Originally posted by BoarSpear
View Post
I'd guess in some instances, an aikido style wristlock would be perfect for someone just trying to force their way somewhere they shouldn't. In a more physical and direct confrontation, a rear-naked choke would be better and still be considered a justifiable use of force, rather than overkill. You can still kill someone by keeping the choke too long - that Army guy did that to the big Football kid and the kid ended up dieing. Well the kid slammed him into the concrete twice before he sank the choke in.
In the most urgent case, I can see how maneuvers from LINE and Asian influenced combatives could end a fight quick...but for civillian intents and purposes, does someone need to go so far?
I know there are some huge tactical differences between MMA and combatives - being combatives is more for urban self-protection and deals with a more flexible range of scenarios.
Question for legal eagles here or anyone who knows:
If someone gets attacked by multiple opponents and as the victim covers from raining punches, stomp kicks and he counter spear jabs one of the attackers in the throat or eye, getting penetration, is this a legally justifiable use of force? If he bites one of the attackers who is trying to hold/pin him and rips off flesh, is this legally justifiable?
Common sense says yes, but I do not know for sure.
The attackers are unarmed but the victim is outnumbered.





Leave a comment: