Don't tell them you know martial arts

[jks9199]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.
...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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