

David43515 said:


> Can you tell us what parts of the US that might be? I was always taught that although some places have the "castle doctrine" which says people have no requirement to retreat from danger in thier own homes, self defense could only be claimed if a "reasonable person" would be in fear of death or grevous bodily harm to themselves or others. You can`t shoot people just for trespassing.


 
In Louisiana, you can shoot any intruder in your home. The assumption is that anyone brazen enough to come into your house is looking to cause you bodily harm. 

I believe the same is true in Texas, although I haven't paid that much attention since I no longer own a handgun. Too risky with kids in the house to have one ready to use. One with a gun lock on or in a safe isn't much use for a midnight home invasion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2009)

David43515 said:


> Can you tell us what parts of the US that might be? I was always taught that although some places have the "castle doctrine" which says people have no requirement to retreat from danger in thier own homes, self defense could only be claimed if a "reasonable person" would be in fear of death or grevous bodily harm to themselves or others. You can`t shoot people just for trespassing.



In several parts, including Texas, Florida and Missouri........in Missouri our statute states that the mere PRESENCE of a Burglar in your home is considered sufficient for a 'reasonable' fear of death or grevous injury........no OTHER conditions must be present to justify that fear other than mere presence of a burglar.....

.....by the way, burglary, i.e. the entering of another person's home, is not mere 'trespassing', i.e. the unwelcome entry on to the property of another.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> In common law here self defence is called an 'absolute defence', it doesn't just mitigate a crime it means that no crime exists in the first place, therefore if you defend yourself there is no crime.
> However to justify self defence two conditions have to apply, one subjective, the other objective. Firstly, did you genuinely believe that force was necessary to protect yourself and secondly having that belief was the degree of force reasonable to meet the threat as you saw it.



And where we disagree, country to country, is what is considered 'reasonable'.......word it how you want, it still comes down to a difference of opinion on 'objective reasonableness'........what the average citizen of the UK would consider 'reasonable' isn't the same as what the average citizen of Missouri would consider 'Reasonable'..........we consider reasonable the notion that the presence of a burglar is justification for lethal force.


----------



## David43515 (Jul 6, 2009)

Thanks, I knew there were differences in the statute from state to state, but I had no idea it was that big.


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Jul 8, 2009)

I think this is also very situational. I live in Jersey and my sister's boyfriend has a cop friend, and he said shoot anyone dead if they trespass in your house. That way you run no risk of a law suit and just be sure to tell them you really thought your life was at risk.


Even mitigating that, I mean, the whole thing seems entirely situational. In this case, they said the man had a knife on him. I would think the ONLY possible way one would not feel their life is at stake is if the trespasser is fleeing or really trying to outwit you, "Oh, I'm really sorry, I just haven't eaten in days, I mean no harm" Although burglars arn't typically known for their cunning. Even if they are unarmed, you'd have to beat them pretty senseless to not feel the danger in them introducing some sort of weapon.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## David43515 (Jul 8, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> I think this is also very situational. I live in Jersey and my sister's boyfriend has a cop friend, and he said shoot anyone dead if they trespass in your house. That way you run no risk of a law suit and just be sure to tell them you really thought your life was at risk.
> 
> 
> Even mitigating that, I mean, the whole thing seems entirely situational. In this case, they said the man had a knife on him. I would think the ONLY possible way one would not feel their life is at stake is if the trespasser is fleeing or really trying to outwit you, "Oh, I'm really sorry, I just haven't eaten in days, I mean no harm" Although burglars arn't typically known for their cunning. Even if they are unarmed, you'd have to beat them pretty senseless to not feel the danger in them introducing some sort of weapon.
> ...


 
If you ever plan of following that cop`s advice, You`d better be dang sure the`s no wounds in the guys back. Try explaining that as self defense. "Honest your honour, He looked so scary running towards the door that I seriously felt I was a t risk if I didn`t shoot him twice more."


----------



## Carol (Jul 8, 2009)

Legal advice should come from lawyers, not LEOs.  

