When is it OK to hospitalize someone?

Remove all ads!

heres something to think of, there are lethal points in the neck and head, if the black belt had (knowing his training, lets also bare in mind that we dont know what this kid studied, but based on the fact that he's korean Im going to assume tae kwon do) If he had struck his opponent in the trachea, right below the larynx and killed the kid, would you still be making the same argument? Is that excessive force? after all, he is only defending himself, throwing one punch.

 

I based my opinion on the article's reporting and this sounds like a pretty tame fight. I was aware that depdending on circumstances he could have been using excessive force but I didn't consider it worthwhile adding disclaimers.

On soccer players, Duncan ("Drunken") Ferguson was sent to jail in Scotland for an on pitch incident. It's incredibly rare though.

 

well, Drunken Ferguson was the most violent footballer ever, and was charged with grievous bodily harm, it was somewhat above your average brawl
the reason that was handled by the police is because the pitch officials didnt see it, thus a formal complaint was made after the match

 

I think the end result (in this case the level of harm inflicted) should enter into the discussion. A broken nose and killing somone are two very different things. As T2B stated, in most cases self-defense allows you to go up to the point of incapacitating the aggressor. Now, killing the aggressor would certainly count as incapacitation, but I doubt that's how the law is written or applied.

From what I know of the law, it is only acceptable to use lethal force when your own life is in danger. Examples of this include when someone breaks into your house, or when someone attacks you with a potentially lethal object (gun, knife, etc). Of course, there is some gray area here as well. If someone pulls a fake gun on you, but it could reasonably be assumed that it was a real gun (if it is a convincing fake) or if the gun isn't loaded, you are still allowed to use lethal force. (Which, IMO, is common sense. You shouldn't have to wait for the guy to actually take a shot at you to verify that it's a real, loaded gun.)

Since I do not think you can make the arguement that the attacker was trying to kill the Korean, so if the Korean had killed the other kid, I probably would have viewed it as excessive force. But the fact is, he didn't kill the other kid. He didn't maim the kid, nor did he leave him with a permanent injury. (In the case of a broken nose, the worst case scenario would be surgery to repair the damage.) Black belt or no black belt, I think it is reasonable to use a level of force that stops the aggressor, without causing permanent damage.

One final point here is you use the term "professional person". How does the law define that? Is a teenager a "professional person, simply by dint of having sufficient training in a martial art? I understand that he was a black belt, but since he was only a teenager, I doubt he had more than a few years training against teenager or adult-sized opponents.

 

Surgery will not repair the damage to his nose, only help him breath through it again, odds are his nose will never look the same again.

I believe that flattening someone's nose is clear intent to cause bodily harm, but as I stated above we dont know enough about the situation, from what I read it was a standoffish fight involving one blow, not a frenzied attack, one kid in the heat of the moment threw one punch, the other kid then hit back ten times harder and straight in the nose.

since he was a black belt (the dont tell us what grade), if studying tae kwon do he would require a licence which would allow him to participate in tournaments which can grant prizes thus being professional.

 

How do you know this? There is another thread open where a woman had her entire face replaced. I find it hard to believe that a plastic surgeon could not repair the damage to his nose. Maybe his nose won't look exactly the same, but you seem to be implying that the kid will be disfigured for life, which is simply not the case.

Oh, I don't doubt that there was intent to cause bodily harm. You don't punch someone in the nose without wanting to hurt them. My point was that it was retaliatory, and thus justifiable. It is also true that with his martial arts training, it is likely that the Korean kid was much more skilled in a fight than his opponent. I don't see why that should mean that the Korean kid should not strike back when he was attacked. Are you saying he should have allowed the other kid to hit him before retaliating?

The lesson here should be, "Don't start a fight with someone who can kick your ass." It shouldn't be, "The law takes your side if you a pick a fight with someone who is a better fighter than you."

 

It doesn't matter if he is a Black belt in any martial art fighting style. There are rules to these fighting styles, there are no rules in a fist-fight. That arguement is transparent. I boxed in my late-teens and the best fighter in our area got his a**-kicked regularly, usually because he was a total a**hole and deserved it, instigating fights regularly. I also wrestled in High School, again, the advantages these "fighting styles" give is minimal, as you are not trained to all-out fight, with no rules, you are trained within the guidelines and parameters of the competition. I competed in tournaments as both a wrestler and boxer, but it did NOT make me a professional, nor am i recognized by any authority as a professional. Try it sometime, then tell me i'm wrong.

 

Im not arguing with you, all I am saying is that he committed an offence, regardless of whether we like it or not.

there are laws (rules) governing what you can and cannot do in a fight.

And as for the plastic surgery, they will probably improve the appearence of his flattened nose, but as with the woman who had her face replaced, michael jackson and numerous other celebs, it will look like a mutant job.

I have studied Taijutsu since I was in my early teens, I worked as bar staff in a relatively rough pub and now I hold an SIA licence and work the door at numerous venues throughout my area, Ive been in too many fights to count. My skills and training definatly give me an edge, I would have been stabbed twice if I didnt have my training - I am a professional, I am trained and I am skilled. A black belt in any martial art is trained and skilled for personal or professional gain.

 

The point was that in a street-fight, there are no rules, as opposed to a competition. I was not referring to local law.

I have had my nose broken by a fastball and it did not mar my looks in the least. It is possible for that to happen if it was shattered, but not likely, especially not likely to make someone into a "mutant".

Whether you consider or a governing body considers you a professional is besides the point, as a kid will not be considered a professional. To be a professional, it takes understanding and maturity, which is more than likely the kid would not have, giving their ages. Even with some skill in a fighting style, when fists are flying, you cannot expect a kid to know how to "pull" a punch, that would be ridiculous. No kid is that experienced to have the ability to do that and still keep themselves protected from another. I can't fathom how you can compare yourself, a real professional, to a kid and hold them to the same standard.

