Kung Fu Fighter Video

[Brad Dunne]

It's just seems to be the way the country is going. Bad guys have way more rights than the average guy. What's really frightening, is that this trend is starting to spread. I've heard that the Chicago area is no place for any kind of self defense argument. Florida has tried a non martial artist for felony assualt with a punch. Granted the guy that got hit died, but the original charge was murder. It was later reduced to manslaughter. In fact I think there was more than one case in Florida. Yet drunk drivers keep on drinking and driving and getting released. :idunno:

 

[dsp921]

I can understand felony charges if the guy dies, BB or not. The part that bugs me is that what I think is being said here is that if a non-MAist breaks a nose it's assault, if a BB does the same thing it's a felony simply because the guy has a BB. Sounds like discrimination to me.

 

[BaiKaiGuy]

I can understand felony charges if the guy dies, BB or not. The part that bugs me is that what I think is being said here is that if a non-MAist breaks a nose it's assault, if a BB does the same thing it's a felony simply because the guy has a BB. Sounds like discrimination to me.

Fair or not, our (PA) courts have held that someone trained to fight is held to a higher standard than some kid off the street because of that knowledge. The cases are pretty clear, and mention black belts, boxers, etc by name.

The reason I menitoned that I haven't had to defend a black belt was simply illustrative. The law is against MAers, fair or not, and I'd hate to see the results of the appeal I'd have to write as the PA courts are quite anti-defendant.

 

[arnisador]

But, many black belts are weekend warriors. I'd hope they'd decide whether to hold it against people on a case-by-case basis!

 

[rupton]

But, many black belts are weekend warriors.

Hi arnisador, that statement confused me. What do you mean by black belts being weekend warriors?

 

[Dan G]

Kung Fu vid was very funny. They both deserved a good slap though! One for being an obnoxious toe rag and the one in the red shirt for taking such a ludicrous stance in a street fight, forcing the confrontation, allowing the bloke to reach for a potentially concealed weapon, and for not kicking him in the face when he adjusted his shoelaces. Fight wasn't needed, from the amount of circling and posturing the mouthy bloke wasn't interested in taking it physical. Curious as to what the camera was doing there too.

Stuff below is a bit off topic, previous post on UK law and stuff got me feeling all warm and positive and "devil's advocatey" about the small island I live on...

as far as the courts are concerned,you are allowed to use whatever you want to defend yourself....but then you have explain WHY you HAD what you used in the first place.

Spot on! It is illegal to use force against another person in the UK except in a limited number of circumstances. Self defence, prevention of crime or injury, and executing a citizens arrest allow a member of the public to use "reasonable force". Depending on the circumstances and the subjective state of mind of the member of the public at the time it is potentially permissable to use extreme measures or weapons.

Carrying weapons or items adapted as weapons in a public place is an offence entirely separate to any act of violence performed in self-defence.
Justifying carrying a weapon and justifying use of a weapon are two separate legal issues.

If you get attacked by 5 guys with clubs and knives...yes,you can use a knife,but then you have to explain why you had a knife in the first place and 8,maybe 9 times out of ten....you got a minimun of 2 years for being posession.If it has a locking blade...up to 5 years.

You are allowed to defend yourself using reasonable means. Whilst it might actually be reasonable to use a razor sharp katana in self defence the law expects you to have an excellent reason for having it with you at the time. If you are walking the dog in the park with a sword in one hand you will go to jail, and rightly so, if you are on the way back from iaido training or buying one in a shop you have a legitimate reason for carrying one. As a UK citizen I am pretty happy with the law on this point.

Mandatory sentences for carrying blades in public are a fact of life in the UK. Some agree some disagree. It limits the options available for legal self-defence. On the other hand it is a very good way of putting armed criminals in jail before they have the opportunity to leave an innocent MOP dead or crippled. It is arguably a statistics game which balances the reduced risk of encountering a knife on the street with the chance that you may have to face one unarmed...

When all is said and done.....
the law is made by a PILE O PANSIES who know NOTHING about thier life being on the line and they never will.
They blatantly ignore any input from hospital services,victim support services or even the beat officers who actually know the truth of things at hand.

A bit of a generalisation!

In UK slang a pansy is:

1) a homosexual man.
2) someone weak or effeminate in behaviour.

The law is made by a democratically elected parliament, it is administered by the court system and primarily the police. I am positive that the sexuality and gender mannerisms of the executive, court officers or the police has no effect on public policy and enforcement of UK law with respect to self-defence or carrying of weapons.

