Ninjutsu good for security agent?

But this has nothing to do with the overlap in tools between the two, and is why people get frustrated with this argument. Yes, there are considerations in self-defense/self-protection that don't apply for sport fighting. But there's a lot that overlaps in the physical skills of self-defense.

 

I've asked you this before, when you made a similar claim, and you didn't have an answer then, perhaps you do know as you are saying it again, if two blokes take themselves of to aa quite spot for a consensual fight, what specific law have they broken, I'm sure you know as you claim it will land them in court

 

Il answer that for you as i suspect Paul has no idea, in the UK, cops can use reasonable force to effect an arrest, that is they will make an arrest and any force necessary to make that arrest is reasonable with the exception of shooting them, which is a bit of a no no unless they are believed to have a fire arm ready to discharge.

however the same level of force is available to citizens if they make a citizens arrest .

 

That has to be a bad way to view a self defence situation as you are mentally setting yourself up as the victim.

I prefer the rawshak concept.

 

As a cop they can also act in self defence. So say they are getting toweled and start swinging. They are outside the bounds of an arrest but inside the bounds of self defence. Then once they have defended themselves back to effecting an arrest.

I used this all the time. Saved me having to use wrist locks on guys who were fighting me.

 

You still consent to violence when you train though. Which makes me think that a lot of self deception has to occur.

So I go to training. Consent to violence, then pretend not to consent? While then he is pretending to mug me or something. With no practical experience in either being mugged or being a mugger. It just goes too far into larp for me.

For me I think if the focus is on self defence only, people are not considering the bigger picture.

An arrest isn't self defence but is a legal use of force for a martial artist.

 

I mean let's just use MMA rules for a moment and look at them in the context of self defence. I could carry a handbag into the cage. And make the victory conditions that I win if I escape with the handbag and he wins if he escapes with the hand bag. Otherwise what would really change?

I could set it up so he gets the first strike and I have to wait until he fires. Again what really changes.

Even for security. I have to get a guy out a door and he can punch kick and grapple my head off.

Bear in mind these drills are consensual so therefore do not have an impact on self defence.

 

I’m actually quite sure that this isn’t how paul d defines it. You might, but he’s been pretty clear to include more than that. Edit. I mean to say that Paul d’s Definition of consensual violence is more broad than “just sparring or a competitive match. You know... tournaments and such.”

 

No but being a cop does mean choosing to engage in violence.

 

Lol. You're disagreeing that Paul has a broader definition than you? Okay.

 

Yeah there is sort of a thing there. And I get almost the same thing.

What that leans towards is well bouncers should expect to get punched its their job.

My view is the chick at my local supermarket is an irritating *****, but I can just punch her because it is her job.

 

I think you're funny.

 

I actually never said otherwise. However choosing to engage in violence is exactly that. And also that Paul d's definition consensual violence is broader than yours.

 

This may answer my previous question. Is the key legality vs consent?

 

IIRC, I read somewhere that in UK law, consent is a legal defense (similar to a claim of self-defense), but that defense ends when actual physical harm occurs. Someone more familiar with their laws can probably expand upon or correct that.

 

its murky in law, generaly consent is no defence to any thing equal or exceeding actual bodily harm, that bad bruising significant cuts or similar. There is a,sports defence, that consent to operate with in a defined rule set is a defence, that's really a governing body rule set not just one you made up. So kicking people in the rough vircinity of the ball is a defence in a football match, but head butting or punching is assault, banging some one in the face with the palm of your hand is ok in rugby, but kicking them is assault.

boxing was given a pass in the 1800s, for no logical reason other than they didn't want to ban it, whilst prize fight is illegal???? There is no established law on other ma including Mma, they seem to be ridding on boxing coat tails, if you have rules and a referee and gloves then its okish. Bare knuckle boxing is considered illegal, Sparring in a dojo is something of a grey area, especially if its bare fisted and full contact. Probablycovered by the sports defence, but only probably???.

there is a horseplay defence, where you had no intent to cause injury, even if you were recklass in your actions that might cover it as well