This guy would kick 90% of BlackBelts *** **WARNING -- EXPLICIT CONTENT**

[Dirty Dog]

Same reply above. For goodness sake, if everything is settled, please don't him them in the face. LOL

You wrote:

whack the guy in the face with your glass when he isn't suspecting.

For your sake, I hope the prison commissary stocks KY...

 

[Sherman]

You wrote:

For your sake, I hope the prison commissary stocks KY...

You are ignoring the first part of the sentence: "If after drinking, they still haven't been pacified, whack the guy in the face with your glass when he isn't suspecting." Once again, please don't whack the poor guy in the face unless you really have no other choice. Same with fighting the guy in the first place - you still end up in prison. Buying him drinks is a more self defense oriented way because you at least try to pacify him without fighting him first. Please remember the context of what I am saying - this big guy with his friends are attempting to beat you up for whatever reason outside. Perhaps they even cause a scene and throw a few punches. You back up, act friendly, and offer to buy them drinks. Then, you TALK to them (or at least the leader) trying to pacify him. If all else fails (maybe he still wants to rape your partner for example), then you whack him with the glass when he isn't suspecting. Better than you fighting him outside where he is prepared with his two friends.

 

[drop bear]

That's only if they still want to kill you after drinking and you have no other choice. Or maybe you need to protect someone you are with and you can't talk them out of harming the victim. It's all in the acting. Cry and scream for help! 3 big guys against one is valid self defense in court or would you rather prefer to die there? LOL

They will want to kill you after glassing someone.

Trying to glass everybody in the room is a really good way to get killed. Look go for it if you want. Let me know how you get on. But otherwise I will just leave this video out there as an example of what happens when you try to go too street on the street.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okITakWaejU&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google

 

[drop bear]

You are ignoring the first part of the sentence: "If after drinking, they still haven't been pacified, whack the guy in the face with your glass when he isn't suspecting." Once again, please don't whack the poor guy in the face unless you really have no other choice. Same with fighting the guy in the first place - you still end up in prison. Buying him drinks is a more self defense oriented way because you at least try to pacify him without fighting him first. Please remember the context of what I am saying - this big guy with his friends are attempting to beat you up for whatever reason outside. Perhaps they even cause a scene and throw a few punches. You back up, act friendly, and offer to buy them drinks. Then, you TALK to them (or at least the leader) trying to pacify him. If all else fails (maybe he still wants to rape your partner for example), then you whack him with the glass when he isn't suspecting. Better than you fighting him outside where he is prepared with his two friends.

Does this come up often? You go out for a drink and three random strangers try to rape your partner. You buy them drinks and then surprise glass everybody.

 

[K-man]

That's only if they still want to kill you after drinking and you have no other choice. Or maybe you need to protect someone you are with and you can't talk them out of harming the victim. It's all in the acting. Cry and scream for help! 3 big guys against one is valid self defense in court or would you rather prefer to die there? LOL

Sure, you would have a lot of sympathy in court if you had been attacked by three people and defended yourself, even if you had picked up a chair for defence. In self defence there is something along the lines of 'reasonable force' in most legislation. If you start glassing people who are unarmed you will find yourself in court without a doubt. How you fare will be up to how much you can afford to pay for top legal representation because believe me you will need it if you're not going to end up with DD's mate in a confined space.

You are ignoring the first part of the sentence: "If after drinking, they still haven't been pacified, whack the guy in the face with your glass when he isn't suspecting." Once again, please don't whack the poor guy in the face unless you really have no other choice. Same with fighting the guy in the first place - you still end up in prison. Buying him drinks is a more self defense oriented way because you at least try to pacify him without fighting him first. Please remember the context of what I am saying - this big guy with his friends are attempting to beat you up for whatever reason outside. Perhaps they even cause a scene and throw a few punches. You back up, act friendly, and offer to buy them drinks. Then, you TALK to them (or at least the leader) trying to pacify him. If all else fails (maybe he still wants to rape your partner for example), then you whack him with the glass when he isn't suspecting. Better than you fighting him outside where he is prepared with his two friends.

