Practical in Real Life but not cool in mma

diadicic wrote:

In real life self protection I could see this as a necessity, but shame on any mma organization that would allow stomp kicks to the head.

I’d agree. The damage that could be done by stomping on a floored man’s skull would, to my mind, put such methods outside what would be acceptable in sporting exchanges. It’s not good for the fighter’s health and I don’t find it particularly entertaining either.

All the best,

Iain

You guys are probably better off not watching any old Pride vids then. Wanderlei Silva and Shogun Rua (both Chute Box at the time not coincidentally) won many of their fights with stomps.

I agree though...no place in a modern sport but interesting from a pragmatic point of view.

I don't see head stomps as being excusable under any circumstances. I have no qualms about stomping on a fallen assailant's wrists, elbows, knees or ankles, but I just can't imagine the scenario in which I'd be justified in potentially killing (or at 'best' causing permanent brain injury to) them. I will protect myself and others, but I won't do time for it, nor live with the knowledge that I've done that to another human being.

I always wondered how there weren't more serious injuries in the old PRIDE fights, crazy.

diadicic wrote:

In real life self protection I could see this as a necessity, but shame on any mma organization that would allow stomp kicks to the head. That's not sportsman like.

Please forgive my ignorance but I fail to see how this could be justified in a self protection scenario. Surely stomping on a downed opponents head crosses the line between self protection and assault. Why do you consider it to be a necessity?

Size difference? Multiples? Weapons? 

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

Size difference? Multiples? Weapons? 

To be in a position to stomp on someone's head I'd have to be on my feet and he'd have to be prone. If he's tooled up or teamed up then all the more reason for me to leave the scene. Other than the moral issues involved it would be indefensible in law to 'finish off' an assailant in this manner.

I don't think that's correct Lee.

You have four guys around you, all are armed - (as ever, leaving the scene is probably fantasy) - one slips, you stamp on him and arm yourself with his weapon.

As a result, you survive. Because you survive, your wife still has a husband and your children grow up with a father.

Neither illegal, nor immoral ...

Lee Richardson wrote:

To be in a position to stomp on someone's head I'd have to be on my feet and he'd have to be prone. If he's tooled up or teamed up then all the more reason for me to leave the scene.

Consider what happens if, while falling on the ground, he grabs hold of you ? Either as a result of you throwing him or after a punch that puts him down, he grabs your arm or clothing and tries to pull you down. Personally, in this situation I would much rather stomp on the guy's head than get pulled into a ground fight.

As far as legal issues go, I'm not sure about the law in Britain.  I did attend a class given by a police officer in Germany a few years ago where this issue came up, and he explained that things like stomping someone are considered excessive only if they can't be justified as being necessary to ensure your safety. I can't imagine it would be any different in the UK (not legal opinion, just what I heard, although reading up online seems to confirm it). In the situation described above, or the one described by Gavin I believe it would be legally justifiable, and certainly morally ok with me.

Gavin, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My first priority is to flee the scene. If I can't immediately do that then I'll fight. In the above scenario it'll be the three still standing that get my attention. I'd hate to think what they'd be doing to me whilst I stamp the life out of their fallen comrade in order to get his weapon off him. Of course it's all theory at this point, but I know what I'd like to think I'd do under the circumstances.

GeoffG wrote:

Please forgive my ignorance but I fail to see how this could be justified in a self protection scenario. Surely stomping on a downed opponents head crosses the line between self protection and assault. Why do you consider it to be a necessity?

UK law does not prohibit specific techniques (such as stamps) but states that force used must be “reasonable”. The relevant pieces of law are Criminal Law Act 1967 Sect 3 (1)and Palmer v R, 1971.

Criminal Law Act 1967 Sect 3 (1) states:

“Any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of a crime, or in effecting or assisting in the arrest of offenders or suspected offenders unlawfully at large.”

The above law specifically talks about the prevention of crime. Of course an individual protecting themselves from assault is preventing a crime. However the right of an individual to protect themselves is also established in case law (Palmer v R, 1971):

“It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary.”

Both pieces of law raise the question of what is “reasonable”?

With regards to UK, the law judges each case on its own merits (i.e. there is no universal definition of what actions are reasonable or unreasonable). The law does also not expect people to judge the level of force used to a nicety. In 1971 Lord Morris made the following points (Palmer v R, 1971):

“If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...”

