Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gracie Combatives MABS Cull: Why is IiF laughing at my "Paper Tiger" comment?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FictionPimp
    replied
    How come the bjj guy is never the guy with the knife? I carry a assisted opening blade on me all the time (comes in handy at work) AND I'm fairly experienced in bjj. If I take the fight to the ground and want to really kill you, I can use my position dominance to cut your lungs out.

    Of course taking the fight to the ground means something went really wrong in the first place and I wasn't able to shoot you.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    Here is another example of a country/jurisdiction that has specific punishments for eye gouging/attacks: Iran. Don't eye gouge in street fights next time you are in Iran, I guess.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/me...ice/index.html
    Blinding by acid isn't the same as poking an eye.
    It would be easier to prove you intended on blinding the person with acid then it would be a stray finger

    Leave a comment:


  • CrackFox
    replied
    Originally posted by DerAuslander108 View Post
    Legally, I'd be more concerned about the trauma that the knees & elbows could cause than the eye gouge.
    Bingo.

    The mayhem charge doesn't come from using an eyegouge. It comes from taking the eyegouge too far and pulling the goddamned eye out. Put an armbar on until you get a snap - congratulations that's a mayhem/GBH charge. Boot somebody until you smash their orbit and detach a retina? You're going to be having quite a frank discussion with someone from the Director of Public Prosecutions' office.

    Leave a comment:


  • DerAuslander
    replied
    I'd just like it noted that the eye techniques that I teach out of the PFS curriculum aren't the "rip his eye out", but the "poke, oh, you flinched? now I can jab-cross-jab-clinch-knee-elbow and maybe a headbutt for good measure".

    Legally, I'd be more concerned about the trauma that the knees & elbows could cause than the eye gouge.

    Leave a comment:


  • W. Rabbit
    replied
    Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
    You would need to prove intent.
    You actually intended on gouging the eye out and failed as opposed to an incidental eye poke.
    Here is another example of a country/jurisdiction that has specific punishments for eye gouging/attacks: Iran. Don't eye gouge in street fights next time you are in Iran, I guess.

    TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- An Iranian woman, blinded by a jilted stalker who threw acid in her face, has persuaded a court to sentence him to be blinded with acid himself under Islamic law demanding an eye for an eye.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/me...ice/index.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    Originally posted by goodlun View Post
    Now here is a question would an eye poke be considered attempted mayhem?
    You would need to prove intent.
    You actually intended on gouging the eye out and failed as opposed to an incidental eye poke.

    Leave a comment:


  • goodlun
    replied
    So to sum up Eye gouging, hard to pull off, not necessarily a show stopper, and charges of mayhem are possible if you really do pull it off.
    All and all I am going to have to say this technique kind of sucks...

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    No, it was just escalated to murder. MURDER. I'm tempted to combine those two threads just to make a fucking point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rock Ape
    replied
    Originally posted by Yoj View Post
    Should I read the green, the bold or the underlined?
    You honestly going to bother ?

    Eye gouges ? Seriously ??

    Leave a comment:


  • Yoj
    replied
    Should I read the green, the bold or the underlined?

    Leave a comment:


  • W. Rabbit
    replied
    Some case law since someone asked. Note there are serious differences in charges depending on what kind of evidence/witnesses are available to a DA, and differences in how the judge can instruct the jury prior to deliberations.

    Of course if homicide detectives actually found evidence of premeditation, first degree murder charges could apply as well.

    http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefe...luntary_m.html
    Self defense and involuntary manslaughter are not mutually exclusive

    In State v. Mekler and State v. Light, both opinions released this week, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that involuntary manslaughter and self defense are not mutually exclusive, and that in a murder case both should be submitted to the jury if there is any evidence to support them.

    Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are confusing concepts which are often misunderstood, even by lawyers and judges. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person, without malice. The definitions vary somewhat from state to state, but In South Carolina, voluntary manslaughter requires 1) legal provocation, which is some act by the victim such as an unprovoked attack, and 2) "sudden heat of passion" in response to the provocation.
    Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a person, either 1) while engaged in an unlawful activity, but not one which would ordinarily cause death or great bodily harm, or 2) while engaged in a lawful activity but with a reckless disregard for the safety of others.

