BJJ self-defense is TKD self-defense

[Oily Dragon]

I don't understand your logic here. If you don't want your opponent to punch at your head, should you try to

- dodge his punching arms so he can punch you over and over, or
- disable his punching arms so he can't punch you anymore?

Respectfully, that Bas video is not a great illustration of your point.

Look at the other guys left arm. Doesn't move at all. These are "dead" demos, and just because it's Bas doesn't sell it at least for me.

Are the strikes he shows effective. Sure. But there's enough "no" in the video to set of the BS detector.

Now, the Guoshu video you posted with the middleweights...now those are real, unscripted, useful demonstrations of clinch fighting. Those guys are pretty fast, and because of how the point system works, are always going to clinch entries to throws knowing they are gonna get hammered for it.

In BJJ, you don't have those options (striking) but you do have pummeling, grip fighting, and other types of "hitting" that work pretty well assuming you protect your head and neck. Just like wrestling your main crown jewels are head, neck, back, then shoulders, limbs etc.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

These are "dead" demos,

When Muhammad Ali was still alive, I liked to watch boxing fight. Clinches happen in boxing all the time.

In the famous Muhammad Ali and George Foreman fight, the clinch happened in 21.22, 21.33, 21.51, 21.59, ... Withing 37 seconds, the clinch happened 4 times.

 

[JowGaWolf]

.

We were talking about the situation where someone attacks you, and you control them to the ground and maintain a dominant controlling position.

One of the things that can give someone the right to use lethal force is a disparity of force. This is what you are talking about, generally a man verses a woman, or a young man verses an elderly man. But, there are also a couple of other ways to achieve disparity of force. If two equally sized and equally skilled men are fighting, and one breaks the others knee.... now he has a disparity of force, even though they started equal. Now, the guy with the broken knee is justified in using lethal force, because of the disparity. Another way this could happen is if one guy gets knocked down to the ground and the other guy is either on top of him or kicking/stomping him.

So, in our example.... someone attacks you, you could be afraid for your life and therefore justified in defending yourself. However, it gets tricky once you have gently controlled him to the ground and are maintaining a dominant position. In this case, the other guy is justified in using lethal force, because of the disparity. If you then injure him.... it becomes very tricky here because you had the dominant position, thus the disparity of force was in your favor.

I am not saying that you will be in trouble here. I am also not saying that you will not be in trouble. What I am saying is that every locality probably handles this a bit different. It would be worth some time learning about the details that are in effect in places where you spend a lot of time. Your country / state / county may and probably does handle these things differently than where I live. However, we can all research how things are handled where we live. We should also appreciate that these things are never simple and easy on the legal side. Getting proper legal advice is not a bad idea either.

Jordan Neely is a good example of this which is why Daniel Penny got in the trouble he's in. He made the comment that just because he's was a marine doesn't mean that he's afraid for his life.

A similsar expectation exists. What would a reasonable person's expectations of a marine be?

 

[drop bear]

The boxing clinch happen all the time. Why do you think clinch is so difficult to achieve?

Boxers can box.

 

[Oily Dragon]

When Muhammad Ali was still alive, I liked to watch boxing fight. Clinches happen in boxing all the time.

In the famous Muhammad Ali and George Foreman fight, the clinch happened in 21.22, 21.33, 21.51, 21.59, ... Withing 37 seconds, the clinch happened 4 times.

Well I was commenting on the dead demonstrations in the Bas Rutten clip you posted.

Clinching can happen hundreds+ of times in a pro boxing match, but you can't throw in boxing. So I don't think a boxing clinch is a great example either compared to MT or San Shou, where a clinch can be a setup for many other things.

Flying knee!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Boxers can box.

When fists are flying, a clinch is a clinch. What's the difference among a

- boxing clinch,
- MT clinch,
- Karate clinch,
- San Da clinch?

This is San Da clinch. When you obtain a clinch, you can take your opponent down. You don't always need to change levels and apply single leg or double legs.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Clinching can happen hundreds+ of times in a pro boxing match, but you can't throw in boxing. So I don't think a boxing clinch is a great example either compared to MT or San Shou, where a clinch can be a setup for many other things.

Flying knee!

MT uses clinch to take down too.

 

[drop bear]

When fists are flying, a clinch is a clinch. What's the difference among a

- boxing clinch,
- MT clinch,
- Karate clinch,
- San Da clinch?

This is San Da clinch. When you obtain a clinch, you can take your opponent down. You don't always need to change levels and apply single leg or double legs.

