Martial arts as defense on the streets

[Gerry Seymour]

the problem with this is there aren't many consensual fights, its tends that one is a lot keener on fighting than the other and he is just standing his ground/ declining to back down rather than consenting

so a simple scenario for consideration. ( based on a real event) I'm walking down the canal and some seriously big bozo onbig mountain bike rides straight at me, I don' mov , he swerves at the last second skids to a haltit the side of me, I call him a stupid ****, he threats to punch me, i say try it mate and see what happens, he goes to dismount and, I hit him in the face with t?he contents of a fairly full fairly hot large costa full cream latte, and then knock hm of the bike, he gets back on and calls me names as he cycles off.

did I consent to that " fight" or was I defending myself ? I could have moved out of his way, I could have apologised for inconvieniancing him, I could have retreated or just walked on, I could have waited to find out if he actually intended to punch me or was just trying to use his size to intimidated me

I'm assuming you're talking about the legalities (since that's where this side-thread started, IIRC). In most cases, I think that wouldn't be considered a consensual fight. A consensual fight would be more if he said, "Dude, I could kick your butt," and you replied "Meet me in the parking lot in 10 minutes" then met him there and fought. Same for two guys who agree to fight for money (without it being sanctioned - so just two guys duking it out in a lot).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well no, that's not uk law, an assault has taken place when the other person has put you in fear of your safety, first by ridding at me, then by threaning violence, once that assault has occurred your allowed to defend yourself by striking first, there no requirement to mitigate or retreat or gve them first punch, those are issues to be considered by the court, but as long as they believe that you believed your safety was at risk then your fine

Some variation of that appears to be true in many US jurisdictions, too. "Assualt" can begin before actual physical contact, so a claim of self-defense may be viable if you put in the first punch (or latte).

 

[jobo]

I do not think you would know sensible, if it crept up behind you and bit you on the **** IMHO. There are times you have to fight, there are times you avoid or de-escalate, if you stand up in court and say, I smashed his nose in, and threw my hot coffee on him, because he almost hit me with his bike, and I thought he was going to assault me, I think you may have a good chance of a fine, or even a bit of bird.

I didnt smash him on the nose I pushed him of the bike, I'm confident that with a good solicitor that's self defence , that and the complete absence of witnesses and the fact he was 30 years younger , when should I have defended my self, after he had punched me? or should I just have begged for mercy.on't your not telling me what the law requires, you telling me what you think

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I didnt smash him on the nose I pushed him of the bike, I'm confident that with a good solicitor that's self defence , that and the complete absence of witnesses and the fact he was 30 years younger , when should I have defended my self, after he had punched me? or should I just have begged for mercy.on't your not telling me what the law requires, you telling me what you think

While that one might stray into some grey area, I'd tend to agree that he'd crossed the line where a reasonable person might think attack is imminent.

 

[Gweilo]

I didnt smash him on the nose I pushed him of the bike, I'm confident that with a good solicitor that's self defence , that and the complete absence of witnesses and the fact he was 30 years younger , when should I have defended my self, after he had punched me? or should I just have begged for mercy.on't your not telling me what the law requires, you telling me what you think

Fact, 2 people were on the canal way, fact there was a near miss, fact you gave and insult, he gave a threat, you responded by relieving him of his bicycle, and then gave him a generous swig of your coffee, judges are set in their ways, but they are not stupid, even it was 50 50 in the beginning, but the coffee would put you in a very questionable situation, and if your attitude is the same in court, as it was on the canal way, I think you are on a loser.

 

[jobo]

Fact, 2 people were on the canal way, fact there was a near miss, fact you gave and insult, he gave a threat, you responded by relieving him of his bicycle, and then gave him a generous swig of your coffee, judges are set in their ways, but they are not stupid, even it was 50 50 in the beginning, but the coffee would put you in a very questionable situation, and if your attitude is the same in court, as it was on the canal way, I think you are on a loser.

your not good at comprehension ! your getting facts in the wrong order,,, fact 1, he assualt d me by deliberately riding his bike at me, fact 2,, he threatened me with physical harm and fact 3 then undertook an action that lead me to believe he was about to carry out that threat.

me insulting him and suggesting he could try if he wanted,has no bearing on if it was self defence or not and is a perfectly reasonable response to someone deliberately ridding their bike at you and threatening you

a month later, there was a report in the local paper about him, I recognised his picture , were someone had strangled him and thrown him in the canal and stamped on his fingers when he tried to get out, that's pushing self defence a bit,, so he got awat light and obviously didn't learn his lession

 

[jobo]

I'm assuming you're talking about the legalities (since that's where this side-thread started, IIRC). In most cases, I think that wouldn't be considered a consensual fight. A consensual fight would be more if he said, "Dude, I could kick your butt," and you replied "Meet me in the parking lot in 10 minutes" then met him there and fought. Same for two guys who agree to fight for money (without it being sanctioned - so just two guys duking it out in a lot).

