A
Acronym
Guest
What is your opinion of this? Do you abide to a moral code when in a "street" fight?
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Generally no.
I voted no but I think I need to change my vote to it depends on the situation. Not all "street fights" are life or death circumstances, and there is such a thing as use of "acceptable force".
Example; I did some shots with a very drunk guy last night who I went to high school with. What I didn't tell anyone in my group that I was with at the time was that the guy has been known to get into fights or at least become very confrontational for absolutely no good reason when drinking, and has put himself in the hospital at least once by doing this with the wrong person.
Anyways, he can't fight at all, and would never try to fight me sober. Yet, last night I had to escort him out of the bar. Now, if you have ever had to escort someone out of a bar who has alcaholic tendencies, then you will know that generally they never want to leave the establishment that contributes to their alcaholic state. Needless to say this guy didn't really want to leave, and on his way out he told me at least twice that he was going to kick my @$$ for making him leave.
Now, there was no real danger or fight; the guy didn't resist me walking him out too badly. Yet, I had to be aware because this person is unpredictable when drunk (and not to mention not very happy that he was leaving), and could have very easily tried to take swing at me (he has done this to his own friends before, so I have heard).
Now, lets pretend that situations had been different, and he had tried to take a swing at me. Considering that he is not a fighter, smaller then me, unarmed, and could barely stand up straight, should my reaction be to cut his throat because I have "no moral Code" if he tried to swing at me because "there are no rules on the streets". Certianly not. I would have just joint locked him up and continued to secort him to the vehicle.
So, it is correct to say that there are no rules on "the streets" or in real life fighting. Yet, there has got to be an acceptable amount of force excersised. So I maintain the position that it depends on the circumstance.
PAUL
I voted no but I think I need to change my vote to it depends on the situation. Not all "street fights" are life or death circumstances, and there is such a thing as use of "acceptable force".
Example; I did some shots with a very drunk guy last night who I went to high school with. What I didn't tell anyone in my group that I was with at the time was that the guy has been known to get into fights or at least become very confrontational for absolutely no good reason when drinking, and has put himself in the hospital at least once by doing this with the wrong person.
Anyways, he can't fight at all, and would never try to fight me sober. Yet, last night I had to escort him out of the bar. Now, if you have ever had to escort someone out of a bar who has alcaholic tendencies, then you will know that generally they never want to leave the establishment that contributes to their alcaholic state. Needless to say this guy didn't really want to leave, and on his way out he told me at least twice that he was going to kick my @$$ for making him leave.
Now, there was no real danger or fight; the guy didn't resist me walking him out too badly. Yet, I had to be aware because this person is unpredictable when drunk (and not to mention not very happy that he was leaving), and could have very easily tried to take swing at me (he has done this to his own friends before, so I have heard).
Now, lets pretend that situations had been different, and he had tried to take a swing at me. Considering that he is not a fighter, smaller then me, unarmed, and could barely stand up straight, should my reaction be to cut his throat because I have "no moral Code" if he tried to swing at me because "there are no rules on the streets". Certianly not. I would have just joint locked him up and continued to secort him to the vehicle.
So, it is correct to say that there are no rules on "the streets" or in real life fighting. Yet, there has got to be an acceptable amount of force excersised. So I maintain the position that it depends on the circumstance.
PAUL
I agree with that statement. In the stret I fight to survive , I want to win, I want to hurt the peson in front of me, BUT If I know my skill is better that that person I may only do what is nessacery to win .
Well said, Paul.
At initial glance, I was thinking, when is a fight "on the streets", especially against a female, ever fair?
Yet, as you pointed out, there might be circumstances where it would be prudent not to go all out. This is when we fight effectively--just enough to control, especially if its a friend who may not be aware of what is happening. I can't think of too many situations where I would be that would warrant this.
I can only say that if needed, I will just do enough to allow myself to get out or enough to stop the threat.
- Ceicei
At initial glance, I was thinking, when is a fight "on the streets", especially against a female, ever fair?
Yet, as you pointed out, there might be circumstances where it would be prudent not to go all out. This is when we fight effectively--just enough to control, especially if its a friend who may not be aware of what is happening. I can't think of too many situations where I would be that would warrant this.
