I got in a fight. I really didn't want to but it happened.

[Gerry Seymour]

All:

On reflection, I realize that my responses here were the result of my current position - as a man who is getting older. A silverback if you will.

We are not as likely to be pulled into the monkey dance. I would not be at a party where such things happen, I would not be a similarly-situated target of opportunity for a loudmouth punk.

However, we also are aware of our mortality. We are often somewhat more fragile in places, we don't heal as fast, we're not as fast as we were. We cannot afford to be drawn into a fist-fight, and we can't let ourselves be picked to death by crows.

So that has an impact on my response. I cannot and will not allow myself to be the target of slowly-building rage and aggression. At the first sign of it, I have to leave immediately if I can, or utterly destroy whatever threatens me if I cannot. There can't be a test of manhood or a mutual show of force. There cannot be a case where I just take my whippin' and get on with my life - it might kill me literally to take a beating from a young guy who knows his business. I have little stamina, but I do have strength. I have to judge when to use it, but if I use it, it's all in, all or nothing. Nothing held back, young punk is going to get it all; that's all I have.

That would not be the appropriate response, I guess, for a younger guy. For me, I think it's about the only alternative I have. Watch a silverback gorilla fight a young challenger some time. It's freaking brutal. If the young upstart doesn't get the upper hand, the silverback runs him off entirely or kills him. Neither get a second chance.

With an older guy versus a younger guy, it's not about dominance; it is about survival. I want to live. If Joe-Joe the Rat Faced Boy doesn't realize he started a fight that ends with him on a stretcher, or me dead, that's his fault.

This is an important distinction. I think exactly this way when I'm injured. I remember having a significant back problem for a couple of weeks when I was in my early 30's. My now-wife was with me, and asked if I'd still be able to defend myself if something happened (we talk about stuff like that a lot). My response was that they'd get exactly one chance to finish me or leave, because the instant I knew something was on, I'd have to use everything I had on them. I would only get one chance before the pain would likely take me down, so I'd be violent and unforgiving. My only other option was to let them win.

I think that's Bill's point.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not everyone lives in the states. To throw a first punch when the option of walking away or otherwise not taking part in the build up of tension existed means it is no longer self defense or justified violence.

Result is that you as a participant is responsible for all the damage you inflict to him and your surroundings.

No escaping it. In this example it worked out but you all forget something. In a fight all can get hurt, don't join unless you must.

To advice attacking first in another country can result in jail time if your opponent falls on his head and cracks his skull.

I said that if I can walk away, I will. If that option does not exist, then I attack. That's actually covered pretty well in most laws of self-defense. At least in most US states - I can't speak for the laws of other countries.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Even in the states, each state has a different law. If in New York, for instance, you throw the first punch, and can't prove that they seriously wanted to hurt you (a monkey dance most likely wouldn't apply here) you would be the one in trouble. He didn't throw the first punch, so that's different, and he would likely be ok in NY, but in other states it is different.

That's not actually NY state law.

Here is actual NY state law:

Article 35 NY Penal Law | Defense of Justification | NY Laws

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.​

A person does not have to wait for the aggressor to 'throw the first punch' in NY state. As in Michigan (where I live), lawful self-defense hinges on the 'reasonable belief' that 'unlawful physical force' is about to be done.

That means when bad man comes up to me, flexing and threatening, and then tears off his shirt while saying he is going to kick my butt, he has already assaulted me. I am in quite reasonable fear that he is about to attack me. Punching his lights out is not unlawful. First strike, yes. Unlawful, no.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is an important distinction. I think exactly this way when I'm injured. I remember having a significant back problem for a couple of weeks when I was in my early 30's. My now-wife was with me, and asked if I'd still be able to defend myself if something happened (we talk about stuff like that a lot). My response was that they'd get exactly one chance to finish me or leave, because the instant I knew something was on, I'd have to use everything I had on them. I would only get one chance before the pain would likely take me down, so I'd be violent and unforgiving. My only other option was to let them win.

I think that's Bill's point.

