Self Defence or Murder .. a fine line.

[Brian R. VanCise]

There are times when it is very important to teach someone how to effectively stomp or kick a downed person. I regularly have military people training with me that are deploying over seas in very dangerous areas. They need certain skill sets.

There are some really good points on this thread. One of the most important was made by K-man in that being drunk or intoxicated in public is generally not a good idea. You can cut down a lot of potential problems by simply just eliminating this from your routine!

 

[Paul_D]

You're right. Maybe they don't teach a head stomp, which Paul D asserts is an impractical, dojo only technique much the same as a sword cut in Iaido.

Don't ever recall using the word impractical, or even implying it. In fact it's highly practical, as the sad news story clearly illustrates. It's just not legally defensible, morally acceptable or necessary.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

In regards to a head stomp being instinctual I would say that in order to do it effectively you have to get into position which requires footwork and moving around a body which is not instinctual but takes training to get good at. Actually lots of training.

What if the person on the ground pulls out a hand gun? What if they pull out a knife? In both situations they have brought a weapon into the encounter and because of that weapon it is now a potential lethal encounter. Just some food for thought!

 

[Steve]

There are some really good points on this thread. One of the most important was made by K-man in that being drunk or intoxicated in public is generally not a good idea. You can cut down a lot of potential problems by simply just eliminating this from your routine!

I would agree with this completely.

Don't ever recall usign the word impractical, or even implying it. In fact it's highly practical, as the sad news story clearly illustrates. It's just not legally defensible, morally acceptable or necessary.

If it's a "dojo only" technique, in my mind how can it be practical for self defense?

It may be effective, but that it is not legally defensible, morally acceptable or necessary are exactly why it is impractical for self defense. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I also want to clarify that I completely understand that there might be times where a head stomp is the appropriate response.

What interests me is the shoe is now on the other foot. There has been such a concerted effort recently to "prove" that BJJ is inneffective for self defense. I'll be honest, this stood out to me because it was an acknowledgement that a staple of RBSD training was referred to as a "dojo only" technique. I think one lesson here is that there is a time and place for everything.

The other is above, written by Brian. Being grossly impaired by alcohol in public is seldom a good idea. Maybe that's lesson number one in self defense.

 

[Tez3]

You're right. Maybe they don't teach a head stomp, which Paul D asserts is an impractical, dojo only technique much the same as a sword cut in Iaido.

Regarding the "better" statement, I don't know what you're getting on about. It's very simple. If he had been a better grappler than the other guy, he would have stayed on his feet AND/OR regained his feet. Unfortunately for him, he was not.

Or, are you suggesting that there are times when anyone could find themselves on the ground in a bad situation? Because that could also be an interesting line of discussion, echoing some points I've made in other threads.

You said 'better grappler' which implies he was a grappler and they were grappling. There's nothing to say they were grappling. That's all.

 

[Paul_D]

It may be effective, but that it is not legally defensible, morally acceptable or necessary are exactly why it is impractical for self defense. Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

Oh, I'm with you now, sorry. Yes, I would agree then.

 

[Steve]

You said 'better grappler' which implies he was a grappler and they were grappling. There's nothing to say they were grappling. That's all.

Everyone who grapples is a grappler in that moment. They were grappling, ergo, they were grapplers. And one was better at it than the other.

Edit: Not sure if this was implicit, so just want to add that training could have helped. i think the confusion is that when I say that they are grapplers, I'm not necessarily suggesting that they are trained grapplers.

 

[Tez3]

Everyone who grapples is a grappler in that moment. They were grappling, ergo, they were grapplers. And one was better at it than the other.

It doesn't say they were grappling though. The deceased bumped/tripped into one of the guys, who then shoved him. The deceased was dumped on the ground, the accused stomped on his head. Doesn't say they were grappling at all.
"Mr Hardy was allegedly flung to the ground and stomped on after getting into an argument with Mr Zandipour and his friend on St Kilda Rd just after midnight on ­Saturday morning.
The Herald Sun has been told the fight began when an intoxicated Mr Hardy tripped Mr Zandipour’s friend, who ­retaliated with a push.Police allege Mr Zandipour then ­intervened with deadly force."

 

[Steve]

It doesn't say they were grappling though. The deceased bumped/tripped into one of the guys, who then shoved him. The deceased was dumped on the ground, the accused stomped on his head. Doesn't say they were grappling at all.
"Mr Hardy was allegedly flung to the ground and stomped on after getting into an argument with Mr Zandipour and his friend on St Kilda Rd just after midnight on ­Saturday morning.
The Herald Sun has been told the fight began when an intoxicated Mr Hardy tripped Mr Zandipour’s friend, who ­retaliated with a push.Police allege Mr Zandipour then ­intervened with deadly force."