I can only say that if needed, I will just do enough to allow myself to get out or enough to stop the threat.
- Ceicei
As very few things in life are black and white my answer is that it depends on the situation. If my attacker has every intention of trying to take my life or do serious injury then there are no rules. However, if granddad has one too many at the christmas party and decides to take a poke at me to prove that he's still got it then I'm just gonna put him back in his chair with his oxygen tank and let it be at that.
OP
Gotkenpo?
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #6
Fight unfarley cause thats how the other opponent(s) is gonna fight.
Take him down in anyway you can, just be sure not to kill him in most circumstances.
Take him down in anyway you can, just be sure not to kill him in most circumstances.
satans.barber
Master Black Belt
All's fair in love and war.
Or so I've heard...
I.
Or so I've heard...
I.
OP
bob919
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #8
if its one on one then i would try and put him down withlut causing to much damage but if its 3 on one or more or involves a weapon i may use my most distructive techniques.
if a drunk comes up to me trying to fight i just give the a good punch to the solarplexus then they are down for a while and i walk away
if a drunk comes up to me trying to fight i just give the a good punch to the solarplexus then they are down for a while and i walk away
OP
bob919
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #9
if some one cums up to you just trying to punch to prove a point(as so manyt idiots seem to do) and you break his arm he could sue
its a great world we live in today:
if a guy punches you and you punch back and break his nose he can sue whats that about!!
that said most guys wont sue cause most guys cant afford to. the only time you can use real nasty techniques is when your attacked with a knife or my many opponenets.
OP
RCastillo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #10
I can see "no code", but one has to be careful, that if you come out on top, you don't exceed the thin line between self defense, and excessive force.(Unless you got money to spend):asian:
A fair fight is one I walk away from. Win first. Define your objectives clearly and then use whatever means neccessary to acheive them. My ethics are directed more towards stopping when I win. If I hurt someone enough to win the fight, then I'd stop. At that point I might render aid, or leave the scene, depending on the situation. What I wouldn't do is curb a guy. Once you win, you stop.
-Rob
-Rob
I agree with what most on here have said that it depends on the situation. If you are talking about a true self defense situation where the guy has a weapon or is (in your mind) intent on harming you or killing you, then I think it is unwise to try and decide his skill level and fight accordingly. I think you should fight with the highest level of skill and power you are able to in that situation. If its a drunk friend, I wouldn't really call it a fight anyway.
Like Thesemindz said, walk away from a fai fight. The very definition of a fair fight mean you could walk away from it. So why not?
7sm
Like Thesemindz said, walk away from a fai fight. The very definition of a fair fight mean you could walk away from it. So why not?
7sm
I also agree with Paul. On the street, sure there are no rules, but like it was said, all fights are not going to be the same. Is there weapons? Is there more than 1 person? What time of day is it? So many things to take into consideration.
I like the saying that I've heard so many LEO say: "I do what I have to do to make sure that I come home at the end of the day." I personally agree with that 100%!! And, IMO, the same goes for the figtht. If I have no other option that to pick up a chair and hit the guy with it, then so be it. The most important thing though, is to make sure that what you're doing is justified.
Mike
I like the saying that I've heard so many LEO say: "I do what I have to do to make sure that I come home at the end of the day." I personally agree with that 100%!! And, IMO, the same goes for the figtht. If I have no other option that to pick up a chair and hit the guy with it, then so be it. The most important thing though, is to make sure that what you're doing is justified.
Mike
Old Tiger
Green Belt
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 1
If you have to control a drunken friend, that is not a fight. Someone gets out of control at a party, there are usually enought people there to control the individual and the situation. Some idiot is shouting profanity at you in line at the hockey game, ignore them. It is never a fight until someone comes at you or a loved one with intent on doing you bodily harm. "fair fight" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a fair fight. If you have rules of any kind, such as UFC etc, it is a sporting event, not a fight. If you find yourself in a "fight", better finish it fast and with finality. You never know what the extenuating circumstances can be or if they are armed. Don't take a chance. I understand and agree with Guro Dan's definition and philosophy of "degree of force" but the initial force better be enough that the attacker is rendered unable to continue. If you find yourself in real fight, who is gonna sue who is the least of your worries. Bear in mind that you want to go home to your family. I did a seminar recently and there was a young man there who had recently found himself in an "altercation". He put the guy on the ground in a gentlemanly manner and was surprised when the attacker suddenly pulled a switchblade and stabbed him. He was very lucky. He learned a hard lesson. Do everything you can to avoid a fight. Forget macho and testosterone and reputation. Smile, apologize, buy him a beer, run, whatever. But if you have no choice but to fight, by god, you better fight. Martial artist tend to be ethical, fair minded, diciplined individuals who are taught respect and appreciation for human life. They train in a regimented manner and spar within a set parameter of "rules". But remember, the streetfighter/ attacker doesn't play by those rules, and has none of your bushido mentality. A fight is a fight and there is nothing fair about it.
