After contemplation, scratching is a real legit move

[Paul_D]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

View attachment 20589

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.

Nose is pretty funny as well.

 

[Juany118]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Buka]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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??