Common sense and demographics tell us that for most of the last century, and until very recently parliament and the courts were largely filled with citizens who had survived WW2 or WW1. These were people who had in fact very personal and sustained experience of "their life being on the line". Until very recently almost all judges and most politicians would have had family or friends sacrifice their life during the 40's. Often socially very conservative this generation has been surprisingly strong and liberal in outlook when defending civil liberties against government encroachment (in particular freedom of speech/official secrets act cases). Not "pansies" just people with a powerful and very personal understanding of the colossal sacrifices made in the 40's in the name of liberty and democracy. This understanding of the price paid to secure some of our liberties is definitely changing for the worse!

At one time (and this dates back to a time when a man could be arrested for being gay...but the was NO WAY a woman could be gay,queen victoria refused to believe that was possible), the police was portrayed as a perfect crime fighting unit and ONLY they could fight crime.

True, until comparitively recently consensual "buggery" between adult men was illegal, but there was no law specifically making lesbian acts illegal. "buggery" between consenting adults, male or female is now legal, (although the family pets remain off limits):xtrmshock !

In Victorian times the Police were not seen as the perfect "crime fighting unit", the creation of the modern Police force under Robert Peel was a radical new experiment, and faced huge problems, primarily a genuine crime problem fuelled by abject poverty, and broad and largely well founded public perception of corruption in the pre-Peel constabularies.

The law makers have a fiiiirm grip on the word "vigilante".

The law of England & Wales does not use nor need the term "vigilante". The law is clear, there are offences of violence, and there are defences to such offences including self defence and the prevention of crime.

Now,in the 21st century.....
Everything insight is banned, NOT because of the lame reason they spew all opver the news.."we trying to keep these out of the hands of criminals"..
but because they are trying to get assaults on the police to go down.

Either reason seems perfectly fair to me provided it is successful.

This is the ONLY LEO comminuity on the planet that is unarmed.
Pepper spray and asp batons just ain't getting it.
and the criminal element KNOW the police can't do a damn thing about it.

A little bit of web research will show that members of the police services in the UK (with the exception of the former RUC - the Police Service of Northern Ireland who remain armed) are against the routine carrying of firearms. If someone has the guts the skill and the confidence to do the job unarmed who has any right to argue with that? I am proud that we have a police force that is prepared to shoulder extra risk in the belief that the community is better served if most officers enforce the law unarmed.

In fact all areas of the UK have mobile armed response units, and certain units and forces are routinely armed. E.g. Civil Nuclear Constabulary, Police Service of Northern Ireland, MOD Police, Diplomatic Protection Group, SO.19, airport units etc etc.

Gun crime in the UK is very low, and whilst this remains the case the current policy makes sense. For the moment pepper spray and asp batons do seem to cut it, and criminals also know that carrying firearms isn't a smart way of having either a long criminal career or a healthy long life...

If you get attacked on you own property,law states you must run inside your house,lock the door and call the police.
If they manage to get inside,you are supposed to lock yourself in a room and wait for the police.
Again,do nothing.
They do lie,sorry,"say" you can defend yourself in your home...but if you hit the assailant more than once..you are arrested for "no-reasonable" force.

This is simply not the way the law works! Anybody on your property without permission is trespassing, this is not a crime. Everybody has the right to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser, this is again not a crime, although the law prefers it if you ask them to leave before thumping them. A trespassser who attacks you is committing an assault, which is a crime; just as on the street, you may use reasonable force to defend yourself, this is legally defensible. A trespasser who is stealing is a burglar, you may effect a citizens arrest, remove them from your property or defend yourself, again using reasonable force, and still remain within the law.

The law does not expect you to run and hide under the stairs, and the law is quite happy for you to hit an intruder as many times as you personally believe is reasonably neccessary for effective self defence. (BTW the jury has to believe that you subjectively were in a state of mind where a reasonable person would do what you did, a subjective objective test. If you acted reasonably given your personal belief, but that belief is way out of kilter with the rest of society then you might be innocent, but also sectioned as insane . So best to keep quiet about any "voices"... )

Recent cases show that the law does not allow you to tie up and torture burglars, nor does it allow you to shoot a teenager twice in the back as they run away from your property.

On the other hand a known gangster who stabbed and killed an undercover police officer (trespassing in his garden on a surveillance op) was held to have acted in reasonable force, as he convinced the jury that he was in fear of his life and thought the officer to have been from a rival gang. It seems that if you have the right story and a convincing subjective state of mind you can quite literally get away with murder if you are on your own property!

