Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by KangTsai, Jan 28, 2017.
Disagree. It's very subjective, and opportunistic.
I haven't heard a cogent argument that anything consensual is self-defense (though what starts as consensual can morph into a self-defense situation). What I have heard (in a much earlier thread) is some reasonable argument that a) some of what police do is defend themselves when they are attacked, and b) some of what they do, while not actually self-defense, is transferable to self-defense application.
I don't know anyone who would argue that attacking someone who is minding their own business is self-defense. Nor that fighting in a ring is self-defense. Those are fairly universally accepted.
This is true, but then I never said they did.
Self defence is legal, consensually agreeing to fight people in the street is illegal.
Self defense is a legal term. That is true, and yet it is used to justify all kinds of whackadoo things in martial arts training.
True, but training to fight in a ring can be the most effective self defense training, depending entirely on how one defines self defense in that discussion.
To be clear, my point isn't that people are wrong or right in this. Only that the term is always defined opportunistically, and generally to play to the relative strengths of whatever training one does, as I did above. It's a general, legal term that describes a context but not technique. But it is used as an abstract to justify competing or not competing, maiming (or at least pretending to maim), killing (or pretending to kill), running, not running, or anything else.
Around here, it's used to support or dismiss literally any position you don't agree with, and also to sell products.
As an abstract, like afterlife or world peace, it's fine. But if it's used in any other way, it's bunk.
Depending on where you live, it may or may not be legal.
But more to the point, where intent is being judged, the practical difference between self defense and not self defense could be in how the narrative is framed and whether or not you have a decent lawyer. It could very well have nothing to do with what happened, and could instead hinge on how you describe it
Yes, I agree. There is an excellent article in the now sadly defunct Jissen magazine written by a Britsh Policeman and martial artist about what you should/shouldn't do and say, and what your rights are, once the police take you in for questioning.
Geoff Thompson also points out that people are often convicted not on what they do, but on the statement they give because they word things incorrectly, and/or don't know what key phrases they need to make sure they get into their statement.
It's another reason martial artists often make bad self defence instructors. They only give this part of self defence lip service (if they even bother to cover it at all) as they simply have no knowledge of this part of the process.
There's a difference between self-defense and training for it. I teach for self-defense, but students can only practice for self-defense in class (hopefully, they never actually have a reason to do more). Competition (and the training for it) can be part of someone's training for self-defense, though the competition itself isn't self-defense.
What does "self-defense" and "fighting" have in common?
Technically they are both use of force.
Generally speaking if you are engaged in a conflict you always want the other guy to play the role of the victim.
There are things that are fairly universally understood as deserving of a good pummeling as well.
Wait a second. Do you understand consent though.
"hey I want to fight you"
"well i dont want to fight you"(Backs off puts hands up)
"sorry sir but you really don't get a choice here"(advances towards)
"then prepare yourself for fisticuffs" (bashes guy.)
That for example is not a consensual fight. But is very common for a street fight.
Sometimes one has to fight when defending oneself.
When A's fist meets on B's face, B will feel the same amount of pain.
The mind set is complete the opposite. In
- self-defense, you tell your opponent, "If you dare to touch me, I'll sue you."
- fighting, you tell your opponent, "I'll beat you up so badly that even your own mother won't be able to recognize you".
Why does every thread have to go the self defense vs consensual fighting route?
It gets so old.
Its a tactic that pulls the conversation away from fighting skills development. Really its a more subtle form of "that doesn't work on the streets."
How to make yourself hard to kill, according to a special operator
You are on my ignore list for good reason, but occasionally are so idiotic you cannot be ignored. He doesn't have a choice? He is not able to leave, not able to verbally de-escalate, he cannot not legally defend himself by striking pre-emptively and then leaving (which is not the same as offering to fight him, either legally, nor employs the same skill set as fighting). His first and only option as you see it is to invite the guy to participate in a fight.
Yes I understand consent, and the difference between fighting and self defence, and I understand the law as it pertains to civilian self protection from criminal violence. You would do well to do the same. And for the love of god never attempt to teach a self defence course to anyone anywhere. Ever.
Because they are two different physical skill sets, and many here who only possess fighting skills, and are unwilling or unable to understand the difference between the two, and insist on talking about the two as if they were one and the same.
Maybe when they stop, threads will stop going down this route.123
Separate names with a comma.