Is A wrong, or is A right?

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm reading an online book. In the story, A had to defeat B to open a secret door. Before the match started, A asked the judge, "How do I suppose to use this gun?" Before the judge responded to A's question, A open fire and kill B. The secret door is then opened.

In that story, A had to fight against 3 guys. When A run toward those 3 guys, A put his firearm behind his back and drew out his sword. Those 3 guys also put their firearms behind their backs and drew out their swords (they assume it would be a sword fight). When A run near those 3 guys, A dropped his sword, pulled out his firearm and killed all 3 guys while those 3 guys still had swords in their hands.

This just remind me that something happened many years ago.

- B walked toward A. B bowed to A and said, "May I spar with you?"
- A said, "OK". A then jumped in and beat B up.

1. Is A wrong?

A only said he accepted B's challenge. A did not ask whether B is ready or not.

2. Is A right:

Since it's B challenged A, it should be B's own responsibility to be ready.

What's your opinion on these 3 stories?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are 2 ways to look at these 3 stories.

From a

- "knight spirit" point of view, this is not an honest fight like "Are you ready? Are you ready? Let's get on then."
- "survival is your goal" point of view, attack your opponent when he is not ready is a good strategy.

Are there any honest wars that follow the rule such as. "Are you ready? Are you ready? Let's get on then."? Can we survival in this world with the "knight spirit"?

What's your thought on this?

 

[skribs]

In stories, a lot of what is right or wrong depends on whether it's the good guy or the bad guy doing them. Bad guy tricks the good guys into lowering their guns before shooting them? He's manipulative and evil. Good guy does the same thing? He's cunning and heroic.

In general, context plays a big part in whether something is right or wrong.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

For the first two, assuming his ultimate goal was to kill them anyway, then he made the right choice. For the last one with sparring - some novels are weird about what they consider sparring. Was it actually a sparring match ie: training? If so, then he was wrong. If the other person was challenging him and trying to kill or humiliate him publically, then he made the right choice.

 

[mograph]

Context (almost?) always determines meaning, eh?

 

[Oily Dragon]

I dunno, "may I spar with you" doesn't seem that threatening, unless you're in a movie fighting a supervillain.

Luke and Vader spar:

 

[marvin8]

I'm reading an online book. In the story, A had to defeat B to open a secret door. Before the match started, A asked the judge, "How do I suppose to use this gun?" Before the judge responded to A's question, A open fire and kill B. The secret door is then opened.

In that story, A had to fight against 3 guys. When A run toward those 3 guys, A put his firearm behind his back and drew out his sword. Those 3 guys also put their firearms behind their backs and drew out their swords (they assume it would be a sword fight). When A run near those 3 guys, A dropped his sword, pulled out his firearm and killed all 3 guys while those 3 guys still had swords in their hands.

In U.S. law, it's mutual combat. A lost their right to self-defense, murdered 3 people and can be sent to prison for life. Laws are rules, not opinion.

This just remind me that something happened many years ago.

- B walked toward A. B bowed to A and said, "May I spar with you?"
- A said, "OK". A then jumped in and beat B up.

1. Is A wrong?

A only said he accepted B's challenge. A did not ask whether B is ready or not.

2. Is A right:

Since it's B challenged A, it should be B's own responsibility to be ready.

What's your opinion on these 3 stories?

A is wrong. It's mutual combat. A (and B) lost the right to defend themself and A assaulted B. A may be charged with assault and face legal consequences.

There are 2 ways to look at these 3 stories.

U.S law has one view of mutual combat. If both parties agree to fight ahead of time, both are seen as initial aggressors losing the right to self-defense. Either one may be charged with assault or murder.

From a

- "knight spirit" point of view, this is not an honest fight like "Are you ready? Are you ready? Let's get on then."

There is mutual combat, then there is non-consensual fighting. There is a legal difference.

In a non-consensual fight, If you let the opponent be the initial aggressor (knight spirit), you can legally defend yourself (awareness) with like force.

- "survival is your goal" point of view, attack your opponent when he is not ready is a good strategy.

In a non-consensual fight, the strategy of being the initial aggressor is bad if you are averse to going to prison for assault or murder.

Are there any honest wars that follow the rule such as. "Are you ready? Are you ready? Let's get on then."? Can we survival in this world with the "knight spirit"?

What's your thought on this?

There are honest wars, that follow the law, where you are not the initial aggressor and you knock the aggressor unconscious. The initial aggressor sues you. However, your actions are found justified, you win both criminal and civil immunity and the initial aggressor has to pay your attorney fees.

One can survive with the "knight spirit" by "protecting themself at all times," not being the initial aggressor and legally defending themself.

There's fiction, then there's reality.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

For the first two, assuming his ultimate goal was to kill them anyway, then he made the right choice.

Storys 1 and 2 are talking about the mecha fights on another planet. Here is the video that made from that book.

Self-defense? Muder? Cold blood? Aggressor? legal issue?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If the other person was challenging him and trying to kill or humiliate him publically, then he made the right choice.

A was teaching his MA class. B (a stranger) walked in and challenged A in front of A's students.

 

[Oily Dragon]

A was teaching his MA class. B (a stranger) walked in and challenged A in front of A's students.

Yeah but didn't he say "may I spar with you"?

Why would sparring fall under "mutual combat".

its a school.

 

[drop bear]

Han shot first.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yeah but didn't he say "may I spar with you"?

Why would sparring fall under "mutual combat".

its a school.

If A and B

- know each other, it's friendly sparring.
- don't know each other, it's a challenge fight. A challenge fight can be unfriendly. You won't know until the fight is over.

 

[marvin8]

Yeah but didn't he say "may I spar with you"?

Why would sparring fall under "mutual combat".

its a school.

Yes, A's defense of "mutual combat" may fail. Because, B did not agree to a fight, only bowed and asked to spar.

B: I asked A to spar. A said "OK" to the sparring. Before we could even start sparring, A sucker punches me causing me great bodily harm. So, I am pressing assault charges and suing A.

 

[lenjee]

In U.S. law, it's mutual combat. A lost their right to self-defense, murdered 3 people and can be sent to prison for life. Laws are rules, not opinion.


A is wrong. It's mutual combat. A (and B) lost the right to defend themself and A assaulted B. A may be charged with assault and face legal consequences.


U.S law has one view of mutual combat. If both parties agree to fight ahead of time, both are seen as initial aggressors losing the right to self-defense. Either one may be charged with assault or murder.


There is mutual combat, then there is non-consensual fighting. There is a legal difference.

In a non-consensual fight, If you let the opponent be the initial aggressor (knight spirit), you can legally defend yourself (awareness) with like force.


In a non-consensual fight, the strategy of being the initial aggressor is bad if you are averse to going to prison for assault or murder.


There are honest wars, that follow the law, where you are not the initial aggressor and you knock the aggressor unconscious. The initial aggressor sues you. However, your actions are found justified, you win both criminal and civil immunity and the initial aggressor has to pay your mutual combat Texas attorney fees.

One can survive with the "knight spirit" by "protecting themself at all times," not being the initial aggressor and legally defending themself.

There's fiction, then there's reality.

I know these laws vary by state. And some of them are to protect rough housing by a couple buddies and s heighbirbor whatever calls the cops. But in the state of AZ can two people who really want to have s go at it fight legally? Additionally what if money is involved? $1,500 per side. This is not a joke, it's a serious post asking about Arizona law... Not sure exactly where to post this--it is a serious question though and yes I know it sounds completely ridiculous-nonetheless it is a serious question about the law in AZ. Can two people who have problems with each other sign papers and legally fight? If no what about Nevada?

 

[marvin8]

I know these laws vary by state. And some of them are to protect rough housing by a couple buddies and s heighbirbor whatever calls the cops. But in the state of AZ can two people who really want to have s go at it fight legally? Additionally what if money is involved? $1,500 per side. This is not a joke, it's a serious post asking about Arizona law... Not sure exactly where to post this--it is a serious question though and yes I know it sounds completely ridiculous-nonetheless it is a serious question about the law in AZ. Can two people who have problems with each other sign papers and legally fight? If no what about Nevada?

No. Neither AZ nor NV have a defined mutual combat law. Although, they might be able to legally fight in a state sanctioned event under certain rules.

Excerpt from "Mutual Combat States:"

Only three states have specific laws related to mutual combat: Washington, Texas, and Oregon. In Oregon, mutual combat is illegal, and participants can be charged with disorderly conduct. In contrast, in Washington and Texas, mutual combat is legal under specific circumstances. In Washington, mutual combat is legal if both parties agree to the fight, and it occurs in a public place, and there is no serious bodily injury. Similarly, in Texas, mutual combat is legal if both parties consent, and it does not result in serious bodily injury.

 

[drop bear]

This pretty well explains the issue.

 

[isshinryuronin]

"C" was the correct one as he had the sense to stay out of the situation and avoid the whole thing.