going to the ground--the legal consequences

[GrahamB]

Fighting is precarious full stop - no need to bring the ground into it.

That author also has zero understanding that you can also control somebody on the ground without stomping their face, or being stomped.

This:
http://youtu.be/GJX9QnrZtfc

[GrahamB]

Take the 's' off assailant and you've just described the Ryan Hall video, Tom.

[WVMark]

For the most part (and for someone who isn't law enforcement), when in an altercation of any kind, if the other person runs away, one cannot continue violence against him/her. If it's self defense with a gun and the attacker runs away, you cannot shoot him/her. At that point, it becomes legal charges against you. Same with the ground. It's viewed that if your attacker is knocked to the ground, you find yourself in a very tenuous situation. The one exception is if you can prove that the attacker was still trying to do bodily harm. Going to the ground is never a safe bet, even if you only mean to subdue. The video you posted GrahamB would have turned out far differently had the guy hit his head and died when taken down. The guy who was seated and took him to the ground probably would have faced charges and had a court battle to stay out of jail. He was lucky. Someone getting in your face does not validate a physical altercation in a lot of courts. Had the guy suffered harm or death from being taken to the ground ... not a good thing for the seated guy. Some prosecutors would have had a field day with that. Rock and a hard place sometimes.

Mark

[Bhassler]

That author also has zero understanding that you can also control somebody on the ground without stomping their face, or being stomped.

Between them, Kris and Lawrence have probably had more street fights than you've had sparring matches. The subject of the article was potential risks associated with going to the ground-- there were no claims made that it was not effective or that bad things would happen every time. Not everyone who studies BJJ and/or MMA has exposure to non-sportive contexts, and considering the number of ridiculous self-defense videos unqualified BJJ instructors are putting on the interwebs these days, it's a valid subject to raise with the uninitiated.

[Zonker]

The question, in many jurisdictions, is: "When does self-defense turn into an attack?" When does a person stop being a defender and become the attacker? It gets tricky.

[Zonker]

The question, in many jurisdictions, is: "When does self-defense turn into an attack?" When does a person stop being a defender and become the attacker? It gets tricky.

[Wanderingdragon]

To me it's a question of one of the basic internal tenets. Stay calm, relax, know your opponent, when there is no longer a threat you have prevailed, beyond that you become the aggressor.

[Bodywork]

Most any reasonably experienced person knows its not wise to take a fight to the ground in public. Being a wrestler/ judo/jujutsu guy I have a permanent reminder on the back of my head reminding me that even strangers will join in and hit you from behind.
That said, the contact, force on force training offered in grappling is good for many things and many reasons among which; knowing the ground if you end up there (which happens more than many realize in real life encounters) and learning how to get out and back up if necessary, and the training offers more than pure ground work, such as entries, shoots escapes from the same.
But again... in public? Rorion Gracie noted about fighting on the ground in the U.S.A.: "In Brazil we fight Mano et mano. Americans are like dogs, everyone, anyone will attack you. It's not a safe choice. Because of this, we are changing our training to include more stand up."
I say great, but in my world? Welcome to the 70's we already learned that a long time ago.

[dspyrido]

This:
http://youtu.be/GJX9QnrZtfc

... is the equivalent of a drunk uncle "fight".

The guys in the article where pretty much malicious and I doubt that even if they were trained in the most gentle school or bjj, aikido, tcc or ballet would have mattered. They simply wanted to kick the shit out of the lone Raiders fan who was categorically stupid enough to take a fight to the ground when he was well outnumbered.

But the main point of the article is - two guys on the ground mean they are both immobilised. Putting the boot into either of them is viewed as using lethal force similar to a sucker punch.

Anyway in a fight on the ground regardless of the belts or rank the odds are on the guy with a spare friend or two who is going to step in. Even years of experience fighting in a guard will do very little unless you have a head made of concrete or can get up & out like lightening.

[Dajenarit]

People take sports waaaay too seriously smh. Good article though.

