Fighting Unfairly=Fighting Effectively?

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
For obvious reasons, this is an issue about which I feel strongly. It's the tag line for The Martialist, after all. The basic concept is that someone who initiates force against you assumes the risk of any response you may make in defending yourself. Any individual who violates your sovereignty as an individual grants you moral sanction -- effectively giving up his own rights by presuming to violate yours.

Those who spout nonsense about "respecting" an attacker or other silliness have failed to grasp the concept of self-defense (just as have those "martial" artists who support firearms prohibition).

Phil, I am in agreement with you on a lot of what you say in regards to the issue of fighting unfairly. I do believe in fighting unfairly myself, as I have said.

However, what do you say about the use of "acceptable" force or "nessicary" force. Basically, the idea of immediately assessing the danger, and assessing the amount of force that would be prudent. I ask because I have done some security work, and obviously in this kind of work, as well as LEO work, work in a mental institution, etc., you legally can't go "balls out".

With most situations I have been in, it would not have been prudent for me to, say, pull my tactical folder and cut their throat(s) open. THeir are a few situtaions where deadly force would have been justified, but most situtations I have been in, expecially those in a public place, deadly force would have put me behind bars.

So, I fully understand that being prudent and fighting unfairly are seperate issues, however they are related. So what is your thought on "acceptable force"?

PAUL

 

[theletch1]

The basic concept is that someone who initiates force against you assumes the risk of any response you may make in defending yourself. Any individual who violates your sovereignty as an individual grants you moral sanction -- effectively giving up his own rights by presuming to violate yours.

Phil, this should be written up and sent to congress in the form of a bill of self defense for the American people.

 

[someguy]

It depends. Fighting "unfairly" doesn't allways mean effective. A kick in the you-know is fine for a fight to me but I'll do what ever I think is best when I think its best.

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by Acronym
What is your opinion of this? Do you abide to a moral code when in a "street" fight?

Moral code?? What moral code? As a veteran street fighter there never was that I ever saw a moral code when it came down to fighting. A 2X4, a broken bottle, a rock, piece of concrete, WHATEVER! If it was in reach then by god I'm gonna use it on ya. Dirty fighting? Mebbe, but outside the Dojo, outside the ring those other guys just don't give a damn about rules and regs. They're out to HURT you and all the MA training in the world don't mean squat to them if they can draw first and LAST blood.

If it puts the opponent/attacker out of the fray then it's effective. This is street mentality.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

There are degrees of forces inherit in the technique. A properly executed knife technique to the midsection is going to do more damage then a strike. Just as tominage is going to do more damage the hosotogare. Its the training that makes it unfair. If you practice a technique to the point where it becomes automatic your attacker is at a disadvantage no matter what. If you are in a situation that does not call for deadly force, you won't use deadly techniques. You will use other techniques that you have trained and these are just as unfair. Bottom line - if you vary your training to cover a broad range of techniques from subdual to killing, then you have more options. You become more dangerous and less dangerous at the same time.

 

[Ninway J]

I voted yes.

I would never initiate a fight, and would try my best to avoid fights. It's simple:

fight situation - me = no injury or death by me or for me

However, if a fight came to me, I'd use whatever means necessary to end the fight as soon as possible, whether it means getting an opponent down, or me running away.

In street fights, there are no rules, so fairness is void. Sure there are laws and you might get sued, but you probably should not be thinking about that while using all your energy to save your own life in a fight.

You don't know what an attacker is thinking, so it is best to assume the worst, which is you getting killed. Every move could be your last. The only thing that matters is you surviving in the end.

 

[Cruentus]

What hasn't been talked about here, and it needs to be, is the idea of "escalating violence." Although they can be this way sometimes, violent encounters generally don't start with a guy trying shot you in the head, or cut your throat from behind; unless their intention is to assasinate you. They usually escalate from an initial incident, which will require an appropriate response. Too much or too little of a response will escalate the violent encounter, thus being poor self defense. An appropriate response may prevent the encounter from escalating.

Example:

#1 Violent encounter: Green Bay packers fan yells accross the parking lot at you, "Lions Suck!" You are wearing a lions shirt.

Appropriate response: Ignore him. He isn't in your way, and he is too far to be able to tell if he is joking or not, or what his deal really is. Just keep walking to your car.

