After contemplation, scratching is a real legit move

[jobo]

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



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.