What is reasonable is therefore determined by what the individual honestly thought the situation was at that time. In hindsight, it does not matter if they assessed the situation incorrectly so long as they acted honestly and instinctively. It is also established that the individual does not need to weigh to a nicety the level of force used.

Another piece of relevant law that establishes that what is “reasonable” is determined by the situation as the individual honestly believed it to be is Crown Vs. Williams 1984:

“In the case of self-defence, where self-defence or the prevention of crime is concerned, if the jury come to the conclusion that the defendant believed, or may have believed that he was being attacked or that a crime was being committed and the force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent the crime, then the prosecution have not proved the case. If however, the defendants alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected. Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely on it.”

One important exception would be if the individual was voluntarily drunk at the time. In R v OGrady 85 Cr App R 315 it was established that an individual was not entitled to rely on a mistaken belief with regards to self-defence if that mistaken belief was a result of voluntary intoxication.

A stamp to felled assailant can therefore be entirely legal if it can be shown it was instinctive and reasonable in the circumstances as the person honestly believed them to be (even if they were mistaken). The examples given by Gavin (weapons, multiple, size-difference, etc) would all be impacting factors on determining that.

With regards to fleeing, R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110 makes is clear that failing to flee, even when possible and safe to do so, is not to be taken as conclusive evidence that a person is not acting in self-defence.

Therefore staying and stamping will not automatically put you on the wrong side of the law. If you stayed to do a few minutes worth of stamping then it probably would, but a single stamp to a felled guy – even when you could have escaped – would not automatically nullify a claim of self-defence under UK Law.

Each case is judged on its own merits and hence stamping is not automatically illegal. You may have a hard time justifying doing a kata on a guy’s head, but a stamp could be entirely legal if it is in line with the above.

All the best,

Iain

Thanks Iain, some useful legal precedence there.

Lee, you are right; we clearly have very different perspectives on violence and violent response and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Lee Richardson wrote:

Other than the moral issues involved it would be indefensible in law to 'finish off' an assailant in this manner.

Legally it could be defensible in line with my above post. A stamp can be deemed reasonable force under UK law, and R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110 establishes that not running, even when you could have, does not automatically nullify a claim of self-defense.

Tactically I’d always be looking to “fight to flee” as opposed to “fight to finish”. Getting out of there is always the smart thing tactically, but there are situations where stamping could help facilitate that escape.

Repeated “revenge stamping” is not tactically smart – especially where is the more than one person, because fixating on one person for too long leaves you vulnerable to others – and makes legally justifying your actions difficult.

Tactically and legally, it’s not the action of stamping that is good or bad, but the context in which that action is performed.

All the best,

Iain

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

Thanks Iain, some useful legal precedence there.

I’m pleased you found that interesting. UK law is very practical and flexible enough to accommodate varying situations I find.

I recall an interview on Radio 4 where it was explained that only 11 people and been prosecuted for defending themselves in 15 years. In all cases, it was pretty obvious a line was crossed into vengeance (shot people left to die, people set on fire, etc).

If stamps are used to protect ourselves, and not to punish the assailant, then UK law should be on our side.

All the best,

Iain

Hi Iain,

Just to bring you completely up to date (after all, there has to be some benefit in having a lawyer on your list of contributors...):-

The various elements of the common law defence of "Self-Defence", formerly to derived from section 3 of the 1967 Act and a string of cases heard by the Court of Appeal between 1971 and 1987, have all been brought together and "codified" by section 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. This section was brought into force on 14th July 2008.

And I'm afraid I would have to disagree with your summary of the Court of Appeal 's decision in Bird [1985]; which was essentially a case about a tipsy 17-year-old girl taking out an ex-boyfriend's eye with a broken Pernod glass - a glass she had forgotten was in her hand, at a time when she was being held against a wall and slapped silly. This was therefore not a case about escape (it was accepted that there was no opportunity to flee), nor therefore should it be cited as a case relevant to delivering a stamp when there was an opportunity to flee. It is however good authority for the following principle:-

"Failure to demonstrate unwillingness to fight is merely a factor to be taken into account in considering whether the defendant was acting in self-defence, although evidence that he tried to call off a fight is likely to be the best evidence to cast doubt on a suggestion that he was the attacker, retaliator or was acting for reasons of revenge and thus was not acting in self-defence"

"Failing to flee" remains one factor which a Jury may take into account when considering all of the relevant circumstances; and need not be a critical indicator of Guilt, when there are other relevant matters to be taken into the balance. And that's Palmer... 