Self defence may include the offer of buying someone a drink, but in this case? In this situation the guy is probably already drunk. Most places buying a drunk person another drink is an offence, at least from the seller's point of view. Even if you did buy him a drink you shouldn't be waiting around for him to finish it, and then to glass him, when he was unaware? Man, you have no defence. As to fighting him outside where he has his two friends? I can see no reason for any of these guys to be fighting. The security guys were not in their business premises. They could have just moved away. Testosterone and the perceived strength in numbers led them into making a bad move. And, again, why would they offer to buy him a drink? That would involve allowing him into their premises. And finally, security personnel glassing patrons ... :hmm:

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I'm going to break all of this up… there's a bit to address. Most of it's been touched on at least, but I'm going to be rather deconstructionist about it all…

Just realized that there is a self defense forum here. *sheepish*

Okay, this is just because it kinda gets to me… you "just realised"??? I specifically pointed it out to you twice in your intro thread (going to head back to that in a bit, by the way&#8230 on the 7th and 24th of August…

Anyway, from a self defense perspective, if you ever get attacked by a guy like that, you have to do some acting (hey, anything to survive in a self defense situation otherwise it is not self defense and it's just ego). Offer to buy him and his friends a drink.

No. While various forms of de-escalation, including trying to get them onside in such a form, are valid, in this instance you're well and truly past that point. So… no. From a self defence perspective, you've missed entirely the reality of the situation in the clip. You've also missed who's involved, and are suggesting a frankly poor method of getting them onside… the bouncers are either ejecting him (in which case, you wouldn't be in a position to invite him in for a drink), or he's being denied entry (in which case, you wouldn't be in a position to invite him in for a drink).

Frankly, this is you completely misreading the situation.

If after drinking, they still haven't been pacified, whack the guy in the face with your glass when he isn't suspecting.

There's absolutely no reality to this statement whatsoever. If he's been drinking with you (an unrealistic event considering the original clip… but we can forget that for a moment), then he's not threatening you… if he's still threatening you, he's not going to be drinking with you… the sheer incongruence of your hypothetical goes against all understanding of psychology… the only people who would agree to a drink, sit, then get aggressive again are sociopaths and psychopaths… in which case, you won't see the attack coming. But, let's say, against all reality, they sit down, have a drink, and then say something like "I'm still going to hurt you"… you're suggesting glassing him? Wow, is that an over-reaction… and tactically highly questionable, not to mention legally difficult to justify.

Make sure to note where his two friends are.]/QUOTE]

What, now? No. Too late for that…

If they are blocking the exits, head for the drinks counter and armed yourself with more glasses which you can throw.

Oh, this just keeps getting worse… No, bad, bad, bad idea…

Let's bring a little reality back into this again… let's say you've just glassed the first guy for sitting next to you, having a drink, and still not liking you… you do realise that the easy way to tell who has just glassed someone is that their hand is shredded, yeah? And you think you're going to pick something up with a hand that's already bleeding profusely? Nope. Bad, bad, bad idea…

Once you see them leaving the door, see if you can find a route where you can run circles around a table, hide behind pillars or get more objects to throw to avoid them and run out the door.

Are you just basing this on Jackie Chan movies?

Shout for help.

You've just invited someone to have a drink… they've joined you for it… something they've said hasn't sat well with you, and you smashed him in the face with a glass… you then run from his friends (who want to look after their friend or give you some warranted payback for it), and you're trying to find more things to throw at them… that's what others there will see… and you think you can call for help?

Perhaps a group of people will help you or if not, someone will at least inform the police.

Sure, they will… of course, they won't be calling them against the guy you assaulted…

Of course, the reality is that no, statistically, people won't call the police… they won't want to get involved if possible.

I think that's a better self defense strategy than attempting to fight him fairly.

I think you don't have much clue about self defence, honestly. There's a big difference between not fighting "fair" and going overkill in a rather illegal sense.

This is not a competition and survival is key in self defines.

Well, sure… but there's a lot more to it than that… which you seem to be rather ignorant of, to be frank.

The mindset is completely different from what martial arts teaches you.