That is correct. I am too old to play extended 'look how tough I am' games.

As to the other post from someone who insisted that the monkey dance is part of a social construct and that it has to be played by the rules, eh, no. I am not interested in society's acceptance of my place in the pecking order, and I'll break those rules at will. Society can come at me, bro. I'm too old to play those games and I won't do it. Society can pound sand.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yup, friend in grad school died this way. Fight broke out in a bar, the guys who started it were thrown out. They came back later and shot randomly through the window of the bar. My friend was not involved in the altercation at all, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Crazy thing is that the bullet who killed him went through another person first. That person lived......

This is sadly not uncommon. This is also why I, not a brutal man by nature, would do my level best to remove the capability of an aggressor to continue to attack me - now or after he gets his shotgun out of his truck and comes storming back in. The only way he is leaving is unable to continue the attack by any means, which means on a stretcher; at least if I have anything to say about it.

Will he come back next week after he gets out of intensive care? Perhaps. I won't be there. Mainly because I don't hold parties at my house, I haven't been to a party in ages, I definitely don't hang around in bars, and the chances of this happening to me is extremely low - but if it did, I'd immediately depart and not return.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That's not actually NY state law.

Here is actual NY state law:

Article 35 NY Penal Law | Defense of Justification | NY Laws

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.​

A person does not have to wait for the aggressor to 'throw the first punch' in NY state. As in Michigan (where I live), lawful self-defense hinges on the 'reasonable belief' that 'unlawful physical force' is about to be done.

That means when bad man comes up to me, flexing and threatening, and then tears off his shirt while saying he is going to kick my butt, he has already assaulted me. I am in quite reasonable fear that he is about to attack me. Punching his lights out is not unlawful. First strike, yes. Unlawful, no.

I reread what I wrote, and realized that I miswrote it.
From how I understand the law, and how its been explained to me by multiple LEO, is that the important part is the reasonably believes (which you bolded as well, so I'm guessing you agree on that). If your reasonable belief is justified, and there's a whole number of weird conditions necessary for this, IIRC, you can throw the first strike. However, even if you believe it, if the LEO/Judge/whatever disagrees that it is a reasonable belief than you are considered at fault. From my understanding of reasonable belief, and the 'monkey dance' mentioned in the OP, where he did not feel a threat and laughed at the other persons provocations, he would still be considered the initial aggressor if he had attacked first.

The first punch part was not me saying he has to wait until the first punch is thrown, but that once he is attacked, he is able to respond with reasonable force to defend himself, and since none of what he did was permanent or deadly (a key word for NY), he should be ok.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I reread what I wrote, and realized that I miswrote it.
From how I understand the law, and how its been explained to me by multiple LEO, is that the important part is the reasonably believes (which you bolded as well, so I'm guessing you agree on that). If your reasonable belief is justified, and there's a whole number of weird conditions necessary for this, IIRC, you can throw the first strike. However, even if you believe it, if the LEO/Judge/whatever disagrees that it is a reasonable belief than you are considered at fault. From my understanding of reasonable belief, and the 'monkey dance' mentioned in the OP, where he did not feel a threat and laughed at the other persons provocations, he would still be considered the initial aggressor if he had attacked first.

The first punch part was not me saying he has to wait until the first punch is thrown, but that once he is attacked, he is able to respond with reasonable force to defend himself, and since none of what he did was permanent or deadly (a key word for NY), he should be ok.

Yes, it is important to understand what is meant by a 'reasonable belief.' We don't get to each have our own private definition of what is reasonable and what is not regarding self-defense. We've had quite a few discussions on that term here on MT and I've had many discussions elsewhere, and it seems people just have a really hard time wrapping their heads around it - and that INCLUDES law enforcement officers (whom, by the way, often have a rather poor grasp of the actual law, sorry, but that's my experience).