=0)

davidd wrote:

Just to bring you completely up to date (after all, there has to be some benefit in having a lawyer on your list of contributors...)

Thanks for this David!

davidd wrote:

And I'm afraid I would have to disagree with your summary of the Court of Appeal 's decision in Bird [1985]; which was essentially a case about a tipsy 17-year-old girl taking out an ex-boyfriend's eye with a broken Pernod glass - a glass she had forgotten was in her hand, at a time when she was being held against a wall and slapped silly. This was therefore not a case about escape (it was accepted that there was no opportunity to flee), nor therefore should it be cited as a case relevant to delivering a stamp when there was an opportunity to flee.

I’m no lawyer so I’m happy to defer to the experts. The above does means that the Crown Prosecution Service is giving misleading advice on its website:

Crown Prosecution Service Website wrote:

Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account. It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Retreating

As you can see they do present it in the context of retreating. You said that the case would not be relevant as “it was accepted that there was no opportunity to flee”. However that is the case they quote along with the lines “Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so”. So it would seem there is some confusion in what the CPS is advising.

As a layman, I have to go with what the experts tell me. I thought I would be safe taking advice from the CPS, but it would seem the information they put out is confused or confusing? Your clarification is therefore greatly appreciated.

I take it the general principle of “Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence” remains the case even if R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110 is not the relevant piece of law (even if the CPS’s website incorrectly suggests it is)?

davidd wrote:

Failing to flee" remains one factor which a Jury may take into account when considering all of the relevant circumstances; and need not be a critical indicator of Guilt, when there are other relevant matters to be taken into the balance.

If it need not be a critical indicator, then I take it the general point that stamping, when feeling was possible, remains legally defensible? I.e. it is not automatically illegal and will be considered inline with the law and taking into account the circumstances the individual claiming self-defense found themselves in and believed them to be?

Thanks for your input!

All the best,

Iain

I can certainly understand some peoples revulsion at what on the face of it appears to be a barbaric act but I would venture to suggest this is more a visceral reaction than a cogent argument. For instance, ther are many strikes and indeed targets that can have dire or fatal consequences. Do we disregard all of those beacause of their potential for real harm?

A relatively light blow to the neck can cause death and there are well documented cases of this and the mechanisims are well known. other ares of the body are also high risk targets. I feel the issue here is context and knowledge. I omitt no targets or techniques in teaching but all of my students are aware of the consequences of hitting specific targets and the health implications ( and legal ) of doing so. We practice a martial art! It is vaguely hypocritical to be queasy about the effects and dangerous to limit ourselves to only those acts which will have minimal impact.

jimlukelkc wrote:

I can certainly understand some peoples revulsion at what on the face of it appears to be a barbaric act but I would venture to suggest this is more a visceral reaction than a cogent argument. For instance, ther are many strikes and indeed targets that can have dire or fatal consequences. Do we disregard all of those beacause of their potential for real harm?

A relatively light blow to the neck can cause death and there are well documented cases of this and the mechanisims are well known. other ares of the body are also high risk targets. I feel the issue here is context and knowledge. I omitt no targets or techniques in teaching but all of my students are aware of the consequences of hitting specific targets and the health implications ( and legal ) of doing so. We practice a martial art! It is vaguely hypocritical to be queasy about the effects and dangerous to limit ourselves to only those acts which will have minimal impact.

There's a world of difference between (potentially) fatal techniques and minimal impact. Of course there could be serious consequences to any technique we employ at need and our concern should always be for our own safety and not that of our assailant, but, for me, stomping on a fallen attacker's head (he'd have to be on the floor otherwise I wouldn't be able to do it) is simply beyond the pale. I want to live, but I need to be able to live with myself too. As I said earlier I don't have a problem with stomping on joints and the like to give myself a better chance of escaping, but there are many shades of grey between minimal impact (whatever that is) and bursting skulls.

I thought I'd throw a scenario out:

You are being attacked by multiple assailants, say 3-on-1, and stun and run isn't an option. You manage to catch one of them enough that they fall, but not enough to stop them. If you turn your attention to one of his friends, then he will get back up again. In that situation, if you take the chance for a high-probablity move, such as a stamp to the head, or a simple football-style punt to the head, with the logic that you had to make sure that he was taken out of the fight long enough for you to focus on the other assailants, would this be allowed?

