My update on bigrokido

[jacksprattreturns]

Its been an eventful period since I last posted. Im not teaching martial arts anymore, as I was almost put in prison for IBH (intended bodily harm), but was given community service. It happed because a husband of one of my female students came in drunk and began to mock and annoy people. When I asked him to leave he threw a punch at me, which I managed to avoid. I then headbutted him on the bridge of his nose and kneed him in the nose and then in the mouth. I was very shocked when I had the police at my door the next day. Even though I was found guilty in court, I just cant see what I did wrong.

[Patrick]

For your own knowledge, your own account (jackspratt) still works. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. But it works.

 

_________________

 

Patrick O'Keefe

 

KarateForums.com - Administrator/Grandmaster

 

iFroggy Design - Affordable Web Design and Development

 

[ This Message was edited by: Patrick on 2002-04-20 22:05 ]

[Bon]

If I was you, I would be ashamed for hitting a drunk man..

 

 

[Taikudo-ka]

Well I happen to believe that a person is responsible for their own actions regardless of what they've eaten, drunk, smoked, snorted or otherwise consumned.

 

No-one forces a person to get blotto then do stupid things. Nor does it give them a license to get violent, sleep with someone elses wife, commit rape, pee on the floor, or run someone over. It's no good to do something like this then say afterwards "it wasn't me, it was the booze"...I'm sorry, but it WAS you.

 

In Australia, people who have an accident or injure someone while driving drunk face harsher treatment than someone who does the same thing sober.

 

So why should it be different if you are walking? If anything, you should be held MORE accountable, for purposely putting youself into a state where you're more violent and out of control - and probably less succeptable to pain - before going out to wreak havoc.

 

Instead, as in this case, the law seems to use intoxication as an excuse, and rules that the person who attempts to stop or defend against unsuitable behaviour is at fault.

 

The application of law in some cases seems to suggest that we should just let a drunk man punch us, or sit quietly while the burglar makes off, give a robber your money, let a thug rape your wife, but if you buy a hot coffee and pour it on your lap, you should scream and shout and sue for letting the store sell you a hot coffee, and demand millions.

 

It just doesn't seem to fit any sort of moral code I know.

[Big Up]

I agree with both Bon and Taikudo-ka, and don't see any contradiction...

 

It would appear, to me anyway, that the response was "intended bodily harm", and was totally disproportionate to the threat the drunk man presented.

[ZeRo]

yeh i think what you did was abit harsh. its like being threatened with a knife and pulling a shot gun.

[YODA]

Do you live in England.... (I'm assuming not as there's so 'cos there's no such think as IBH in English law.)

 

"Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent. Section 18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861---- Same levels of injury as a Section 20 (Broken bones, damage that is visable but not permanent), but with theintent to do such harm. Carries a power of arrest. Likely to receive a custodial sentence. Maximum - life imprisonment."

 

Looks like you got off lightly. A drunk throws a punch at a martial arts instructor, which he easily avoids - at that stage what was the actual threat level to yourself? Ever hear the term "Reasonable Force?" It's very hard to justify you're choice of technique - you can't headbutt someone a little bit as a restraining move - a headbutt has one goal, as does a knee to the face (twice!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bon]

Taikudo-ka, a drunk person is responsible for their own actions. But, a drunk man has no coordination or reflexes and it's quite easy to kill a drunk person. It's like bashing up someone in a wheelchair, pretty lame. If you're in danger from a dunk person, hit them in the stomach or something, just enough so there's no chance of killing them.

 

 

[Prodigy-Child]

not you again!.....

[Ti-Kwon-Leap]

The proper response would have heen to sic some of the Jr students on him. (they cannot be prosecuted)