If you chase someone for stealing your property...YOU get arrested.

This is simply not true. Everyone in the UK has the right to effect a "citizen's arrest" if a crime is being committed. However, the police are not allowed to give suspects a "good shoeing" and neither is a member of the public. Both face arrest if they do so.

The police are so perfect...they WILL find it.
The police here act as mindreaders.
If you have a spotless record and they pick you at random and find something on you THEY don't like...they KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt...you WILL commit a crime with it!

The Police do the best they can, and their role is to enforce the law, not their personal likes and dislikes. Largely they do this very well. Anyone that breaks the law and carries a weapon should not be surprised if the Police decide that the court deserves to hear an explanation. For better or for worse it is a simple matter of action and consequences.

If you say you carry a kubaton for DEFENSE...you done.
If you say the magic word implying self preservation,then you freely admit that you ARE INTENDING to cause bodily harm and therefore...you ARE a criminal.

If you admit to carrying an item with the intent to use it at some point as an improvised weapon you are:

1) very very stupid!

2) now a criminal!

If life is getting a bit scary simple practical solutions are either:

1) a good solid umbrella (appropriate most days of the year over here)!

2) practising some very convincing excuses for the kubotan, chainsaw, or whatever else one decides to carry. :tank:

3) alter one's attitude to risk taking, and accept that sometimes "stuff" happens that can't be controlled, and enjoy life in the meantime.

Fortunately,the street police are getting wise and taking more things into consideration.But that isn't happening fast enough.
I have recieved 2 pieces of advice off the record here from police....
1) do NOT hang around when you are done! Leave the area immediately!

Pretty good advice - both legally and from the point of view of personal safety.

2) dead men don't argue.

But if you don't know the law of self defence thoroughly you will likely talk yourself into jail anyway!

The last one may be extreme,but living here in south london,
you have middle eastern gangs,jamaican gangs(yardies) british "firms" ( look up the Kray twins and the charlie richardson gang) eastern block gangs from all countries,far east gangs(triads flourish here in london) and you have gypsies(pykies) and list goes on.
They fear nothing and nobody.

Why do you think I specialise in knife fighting?
They do.

Knife skills are great, but if someone ends up killing a member of an organised crime outfit then the legal consequences are the least of their worries.
London does have a significant amount of organised crime, anyone in a situation with a reason to fear physical harm from an organised crime element needs a lifestyle alteration/emigration/chat with your friendly local bobby would be in order.

I might be playing a bit of devils advocate here, as UK weapons controls are very strict, and some were brought in as a knee jerk response by politicians keen to look good on law and order issues. Generally it works, knife culture is relatively manageable and firearms offences are very low by any comparable international standards, however law abiding citizens have lost personal freedoms when it comes to weapons, in particular firearms training/sports.

There is nothing much wrong with our laws on self defence (apart from domestic violence - and that is being altered) that a good lawyer and a good personal understanding of law, evidence and court procedure can't fix.
Our government is democratic, and our courts and police forces are exceptionally honest and generally very competent.

Bammx2 , I sort of understand where you are coming from on a lot of this, and I can understand why a person may wish to carry a weapon illegally. It does sound as if you had had a bit of a bad day when you wrote the post.

I picked up on your post partly because some of the legal stuff was way off the mark, and partly because it is embarassing to portray the UK (even the seedier bits of London) as some sort of Dark Future crime ridden Police State. Most of the people on this forum are from the US and will rightly laugh themselves sick at the suggestion that the UK is a dangerous country with citizens under seige and law enforcement in a state of collapse.

The thing is I really feel that a thorough understanding of self defence law is crucial, especially rules of evidence and court procedure. A partial understanding is really unhelpful, and can get people into needless trouble.

I also have lived in South London (Streatham) and actually rather liked it. Some bits were dodgy some weren't.
We both know that the UK isn't all cream teas, Royal Weddings and sunny games of cricket, but it is by and large a nice place to live, it is pretty safe and the system of government is relatively honest and efficient. I have lived in a fair few places and I like it here.

There is street crime and worse, but I do not live in daily fear of it. Fear attracts trouble like "the proverbial" attracts flies. I find life here works out pretty well just by being aware and enjoying myself. London is a unique city, and there is loads of good stuff here to balance the bad.

Good luck with the training, PM me if you want any pointers on reading up on the legal side of stuff.

Cheers

Dan

 

[arnisador]

Hi arnisador, that statement confused me. What do you mean by black belts being weekend warriors?

