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

[ChenPengFi]

W. Rabbit is playing criminal law now, how quaint....

[goodlun]

Let's be real, most people think the letter of the law is Black and White. I would agree.
It is the interpretation and applications that lead to the problem.

Goodlun's post and bold prove this point. The words are straight forward and very black & White.

We both see it differently.

Very well said of course this applies to statutory law, then we get into that whole business of common law and case law as well as other couple types of law that I can't recall and it can get even more messy and harder to get a consensus on the proper interpretation of the law.

[CrackFox]

Wait what, now you're planing on murdering somebody?

[W. Rabbit]

Agreed, well, what most people don't realise is that if you ever end up in that situation you need your story straight from your very first police statement, "I felt my life was in danger" goes a long way toward levelling the playing field.

"I felt my life was in danger" can easily be used as a justification for cold blooded murder though. The police and courts possibly are going to look at everything, including the shape of the "assailant".

In the US self defense is a very tricky subject these days...people killing their assailants can get manslaughter charges...maimed assailants can sue their victims in civil court for damages. It's pretty fucked up.

[Yoj]

Conversely, just because you played by the rules and only used your fists, don't expect that everything's going to be OK.

To be sure.

Right so.

etc.

[It is Fake]

Let's be real, most people think the letter of the law is Black and White. I would agree.
It is the interpretation and applications that lead to the problem.

Goodlun's post and bold prove this point. The words are straight forward and very black & White.

We both see it differently.

[CrackFox]

Agreed, well, what most people don't realise is that if you ever end up in that situation you need your story straight from your very first police statement, "I felt my life was in danger" goes a long way toward levelling the playing field.

Conversely, just because you played by the rules and only used your fists, don't expect that everything's going to be OK.

[Yoj]

In all fairness most people don't and frankly acceptable force as seen be the "eyes of the law" very greatly with who in fact is the DA, who is sitting on the bench and the 12 people whose time your taking up.
Everyone acts like the law is so black and white when it really is sort of kind of a craps shoot.

Agreed, well, what most people don't realise is that if you ever end up in that situation you need your story straight from your very first police statement, "I felt my life was in danger" goes a long way toward levelling the playing field.

[goodlun]

Now everyone needs to get on the same page.

Gouging the eye OUT is mayhem.

An eye gouge which is pretty much a single poke to the eye is not.

Now here is a question would an eye poke be considered attempted mayhem?

[CrackFox]

When I say "usually illegal" I mean "very few instances where it would be legally acceptable".

Like say in the same situations where it would be acceptable to punch someone? The law does generally frown on punching people.

[It is Fake]

Now everyone needs to get on the same page.

Gouging the eye OUT is mayhem.

An eye gouge which is pretty much a single poke to the eye is not.

[W. Rabbit]

So when you said.



What did you mean by the word "illegal"? I don't understand all these code-words you use.

Maybe we had a miscommunication or something.

When I say "usually illegal" I mean "very few instances where it would be legally acceptable".

Ok maybe we got our wires crossed.

[goodlun]

You don't understand acceptable force as seen by the eyes of the law do you?

In all fairness most people don't and frankly acceptable force as seen be the "eyes of the law" very greatly with who in fact is the DA, who is sitting on the bench and the 12 people whose time your taking up.
Everyone acts like the law is so black and white when it really is sort of kind of a craps shoot.

[Permalost]

If you're looking for laws against eye gouging, you should look to the old South. There's an article on EJMAS about a period of Southern history where teh d3adly was all the rage:
http://ejmas.com/jmanly/articles/200..._gorn_0401.htm

[It is Fake]

Well in CA instead of assault it is mayhem
CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 203-206.1

203. 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.

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.

Fixed.
Read that to yourself again.