Easy way to sum it up - IT"S ALL RELATIVE.
Fighting "dirty" or unfair doesn't mean without reason or common sense. If the situation is dire than use every trick and dirty tactic you have. If the situation is managable, then manage it appropriatly. Use for relative to the intensity of the situation. In the classic "evil dude with truly bad intentions and a weapon situation" I would pull out all the stops. "Anyone who is fighting fair, isn't doing it right".
Fighting "dirty" or unfair doesn't mean without reason or common sense. If the situation is dire than use every trick and dirty tactic you have. If the situation is managable, then manage it appropriatly. Use for relative to the intensity of the situation. In the classic "evil dude with truly bad intentions and a weapon situation" I would pull out all the stops. "Anyone who is fighting fair, isn't doing it right".
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Just to reinerate what I said so there isn't confusion: I fully agree with fighting unfairly, but I also agree with using nessicary force.
I think most of you understood, but ya never know.
I think most of you understood, but ya never know.
First I would like to say that I hate when I have typed a complete response and then go to preview and the page doesn't load and I loose my post!!
OK, now to re-type.
First, I have to say I agree, but I must say one thing to clarify what I believe. If attacked, I do not think it wise to try and determine the attackers true motives. If I'm attacked in a true self defense situation, I'm going to put the guy down, if I find out later that he was just inteding to "rough me up" a bit for some loose change or something, I'll deal with it then. I don't think it is possible to decern the motives of the attacker and condition your response to those motives correctly. Thats how people get seriously hurt or killed.
I will say this, I do believe that there are situations when at the begining of the onslaught you know the motives of the attacker, ie the drunk friend scenario. However, if attacked by someone you do not know, I think it right and correct to end the risk of harm as quickly as possible, you are not responsible for trying to descern the attackers motives.
7sm
OK, now to re-type.
First, I have to say I agree, but I must say one thing to clarify what I believe. If attacked, I do not think it wise to try and determine the attackers true motives. If I'm attacked in a true self defense situation, I'm going to put the guy down, if I find out later that he was just inteding to "rough me up" a bit for some loose change or something, I'll deal with it then. I don't think it is possible to decern the motives of the attacker and condition your response to those motives correctly. Thats how people get seriously hurt or killed.
I will say this, I do believe that there are situations when at the begining of the onslaught you know the motives of the attacker, ie the drunk friend scenario. However, if attacked by someone you do not know, I think it right and correct to end the risk of harm as quickly as possible, you are not responsible for trying to descern the attackers motives.
7sm
7star well said
By definition, training in Martial Arts is suppose to give an "unfair" advantage. Whether I'm handling a kid who is out of control at work, a drunk on the street, or a knife wielding punk, I am going to do whatever I can to not give the other guy a chance in hell. Degrees of force aside, martial arts in inheritly unfair.
Phil Elmore
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction score
- 54
For obvious reasons, this is an issue about which I feel strongly. It's the tag line for The Martialist, after all. The basic concept is that someone who initiates force against you assumes the risk of any response you may make in defending yourself. Any individual who violates your sovereignty as an individual grants you moral sanction -- effectively giving up his own rights by presuming to violate yours.
Those who spout nonsense about "respecting" an attacker or other silliness have failed to grasp the concept of self-defense (just as have those "martial" artists who support firearms prohibition).
Those who spout nonsense about "respecting" an attacker or other silliness have failed to grasp the concept of self-defense (just as have those "martial" artists who support firearms prohibition).