[chud]

The Raiders fan had biceps that could put Hulk Hogan to shame and a physique that was nothing short of awesome. He stood out in a bar full of average guys, not only because he was ripped, but also because he was the only person cheering for the other team, the only one doing it vociferously anyway.

Sounds like a typical Raider fan, LOL!
Raider Nation is notoriously fanatical about their team.

[DeusTrismegistus]

The point of the article wasn't just how dangerous it is to get taken to the ground in a street fight, but how dangerous the legal consequences can be if you take someone else to the ground or attack them while they are downed. This doesn't mean that ground grappling isn't good for self defense. It just means you need to be aware of the possible legal consequences of your actions. Same as if you carry a gun or knife for self defense.

[Pandrews1982]

Someone getting in your face does not validate a physical altercation in a lot of courts.

In the UK as far as I am aware verbal confrontation, intimidating behaviour and "getting in someone's face" are assault on your person and you may act to defend yourself including pre-emptive attack. The proviso here being that you believe yourself to be in immediate danger of physical violence, if there is no indication of impending violence the action is not legal assault. Even words can be taken to be assault and in some situations a "verbal assault" could still be justification for defending yourself physically.

For example someone shouting at you from across the road and then crossing over the road to you could be constituted as an aggressive action and you could genuinely fear that you are going to be physically attacked and as such you would be in your rights to sucker punch them as soon as they were in range. The response however would be an issue of interpretation of reasonable force in the specific situation.

A person who is "in your face" could definitely be seen as an immediate threat to your personal safety and as such you could defend yourself as the guy in the video Graham posted did.

However, similar to the law in the US, UK law looks unfavourably to attacking someone whilst they are on the ground. If a person who attacks you is subsequently put on the ground they are deemed to be at least temporarily incapacitated or that their attack has been subdued, you would need to argue your case for continuing to "defend" yourself against a downed attacker because you would have other options, such as escape, available to you at that point.

[WVMark]

Someone getting in your face does not validate a physical altercation in a lot of courts.

In the UK as far as I am aware verbal confrontation, intimidating behaviour and "getting in someone's face" are assault on your person and you may act to defend yourself including pre-emptive attack. The proviso here being that you believe yourself to be in immediate danger of physical violence, if there is no indication of impending violence the action is not legal assault. Even words can be taken to be assault and in some situations a "verbal assault" could still be justification for defending yourself physically.

For example someone shouting at you from across the road and then crossing over the road to you could be constituted as an aggressive action and you could genuinely fear that you are going to be physically attacked and as such you would be in your rights to sucker punch them as soon as they were in range. The response however would be an issue of interpretation of reasonable force in the specific situation.

A person who is "in your face" could definitely be seen as an immediate threat to your personal safety and as such you could defend yourself as the guy in the video Graham posted did.

However, similar to the law in the US, UK law looks unfavourably to attacking someone whilst they are on the ground. If a person who attacks you is subsequently put on the ground they are deemed to be at least temporarily incapacitated or that their attack has been subdued, you would need to argue your case for continuing to "defend" yourself against a downed attacker because you would have other options, such as escape, available to you at that point.

A lot of our states had laws which stated something to the effect of "run away". You had to retreat or attempt to remove yourself from the situation. So, someone yelling at you across the street, then crossing the street towards you wouldn't necessarily be justified defense if you could get in your car and leave. Or turn around and safely walk away. Waiting there and then sucker punching the guy, well, in some states, you could be up on charges of assault. Some states. Other states have recently passed self defense laws that lean more towards you than the attacker. Especially if you have to defend yourself with a firearm. But, like the UK, if someone is in your face and you genuinely fear that you are going to be attacked physically, then, yeah, it's more self defense ... provided you can justifiably prove that there was indeed a genuine fear should you find yourself in court. For the most part here in the US, the best lawyer wins.

Mark

[JessOBrien]

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIDERS!
Fuck the Seahags!