Because a boxer is operating in his element of punching range. And is throwing effective punches back.

A grappler trying to do the same thing. Won't do the same thing.

 

[Oily Dragon]

MT uses clinch to take down too.

With limits.

 

[dunc]

There is a disconnect in the narrative here to be aware of, if you are concerned with the legal end of it.

When determining whether self defense is justified, the "reasonable man" test is used. Would a reasonable man be afraid for his life. If a reasonable man would be afraid for his life.... then there is a lot more latitude in what that reasonable man can do, up to and including lethal force.

So, if you are attacked, you can say "I was afraid for my life, so I grabbed the nearest thing, which happened to be a crow bar and hit him as hard as I could." This sounds reasonable and logical.

On the other hand, if you say "I was afraid for my life, so I ducked under his attack, and gently put him on the ground, where I tried to maintain a controlling position, until he gassed out..." That raises the question.... "Well, how afraid were you really?" It is logical for a person who is in fact, afraid for their life, to respond with all available force. But, if you are making the choice to control the situation, and not going full force.... are you really "afraid for your life?"

Further, if you are in a dominant position, controlling the other guy, and he gets hurt... you may have other problems. It may have been reasonable to be afraid for your life when he was initiating the attack. But, once you have him on the ground and are controlling him, is it reasonable that you would be afraid for your life? Is this still self defense on your part?

I am not suggesting that anyone is wrong here. More that you do some research into self defense law where you are. This stuff will differ, depending on where you are. It also may be a good idea not to lead with terms like "self defense" until after you have talked to your lawyer.

There is a disconnect in the narrative here to be aware of, if you are concerned with the legal end of it.

When determining whether self defense is justified, the "reasonable man" test is used. Would a reasonable man be afraid for his life. If a reasonable man would be afraid for his life.... then there is a lot more latitude in what that reasonable man can do, up to and including lethal force.

So, if you are attacked, you can say "I was afraid for my life, so I grabbed the nearest thing, which happened to be a crow bar and hit him as hard as I could." This sounds reasonable and logical.

On the other hand, if you say "I was afraid for my life, so I ducked under his attack, and gently put him on the ground, where I tried to maintain a controlling position, until he gassed out..." That raises the question.... "Well, how afraid were you really?" It is logical for a person who is in fact, afraid for their life, to respond with all available force. But, if you are making the choice to control the situation, and not going full force.... are you really "afraid for your life?"

Further, if you are in a dominant position, controlling the other guy, and he gets hurt... you may have other problems. It may have been reasonable to be afraid for your life when he was initiating the attack. But, once you have him on the ground and are controlling him, is it reasonable that you would be afraid for your life? Is this still self defense on your part?

I am not suggesting that anyone is wrong here. More that you do some research into self defense law where you are. This stuff will differ, depending on where you are. It also may be a good idea not to lead with terms like "self defense" until after you have talked to your lawyer.

I’m not sure I follow your logic here

Are you suggesting that getting to a dominant position with minimal risk of injury is a more risky legal strategy than using full force and causing significant injury to your opponent to finish the fight?

 

[wab25]

I’m not sure I follow your logic here

Are you suggesting that getting to a dominant position with minimal risk of injury is a more risky legal strategy than using full force and causing significant injury to your opponent to finish the fight?

First question.... where does this take place? What country? What state? What are the statutes in that country / state? Is there a duty to retreat? ....

We have all heard the guy say "If the bad guy comes, I will just kick him in the groin." Or "I will just punch him in the jaw, and knock him out." We know, that there is a little more to it than that. We have to learn and train the proper way to kick and punch. We have to learn how to set it up, how to create the opening. We learn how to defend it, what to do when the other guy defends it.... In fact, most of us spend a significant part of our lives training in ways to punch, kick, choke, submit.... the other guy... because it is harder to do and to just kick him in the head.

All I am suggesting is that we spend a fraction of that time investigating and researching the law that will be applied once we use what we train. Sure we like to use the famous "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," or "it was self defence." But, just like learning to kick him in the head.... there is much more to it than that.

If someone were afraid for their life, due to an imminent threat of a larger opponent attacking them, is it reasonable that they would grab a weapon of opportunity and use it to hit the attacker as hard as possible?

If someone was attacked by a larger opponent, and they gently controlled the attacker to the ground, and then maintained a dominant top position for minutes.... is it reasonable to think that they were afraid for their life? If that person does control the other guy to the ground, does that mean that they were entering into mutual combat, thus becoming a co aggressor? This means that self defense is now off the table, as that person willfully became a co aggressor. However, once the dominant position was achieved, did we arrive at a disparity of force against the other guy? This would mean that self defense is on the table for him.

