mograph
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,809
- Reaction score
- 1,000
Your post-fu is impressive! Didn't see it coming!
On Hitting First
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #22
It's my understanding that law enforcement and the justice system prefer a peaceful environment: they like to keep the peace. It keeps things calm, simple, and safe.
As a result, they don't look kindly on people who disturb that peace. It makes them nervous, buggers up their day, and forces them to make decisions that have negative consequences.
But if you have to defend yourself against someone who means you physical harm, I'd agree with the others: behave in such a way that witnesses would not see you as an aggressive person. IMO, witnesses try to make sense of what they're seeing and want to see a clear "white hat, black hat" situation. When you win, their reports have to be "he was forced to defend himself," rather than "he kicked the crap out of that aggressive jerk." While the latter may make you look tough and heroic to the witnesses, I think the system may only look kindly on you if the aggressor was a hardened criminal and your life was really in danger ... in the opinion of the system.
Without the clear "white hat, black hat" assessment, the reports could be "two guys were fighting." Of course, witnesses will probably support their friend in their reports. (shrug)
Ideally, you want witnesses to report "the aggressive jerk tripped over his own feet and fell face-first onto the concrete. The other guy just got out of the way in time."
Of course, I'm not a lawyer.
Absolutely agree.
And again applying my own circumstances, which I realize are not the same as everyone else's, I have to add that I am a late-middle-aged (OK, almost elderly) man with a full-time job as a trained professional, no criminal record, and no history of getting in fights, provoked or otherwise. I'm the stereotypical guy who is 'just minding his own business' (FYI, every bad guy says that, no lie). The cops will tend to believe me - I present myself well. The courts will tend to believe me - I'm an upstanding productive member of society. And honestly, I don't hang around in bars, go to parties, look for fights, or otherwise present myself as someone who wants to fight.
The aggressive young guy in the beer-soaked t-shirt and cutoffs who picked a fight with me and looks like he hasn't had a bath in a week won't come out looking like the victim.
mograph
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,809
- Reaction score
- 1,000
Same here. I do feel bad for the guys who are equally peaceful and stay out of trouble, but may have gotten the wrong socioeconomic end of the stick, or just look young, tough and mean and may get challenged a lot (while we usually get ignored, thank God). They probably have to be extra careful to stay out of fights.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #24
Yes, that is true. For what it's worth, I did not get a free ride; I was most definitely on the lower end of the spectrum, but I do not deny that I had a lot of advantages. Good brain, not born into a cycle of crime and extreme poverty, and so on. I was able, through sheer luck and some hard work, to get to a better place. I am grateful and hip to the fact that I could fall just as fast back to where I came from. But some people don't get the breaks I got, and I'm sorry that's true.
This may be in the state court but in the civil suit your attacker files afterwards I guarantee their attorney will bring up your martial arts training the moment he finds out about it. Just throwing this in the hat as a variable, I don't have answers.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #27
Always a possibility. Civil lawsuits have a lower standard for conviction, and a defendant's background can be brought up, depending on the court and the judge, etc.
However, in many US states, self-defense is proof against criminal and civil prosecution.
Here's a pretty good response:
“IMMUNITY” FROM CIVIL SUIT AFTER LAWFUL USE OF DEFENSIVE FORCE : FACT OR FICTION?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #28
The requirement for conviction is a 'preponderance of evidence' whereas in criminal court, it's 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In other words, criminal court has to find you guilty as sin, civil court just has think you are probably guilty of the offense. That would be what happened to OJ Simpson. Not guilty in criminal court, guilty in civil court.
Mutual combat nullifies self defense concerns.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Back in the 70th, Bruce Frantzis went to Taiwan and challenged anybody who was willing to fight him. Nobody accepted his challenged. He finally challenged my teacher in the park.
Also back in the 70th, Frank MeMaria went to Taiwan and challenged anybody who was willing to fight him, Wu San-Chu accepted the fight. The fight was set up in public and over 10,000 tickets was sold. The Taiwan government was afraid that if Wu lose the fight, the audience might cause some riot (anti-American), that fight was set up in private.
I respect both Bruce and Frank for their courage, spirit, and love in MA.
I don't know about your country, but if you train MA and you live in Taiwan, you will settle everything by yourself without letting the law to be involved. If you let law to get involved, people will look down on you for the rest of your life.
Old saying said, "MA business should be settled in the MA way." If you beat me today, I'll train hard for the next 10 years. 10 years later I will request a re-match. I do hope this kind of MA spirit can be preserved from generation to generation.
In the CMA world, if you get yourself injury of killed when you have Shuai Chiao jacket on, you cannot sue anybody. If you have your SC jacket on, you cannot turn down any challenge when your opponent also has SC jacket on. Of course if you don't want to accept that challenge, the moment that your opponent puts on his SC jacket, you can take off yours.
The legal issue just doesn't apply to the MA world that much. At least that was the society I used to live in.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #35
Sure, let's talk about them!