So here is a pretty good definition of 'reasonable and prudent':

The Reasonable Person

It is always possible that someone might interpret another person's activities as threatening and proceed to 'defend themselves' with violence, and find themselves arrested anyway. For example, someone walks by you and hits your shoulder with theirs, but keeps walking. Or they flip you off at a traffic light. Or they call you a rude name. I'm sure that there are people who would interpret any of the above as a reason to hit the other person. They would be wrong.

However, I do not find it difficult to believe that a judge or jury would believe I was 'reasonably and prudently' deciding that a person was a threat to me if they tore off their shirt, cocked a fist in my face, and announced their intention to punch me. If that's not a threat to just about anyone, I don't know what is.

Regarding the OP and his response to the threat display, I can't say. I certainly would have felt threatened, and the fact that the idiot shirtless dude did in fact end up throwing a punch would tend to bear that belief out. That is perhaps why I personally would NEVER tell a cop or witnesses that I felt no fear or did not feel threatened. You're damned right I felt threatened. VERY threatened. Otherwise, why would I fight back?

As to 'reasonable force' I think that's an interesting concept. I see a lot about it, but I find little in the actual letter of the law regarding it. So if a bad guy tries to punch my lights out, and I kick him in the crotch and as a result he can't have kids, was that not a lawful use of self-defense? Frankly, I am not going to concern myself with what damage my self-defense might do to yon bad guy. He gets a ruptured kidney or spleen or a lacerated liver, he brought that on himself by attacking me. I agree that I can't stand over his prone body and do a happy dance on his cranium. But whatever it takes to make him stop threatening me? I have no issues with that personally.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yes, it is important to understand what is meant by a 'reasonable belief.' We don't get to each have our own private definition of what is reasonable and what is not regarding self-defense. We've had quite a few discussions on that term here on MT and I've had many discussions elsewhere, and it seems people just have a really hard time wrapping their heads around it - and that INCLUDES law enforcement officers (whom, by the way, often have a rather poor grasp of the actual law, sorry, but that's my experience).

So here is a pretty good definition of 'reasonable and prudent':

The Reasonable Person

It is always possible that someone might interpret another person's activities as threatening and proceed to 'defend themselves' with violence, and find themselves arrested anyway. For example, someone walks by you and hits your shoulder with theirs, but keeps walking. Or they flip you off at a traffic light. Or they call you a rude name. I'm sure that there are people who would interpret any of the above as a reason to hit the other person. They would be wrong.

However, I do not find it difficult to believe that a judge or jury would believe I was 'reasonably and prudently' deciding that a person was a threat to me if they tore off their shirt, cocked a fist in my face, and announced their intention to punch me. If that's not a threat to just about anyone, I don't know what is.

Regarding the OP and his response to the threat display, I can't say. I certainly would have felt threatened, and the fact that the idiot shirtless dude did in fact end up throwing a punch would tend to bear that belief out. That is perhaps why I personally would NEVER tell a cop or witnesses that I felt no fear or did not feel threatened. You're damned right I felt threatened. VERY threatened. Otherwise, why would I fight back?

As to 'reasonable force' I think that's an interesting concept. I see a lot about it, but I find little in the actual letter of the law regarding it. So if a bad guy tries to punch my lights out, and I kick him in the crotch and as a result he can't have kids, was that not a lawful use of self-defense? Frankly, I am not going to concern myself with what damage my self-defense might do to yon bad guy. He gets a ruptured kidney or spleen or a lacerated liver, he brought that on himself by attacking me. I agree that I can't stand over his prone body and do a happy dance on his cranium. But whatever it takes to make him stop threatening me? I have no issues with that personally.

The Reasonable Person definition that you linked to falls generally in line with how I understand it. As for this situation, I think it depends on how you look at it. If you look at the man taking his shirt off and threatening to fight someone, objectively that would probably constitute as a threat. If you see the other guy laughing about it and not taking it seriously before engaging (how I imagined it while reading, and this is assuming that Ironbear had engaged first which he didn't), a lawyer could most likely make a case that it was not 'reasonable'.