This comes from some advice that an old sensei gave me: When you are attacked by multiple people, first charge at one, try to barrel through him and keep running. If you get drawn into a fight, make sure that any of them you take down go down screaming and bloody. Partially to stop them, and partially to give the others something to think about for a second so you can leg it.

Steve

davidd wrote:

The various elements of the common law defence of "Self-Defence", formerly to derived from section 3 of the 1967 Act and a string of cases heard by the Court of Appeal between 1971 and 1987, have all been brought together and "codified" by section 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. This section was brought into force on 14th July 2008.

Here is Section 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. I’m quite impressed with it! As I read it, it is still section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and the common law that gives us a legal right to use force. However, the case law seems nicely integrated (word for word in most cases) and for a legal document it is very easy to follow. Something all instructors in this part of the world should be familiar with.

All the best,

Iain

PS All highlights and underlines are mine.

76 Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.E+W+N.I.

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

(1) This section applies where in proceedings for an offence—

(a) an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence (“D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and

(b) the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person (“V”) was reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) The defences are—

(a) the common law defence of self-defence; and

(b) the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or sec tion 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest).

(3) The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.

(4) If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—

(a) the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but

(b) if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—

(i) it was mistaken, or

(ii) (if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.

(5) But subsection (4 )(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.

(6) The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

(7) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—

(a) that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and

(b) that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

(8) Subsection (7) is not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3).

(9) This section is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2).

(10) In this section—

(a)“legitimate purpose” means—

(i) the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or

(ii) the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);

(b) references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and

(c) references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76

danpt wrote:

Consider what happens if, while falling on the ground, he grabs hold of you ? Either as a result of you throwing him or after a punch that puts him down, he grabs your arm or clothing and tries to pull you down. Personally, in this situation I would much rather stomp on the guy's head than get pulled into a ground fight.

If he's falling and grabs hold of me his head's not on the floor yet. If he's already on the floor and has taken me down with him we're in a ground fight. Either way a head stomp's out of the question.

rafanapa wrote:

I thought I'd throw a scenario out:

You are being attacked by multiple assailants, say 3-on-1, and stun and run isn't an option. You manage to catch one of them enough that they fall, but not enough to stop them. If you turn your attention to one of his friends, then he will get back up again. In that situation, if you take the chance for a high-probablity move, such as a stamp to the head, or a simple football-style punt to the head, with the logic that you had to make sure that he was taken out of the fight long enough for you to focus on the other assailants, would this be allowed?

Steve

I take your point that the fallen assailant will become a threat again should he regain his feet, but then his two mates are already on their feet and are still fresh (in that they've not been floored yet). Focussing on the one on the floor (who's temporarily not a threat) is tactically unsound.

Your sensei's advice seems sound to me. It's just jumping on people's heads that I can't counternance.

Thank you everyone for the interesting discussion.

I appreciate where you're coming from Gavin and Lee but I'm not sure that I have the background to fully understand your points of view and so cannot agree nor disagree at this stage. There are too many gaps in my knowledge for me to make anything other than an emotive response and that's probably not appropriate. You've both given me some food for thought and things to consider in my research. For that I am grateful. Thanks.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

UK law does not prohibit specific techniques ...

Thanks Iain for posting your interpretation of UK law. I don't live in the UK so they are not directly applicable, but they may give me a better starting point for understanding the laws of Western Australia. The limited research into our self protection laws seems to indicate that some of your interpretation is valid here but obviously I need to do a lot more research.

I have the sort of luck where if I stamped on someones head I'd break my foot or ankle.

It does seem however that in drunken street fights kicking and stamping on heads is nastily common.

I don't think that if you are attacked you always have the luxury of saying well I won't do this technique or that one because it's not sporting. In MMA fights it's easy to plan your tactics, outside it's not and frankly if I have to stamp on someones head I will do it, I will do anything I have to so that I survive, and if that means stamping on heads or ripping a guy's family jewels off I will. I think sometimes when discussing SD we think of how we should behave, legally and being good sports but when faced with real threatening violence those thoughts should go out of your head. It's nice to be a good person but it's better to be alive to be that nice person. If you have it in your head that you may be arrested and that thought impedes you defending yourself, you could well be in trouble.