I mean, if in PA it is the case that black belts are always considered to be the infamous people with 'hands registered as deadly weapons' w.r.t. self-defense, then it seems that that's unfair. I know people from some martial arts schools who train once/week for an hour and aren't all that deadly. To lump them in with a full-time pro boxer who works out for several hours per day doesn't seem right.

 

[Adept]

Gun crime in the UK is very low, and whilst this remains the case the current policy makes sense.

Yes, but violent crime and homicide rates have both increased while the firearm laws have tightened.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes, but violent crime and homicide rates have both increased while the firearm laws have tightened.

Yeah, but that's because the knives haven't been banned....yet. It'll be really safe soon. You won't have to worry about any dangerous kitchen knives. Fork and spoon registration are next.

 

[BaiKaiGuy]

But, many black belts are weekend warriors. I'd hope they'd decide whether to hold it against people on a case-by-case basis!

Not my understanding, no. The law wasn't written by instructors, remember?

 

[DeLamar.J]

Funny vid, but no need for that Kung Fu stance just to throw a right hook, you know? I think that stance was more of a, look at me I know Kung Fu, and to impress his girl, you know he got some nookie that night bwahaahaa!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not my understanding, no. The law wasn't written by instructors, remember?

The lesson? Stay at brown belt forever.

Funny vid, but no need for that Kung Fu stance just to throw a right hook, you know? I think that stance was more of a, look at me I know Kung Fu, and to impress his girl, you know he got some nookie that night bwahaahaa!

Probably, though he shouldn't have. That was the goofiest stance i've ever seen in a real fight. I think it was so successful because the other guys couldn't stop laughing long enough to fight him.

 

[Sapper6]

I think it was so successful because the other guys couldn't stop laughing long enough to fight him.

whatever works right...? the guy was still one lucky dude :idunno:

 

[Dan G]

Yes, but violent crime and homicide rates have both increased while the firearm laws have tightened.

What you are saying is probably true. I don't have the data to argue about increase or decrease in crime rates since firearms restrictions were introduced, but see below for some data that puts the UK into a bit of perspective.

See link for UK crime stats.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0705.pdf

Firearms offences -
Handgun - down 13% (4532 offences)
Rifle - down 9% (50 offences)
Shotgun - down 11% (617 offences)
Replica firearms offences up 66% (3268 offences)

Recorded crime statistics show violence against the person up by 10% and serious violence against the person up by 4%. On the other hand British Crime Survey shows violent crime down by 3%.

Police recording of crime is also getting more efficient and the rise in violent crime is attributed to changes in recording methods and recent "criming" focus (i.e. record everything even if it will never get to court).

International crime statistics:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf

Homicide rates per 100,000 of population:

South Africa - 56.5
Estonia - 12.2
USA - 6.3
Northern Ireland - 3.1
Scotland 2.1
EU average - 1.7
England & Wales - 1.5

City homicide rates per 100,000
Washington DC - 50.8
Amsterdam - 5.4
Belfast - 5.2
Copenhagen - 3.4
Berlin - 3.2
Brussels 2.7
EU capital cities average - 2.7
London - 2.4

I am not going to argue about changing crime rates, the stats I have quoted don't fully show that data, and I am not arguing that firearm restriction is a major success in reducing overall violent crime.

My points are pretty simple:

1) The UK as a whole is pretty safe in comparison with almost any other country. Homicide in Washington DC is 10 times as high as in Belfast, a UK city until recently that had one of the longest running terrorist "troubles" of the 20th century, and continues to have a problem with sectarian murder, and increasingly organised crime violence.

2) London is a safer city than the EU average, safer even than sedate little 'burbs like Brussels and Copenhagen!

3) Gun and knife restrictions have not turned the UK into a dangerous place, even by European let alone world standards, and may arguably have made the place marginally safer...

4) Gun crime in the UK is low enough that the majority of Police Officers do not need or want to carry firearms to do their job. Whether or not you agree with the system it does actually still continue to work in terms of managing crime!

I don't actually support the current firearms restrictions. They were knee jerk political actions rather than well thought out policy, even if they do seem to result in more "armed robberies" with water pistols or toy guns than previously.

I do feel the need to point out that currently the UK is a quiet safe place to live. The biggest issue here at the moment is "ASBO's" (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) - basically mid-teens being a pain in the neck are the UK's single biggest crime focus... not exactly the end of the world, and easily fixed with a stern word and a bit of intestinal fortitude!