And you're basing that on what, exactly? Do you think that all martial arts only want you to fight fair? That they don't have a mentality of "survival"? To be accurate, different martial arts will have different mentalities… even those that focus on "survive" can approach it in very different ways… you can't generalise the way you are, especially when you're largely wrong.

And if possible, don't get in a situation like this in the first place.

Not really relevant in this particular instance, of course. I mean, sure, if you can avoid the situation in the first place, you do… but in this situation, the big drunk guy is already getting aggressive in front of you… you're already in the situation, whether you want to be or not.

LOL Yup, the guys who tried to beat you up will go to prison.

For you glassing one of them and throwing glasses and other objects at the others? Uh… nope. After all, it's going to come down to witness statements (I've already given a rather realistic appraisal of what they would have seen… are you going to rely on those witnesses for your defence in court?), and your story against theirs… and, in your hypothetical, they haven't done anything physical against you yet…

Remember that I said, "If after drinking, they still haven't been pacified,"

The biggest problem is that you're starting with a completely unrealistic scenario in the first place. In the clip, he's already aggressive… he's already throwing punches… you are well and truly beyond getting him de-escalated… he's already escalated.

Most of the time, they will be pacified so that's the perfect self defense starting with the right mindset so you will save everyone without having to fight.

No, they won't. Not in this situation.

That's the one thing I like about Aikido and its philosophy - very self defense oriented.

What do you know about Aikido? Cause… it's really not what you're describing at all… not in that sense...

That's only if they still want to kill you after drinking and you have no other choice.

You always have another choice. You deliberately and specifically escalated to a major grevious assault. Bad, bad, bad idea.

Or maybe you need to protect someone you are with and you can't talk them out of harming the victim.

How about you address the actual situation, rather than adding more unrealistic aspects to justify your highly questionable suggestions?

It's all in the acting. Cry and scream for help! 3 big guys against one is valid self defense in court or would you rather prefer to die there? LOL

He's throwing punches. Even when they land, they're not doing huge amounts of damage. Maybe a black eye, some contusions… not much else. Where on earth does this idea of dying or being killed come from?!?!

You are ignoring the first part of the sentence: "If after drinking, they still haven't been pacified, whack the guy in the face with your glass when he isn't suspecting."

No, your first part of the sentence ignores reality, and your second part of the sentence ignores any form of understanding of the situation.

Once again, please don't whack the poor guy in the face unless you really have no other choice.

Which is not the situation you presented. You absolutely have other choices.

Same with fighting the guy in the first place - you still end up in prison.

Not necessarily, no. You'll probably be processed, but if it's shown that he was the aggressor, and you were defending yourself (here's a hint… glassing a guy you've just shared a drink with does not come under the heading of "defending yourself"), then you probably won't end up in prison. Again, you're showing a huge gap in your understanding of everything you're trying to discuss.

Buying him drinks is a more self defense oriented way because you at least try to pacify him without fighting him first.

De-escalation can be a safer, better tactical option, yeah… but, once again, you're well and truly past that point here, so you can begin by forgetting entirely that unrealistic hypothetical set up. Oh, and buying him a drink is one way of de-escalating… it's a method of demonstrating a bond between the two of you… and, if you have got him down for a drink in the first place, there should be no reason at all for anything as a follow up.

Tell you what, here's two examples of people applying that form of de-escalation.

In the first one, the person was in a bar… and a guy started staring at him. He looked back, and the other guy immediately took that as an opportunity to begin the attack… which begins with the selection of the target. The aggressor demanded to know if the guy had a problem… wanting to intimidate him into backing down (a test of character and mental strength, as well as willingness to face a challenge)… the answer given was "Yeah… does it show?" The aggressor was a little taken aback by that… it's not what he expected to hear… so he continued to engage, asking what his problem was (still aggressively). The guy said "I just walked in on my girl in bed with another guy… don't know what to do now… had to get out of there". "Oh, man… really? Did you know the guy?" "Nah… no idea… didn't stick around to get introduced, you know…" As you can see, the aggressor was brought out of his victim selection, and given a "bonding" experience with the would-be victim… it continued, but the heart of the tactic is seen there.