I'm not sure that consensual fighting is a legal concept, sport is/ can be consensual violence , but only with in the rules or the context of the sport, there s a limit to what has been agreed. anything beyond that is assualt , soccer players agree to being kicked, launching a thigh high leg breaking tackle is an assualt, no one agreed to that. other than that, it's either under the heading of self defence or it's not.

 

[Gweilo]

The problem is, you are always right, in your own mind, I have been to court 3 times on a self defense/assault/affray/public disorder question, yes there is an element of who's story convinces the judge in magistrates, and the jury in crown court, but in order to win, you need to convince these people you acted in a reasonable way, and these people have seen it heard it, and been sold it umpteen (thanks Buka) before, they have heard what is plausible in guilty and not guilty people's minds before, they know what is logical and reasonable, if I invade your space, this is not assault, it makes you uncomfortable for sure, but you have to prove or persuade beyond reasonable doubt.
For the record, I won 2 and lost 1, but all 3 occasions, I genuinely believed I was acting in self defense, the 1 I lost was because, I had pushed them to the ground, and followed up with a secondary action, the 1 I lost, the judge told me, had I stopped, after putting them to the ground, he would have took my point, but because I followed up with a secondary action, when at that point they could not have been a threat, I lost, had I waited until they had got to their feet, deemed them still a threat, I would have won.

 

[drop bear]

Okay, so let me be blunt. You use self-defense as a weasel word. By that I mean you use it - intentionally - do derail discussions. Other people have reasonable discussions and debates around it, then you show up with your own agenda and hard bias and purposely derail those discussions. You appear to have no intention of actually getting somewhere useful with your hyperbole, because you don't suggest a different method of communication. You just stand on the side saying, "doesn't mean that, has no meaning, you can't use that word honestly."

If you don't like the word, don't use it. Don't want others to use it, suggest a better better one. But I don't think you'll have much luck, since most folks seem to have little trouble having reasonable discussions using the common term.

You still haven't come to a consensus on what the common term even means. Most folks have pages of trouble having reasonable discussions. So far nobody has accepted your definition. And so the discussion will continue to be about who's personal made up opinion of self defense has more merit.

You are making claims you can't prove and are not true.

As for derailing. That was your first post on this thread. Because so far nobody has accepted your definition of self defense.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure that consensual fighting is a legal concept, sport is/ can be consensual violence , but only with in the rules or the context of the sport, there s a limit to what has been agreed. anything beyond that is assualt , soccer players agree to being kicked, launching a thigh high leg breaking tackle is an assualt, no one agreed to that. other than that, it's either under the heading of self defence or it's not.

It sort of is. There is a reference tool used to show defence against assult.

CAMELS
Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence

 

[Gweilo]

CAMELS
Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence

Is this an actual guide for UK police?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Is this an actual guide for UK police?

I havent heard of it until now, but then 90% of the sources i get are U.S centric.

Definately have to fish out a self defence and the law course.

 

[jobo]

The problem is, you are always right, in your own mind, I have been to court 3 times on a self defense/assault/affray/public disorder question, yes there is an element of who's story convinces the judge in magistrates, and the jury in crown court, but in order to win, you need to convince these people you acted in a reasonable way, and these people have seen it heard it, and been sold it umpteen (thanks Buka) before, they have heard what is plausible in guilty and not guilty people's minds before, they know what is logical and reasonable, if I invade your space, this is not assault, it makes you uncomfortable for sure, but you have to prove or persuade beyond reasonable doubt.
For the record, I won 2 and lost 1, but all 3 occasions, I genuinely believed I was acting in self defense, the 1 I lost was because, I had pushed them to the ground, and followed up with a secondary action, the 1 I lost, the judge told me, had I stopped, after putting them to the ground, he would have took my point, but because I followed up with a secondary action, when at that point they could not have been a threat, I lost, had I waited until they had got to their feet, deemed them still a threat, I would have won.

it may be your failure to grasp the law, that keeps ending you in court, I don't ned to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, that burden falls on the prosecution, so much as there is a reverse burden ofevidence on me, that is only on the balance of probabilities, all I have to do is give a doubt that is reasonable and I'm off free, in the absence of independent witnesses that really easy to do. repeat the mantra, I believed my life was at risk, no matter what the question,thats the answer

you can if course turn self defence in to assault by not stopping when you should reasonably do so, as it seems you found out

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not sure that consensual fighting is a legal concept, sport is/ can be consensual violence , but only with in the rules or the context of the sport, there s a limit to what has been agreed. anything beyond that is assualt , soccer players agree to being kicked, launching a thigh high leg breaking tackle is an assualt, no one agreed to that. other than that, it's either under the heading of self defence or it's not.