With reasonable force, I have no idea what constitutes, and frankly I don't care. I will try to stop it without debilitating them for life if it comes to it, but will not be too concerned with that part of it. If it comes to that, I like the saying "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you see the other guy laughing about it and not taking it seriously before engaging (how I imagined it while reading, and this is assuming that Ironbear had engaged first which he didn't), a lawyer could most likely make a case that it was not 'reasonable'.

I agree with your assessment. I think it is a mistake to 'laugh off' a threat in that manner. For a variety of reasons, as circumstances later demonstrated. First, it made the guy madder, and second, it's hard to establish that you were in fear of assault if you were laughing at the guy. Not impossible, perhaps, but harder. I would not have laughed, that's for sure.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yup, friend in grad school died this way. Fight broke out in a bar, the guys who started it were thrown out. They came back later and shot randomly through the window of the bar. My friend was not involved in the altercation at all, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Crazy thing is that the bullet who killed him went through another person first. That person lived......

This was a common problem in the low income neighborhoods and parks that had basketball courts when I was in high school. Street basketball games have a lot of trash talking so egos are often hurt. Many times the person would just like their wounds but there was always that one person who couldn't handle the hurt pride. They would walk away calmly and then return just as calmly to shoot up the place.

I was fortunate enough to not be caught up in that mess. The only people I talked trashed to were friends, and if I had something smart mouth to say to a stranger then it would never be overboard or insulting. It would be more about how nice my basketball skills were and less about how he wasn't able to stop it. If the person got me with a good move then I always acknowledged that it was a good move. Most of the violent cases were where there weren't any adults in the game. "Old Basketball Players" were more likely to help to deescalate any beef that was going on. Tearing down egos can lead to deadly situations.

 

[AdhamPitbullKabil]

Look Man My Coach says 'the last thing you would ever do when a cocky guy confronts you to a fight is fight because martial artists are warriors and warriors don't need to prove to everyone that they're strong enough to bash they keep it to themselves'
well it happened already but try not to do that again and just leave next time ( unless it's life threatening )


peace

 

[JowGaWolf]

Look Man My Coach says 'the last thing you would ever do when a cocky guy confronts you to a fight is fight because martial artists are warriors and warriors don't need to prove to everyone that they're strong enough to bash they keep it to themselves'
well it happened already but try not to do that again and just leave next time ( unless it's life threatening )


peace

Not all martial artist are warriors and not all of them have fighting skills.

 

[AdhamPitbullKabil]

Not all martial artist are warriors and not all of them have fighting skills.

real ones..... not the ones who train to get girls and show off

"The Ones Who Join Martial Arts For Wrong Reasons Are Always The Ones Who Fail"

 

[Dirty Dog]

real ones..... not the ones who train to get girls and show off

"The Ones Who Join Martial Arts For Wrong Reasons Are Always The Ones Who Fail"

Not all Real Martial Artists train to fight. There are lots of reasons people train.

 

[AdhamPitbullKabil]

Not all Real Martial Artists train to fight. There are lots of reasons people train.

exactly thats what i said , sir

 

[kehcorpz]

@ OP

I dont think you did anything wrong. Normal civilized people do not pick fights.
Now if somebody picks a fight he should also accept getting beaten up. If he had been
able to he'd also have beaten you up.

 

[drop bear]

Violence the Choice
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....
But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
We do want to drive out the best in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.
The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.


"Gandhi"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not all Real Martial Artists train to fight. There are lots of reasons people train.

Even for those of us who focus on teaching self-defense, some of our students are there for internal reasons (self-development, etc.).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@ OP

I dont think you did anything wrong. Normal civilized people do not pick fights.
Now if somebody picks a fight he should also accept getting beaten up. If he had been
able to he'd also have beaten you up.

This is rather my thought on the matter. I am perhaps the most violence-avoiding person I know...until someone brings violence. At that point, I intend to end it. My attitude and approach to defense puts the lie to the notion that the term "aikido" must be about peace.

 

[Brian King]

Hat tip to the thread and participants. Proof that good discussions can be had even with disagreements. Good clarifying follow on posts. Enjoyed the thread so far. Thank you

Regards
Brian King