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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[CrackFox]

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

[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.

[ChenPengFi]

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

[jnp]

"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.

[It is Fake]

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.

[DuckofDeath]

Your comment are very interesting considering the misinformation we always see about Vanuk.

Who the hell is Vanuk?

[goodlun]

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.