#2 Escalation: He now is approaching you rapidly and yells, "Hey Mother F-er, I said the Lions Suck! You got a F**in' problem with that!"

Appropriate Response: Assume that you are not close enough to your car yet to simply hop in and drive. There are no people to intervien. Your not by your vehicle yet. It is clear that he is looking for some kind of reaction from you, and that he will not stop until he gets one. So you feign your 'submission to his superiority' by saying something like, "Hey man. I don't have a problem with you, and I want any trouble." You have turned to face his direction a bit, while still walking a bit slower to your vehicle. Assuming your without a firearm, you have pulled your tactical folding knife and are concealing it in your palm.

#3 Escalation: He responds with "F-You...I think you do have a F-ing problem!" And you realize that he has 2 friends with him, following behind. They are coming towards you even more rapidly now, and are in fact almost on top of you.

Appropriate Response: You run, keeping an eye on them in your perephials. The car is closer then any other people or lights would be, so you run towards your car. You have also unfolded your tactical folder. You are still concealing it, but your weapon is ready if need be.

#4 Escalation: You hoped that they wouldn't chase after you, but they have, and are gaining. You get to your car, but they are far too close for you to get inside without getting ambushed.

Appropriate Response: As soon as you are by your driver side, you quickly turn and yell, "GET AWAY FROM ME!! I am asking you not TO COME ANY CLOSER!!"

#5 Escalation: Your new friends stopped running when you did. They say, "Oh, your going to get the beating of your life now!" And they start moving towards you, into your space.

Appropriate Response: You now brandish the knife, and cut the nearest thing, the hand of one of your attackers. You say with force, "I'm telling you, you guys do not want to do this!" You keep an eye out to see if any of them look as if they are going to pull a weapon of any kind, so you can cut them fatally.

#6 Escalation: The attacker screams, "You f**ing cut me! I'm going to kill you!" and he really makes a break for you, as does his comrades.

Appropriate response: You know start cutting more vitally and rapidly, maintaining distance to prevent a grappling circumstance. You pop one of them in the eye, and he goes down screaming. The "spokesperson" of the group, after being cut a few times decides it isn't worth it and runs; his friends follow.

End of situation: You go to get in your car to go. A couple comes over to see if you are alright, and they say that they called the cops on their cell phone. They saw you running from them, and you made it evident by your actions that you were the defender and not the aggressor. So you decide to wait for the police, and the couple decides to wait. You would normally leave the scene for safety, but a squad car can be there in less then 5 minutes to take the report. You now have witnesses that you were defending yourself, so if the attackers decide to say that they were attacked by a crazy person with a knife, you have proof otherwise. Your @$$ is covered legally, and you are alive and unharmed.

Moral...what am I trying to point out here?

Yes it is true, there are no rules on the street. In this circumstance, "you" did not fight fairly. Yet, "you" maintained acceptable force throughout the situation. You did not turn into the aggressor. It just so happends that the hypothetical situation continued to escalate. Most situations will not go that far, as long as your prudent in your response. You don't want to fight with a "moral code", but you want to be prudent, and recognize how force escalates.

Would it have been prudent for me to start running towards him like a madman with my folder drawn after Action #1? Or how about #2 or #3? No! The attacker may not have taken the circumstance past action #1 or #2, but by responding aggressively rather then assertively I become the person that escalates the situation. I may hurt someone unessicarily, endanger myself more-so, or even worse, I may come accross as the aggressor and a witness may say that I attacked them with a knife! An inapproriate response = poor self defense.

Do you see the point I am making? Do not fight fairly. But, recognize how violence escalates, and what a prudent and appropriate response would be to prevent this from occuring!

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by PAUL
What hasn't been talked about here, and it needs to be, is the idea of "escalating violence.

This is an important concept for EVERY martial artist to learn. If you go through your life and never escalate someone to violence or if you have knowledge of de-escalation techniques, then you probably will never have to use MA. If I think of the scuffles I've been in over the years, the knowledge of de-escalation would have saved me a lot of trouble. I tend to think of it this way, the minute I retaliate, I have lost the real fight. There is nothing honorable about fighting, its best to be done with it quickly, if possible.

 

[Ninway J]

PAUL, very good post! a 10!:asian:

 

[Phil Elmore]

However, what do you say about the use of "acceptable" force or "nessicary" force.

