Just wanted your point of view: Say you got involved in a fight, either in a bar, or at a sports venue or whatever the scene (in other words, a brawl, not a mugging/street fight with weapons) with a single opponent (not entirely in control of his faculties - plastered out of his mind) ....would you deem it to be justified to do grievious bodily harm ie. wrist/elbow/shoulder break if you knew your life wasnt in danger? Very simple question I know, with maybe a not so simple answer. The reason I ask is that a lot of the technique I'll train end up in a lock of some sort..where's its just a matter of a small twist and the joing is gone. Your thoughts??
I can't really vote YES or NO ... it's too situatonal. My basic rule of thumb is to take it to the level of the perceived threat. If I think the guy intends to (and has the facilities to) do me grievous bodily injury, then I won't hesitate to do the same to him. If, on the other hand, he's just a drunk who is more of a danger to himself than to me then I will try to restrain him without causing serious damage. Also, I've been in situations where I had to restrain someone without causing major injury ... regardless of his intent. In this case, it was my step-son who was, depending on which situation, anywhere from 16 to 20 and, at 16, was 6' 200 lbs. At 20, he was 6'3" 240 lbs. He's also mentally unbalanced. There were some situations where he got violent (usually against inanimate objects ... the only person I ever saw him attack was his father ... who was more than capable of handling his son on his own and I just called the police) and I had to restrain him or, in one case, disarm him. But, in all of these situations, I had to restrain without injury (nothing more than some bruising or abrasions, anyway). If he had ever outright attacked me with serious intent, I'd have still tried to subdue him without causing major injury. My wife would have understood some minor injury (depending on the situation) ... but it would have been a pretty narrow tight-rope if it ever came to something like that ... fortunately, it never did. I was always able to restrain him without any kind of major injury. So ... as I said at the beginning ... it's too situational for me to make an across-the-board statement. Mike
Thanks Impacto....for the sake of my argument, lests assume that the aggressor is someone unknown to you, and is not armed. He throws some punches at you...you can either step in and throw a kick to the side of the knee thereby destroying the joint, or you take him down with a throw and break his wrist as he struggles to free himself. My question being, if someone is obviously trying to hurt you (by punching your face in) are you still justified to break his joints?? Obviously there are legal implications...but I want to know your ideas and opinions
I think you are justified. As Mike said it’s impossible to give a definite answer with a small description. But if somebody attacks you, your life is theoretically in danger! I wouldn't try and restrain someone in a pub, unless you’re waiting for the police for some reason. Other than you don’t know who else will intervene while your restraining him. Breaking or dislocating a joint may be the best solution if that’s what you can do. Hitting is likely to draw more attention, as grappling never looks as violent. Punching could cause a lot more damage anyway, broken jaw, nose, teeth etc. After taking relatively tame shots by our standards, people have fallen over hit there head on something and died. And don’t forget that’s what he’s trying to do to you!
I say, that if I am attacked, then I will do whatever necessary to survive if I feel my life is in danger. If I feel I need to knock the attacker out, I'll knock the attacker out, if I fell I need to break an arm, I break an arm, if I feel I need to jab an eye out, I'll jab an eye out, and If I feel that as long as he is alive, he will try to take my life then I take his life. However, I will try all things to avoid taking another life at all cost.
hmm i guess it depend upon the seriousness of situation...if my oppnt got knife n serious about it then i know that's isn't my b'day knife...so i won't mind goin that extra mile... about ur question martial now how much is too much in defence..? i think law says if ur oppnt hav knife u can use knife too(any lawyers here?) but he's punchin ur face n then u rip him apart ... like break his knee, dislocate his wrist then that would be unnecessary force... u can use enuff force to get urself out of danger in most of situations as much as law states... if someone punchs u punch him, bleed him but he again coming back then u CAN go for wrist breaks... knee would be too much i guess... but my life or my luved ones life is in danger, then i'll eliminate any danger standing... i remember one quote "when i doubt, cut/slash everything that moves" umm that was my thougts... -TkdWarrior-
Since I'm a striker more than a grappler I can't really comment, but if you've got them in a lock where you could break the limb I don't really see that there'd be any need to go further. Minimum necessary force.
I think its justified, although I'm in the same boat as CKD, I'm primarily a striker too. I think that in a situation like this, its important to get a message across so that the person never attempts anything like that again, it really depends on the circumstances though.