I don't know that the terms is a legal term, but I have been told (by folks who ought to know) that the concept exists in more or less the way I've been trying to describe it. That's about as far as my knowledge on the topic goes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You still haven't come to a consensus on what the common term even means. Most folks have pages of trouble having reasonable discussions. So far nobody has accepted your definition. And so the discussion will continue to be about who's personal made up opinion of self defense has more merit.

You are making claims you can't prove and are not true.

As for derailing. That was your first post on this thread. Because so far nobody has accepted your definition of self defense.

You assume that's how the discussion would go, yet there are many discussions on here where - even if the definition question comes up - the discussion is not derailed by an inability to agree on the basic concept.

Just because there are differences in some details, that doesn't mean folks don't agree on the basic concept.

Nor does any of that mean people are using the term to purposely avoid being honest. Which is the claim you've made. Which I really doubt you believe, because you don't raise a stink every time the words are used, just when you don't like someone's point (usually because you think people whose teaching is aimed at self-defense are shysters).

 

[jobo]

It sort of is. There is a reference tool used to show defence against assult.

CAMELS
Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence

that's Australian?

auz law to the most part follows uk law, apart from shooting kangaroos and such. there's auz case law that's been used in the uk, consent in that context may then more more mundane things, cutting someones hair with out consent is assault, fighting isn't really an offence( maybe public order) but hurting someone is, law generally allows consensual harm, or chastisement up to common assault level, so an amicable contest or wild sex were no one gets hurt is fine

 

[drop bear]

that's Australian?

auz law to the most part follows uk law, apart from shooting kangaroos and such. there's auz case law that's been used in the uk, consent in that context may then more more mundane things, cutting someones hair with out consent is assault, fighting isn't really an offence( maybe public order) but hurting someone is, in law generally allows consensual harm, or chastisement up to common assault level, so an amicable contest were no one gets hurt is fine

Yeah. And it is a reference tool rather than law.

You can't duche bag in public. So an amicable contest out the front of a pub is a public disorder crime of some sort.

The closest we have is tent boxing. But it is pretty rare.

Otherwise we do have one punch or coward punch rules now which means if I hit someone and really hurt them it is one of the most severely punished crimes you can commit. But that is just an Australian thing.

Although I would not be suprised if you did similar for knife crime at some point.

"One Punch Can Kill – Unlawful Striking Causing Death. ... The offence was introduced in 2014 under the Safe Night Out Legislation Act 2014 (Qld) following a string of deaths involvingsingle punches. Unlawful striking causing death carries a minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment"

 

[drop bear]

You assume that's how the discussion would go, yet there are many discussions on here where - even if the definition question comes up - the discussion is not derailed by an inability to agree on the basic concept.

Just because there are differences in some details, that doesn't mean folks don't agree on the basic concept.

Nor does any of that mean people are using the term to purposely avoid being honest. Which is the claim you've made. Which I really doubt you believe, because you don't raise a stink every time the words are used, just when you don't like someone's point (usually because you think people whose teaching is aimed at self-defense are shysters).

You keep making these allegations against me that are not true based on facts that didn't happen. With no evidence.

Show me this discussion that you think worked.

"Nor does any of that mean people are using the term to purposely avoid being honest. Which is the claim you've made. Which I really doubt you believe,"

The Ian Abernathy video is a good example of the method used dishonestly or at least so naively to amount to the same thing. They may or may not be doing this on purpose. I don't know.

But the misinformation amounts to the same thing and people are making a ton of money out of that misinformation.

Saying avocados cures cancer is a harmful lie designed to generate money. Isn't baiting or agenda driven. It is evidence driven.

Saying self defense is so vague a term as to be meaningless in the way it is used in marketing and therefore a weasel word. Falls in to the same category.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You keep making these allegations against me that are not true based on facts that didn't happen. With no evidence.

Show me this discussion that you think worked.

"Nor does any of that mean people are using the term to purposely avoid being honest. Which is the claim you've made. Which I really doubt you believe,"

The Ian Abernathy video is a good example of the method used dishonestly or at least so naively to amount to the same thing. They may or may not be doing this on purpose. I don't know.

But the misinformation amounts to the same thing and people are making a ton of money out of that misinformation.

Saying avocados cures cancer is a harmful lie designed to generate money. Isn't baiting or agenda driven. It is evidence driven.

Saying self defense is so vague a term as to be meaningless in the way it is used in marketing and therefore a weasel word. Falls in to the same category.

Saying it's too vague to be meaningful (which I'd still argue) is a LOOOOOONG way from saying people use it to avoid being forthright.

Your bias overcomes your ability to have reasonable discussions sometimes.

 

[drop bear]

Saying it's too vague to be meaningful (which I'd still argue) is a LOOOOOONG way from saying people use it to avoid being forthright.

Your bias overcomes your ability to have reasonable discussions sometimes.

So show me this discussion that worked.

You keep claiming it is me. Fine. Show this self defense conversation that didn't bog down on terms. There are plenty of conversations that I am not part of.