Tactically, I would argue that is not wise to allow someone to swing on you first before you begin to defend yourself in most circumstances. Keeping in mind that every situation is unique, I would still tend to believe that anyone can land a lucky punch, or a person can take an unintended fall due to slipping, losing balance, etc. Allowing the aggressor to attack first could well lead to a one-shot defeat, or even involve serious injury or death.
Granted that it 'looks better' if the aggressor swings first and you are then clearly seen to be defending yourself rather than attacking. But that's about the only tactical advantage I can see to waiting to let the aggressor attack first.
Now, moral... I suspect different people are going to have different takes on what is moral to do when an aggressor attempts to start a fight. I would argue that survival is a moral imperative, with the proviso that the person defending themselves cannot themselves be a threat to others. That is, emptying a handgun magazine into a crowd because someone in it pegged you with a bottle is neither self-defense nor moral, although it may certainly be survival if the crowd contains people trying to injure or kill you. However, since we appear to talking mainly about unarmed personal combat, I think we can tuck that away. In general, I would say that legitimate self-defense is moral.
Societal depends very much on the society, the time, place, and location. Drunken barroom brawling can involve elements of self-defense, but does it conform to the desires of society? Perhaps in some cases, not in others.
Recent example...just in the news in the last day or so...
Man badly injured after he picks fight with amateur MMA fighter
"Man badly injured after he picks fight with amateur MMA fighter
By Staff report
Posted May 2, 2016 at 7:42 PM
Updated May 2, 2016 at 9:01 PM
A 26-year-old man was taken to the hospital with serious injuries after he picked a fight with a man who turned out to be an amateur mixed martial arts fighter in downtown Springfield early Saturday, according to police.Marcus D. Miller of the 1600 block of South 17th Street suffered a large gash on his face and two swollen eyes, police said.Miller allegedly fought with Curtis M. Eller, 25, of Taylorville, who according to several online fighting sites is a top-ranked amateur fighter in Illinois."
Now, at first glance, this would appear to be a 'feel good' story about a man who decided to threaten a MMA fighter, but there's more to it than that.By Staff report
Posted May 2, 2016 at 7:42 PM
Updated May 2, 2016 at 9:01 PM
A 26-year-old man was taken to the hospital with serious injuries after he picked a fight with a man who turned out to be an amateur mixed martial arts fighter in downtown Springfield early Saturday, according to police.Marcus D. Miller of the 1600 block of South 17th Street suffered a large gash on his face and two swollen eyes, police said.Miller allegedly fought with Curtis M. Eller, 25, of Taylorville, who according to several online fighting sites is a top-ranked amateur fighter in Illinois."
Reading on, it appears the struggle occurred at a bar, where the guy who got beaten was arguing with a bouncer, who was refusing to let him enter. The MMA fighter decided to jump in on the side of the bouncer and he worked the drunk over pretty good.
At the same time, however, one of the MMA fighter's pals attempted to punch the drunk while a cop was handcuffing the drunk, but he accidentally punched the cop in the face; he got arrested along with the drunk.
Given the circumstances, a bunch of drunks fighting in a bar, although self-defense was certainly involved, I am not sure you could argue that this is the kind of situation that society would normally condone. Yes, the MMA fighter got punched, defending himself, and apparently quite well. But he is the one who chose to get involved in the situation between a drunken customer and a bouncer, and his buddy is the one who decided to 'help out' and punched out the cop, getting himself arrested in the process.
So...yeah. I will grant that there are times and places where self-defense, while legal and probably moral, is also probably socially unacceptable. Bunch of drunks not being smart can lead to things like that.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #36
Not for nothing, but Frank DeMaria is in prison.
I know. Many years after that challenge fight. It has nothing to do with that challenge fight though.
Tactically -
In any fight, you try to protect your head as much as possible and don't let your opponent to hit your head. What strategy can help you to get there? IMO, by using "rhino guard" to get "head lock (or double over hooks)" is the best strategy.
Last edited:
I live in a civilised country where we respect the law, which we've had for a couple of thousand years. Martial artists aren't special they have to abide by the law the same as everyone else, why wouldn't they. What you describe is exactly what I said it is, ego driven.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
He's up for parole, and will likely get it early next year.
We may live on different planets.
In US (a civilized country too), I had someone who brought his girlfriend with him, knocked on my front door, and asked for a challenge fight in my own living room. He was an European Judo champ. But he asked for Taiji push hand challenge. I told him that I don't do push hand but I don't mind spar or wrestle with him. He said he had bad knee and could not wrestle any more. My friend in Austin told me about that guy also went to his MA school and challenged him 2 days later.
Also in US (a civilized country too), when I had my MA school (Peishaolin Kung Fu Institute 1973 - 1976), I had people walked into my MA school and asked for challenged as:
- punch only,
- kick and punch only,
- wrestling only.
It happened for more than 20 times in those 4 years.
Last edited:
