"Violence is about injury. Period. Joe smith can use violence just as well as any highly trained martial artist because violence does not use strength, speed etc as a means of domination. It uses destruction. When Joe smith gets an injury on our highly trained martial artist (lets call him "Barry"), then suddenly there is no more competition. Barry is now just a man with an injury. You are talking about a competition between skill in martial arts and no skill."
I just can't get over this statement. Attributes (power, speed, flexibility, timing, etc) are what make techniques effective. Violence doesn't use strength or speed as a means of domination? I would venture to say that a violent act is MUCH MORE easily thwarted if it wasn't fueled by strength, speed, aggressiveness, and killer instinct.
If a martial artist is highly trained, then it is quite possible to keep going after an injury. I've done it, several times, and if you take a look at the last UFC, middleweight champion Rich Franklin fought 4 rounds with a broken hand! And had a dominating performance. Heart and toughness, for both him and his opponent, David Loiseau.
And eye gouges against rear chokes are a VERY POOR method of escape. Largely ineffective, and the time would be better spent trying to improve your position. After all, if you're in that inferior position, eye gouging will likely tick off your opponent to the point where now he'll want to do a face choke, breaking your teeth and jaw.
My 2 cents.