In reality, these things will all be handled on a case by case basis. The location of where this takes place, will tell you which set of laws to use when interpreting the incident.

This guy does not spend too much time on it (the guy I wanted to use, gives better explanations, but then uses current / recent events to illustrate... which I fear may be considered political content) but disparity of force can occur during an altercation. Two equal men start to fight. At this point, it is mutual combat, neither can claim self defense. But if one gets his knee broken or ends up on the ground with the other guy on top doing damage or has an imminent threat of bodily damage, a disparity of force has now been arrived at, allowing the one to now use self defense and lethal force, but not the other.

Spending some time to understand how the law in your area looks at this stuff is all I am suggesting here. It may not change what you do during the altercation, but maybe you adjust what you do after, and how you explain your side to the police that makes all the difference in how things go in court.

 

[drop bear]

First question.... where does this take place? What country? What state? What are the statutes in that country / state? Is there a duty to retreat? ....

We have all heard the guy say "If the bad guy comes, I will just kick him in the groin." Or "I will just punch him in the jaw, and knock him out." We know, that there is a little more to it than that. We have to learn and train the proper way to kick and punch. We have to learn how to set it up, how to create the opening. We learn how to defend it, what to do when the other guy defends it.... In fact, most of us spend a significant part of our lives training in ways to punch, kick, choke, submit.... the other guy... because it is harder to do and to just kick him in the head.

All I am suggesting is that we spend a fraction of that time investigating and researching the law that will be applied once we use what we train. Sure we like to use the famous "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," or "it was self defence." But, just like learning to kick him in the head.... there is much more to it than that.

If someone were afraid for their life, due to an imminent threat of a larger opponent attacking them, is it reasonable that they would grab a weapon of opportunity and use it to hit the attacker as hard as possible?

If someone was attacked by a larger opponent, and they gently controlled the attacker to the ground, and then maintained a dominant top position for minutes.... is it reasonable to think that they were afraid for their life? If that person does control the other guy to the ground, does that mean that they were entering into mutual combat, thus becoming a co aggressor? This means that self defense is now off the table, as that person willfully became a co aggressor. However, once the dominant position was achieved, did we arrive at a disparity of force against the other guy? This would mean that self defense is on the table for him.

In reality, these things will all be handled on a case by case basis. The location of where this takes place, will tell you which set of laws to use when interpreting the incident.

This guy does not spend too much time on it (the guy I wanted to use, gives better explanations, but then uses current / recent events to illustrate... which I fear may be considered political content) but disparity of force can occur during an altercation. Two equal men start to fight. At this point, it is mutual combat, neither can claim self defense. But if one gets his knee broken or ends up on the ground with the other guy on top doing damage or has an imminent threat of bodily damage, a disparity of force has now been arrived at, allowing the one to now use self defense and lethal force, but not the other.

Spending some time to understand how the law in your area looks at this stuff is all I am suggesting here. It may not change what you do during the altercation, but maybe you adjust what you do after, and how you explain your side to the police that makes all the difference in how things go in court.

I have never gotten in trouble for sitting on people in self defence.

I can also use force to arrest people who I see commit crimes. So I can go either way.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I have never gotten in trouble for sitting on people in self defence.

I have definitely been yelled at for doing it for too long, by a few different instructors.

For reasons you know: oxygen.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is a disconnect in the narrative here to be aware of, if you are concerned with the legal end of it.

When determining whether self defense is justified, the "reasonable man" test is used. Would a reasonable man be afraid for his life. If a reasonable man would be afraid for his life.... then there is a lot more latitude in what that reasonable man can do, up to and including lethal force.

So, if you are attacked, you can say "I was afraid for my life, so I grabbed the nearest thing, which happened to be a crow bar and hit him as hard as I could." This sounds reasonable and logical.

On the other hand, if you say "I was afraid for my life, so I ducked under his attack, and gently put him on the ground, where I tried to maintain a controlling position, until he gassed out..." That raises the question.... "Well, how afraid were you really?" It is logical for a person who is in fact, afraid for their life, to respond with all available force. But, if you are making the choice to control the situation, and not going full force.... are you really "afraid for your life?"

Further, if you are in a dominant position, controlling the other guy, and he gets hurt... you may have other problems. It may have been reasonable to be afraid for your life when he was initiating the attack. But, once you have him on the ground and are controlling him, is it reasonable that you would be afraid for your life? Is this still self defense on your part?