    To have the judge charge the jury on self defense in South Carolina, four elements have to be supported by the evidence:

    (1) the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
    (2) the defendant must have been in actual imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he must have actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury;
    (3) if his defense is based upon his belief of imminent danger, the defendant must show that a reasonably prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the belief that he was actually in imminent danger and that the circumstances were such as would warrant a person of ordinary prudence, firmness, and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save himself from serious bodily harm or the loss of his life; and
    (4) the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger. If there is any evidence at all to support the lesser included offenses of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or the complete defense of self defense, the trial judge must instruct the jury on them, and evidence of a struggle between a defendant and a victim over a weapon is sufficient for an involuntary manslaughter instruction.

    In State v. Light, the defendant testified that he was confronted by his girlfriend, who was holding a .22 rifle in one hand and a long strand of brown hair in the other, screaming and accusing Light of having another woman in the house. Light testified that the victim had been acting jealous and following him for weeks before the incident, and there was conflicting testimony from Light and from the State's experts that would have supported a finding by the jury that 1) he took the gun from her and shot her as she crouched or knelt down; or 2) that he took the gun from her and unintentionally shot her after he jerked the gun away and stumbled back; or possibly that 3) the gun went off as she held it, but after he tried to knock it out of her hands.

    The judge charged the jury on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and accident, but refused to give jury charges on involuntary manslaughter and self defense. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial, because there was some evidence at trial to support all of the theories - when there is any evidence of each theory, it is up to the jury to weigh the evidence and decide, not the judge.

    Mekler was a more sympathetic defendant by far. She testified that she was sitting on her porch with the victim's wife when the victim came into the yard yelling at his wife and holding a knife, which he said was for Mekler's dog that was barking. Mekler picked up her shotgun, pointed it at the victim and pulled back the hammer while holding it at her waist, and testified that the gun went off unintentionally as she pulled back the hammer. She consistently testified that she did not intend to pull the trigger, and that testimony appeared to be uncontradicted, yet the judge refused to charge involuntary manslaughter and she was convicted of murder.

    Although the trial judge did give a self defense instruction, the conviction was overturned because no involuntary manslaughter instruction was given - there was evidence to support self defense or involuntary manslaughter and all theories that the evidence supported should have been submitted to the jury. It sounds as if there was also evidence to support a charge of defense of others, since the testimony indicated that the victim was coming after his wife and not the defendant, but there is no mention of whether this was requested by the defense.

    The jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter makes a huge difference - if convicted of murder, the minimum sentence that can be imposed is 30 years (85%, no parole), but involuntary manslaughter carries a sentence of 0 - 5 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • goodlun
    replied
    The biggest problem as I have come to understand with "self defense" cases is two fold. One Now the real problem being most of the time they don't really have to prove that you where not defending yourself as much as you have to prove that you where. I can here you saying wait we are innocent till proven guilty. The problem is the DA is going to show all this evidence of you committing assault/mayhem/murder what have you.
    Two and this is the biggie the expectation is you acted in the same way a "reasonable" person would have the only problem is with violence people in general are not "reasonable" and your being judged against what 12 peoples view of "reasonable" is most of which have never been in a life or death situation with no understanding what so ever of what it is like. Your not likely to have the guy on the jury that says well hell I would have stomped his head 2 more times.

    Leave a comment:


  • DuckofDeath
    replied
    Originally posted by It is Fake View Post
    Your comment are very interesting considering the misinformation we always see about Vanuk.
    Who the hell is Vanuk?

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    Originally posted by jnp View Post
    It wouldn't be cold-blooded murder if you have an assailant since by definition cold-blooded murder is an unprovoked murder.
    Are you a legal expert? Then STFU.

    Leave a comment:


  • jnp
    replied
    Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    "I felt my life was in danger" can easily be used as a justification for cold blooded murder though.
    It wouldn't be cold-blooded murder if you have an assailant since by definition cold-blooded murder is an unprovoked murder.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X