The second is from a student of mine just a few days ago… due to a couple of reasons, he's chosen a shaved-head hairstyle… and, walking in a shopping centre with his girlfriend, was accosted by a young, drunk Maori lad… who had a number of choice names for my student. Initially, the way my student dealt with it was to provide a protective barrier for his girlfriend, and to put up a fence… while verbally engaging the aggressor to find out what the issue was. It turned out that the Maori lad had been jumped by a skinhead gang a few weeks ago, and due to my students shaved head, he thought that he might be a part of such a gang… so wanted to get some revenge. My student explained that he wasn't part of a "KKK gang" (which wasn't easy to get through, really), and found out that the other guy had been assaulted… my student started by saying how horrible that was… and asking after his health… that simple show of unity (by bonding with the aggressors experience, as opposed to the first story, which bonded the aggressor to the "victims" experience) was all that was needed to defuse the situation.

Thing is, your approach of "buy him a drink" simply isn't tactically ideal for this situation… it is for others, but not what is being discussed here.

Please remember the context of what I am saying - this big guy with his friends are attempting to beat you up for whatever reason outside.

If you're outside, you aren't in a position to offer to buy him a drink… if you've already been "selected", you might be able to de-escalate (not by the time this video took place), but your choice is deeply flawed.

Perhaps they even cause a scene and throw a few punches. You back up, act friendly, and offer to buy them drinks. Then, you TALK to them (or at least the leader) trying to pacify him.

If they're punching, you're well and truly past offering them drinks. Completely. Thinking that it's still an option is to completely misread the environment and reality.

If all else fails (maybe he still wants to rape your partner for example), then you whack him with the glass when he isn't suspecting. Better than you fighting him outside where he is prepared with his two friends.

What the hell?!?!?! Where has "rape your partner" come into this from!?!?! Are you just inventing possible scenarios completely independent of the video you're meant to be addressing?!?!

Look, as I said, I'm going to go back to your intro thread… probably tomorrow… but I'm simply going to say this: Everything you've posted leads me to the conclusion that you really, really, really shouldn't be presenting any form of self defence advice at all. I'll cover that in a lot more detail on your other thread, but for now… yeah… stop. You're only going to do harm.

 

[Transk53]

I have to absolutely disagree with you. 99% of black belts (I also have brown belts, and one blue braided cotton one that I wear on occassion, but you didn't mention those) would have enough brains to avoid getting in a situation where they would have to fight with a large bruiser.

Basically they should have locked him up. They should have had the awareness that this bloke, as has been said, like to fight. More than likely specializes in having a go at bouncers, which is a much abused and misinterpreted term anyway. The bouncers (cough) should have called a code black. Would not matter how many of it took to subdue, they should have done that.

EDIT> Mind you with pathetic attempt at a headbutt, they should not be doing the job anyway.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Self defence may include the offer of buying someone a drink,

I had to do that once. I was in a bar playing Pool with a friend and some guy and his mates started interfering with the game. We left the game, sat at the bar and the leader of the group sat next to me and started insulting and threatening me and spitting on me. I started buying him a beer here and there while I came up with an exit strategy, all the while thinking that the drunker he gets the slower his reaction time will be. He walked away for a minute and my friend and I calmly headed for the door and along the way I asked a bouncer if he could distract the group while we left. One of the group followed us out and the bouncer asked him how he was going and we were able to get away without any violence.

 

[Sherman]

Are you just inventing possible scenarios completely independent of the video you're meant to be addressing?!?!

Looks like we started out on the wrong foot (from my thread) but you are right in saying that I am inventing possible scenarios since the topic is entitled, "This guy would kick 90% of BlackBelts ***". The assumption I am making is how you are going to handle a person like this with his two friends who is out to hurt you. I am not taking the exact scenario in the video. Anyway, it is clear that you are not interested to discuss nicely (have I once answered you snarkily?) so I am going to refrain from replying to you any further. Thank you.

 

[elder999]

The assumption I am making is how you are going to handle a person like this with his two friends who is out to hurt you. I am not taking the exact scenario in the video. .

That guy? And two friends?

That's time for me to get my friend to back me up: Mr. Glock.

I mean, really........

