BJJ and the law?

Actually the lava helps sterilize the needles where im from so its not all that bad.
 
Lenny7 said:
George Zimmerman says no.
Click to expand...

Ha nice. To elaborate on this though. The crux of the case did come down to Trayvon Martin having a top mount on Zimmerman(as demonstrated by eyewitnesses, and forensics experts, Zimmerman's injuries etc) and raining down blows and slamming his head into the pavement.

It was considered Assault with a Deadly Weapon(concrete), and Zimmerman was justified in shooting in order to save his own life(as is defined by FL's self-defense laws).

Anyway, please don't attack me on this and derail the thread with this controversial topic. The takeaway of the story is this though. If you have top mount, and are slamming someone's head into the concrete, you could be charged with some serious stuff, or justifiably shot.
 
combatcvic said:
law 101...

you must
1.reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched,


2. believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and


3. use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.

There is a pretty good arguement that by the time you got into the position to armbar someone or guillotine or mateo leon someone.. that you are no longer in that imminent threat of being harmed.
Click to expand...

So while rolling around on the ground with someone in a street fight who may have a weapon (reasonable expectation in this day and age) and who has shown so much aggression and determination that they have ended up in a street fight with you rolling around on the ground, and have already met all of your requirements that gives someone a legal right to act, and who can in every likelihood be expected to hurt you if you don't act (try just sitting there holding an angry street punk in an arm bar and tell me how much of your hamstring is left after he gets done chomping on it)...

you are somehow not allowed to hurt that person? Dude, please do not become a prosecutor. Bad guys will go free after you get ass raped by a half competent defense lawyer, and decent people who were just defending themselves will end up having to deal with your pathetic interpretation of the law and reality when you file bullshit charges against them... after they get out of the hospital for all those injuries it could be argued they didn't sustain. Sweet jesus, only in California could someone learn to interpret the law this way.
 
Last edited:
If you're not smart, your bjj knowledge may win you the fight but get you in some trouble later. To people here a choke is actually the most considerate, humane way you could try to end a fight, but to a cop it may seem like you're trying to kill someone. And while position before submission is the way to go in life, if you get on top of someone, have control of him, and then break his arm or start punching him in the face, the legal system may not be completely understanding.
 
If god forbid I eve got in a street fight the last thing I would do is try to choke the guy. Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Arm locks don't have that look of you strangling someone.
 
StillGotIssues said:
So while rolling around on the ground with someone in a street fight who may have a weapon (reasonable expectation in this day and age) and who has shown so much aggression and determination that they have ended up in a street fight with you rolling around on the ground, and have already met all of your requirements that gives someone a legal right to act, and who can in every likelihood be expected to hurt you if you don't act (try just sitting there holding an angry street punk in an arm bar and tell me how much of your hamstring is left after he gets done chomping on it)...

you are somehow not allowed to hurt that person? Dude, please do not become a prosecutor. Bad guys will go free after you get ass raped by a half competent defense lawyer, and decent people who were just defending themselves will end up having to deal with your pathetic interpretation of the law and reality when you file bullshit charges against them... after they get out of the hospital for all those injuries it could be argued they didn't sustain. Sweet jesus, only in California could someone learn to interpret the law this way.
Click to expand...

All he did is give the basic description of self defense laws. And then commented that the argument could be made that arm barring someone may leave you open to possible consequences. Are you always an ass hat?
 
combatcvic said:
law 101...

you must
1.reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched,


2. believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and


3. use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.

There is a pretty good arguement that by the time you got into the position to armbar someone or guillotine or mateo leon someone.. that you are no longer in that imminent threat of being harmed.

sherdogmutt can chime in too. i take the bar on Tuesday in CA.

I also work the door currently at a nightclub, so i did a bit of research myself.

I genuinely believe you have a better argument performing a judo sweep on someone when you are in danger than going to some kind of choke or armbar while on the ground.

train bjj a bit, and you will learn how to control an arm from being capable of swinging and making contact with you, without having to choke, or punch back.
Click to expand...

Good luck, get off Sherdog.

I hear California is hard, 3 days, right? It's only 2 here in NY. Took it last year. Hell, etc.
 
combatcvic said:
shoot? I said perform a judo throw.. have you ever tried to shoot a double leg on concrete or a nightclub floor where there is broken glass?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you guys live that the ground is covered in broken glass. I've been to plenty of bars in NYC and I'm not crunching broken glass left and right when I walk outside.

Also you don't need to slam your knee into the ground to do a double. In fact if you do, you're probably doing it wrong. If a double is your best takedown and you need him on the ground asap, use the double.
 