I get the hump when we are portrayed as being on the brink of some kind of societal meltdown, or fascist takeover. It simply isn't true, the UK has actually coped very well with huge social problems, including the Northern Ireland troubles, yet still remains one of the safest and more free places on the planet to live one's life.

Yeah, but that's because the knives haven't been banned....yet. It'll be really safe soon. You won't have to worry about any dangerous kitchen knives. Fork and spoon registration are next

Please don't get me started on this one!:deadhorse

I love my cooking and have a great set of potentially illegal kitchen knives:samurai:!

The ban will never happen and was just publicity seeking nonsense by an idiot pressure group that the media decided to run with. Any country that is seriously worried about kitchen knives has too much free time and not enough real danger to keep people genuinely busy. There is more than enough commonsense here that kitchen knife bans will never happen, but it is worrying that anyone was daft enough to even suggest it. Rather embarassed to be living here when I hear this one!

Still if they do ban knives forks and spoons I guess life here will get pretty creative... don't hold your breath, but it could only be a matter of time before people are holding up banks with egg whisks and UK martial arts will soon have innovative new weapons sets using kitchen appliances like toasters, oven mitts and pizza cutters... similar weapons restrictions worked really well in Okinawa over the past few centuries...
Cheers:cheers:

Dan:asian:

 

[Adept]

What you are saying is probably true. I don't have the data to argue about increase or decrease in crime rates since firearms restrictions were introduced, but see below for some data that puts the UK into a bit of perspective.

See link for UK crime stats.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0705.pdf

Firearms offences -
Handgun - down 13% (4532 offences)
Rifle - down 9% (50 offences)
Shotgun - down 11% (617 offences)
Replica firearms offences up 66% (3268 offences)

I wasn't trying to paint England as a haven for the violent criminal, sorry if that came through in my post. I was just trying to point out that even though gun-crime is down, homicide, violent offences and serious violent offences are up. Which effectively blows the position "less guns and weapons makes a safer country" right out of the water.

 

[Dan G]

I wasn't trying to paint England as a haven for the violent criminal, sorry if that came through in my post. I was just trying to point out that even though gun-crime is down, homicide, violent offences and serious violent offences are up. Which effectively blows the position "less guns and weapons makes a safer country" right out of the water.

No apology needed, your post was spot on and I entirely agree with it. When I expressed irritation at the way UK crime is presented it was not intended in any way as a criticism of your valid, rational and well founded comments - and I apologise if my remarks came across that way.
I thought your post made perfect sense. After reading it I did a quick bit of research into stats. What you say is definitely supported by some of the more authoritative stats out there, and I definitely agree with you when you say that there is no meaningful link between UK gun control and overall rates of violence.

My irritation is reserved for some of the rather sensationalised press reporting of UK crime recently, and the way perception of crime risk is manipulated across the political spectrum to whip up enthusiasm for a particular agenda, whether it be stronger or weaker weapons control, longer or shorter sentences, various educational approaches or whatever.

Thanks for your posts, I appreciated them and learned some interesting stuff when I looked into the stats behind them.

Cheers

Dan:asian:

 

[GRIM]

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA, that said nail the guy when he was tying his shoe or what ever he was doing and then go for the next one in the group.

Dancing around and playing grab-*** hardly makes for a fight be it self defense or other wise. Still you gotta hand to the red shirt jackass he watches the matrix the day before and manages to make it work.

With Respect,
GRIM

 

[Tripitaka of AA]

Is there a way to track the posts from Dan G?

I have enjoyed his contribution to this thread immensely and I hope to see more

 

[jonah2]

Is there a way to track the posts from Dan G?

Right click his name - 'View profile' - Under Forum info 'Find all posts by ..'

Jonah

 

[Troy Ostapiw/Canada]

I have to say I sure would have liked to see the end of that fight. I think it goes to show that when the real thing happens you techniques change drastically, adrenaline sets in, you loose fine, complex motor skills, it’s not like sparring at a club. Your body responds with gross motor movements, just like we saw. It’s reality; the Kung Fu guy had a better reach than the punk. It looked like a classical mess, but the end result we saw, was the Kung Fu guy getting a solid head shot putting the punk down. Maybe luck? but studying martial arts should put the odds of victory in your favour. It wasn’t pretty, much like reality, but it did work. Of course what happened later may never be know, unless the people who took the video send out the rest of round two.

If I had to guess I would say the kung fu guy had a couple years training 3-4 in a classical southern Chinese system. Just a guess………I love those clips…………………..Troy