 

[donnaTKD]

Okay, I'm going to break all of this up… there's a bit to address. Most of it's been touched on at least, but I'm going to be rather deconstructionist about it all…



Okay, this is just because it kinda gets to me… you "just realised"??? I specifically pointed it out to you twice in your intro thread (going to head back to that in a bit, by the way&#8230 on the 7th and 24th of August…



No. While various forms of de-escalation, including trying to get them onside in such a form, are valid, in this instance you're well and truly past that point. So… no. From a self defence perspective, you've missed entirely the reality of the situation in the clip. You've also missed who's involved, and are suggesting a frankly poor method of getting them onside… the bouncers are either ejecting him (in which case, you wouldn't be in a position to invite him in for a drink), or he's being denied entry (in which case, you wouldn't be in a position to invite him in for a drink).

Frankly, this is you completely misreading the situation.



There's absolutely no reality to this statement whatsoever. If he's been drinking with you (an unrealistic event considering the original clip… but we can forget that for a moment), then he's not threatening you… if he's still threatening you, he's not going to be drinking with you… the sheer incongruence of your hypothetical goes against all understanding of psychology… the only people who would agree to a drink, sit, then get aggressive again are sociopaths and psychopaths… in which case, you won't see the attack coming. But, let's say, against all reality, they sit down, have a drink, and then say something like "I'm still going to hurt you"… you're suggesting glassing him? Wow, is that an over-reaction… and tactically highly questionable, not to mention legally difficult to justify.

Make sure to note where his two friends are.]/QUOTE]

What, now? No. Too late for that…



Oh, this just keeps getting worse… No, bad, bad, bad idea…

Let's bring a little reality back into this again… let's say you've just glassed the first guy for sitting next to you, having a drink, and still not liking you… you do realise that the easy way to tell who has just glassed someone is that their hand is shredded, yeah? And you think you're going to pick something up with a hand that's already bleeding profusely? Nope. Bad, bad, bad idea…



Are you just basing this on Jackie Chan movies?



You've just invited someone to have a drink… they've joined you for it… something they've said hasn't sat well with you, and you smashed him in the face with a glass… you then run from his friends (who want to look after their friend or give you some warranted payback for it), and you're trying to find more things to throw at them… that's what others there will see… and you think you can call for help?



Sure, they will… of course, they won't be calling them against the guy you assaulted…

Of course, the reality is that no, statistically, people won't call the police… they won't want to get involved if possible.



I think you don't have much clue about self defence, honestly. There's a big difference between not fighting "fair" and going overkill in a rather illegal sense.



Well, sure… but there's a lot more to it than that… which you seem to be rather ignorant of, to be frank.



And you're basing that on what, exactly? Do you think that all martial arts only want you to fight fair? That they don't have a mentality of "survival"? To be accurate, different martial arts will have different mentalities… even those that focus on "survive" can approach it in very different ways… you can't generalise the way you are, especially when you're largely wrong.



Not really relevant in this particular instance, of course. I mean, sure, if you can avoid the situation in the first place, you do… but in this situation, the big drunk guy is already getting aggressive in front of you… you're already in the situation, whether you want to be or not.



For you glassing one of them and throwing glasses and other objects at the others? Uh… nope. After all, it's going to come down to witness statements (I've already given a rather realistic appraisal of what they would have seen… are you going to rely on those witnesses for your defence in court?), and your story against theirs… and, in your hypothetical, they haven't done anything physical against you yet…



The biggest problem is that you're starting with a completely unrealistic scenario in the first place. In the clip, he's already aggressive… he's already throwing punches… you are well and truly beyond getting him de-escalated… he's already escalated.



No, they won't. Not in this situation.



What do you know about Aikido? Cause… it's really not what you're describing at all… not in that sense...



You always have another choice. You deliberately and specifically escalated to a major grevious assault. Bad, bad, bad idea.



How about you address the actual situation, rather than adding more unrealistic aspects to justify your highly questionable suggestions?



He's throwing punches. Even when they land, they're not doing huge amounts of damage. Maybe a black eye, some contusions… not much else. Where on earth does this idea of dying or being killed come from?!?!