Keep in mind that a defense attorney does more than just defend a person that got arrested.  They also help keep law-abiding citizens on the right side of the law, and there are a few out there experienced with personal protection issues. 

Also: most employers run pre-employment background checks.  FACTA laws only apply to information obtained through reporting agencies.  Its perfectly legal for a potential employer not to hire you, or even interview you, because your local newspaper says you shot a trespasser in the back and killed him/her, even if you were never charged with a crime...and not tell you why you are being passed over.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 8, 2009)

Here if you feel your life is at risk and you kill your attacker thats reasonable, what's not reasonable for example if KOing someone then kicking them in the head while they are on the floor, that sort of thing. An armed burglar who gets shot by a householder here is a very stupid burglar but the householder won't face charges.
It's actually far more clear cut than perhaps you think. Common sense tells you whats reasonable.
Glycerine, which Jersey do you live in? Channel Islands? If so they have different laws as they aren't in UK.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> That's an uncalled for snide remark, I have been trying to point out to you all that self defence is encouraged here and people don't get done for it but you will persist in believing these fables that we aren't allowed to defend ourselves. I don't know why on earth you should believe it but for crying out loud i wish you would bloody stop it and actually believe the truth as shown by this case, for once.
> I don't know who's told you or lead you to believe this crap but you do not get done for defending yourself here. The judge actually commended this guy for defending himself.


 
Yeah...but I heard it was only legal to defend yourself using head-butts. 



Tez3 said:


> Here if you feel your life is at risk and you kill your attacker thats reasonable, what's not reasonable for example if KOing someone then kicking them in the head while they are on the floor, that sort of thing. An armed burglar who gets shot by a householder here is a very stupid burglar but the householder won't face charges.
> It's actually far more clear cut than perhaps you think. Common sense tells you whats reasonable.
> Glycerine, which Jersey do you live in? Channel Islands? If so they have different laws as they aren't in UK.


 
That's actually pretty similar to the way it is in the state where I live. I do not have a "duty to flee" and am within my rights to excercise as much force as I percieve being attempted against me. Anything in excess of that, and it's no longer "self-defense."


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 8, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Yeah...but I heard it was only legal to defend yourself using head-butts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually pretty similar to the way it is in the state where I live. I do not have a "duty to flee" and am within my rights to excercise as much force as I percieve being attempted against me. Anything in excess of that, and it's no longer "self-defense."


 

Head butts are the weapon of choice in Glasgow where they are known as the Glasgae kiss lol! My instructor taught us that when someone is giving you verbal, you pretend to be deaf to get the guy to get closer to you than head butt them! shown us how to do it properly too.

Here, also you are allowed to strike first if in fear of your life, there's no waiting to be hit before you can defend yourself. You get your retaliation in first!


----------



## still learning (Jul 8, 2009)

Hello, Some people do not think of boxing as a Martial art....

YET most styles have boxing...

Boxing should be one of the most important lessons to learn...!  Aloha,


----------



## Guardian (Jul 16, 2009)

Thanks SgtMac, I remember hearing about that with Verne Gagne and didn't pay much attention to it.  Dad use to take me to those wrestling matches all the time in Milwaukee, Verne, the Crusher, Bruiser, all of them.  Sure brings back some memories for sure.

As far as the topic, he sure messed him up with only two punches LOL LOL, served the little twerp right.  Their going to have fun in prison with him.


----------



## Guardian (Jul 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> In several parts, including Texas, Florida and Missouri........in Missouri our statute states that the mere PRESENCE of a Burglar in your home is considered sufficient for a 'reasonable' fear of death or grevous injury........no OTHER conditions must be present to justify that fear other than mere presence of a burglar.....
> 
> .....by the way, burglary, i.e. the entering of another person's home, is not mere 'trespassing', i.e. the unwelcome entry on to the property of another.


 
It use to be called Breaking and Entering irregardless if the doors were locked or not, if it was not your house and you entered without permission you committed B&E, now a days it seems we want to cushion/soften all those bad words that allowed us to take care of business.  Thank God, some states are showing common sense and given us the Castle Doctrine and like minded laws back.  Just another reason I love Texas.


----------

