Thread: BJJ defeated by eye gouge
12/04/2011 5:06pm, #41
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
12/09/2011 6:28pm, #42
You guys have all missed the obvious answer here. The eye gouger was, in fact, a ninja. The whole "wrestler interested in BJJ" thing was merely a smokescreen designed to drop your guard to leave you open for the finishing strike.
That's why ninjas are so deadly, you never know who might be one!
12/10/2011 3:16am, #43Surfing Facebook at work? Spread the good word by adding us on Facebook today! https://www.facebook.com/Bullshido
12/10/2011 5:11am, #44
And I have had an attempted eye gouge by a zombie junkie thief.
Actually "I survived an eye gouge attack by a zombie junkie thief" would be kind of a cool tag.
I even have photos of the damage of that one. (Which is some little face scratches)
12/11/2011 5:56am, #45
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
I copped an eye gouge rolling when my sweaty grip failed during an americana and the guys hand propelled into my face. I look at the ceiling when i try for shoulder locks now
12/11/2011 5:35pm, #46
SECTION 203-206.1203. Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.204. Mayhem is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or eight years.205. A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem when he or she unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another person, intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another human being or deprives a human being of a limb, organ, or member of his or her body. For purposes of this section, it is not necessary to prove an intent to kill. Aggravated mayhem is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole.206. Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture. The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain.
12/11/2011 7:14pm, #47
Unless you're sitting on the guy's chest and gradually applying more pressure to his eyes there is absolutely no way in which you have full control over your eye gouge.
Plus, I don't know where you are, but in the UK if anything did happen to his sight, you have a straight up S.18 OAPA (Grievous Bodily Harm with intent) because you intentionally caused him serious harm, or intentionally put your fingers in his eyes knowing full well it would almost certainly lead to some pretty severe eye damage.
If you eye gouge and the guy doesn't have a serious size/weapon/numbers advantage over you, you better be ready to reap the consequences."The hero and the coward both feel the same thing, but the hero projects his fear onto his opponent while the coward runs. 'Fear'. It's the same thing, but it's what you do with it that matters". - Cus D'Amato
12/12/2011 12:32am, #48
In the US, it seems fairly standard, from what I've seen so far. Maiming or Mayhem charges.
From what I'm seeing, on the various internets places to look, a charge of maiming or mayhem, assumes a charge of assault and battery. If you take an eye out, or impair it permanently you can beat that, and still be found guilty of a&b without being separately charged with it. Some of the emphasis mine.
The word "maim" implies a permanent injury. Such is its eignification under a statute making it indictable to kill, maim or wound any cattle, and the same appears to be its generel legal meaning. At common law a maim, or mayhem, is such an injury as renders a man less able in fighting, to defend himself or annoy his adversary. Sec. 331., 1 Bishop Orim. Law, 4th edition, page 332. So the cutting off or disabling or weakning a man's hand or finger, striking out an eye or foretooth, castrating him or breaking his skull. Kelly's Crim. Law, Sec. 523, page 277.
Under a Massachusetts statute of 1805, it was held that the cutting off an ear is not a felony, for the reason that it did not deprive a person of his power of defense in fighting. Commonwealth v. Newell, 7 Mass., 245.
Verdict Of Lesser Offense.
Where the defendant is charged with maiming or disfiguring, he may be acquitted of maiming, and found guilty of an assault, or an assault and battery, as every battery necessarily includes an assault; likewise every intentional disfiguring and maiming, under the law, includes a battery as well as an assault, and where the maiming or disfiguring is charged it is not necessary to charge an assault in order to justify the jury in finding a verdict for an assault, or an assault and battery, on the principle that the greater includes the lesser offense. Benham v. State, I Iowa, 542; McBride v. State 2 Eng., 374; Stewart v. State, 5 Hausser, 241; State v. Kennedy,! Blackf.,233; State v. Absence, 4 Porter, Ala., 397.
Evidence — Defense.
Self defense can only be sustained by proof that the resistance was in proportion to the injury offered. Hayden v. State 4 Blackford, 546.
I'm still researching, so I don't yet have a clear picture of the entire country, but I'll get there.
12/12/2011 12:39am, #49
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
12/12/2011 12:44am, #50