I am not suggesting that anyone is wrong here. More that you do some research into self defense law where you are. This stuff will differ, depending on where you are. It also may be a good idea not to lead with terms like "self defense" until after you have talked to your lawyer.

My understanding is that a claim of self-defense doesn't require you be in mortal fear for your life. Fear of injury is sufficient. And the ability to control the situation doesn't negate the idea that it was dangerous prior to you taking control. If that were true, any successful defense that didn't include injury to one or both parties would be a legal mess.

 

[wab25]

I have never gotten in trouble for sitting on people in self defence.

I can also use force to arrest people who I see commit crimes. So I can go either way.

This guy thought the same thing:

Daniel Penny Speaks Out on Deadly Subway Chokehold

A grand jury has indicted a man who put an agitated New York City subway rider in a fatal chokehold. The man — Danny Penny, a USMC veteran — speaks here. (June 16) AP

www.military.com

Thought he would restrain the guy safely until the cops showed up. He is going through a ton of legal issues now.

Lets take Florida.... a Stand your Ground state. If a guy twice my size suddenly lunges at me swinging his fists, can I use deadly force? That depends. Lets assume that his size is such that there is a clear disparity of force.... can I use deadly force? That depends. If I am on public property, a place I am legally allowed to be, like a side walk then I can. If I am on private property, that does not belong to me, then most likely not. If I am at a bar, or at a restaurant with a bar and I am in that section, and if I use a weapon, then it gets real tricky. It is illegal for me to have a concealed weapon at a bar. So I might get off on the use of force, but still go to jail for carrying a weapon illegally.

To be honest I am surprised how many people are arguing against researching the law specific to the area that you live in. We will spend years learning to fight.... Is it too much to suggest learning the law about how to apply these skills?

 

[Oily Dragon]

To be honest I am surprised how many people are arguing against researching the law specific to the area that you live in. We will spend years learning to fight.... Is it too much to suggest learning the law about how to apply these skills?

Oh man, you just hit on the biggest elephant in the room that is commercial martial arts training in the 21st century.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This guy thought the same thing:

Daniel Penny Speaks Out on Deadly Subway Chokehold

A grand jury has indicted a man who put an agitated New York City subway rider in a fatal chokehold. The man — Danny Penny, a USMC veteran — speaks here. (June 16) AP

www.military.com

Thought he would restrain the guy safely until the cops showed up. He is going through a ton of legal issues now.

The problem is that he wasn't just restraining his victim. He was applying lethal force. If his instructors never informed him that a RNC will kill someone when held to long, then they were seriously irresponsible.

(There's also the fact that although Mr. Neely was shouting and acting irrationally, he does not appear to have actually attacked anybody. For that matter, I haven't seen any reports that he even made any direct verbal threats.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This guy thought the same thing:

Daniel Penny Speaks Out on Deadly Subway Chokehold

A grand jury has indicted a man who put an agitated New York City subway rider in a fatal chokehold. The man — Danny Penny, a USMC veteran — speaks here. (June 16) AP

www.military.com

Thought he would restrain the guy safely until the cops showed up. He is going through a ton of legal issues now.

Lets take Florida.... a Stand your Ground state. If a guy twice my size suddenly lunges at me swinging his fists, can I use deadly force? That depends. Lets assume that his size is such that there is a clear disparity of force.... can I use deadly force? That depends. If I am on public property, a place I am legally allowed to be, like a side walk then I can. If I am on private property, that does not belong to me, then most likely not. If I am at a bar, or at a restaurant with a bar and I am in that section, and if I use a weapon, then it gets real tricky. It is illegal for me to have a concealed weapon at a bar. So I might get off on the use of force, but still go to jail for carrying a weapon illegally.

To be honest I am surprised how many people are arguing against researching the law specific to the area that you live in. We will spend years learning to fight.... Is it too much to suggest learning the law about how to apply these skills?

I haven't seen anyone argue against researching the law.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The problem is that he wasn't just restraining his victim. He was applying lethal force. If his instructors never informed him that a RNC will kill someone when held to long, then they were seriously irresponsible.

This is one of those "Really? You had to be told?" things. But for the record, I do teach the dangers of techniques.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

would be a legal mess.

Every time we talk about legal issue, it makes me to feel that traditional weapon training should be legal or not. You do train how to cut your opponent's head off with your Guan Dao.

It's more fun to talk about MA as a sport.