No, your first part of the sentence ignores reality, and your second part of the sentence ignores any form of understanding of the situation.



Which is not the situation you presented. You absolutely have other choices.



Not necessarily, no. You'll probably be processed, but if it's shown that he was the aggressor, and you were defending yourself (here's a hint… glassing a guy you've just shared a drink with does not come under the heading of "defending yourself"), then you probably won't end up in prison. Again, you're showing a huge gap in your understanding of everything you're trying to discuss.



De-escalation can be a safer, better tactical option, yeah… but, once again, you're well and truly past that point here, so you can begin by forgetting entirely that unrealistic hypothetical set up. Oh, and buying him a drink is one way of de-escalating… it's a method of demonstrating a bond between the two of you… and, if you have got him down for a drink in the first place, there should be no reason at all for anything as a follow up.

Tell you what, here's two examples of people applying that form of de-escalation.

In the first one, the person was in a bar… and a guy started staring at him. He looked back, and the other guy immediately took that as an opportunity to begin the attack… which begins with the selection of the target. The aggressor demanded to know if the guy had a problem… wanting to intimidate him into backing down (a test of character and mental strength, as well as willingness to face a challenge)… the answer given was "Yeah… does it show?" The aggressor was a little taken aback by that… it's not what he expected to hear… so he continued to engage, asking what his problem was (still aggressively). The guy said "I just walked in on my girl in bed with another guy… don't know what to do now… had to get out of there". "Oh, man… really? Did you know the guy?" "Nah… no idea… didn't stick around to get introduced, you know…" As you can see, the aggressor was brought out of his victim selection, and given a "bonding" experience with the would-be victim… it continued, but the heart of the tactic is seen there.

The second is from a student of mine just a few days ago… due to a couple of reasons, he's chosen a shaved-head hairstyle… and, walking in a shopping centre with his girlfriend, was accosted by a young, drunk Maori lad… who had a number of choice names for my student. Initially, the way my student dealt with it was to provide a protective barrier for his girlfriend, and to put up a fence… while verbally engaging the aggressor to find out what the issue was. It turned out that the Maori lad had been jumped by a skinhead gang a few weeks ago, and due to my students shaved head, he thought that he might be a part of such a gang… so wanted to get some revenge. My student explained that he wasn't part of a "KKK gang" (which wasn't easy to get through, really), and found out that the other guy had been assaulted… my student started by saying how horrible that was… and asking after his health… that simple show of unity (by bonding with the aggressors experience, as opposed to the first story, which bonded the aggressor to the "victims" experience) was all that was needed to defuse the situation.

Thing is, your approach of "buy him a drink" simply isn't tactically ideal for this situation… it is for others, but not what is being discussed here.



If you're outside, you aren't in a position to offer to buy him a drink… if you've already been "selected", you might be able to de-escalate (not by the time this video took place), but your choice is deeply flawed.



If they're punching, you're well and truly past offering them drinks. Completely. Thinking that it's still an option is to completely misread the environment and reality.



What the hell?!?!?! Where has "rape your partner" come into this from!?!?! Are you just inventing possible scenarios completely independent of the video you're meant to be addressing?!?!

Look, as I said, I'm going to go back to your intro thread… probably tomorrow… but I'm simply going to say this: Everything you've posted leads me to the conclusion that you really, really, really shouldn't be presenting any form of self defence advice at all. I'll cover that in a lot more detail on your other thread, but for now… yeah… stop. You're only going to do harm.

i always love to read your posts cos they're full of insight and you put the case with a great deal of knowlegde thought for the topic at hand

thankyou

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Okay, I'm going to break all of this up… there's a bit to address. Most of it's been touched on at least, but I'm going to be rather deconstructionist about it all…



Okay, this is just because it kinda gets to me… you "just realised"??? I specifically pointed it out to you twice in your intro thread (going to head back to that in a bit, by the way&#8230 on the 7th and 24th of August…



No. While various forms of de-escalation, including trying to get them onside in such a form, are valid, in this instance you're well and truly past that point. So… no. From a self defence perspective, you've missed entirely the reality of the situation in the clip. You've also missed who's involved, and are suggesting a frankly poor method of getting them onside… the bouncers are either ejecting him (in which case, you wouldn't be in a position to invite him in for a drink), or he's being denied entry (in which case, you wouldn't be in a position to invite him in for a drink).