 

This has morphed in an interesting direction. I was always under the (probably erroneous) impression that possessing a black belt qualified you as a lethal weapon in some jurisdictions, and a known black belt approaching a police officer in a threatening manner could be legally treated the same as a regular person brandishing a knife.

I can't say that I blame the Korean kid for defending himself if the other kid threw the first punch. If he responded with one punch in return, and that punch happened to be extremely effective, well, tough luck for the other kid in a sense.

I also can't say I blame the kid for responding with violence over the racial slur. But the law (as I understand it) in Western society does not condonce responding to insults with physical violence. IF the other kid hadn't thrown the first punch, then the Korean boy was in the wrong.

Of course, the Korean kid could have been like an obnoxious little boxer I knew in my youth. He was an excellent boxer and he would go around taunting people, pushing them, "bumping" them with his shoulder, and other such nonsense in an effort to goad them into throwing the first punch (after which he would proceed to demolish them). Whatever the nature of the allegedl trip that allegedly started the incident, I think it is worth considering the possibility that the Korean boy was looking to start something he knew he could finish.

If anyone thinks that consideration is unfair, it's just as logical a consderation (and I would argue even more logical) than the knee jerk condemnation that followed the white kid.

 

Yeah but it still isn't anywhere near as logical as the explanation that this was a nothing playground scrap that the media are desperately trying to get a story out of. Of course, we don't have the facts to say for sure but I'm happy to go with that for now.

 

That is logically unsound. That the guy's nose was flattened doesn't necessiate, let alone proove, intent on the part of the puncher. You cannot from the result of an action conclude that, as there is a result, ergo, there must have been intent. No way.

And then there is intent itself. Intent is a funny thing. If someone hits back in self defense he does so with the full and conscious intent to hurt the attacker. In that example you have full intent to cause bodily harm, and it is entirely legal.

 

This thread has been a bit of a laugh, in that many members here seem to hold a black belt up as some sort indisputable proof that you can utterly destroy unarmed opposition with one arm tied behind your back. That's complete hogwash, especially for kids. McDojos hand out black belts to kids like pedophiles hand out candy.

I practiced Tae Kwon Do throughout the later years of primary school and managed to obtain my black belt. I can tell you with absolute certainty that it means F all. For crying out loud, obtaining a black belt was easier than zipping up your fly while whistling Yankee Doodle, all you had to do was memorise a couple of patterns (choreographed martial arts moves). I knew two kids (twins) who would bawl their eyes out whenever you made light contact with others when sparring (ie practicing fighting), and they managed to get black belts! Another two kids were just plain worthless, and hey presto, black belts!

For a child I was pretty good at memorising patterns, but I sucked at fighting, and lacked any self confidence to boot. There were two other pretty competent kids in that class, but they were above average because they took lessons from another instructor who taught martial arts oriented more towards street fighting.

Tae Kwon Do is an art form, not an adequate defense in a street fight. In the hands of a child it is even more worthless. So please, can people stop painting this Korean kid as some sort of Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee?

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 23 seconds later... ----------

Yep, it's mind boggling how people will bend over backwards to argue that the victim doesn't have a right to defend themselves (if they are white and/or male, that is. If you're a woman you can shoot your husband in the back while he's sleeping and claim battered wife syndrome). That reminds me of a high school kid in my old Tae Kwon Do class who had had his black belt for a year or so, and was set upon by three bullies. He did nothing do defend himself, and ended up black and blue. Why did he exercise such restraint? His mother said it was because he didn't want to get in trouble, but I think it was just because he was a *****.

Personally, if I'm set upon by someone, I'll do anything in my power to incapacitate them. If I cripple or kill them in the process, oh well. Better to be before a court of law than dead from a subdural hematoma or picking my teeth off the ground.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 18 seconds later... ----------

The cops are full of ****. You should have told them to suck a fat one.

 

Count, more than an art form, it is a sport, i.e. a game. Any martial art ending in "Do" is. It has about as much bearing on actual combat as modern fencing does. Sure, there is some relation to combat, and some basic principles will be taught by any competent instructor, but this is not a no-holds-barred street-rumble class. If you want that, join the Marines.

I don't think this is a fact at all. If you assume real combat training (which I wouldn't), it would appear the superior fighter attempted to end combat in the quickest and safest manner while attempting to minimize permanent damage. The kid could have crushed the trachia, or shattered a kneecap, or broken arms or legs, or possibly even snapped the neck. He didn't, he broke the kids nose, a painful and debilitating injury that, usually, doesn't cause serious damage. Actually, this is the first time I've hever heard of a broken nose needing anything more than a careful setting.

 

I agree one hundred percent, and that's an excellent analogy with the fencing.

To be fair, the Tae Kwon Do taught 50 years ago by hardcore military instructors during the Korean War might have given you a significant advantage in combat, but the watered down stuff taught in McDojo's today? Nahhh.

 

I believe we are making assumptions abou the quality of training the kid may or may not have had. There are still instructors who focus on fighting, not dancing.

 

Some assumptions are more reasonable than others.

But that's the point, any fighting taught is next to useless in a real life street fight.

 

I tend to agree, especially since the kid is well... a kid. I do know people who receive martial arts training as adults and become quite proficient at defending themselves, and could use their training to good effect if the need arose. However, if we are talking about kids, you necessarily cannot place them in situations where they can be injured, and in order to show them the finer techniques of any martial art, you have to place them in a situation where they are going to get hit.

In most of the martial arts training I have undergone, I have learned by being the subject of the demonstration - you simply cannot do that to kids.