StillGotIssues said:
So while rolling around on the ground with someone in a street fight who may have a weapon (reasonable expectation in this day and age) and who has shown so much aggression and determination that they have ended up in a street fight with you rolling around on the ground, and have already met all of your requirements that gives someone a legal right to act, and who can in every likelihood be expected to hurt you if you don't act (try just sitting there holding an angry street punk in an arm bar and tell me how much of your hamstring is left after he gets done chomping on it)...

you are somehow not allowed to hurt that person? Dude, please do not become a prosecutor. Bad guys will go free after you get ass raped by a half competent defense lawyer, and decent people who were just defending themselves will end up having to deal with your pathetic interpretation of the law and reality when you file bullshit charges against them... after they get out of the hospital for all those injuries it could be argued they didn't sustain. Sweet jesus, only in California could someone learn to interpret the law this way.
Click to expand...

What state did you pass the bar in? His statement of the law (and I don't know the nuances of CA law specifically) is a correct rough statement of the general rule. Furthermore he didn't say you're not allowed to hurt the attacker. And also, a prosecutor and defense attorney will articulate the same elements of any defense, it's an issue of arguing which side of the elements the facts are on. Nothing in his statements of the elements of self defense was an interpretation, and it has nothing to do with where he lives.
 
A determined/coked out/adrenaline spiked person may continue to fight with a broken arm. An unconscious person takes a nap on the side walk. Inherently less damage as well, provided you don't crush the eso****us.

Strangles > joint locks in self defense
 
kinkykid said:
All he did is give the basic description of self defense laws. And then commented that the argument could be made that arm barring someone may leave you open to possible consequences. Are you always an ass hat?
Click to expand...

Not even close to his ultimate point... and yes.

SuperSuperRambo said:
What state did you pass the bar in? His statement of the law (and I don't know the nuances of CA law specifically) is a correct rough statement of the general rule. Furthermore he didn't say you're not allowed to hurt the attacker. And also, a prosecutor and defense attorney will articulate the same elements of any defense, it's an issue of arguing which side of the elements the facts are on. Nothing in his statements of the elements of self defense was an interpretation, and it has nothing to do with where he lives.
Click to expand...

His quoting of the law is actually the problem, since his argument that you could get in trouble for hurting someone from that position is exactly the opposite of how the law should be interpreted in that instance. There is no interpretation that could allow for someone to not be in a position from which they could reasonably believe they could be hurt while on the ground grappling with someone in a street fight. Now I'm not saying some dipshit cop won't think he's going to pad his arrest stats and cuff you, but if we are talking actual law and not pig logic there is no way this could be argued as anything but self defense. He is interpreting it to allow for "a good argument" to be made that it is not, and how one could end up grappling on the ground in a street fight and somehow not be in a position from which anything they do that does not involve a weapon is not self defense is ridiculous for the layman to think, but someone who is about to take the bar? Yikes.

My California comment deals with how absurd the law is out there, since if someone shoots you say, in the hip, turns and runs the other direction, you cannot so much as harm a hair on their head-assuming you're superman and could pursue them-since they are no longer a threat to you in any way, even though they just shot your ass and you could die. You won't find that to be a problem in Nevada, or Wyoming, so yes, the state in question that he is studying for the bar in comes into play. Now, I will say I was an ass hat, since I've studied the law and I know they brainwash you into thinking in these hideously contorted ways simply because these clever little scenarios can be thought up that are completely unrealistic, so it's not his fault in any way, he has to cram absurd nonsense into his head to pass the bar, but it would at least be less absurd nonsense outside of California or New York.

And finally, good luck, the California bar is a bitch-you really should take Nevada's as well and set up some criminal defense work in Vegas... very easy money.
 
Last edited:
combatcvic said:
shoot? I said perform a judo throw.. have you ever tried to shoot a double leg on concrete or a nightclub floor where there is broken glass?

judo_zps3ad7baef.gif
Click to expand...

Well, as long as you don't try the Osoto Gari, cause that just might kill someone ya know.
 
Dangrabbit said:
If I wanted to use BJJ in a self defense scenario . . . could you get in trouble for using it if you get into a fight that is unavoidable?
Click to expand...

Ok, I've done a lot of research on this, and I've come up with the ultimate, universal answer to this perennial question. Here it is.

Maybe.
 
Toughest thing that didn't involve a crossbow, maybe.

We get crossbows?!?
 
]Toughest thing that didn't involve a crossbow, maybe.

We get crossbows?!?






Only the inner circle brah, I had to make mine out of sticks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,713
Messages
55,511,288
Members
174,803
Latest member
Derik

Share this page

Back
Top