Frankly, this is you completely misreading the situation.



There's absolutely no reality to this statement whatsoever. If he's been drinking with you (an unrealistic event considering the original clip… but we can forget that for a moment), then he's not threatening you… if he's still threatening you, he's not going to be drinking with you… the sheer incongruence of your hypothetical goes against all understanding of psychology… the only people who would agree to a drink, sit, then get aggressive again are sociopaths and psychopaths… in which case, you won't see the attack coming. But, let's say, against all reality, they sit down, have a drink, and then say something like "I'm still going to hurt you"… you're suggesting glassing him? Wow, is that an over-reaction… and tactically highly questionable, not to mention legally difficult to justify.



i always love to read your posts cos they're full of insight and you put the case with a great deal of knowlegde thought for the topic at hand

thankyou

I thought it was a bit harsh until I briefly checked out the intro thread, I'll look forward to reading that tomorrow

 

[K-man]

I had to do that once. I was in a bar playing Pool with a friend and some guy and his mates started interfering with the game. We left the game, sat at the bar and the leader of the group sat next to me and started insulting and threatening me and spitting on me. I started buying him a beer here and there while I came up with an exit strategy, all the while thinking that the drunker he gets the slower his reaction time will be. He walked away for a minute and my friend and I calmly headed for the door and along the way I asked a bouncer if he could distract the group while we left. One of the group followed us out and the bouncer asked him how he was going and we were able to get away without any violence.

Actually this is a good example of what not to do as well as showing that eventually you left safely by working out an exit strategy. Once the guys started interfering with the game you might have recognised that as a trigger point to actually leave the premises. By going to the bar, bad guys are encouraged after winning that first round. Big bad guy comes to the bar to follow up insults, threatens and spits. You buy him a drink rewarding his bad behaviour. If you had recognised code red at the pool table this follow up situation would not have occurred. Your exit strategy was good but could have been utilised in the earlier stages. One of the rules of self defence, at the first sign of trouble, get out.

It's a little bit like the situation where someone has a go at you and you successfully defend yourself and go back to the bar to finish your drink. Your attacker, now even more dangerous because you beat him one way or the other, comes back with his mates or with a weapon. Rules of self defence, after successfully defending yourself, leave immediately. Some years back a mate of mine evicted a young guy from a nightclub. Obviously he was working and that was part and parcel of his job. Short time later the young guy was back with a shotgun. Fortunately the security staff were able to disarm him. They gave him a hiding and let him go. He complained to the police about the assault but neglected to tell them about the shotgun. Another instance where he should have just gone home.

 

[blindsage]

Anyway, it is clear that you are not interested to discuss nicely (have I once answered you snarkily?) so I am going to refrain from replying to you any further. Thank you.

Your loss. Chris responded to a lot of ridiculous suppositions you proposed from a place of knowledge and experience. If you want to deprive yourself of the insights you can gain from someone with a huge amount to offer, that's on you, but listening to someone who knows what they're talking about in this situation could be seen as a learning opportunity. Or a lost one.

 

[donald1]

I'm not the kind of person that will be blunt with someone well unless I have to, then it's no problem but I think it's something agreeable that not all answers can be sugar coated. Take the advice wisely, lot of these people know what there talking about

 

[Transk53]

Self defence may include the offer of buying someone a drink, but in this case? In this situation the guy is probably already drunk. Most places buying a drunk person another drink is an offence, at least from the seller's point of view. Even if you did buy him a drink you shouldn't be waiting around for him to finish it, and then to glass him, when he was unaware? Man, you have no defence. As to fighting him outside where he has his two friends? I can see no reason for any of these guys to be fighting. The security guys were not in their business premises. They could have just moved away. Testosterone and the perceived strength in numbers led them into making a bad move. And, again, why would they offer to buy him a drink? That would involve allowing him into their premises. And finally, security personnel glassing patrons ... :hmm:

In reality, the end of the pavement, how ever long or short, is where the Doorstaff have their jurisdiction Ie where the venue is deemed to have health and safety concern for the patrons. Did not really take much notice of the distance in the vid. Go beyond that threshold and a Doorman has no defense whats so ever. All they can do is just contain them under instruction that the local police force is to attend. In the UK those three would get crucified for that fight, and more than likely the big fella would not get prosecuted, under the eyes of the law he would have a case to be not deemed the aggressor. As for Doorstaff glassing a patron, that would be good night Vienna. Missed that bit somewhere though?