Was the guy "flung to the ground" by way of telekinesis? You clearly have a different idea of what grappling entails than I. I think it very clearly says that they were grappling.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Because there's little reason to ever stomp someone in the head.

Agreed. Nor do I consider it a "martial arts move." Any sixth grader with no training can stomp on someone's head. It's just stomping.

 

[Steve]

Agreed. Nor do I consider it a "martial arts move." Any sixth grader with no training can stomp on someone's head. It's just stomping.

Well, now this is interesting. I respect your opinion, Daniel. You're a knowledgeable, level headed guy. And I also respect Brian vanCise who says exactly the opposite in post 23.

 

[Tez3]

Was the guy "flung to the ground" by way of telekinesis? You clearly have a different idea of what grappling entails than I. I think it very clearly says that they were grappling.

Well no, you can be standing still and someone fling you to the ground without you having grappled with them or by grappling with them on the ground. You are reading into it more than is written, it's very easy to read between the lines but all we have to go on it's what is written here, 'He was flung to the ground', nothing more, nothing less. It also uses the word allegedly which means it's unproven at this moment so no proof is being offered that is what happened, that is the correct procedure for what the police tell the media. Evidence is kept for court when we will hear what all sides have to say. It could be they were grappling or it could be that the deceased was shoved then picked up and dumped on the ground but for the moment all we have to go on is that the deceased was flung on the floor, no grappling.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well, now this is interesting. I respect your opinion, Daniel. You're a knowledgeable, level headed guy. And I also respect Brian vanCise who says exactly the opposite in post 23.

I do agree with his statement, actually. I almost went back and deleted my comment after reading it, but I opted not to. There is teaching people to stomp in the context of a particular art. I teach it as a kick, though the intended target is not the head.

But for stomping to be called a "martial arts move" without the rest of that context is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I may have missed it, but was there any indication that the man who did the stomping was a trained fighter? Or just an opportunistic friend of guy on top who chose to stomp on the victim's head?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Was the guy "flung to the ground" by way of telekinesis?

Only if he was fighting George Dillman or Benny Hinn.

 

[Tez3]

This is flinging someone to the ground without grappling, the player is tackled and goes down, it is just one way you can 'fling' someone down, there's others, the deceased was drunk it wouldn't have been to hard to tip him onto the floor without any grappling taking place.
Women's Rugby Takedown - YouTube

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I don't teach the head-stomp to a downed opponent because I consider the risk of someone using it inappropriately and killing someone in a situation which didn't require it to be higher than the odds of being in a situation where it was actually necessary. If you are standing and your opponent is down there are very few scenarios where lethal force on your part is justified.

 

[Tez3]

Stomps to the head tend to not be so common in altercations I've found, 'soccer' kicks however are more common, usually not so much aimed at the head but can hit there when the victim moves to avoid the kicks. 'Soccer' kicking is an easy move to make by anyone, no instruction needed and is something to watch for always if on the ground surrounded by people.

 

[Steve]

Well no, you can be standing still and someone fling you to the ground without you having grappled with them or by grappling with them on the ground. You are reading into it more than is written, it's very easy to read between the lines but all we have to go on it's what is written here, 'He was flung to the ground', nothing more, nothing less. It also uses the word allegedly which means it's unproven at this moment so no proof is being offered that is what happened, that is the correct procedure for what the police tell the media. Evidence is kept for court when we will hear what all sides have to say. It could be they were grappling or it could be that the deceased was shoved then picked up and dumped on the ground but for the moment all we have to go on is that the deceased was flung on the floor, no grappling.

Tez, it really seems as though you have a different concept of what grappling means than I do. Shoving, being picked up and them dumped on the ground IS grappling. Being flung to the floor IS grappling. Being able to get up from the ground (or not) is grappling.

You're right to say that there is much we don't know. However, I would say that of the few things we know for certain, one is that grappling was involved.

 

[Steve]

This is flinging someone to the ground without grappling, the player is tackled and goes down, it is just one way you can 'fling' someone down, there's others, the deceased was drunk it wouldn't have been to hard to tip him onto the floor without any grappling taking place.
Women's Rugby Takedown - YouTube

Tez, what's the test for whether something is grappling or not? What criteria do you use to determine whether a takedown is grappling or not? I'm genuinely asking, because you are drawing a distinction where I see none. I would consider ANY takedown, including a rugby style tackle or flinging someone to the ground or grabbing someone and dumping him on his head, to be grappling.

 

[drop bear]

Yes of course, but it was an example to illustrate the point that just becasue something has no place or no purpose outside the dojo it doesn't stop you practising it inside the dojo.

No stomping has a place outside the dojo. And that is to try to kill people when they are basically unable to defend themselves. And so maybe not the best thing to be drilling in to people.