That depends on who defines "necessary." Any definition that forces the person defending himself to assume the risk of injury is not acceptable, to me.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
That depends on who defines "necessary." Any definition that forces the person defending himself to assume the risk of injury is not acceptable, to me.

I think I know what you mean, and I think I would agree if I am correct. I think you mean that if the defendors ethics endangers them unessicarily then this is unacceptable? For example, the guy who refuses to pick up a weapon of opportunity because its against their "martial code", yet they are now more at risk at getting pummled by 3 attackers. I agree that this would be unacceptable.

Its just a bit confusing because you are ALWAYS at risk of injury in a confrontation, whether you use little or a lot of force.

PAUL

 

[Phil Elmore]

Being at risk and assuming the risk of an encounter aren't the same thing. The latter implies that you must "err on the side of caution" in favor of avoiding harm to your opponent.

 

[theletch1]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Being at risk and assuming the risk of an encounter aren't the same thing. The latter implies that you must "err on the side of caution" in favor of avoiding harm to your opponent.

Unfortunately, Phil, many folks feel that they must err on the side of caution not for fear of injury to their attacker but for fear of a lawsuit down the road. It's a disgrace that the thought of anything but survival should even cross your mind in a self defense situation yet being in the most letigious society in the world tends to taint many. Another prime example of taking personal responsibility for your actions. If, by your actions, you put another human being in a position to have to defend themselves from you then you (and only you) should be held accountable for your injuries. Ah, well, Utopia and all that.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Being at risk and assuming the risk of an encounter aren't the same thing. The latter implies that you must "err on the side of caution" in favor of avoiding harm to your opponent.

Ah...yes. Then I agree that the defendor shouldn't assume the risk of the encounter to avoid harming the opponent.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by theletch1
Unfortunately, Phil, many folks feel that they must err on the side of caution not for fear of injury to their attacker but for fear of a lawsuit down the road.

In regards to lawsuit, my personal thought is that if I am executing nessicary force, then I can't afford to worry about a lawsuit for safeties sake. I will respond according to the level of danger.

If I am in a crowded bar, I know the staff (I always make it a point to know the staff in a place I frequent), and an intoxicating person attacks me weaponless, I can afford to throw him out. The level of danger os not high enough for me to pull my blade. If I am alone, and I am attacked by more then one person, or with a weapon, and I have tried to prevent the attack any way I could (escaping, verbal commands, etc.), then the level of danger is considerably higher, and anything goes.

When the level of danger is high, I can't afford to worry about a lawsuit.



:asian:

 

[theletch1]

When the level of danger is high, I can't afford to worry about a lawsuit.

No-one can truly afford to worry about a lawsuit. I don't. I get home to my family and deal with the consequences later. The point of my post is that MANY people do indeed worry about lawsuits and that is often the second or two of hesitation that costs them their lives.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by PAUL
If I am in a crowded bar, I know the staff (I always make it a point to know the staff in a place I frequent), and an intoxicating person attacks me

If I'm in a bar, and an intoxicating person attacks me, I usually don't strugle! :rofl:

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

What is a street fight as you define it in the original question?

Two guys squaring off in an alley?

A mugging?

An attempted rape?

A doorman dealing with a combative drunk?

A carjacking?


Back to the original question...depending on the scenario I wouldn't hesitate to fight "unfairly", seeking any advantage I can. If it comes to blows its because I had no other choice. Why play by rules?

A moral code would stay my hand if I had a mugger down on the ground gasping for breath and begging for mercy. By law once the threat is removed, I can no longer pursue the attack...so I wouldn't. The law allows reasonable force...so I would use that as a guideline. But I wouldn't necessarily have to be "fair" about it.



Regards,


Steve

 

[kenpo12]

What defines fair? I do whatever I have to do, fair or not.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, the fear of a lawsuit is greatly exaggerated by, "the media." If you use an appropriate level of force, and the best level is none, it's extremely unlikely that you'll have any real problems with the criminal or the civil courts.

Second off, I think fairness is completely irrelevant to self-defense. To quote Roy Bean in that movie, "Chance? If the SOB wanted a chance, he shoulda rode to some other town."

Fairness means that somebody's got self-defense confused with duelling. I think Mr. Parker had it right: once It starts, all that stuff goes right out the window, along with junk like embarassment.

This is why we do not let It start if we can possibly avoid it. Too late to be fair, though not too late necessarily to be restrained.