 

[Transk53]

Looks like we started out on the wrong foot (from my thread) but you are right in saying that I am inventing possible scenarios since the topic is entitled, "This guy would kick 90% of BlackBelts ***". The assumption I am making is how you are going to handle a person like this with his two friends who is out to hurt you. I am not taking the exact scenario in the video. Anyway, it is clear that you are not interested to discuss nicely (have I once answered you snarkily?) so I am going to refrain from replying to you any further. Thank you

.

Sherman, that is completely obvious on how you handle it. It is not an assumption that is needed, it is complete awareness of the given moment. Under Siege 2 - "Assumption is the mother of all **** ups" Look at from two angles>

The first one would be that the big fella was head butted, the resultant action was obvious, just in this case the door staff had overestimated themselves, which quite frankly I don't have a problem with. They were idiots.

The second one should have been something like this. The big fella turns looking to growl, he spots a Doorman. Wanders over and starts trying to intimidate. The doorman being a seasoned pro has seen this all before. His colleague calls a "code amber". Now the front door is on full alert. Other door staff inside the venue are poised to react when the "code red" is called. Three warnings would have called out to the big fella and wallah, he ends up getting locked up with two doorman on each arm, two on the rear until the leg straps come out. That is the only scenario under normal conditions. It can only escalate to a "code black" by which time the fuzz will be en route. However, being seasoned pro's that would be a rare occurrence. That is what we do Sherman, not make assumptions.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Actually this is a good example of what not to do as well as showing that eventually you left safely by working out an exit strategy. Once the guys started interfering with the game you might have recognised that as a trigger point to actually leave the premises. By going to the bar, bad guys are encouraged after winning that first round. Big bad guy comes to the bar to follow up insults, threatens and spits. You buy him a drink rewarding his bad behaviour. If you had recognised code red at the pool table this follow up situation would not have occurred. Your exit strategy was good but could have been utilised in the earlier stages. One of the rules of self defence, at the first sign of trouble, get out.

If only it were that simple that I could have left at the first sign of trouble but I knew this guy and if I had just left straightaway I got the impression that he would have followed me straight out the door and started something and it wasn't just me there, my friend was there as well. As it was he and his friends followed us straight to the bar I am pretty sure they would have followed us straight outside. I had to buy some time and I was hoping that by buying him a beer that I might be able to pacify him a bit. I left the second he walked away.

 

[K-man]

In reality, the end of the pavement, how ever long or short, is where the Doorstaff have their jurisdiction Ie where the venue is deemed to have health and safety concern for the patrons. Did not really take much notice of the distance in the vid. Go beyond that threshold and a Doorman has no defense whats so ever. All they can do is just contain them under instruction that the local police force is to attend. In the UK those three would get crucified for that fight, and more than likely the big fella would not get prosecuted, under the eyes of the law he would have a case to be not deemed the aggressor. As for Doorstaff glassing a patron, that would be good night Vienna. Missed that bit somewhere though?

You may have specific legislation to cover that area but here it is a grey area. If the business had a permit issued to enable trade on the footpath then security personal would have authority to act in that area. If the footpath was not part of the business premises then I would suggest that once the patron was ejected from the premises the security guys would not have authority unless they were performing a citizens arrest. The altercation in the OP, if that were to occur here in Australia, I would suggest the big guy might well have grounds to have the security guys charged with assault.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

You just cannot enact trespass laws outside the bounds of your property. Otherwise you can enforce laws and maintain public order just like any other person.

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 458 Person found committing offences may be arrested without warrant by any person

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 462A Use of force to prevent the commission of an indictable offence