Is ground and pound ethical?

[Darren]

Exactly. I was just thinking about posting to ask if people thought ground and pound is the best way to deal with a situation. Putting aside legalities, ethics and morality should one try to avoid it because it's bad self defence or use it because it works?

That would depend on the other person.

 

[Steve]

I think this topic really depends on where you are starting. If you start with the idea that harming people at all is generally unethical, it makes things a little more clear, in my opinion. Then the presumption is that ground and pound, like any other action that will injure, maim, or possibly kill someone, is immoral by default. So, the question then becomes, what might be an exception to the general rule?

 

[Darren]

I think this topic really depends on where you are starting. If you start with the idea that harming people at all is generally unethical, it makes things a little more clear, in my opinion. Then the presumption is that ground and pound, like any other action that will injure, maim, or possibly kill someone, is immoral by default. So, the question then becomes, what might be an exception to the general rule?

The other person.

 

[drop bear]

I think this topic really depends on where you are starting. If you start with the idea that harming people at all is generally unethical, it makes things a little more clear, in my opinion. Then the presumption is that ground and pound, like any other action that will injure, maim, or possibly kill someone, is immoral by default. So, the question then becomes, what might be an exception to the general rule?

It would be the difference between GNP because you are concerned the guy will get up. Or GNP because you know they can't.

I am all for being unethical. But I don't feel it should be done unnecessarily.

 

[Darren]

It would be the difference between GNP because you are concerned the guy will get up. Or GNP because you know they can't.

I am all for being unethical. But I don't feel it should be done unnecessarily.

If the other person is unable to fight back in anyway at all you stop!!!! Still there is the character of the other person, if he gets back up after healing for a time does he go out and still try to hurt others? Does he have any conscience at all? There are people out there that don’t care do you allow them to go before some judge that just gives them a slap on the wrist which is a incentive for them to do it again?

 

[Steve]

It would be the difference between GNP because you are concerned the guy will get up. Or GNP because you know they can't.

I am all for being unethical. But I don't feel it should be done unnecessarily.

Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles. What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing? What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?

I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years? It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.

The question is whether ground and pound is ethical. I think it's as ethical as any other thing that can injure another person. Which means yes to some and no to others.

What's interesting to me is what it takes for someone to flip. We have dudes on this forum who will very casually talk about permanently maiming or killing someone. So, where is the line for them? We have some folks (or maybe I'm the only one) who finds the idea of really hurting someone else pretty repugnant. So, for folks like me, what other values would have to be competing with this one, to turn to violence as the answer?

I think it's an individual thing, and legality only intersects with this because obeying the law is one of those competing values. There's the trite phrase "It's better to be tried by 12 than to be carried out by six." When someone says this to me, it's them saying that they would rather risk killing or injuring someone unjustly than to risk being injured or killed themselves. Some folks on here will read that and think, "yeah, of course." And some will think the opposite.

 

[Steve]

The other person.

Do you mean, like, if the person is too short?

 

[Darren]

Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles. What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing? What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?

I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years? It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.

The question is whether ground and pound is ethical. I think it's as ethical as any other thing that can injure another person. Which means yes to some and no to others.

What's interesting to me is what it takes for someone to flip. We have dudes on this forum who will very casually talk about permanently maiming or killing someone. So, where is the line for them? We have some folks (or maybe I'm the only one) who finds the idea of really hurting someone else pretty repugnant. So, for folks like me, what other values would have to be competing with this one, to turn to violence as the answer?

I think it's an individual thing, and legality only intersects with this because obeying the law is one of those competing values. There's the trite phrase "It's better to be tried by 12 than to be carried out by six." When someone says this to me, it's them saying that they would rather risk killing or injuring someone unjustly than to risk being injured or killed themselves. Some folks on here will read that and think, "yeah, of course." And some will think the opposite.

Do you mean, like, if the person is too short?

Those short guys can kick some butt!!

 

[Darren]

Was walking home one night this guy in a station wagon tried to run over me, he was drunk he got out and took a swing at me he gets back in his car and takes off drunk! Given the fact that drunks maims and kills other people in a crash and the drunks walks away unharmed while other people’s families gets to cry over there lost loved one or has to spend the rest of there lives and possibly there life savings taking care of there maimed loved ones!! How many families life’s did i effect that night by make sure he could not get behind that wheel that night?

 

[tkdroamer]

Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles. What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing? What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?

I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years? It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.

The question is whether ground and pound is ethical. I think it's as ethical as any other thing that can injure another person. Which means yes to some and no to others.

What's interesting to me is what it takes for someone to flip. We have dudes on this forum who will very casually talk about permanently maiming or killing someone. So, where is the line for them? We have some folks (or maybe I'm the only one) who finds the idea of really hurting someone else pretty repugnant. So, for folks like me, what other values would have to be competing with this one, to turn to violence as the answer?

I think it's an individual thing, and legality only intersects with this because obeying the law is one of those competing values. There's the trite phrase "It's better to be tried by 12 than to be carried out by six." When someone says this to me, it's them saying that they would rather risk killing or injuring someone unjustly than to risk being injured or killed themselves. Some folks on here will read that and think, "yeah, of course." And some will think the opposite.

It is a very difficult line to see, and one that is different person to person. On top of that, knowing there will be some level of legal action involved just adds to the complexity.
But factoring certain things out to make it a black & white decision is important in a life/death or severe injury encounter. When a person has recognized that level of threat, everything is fair game IMHO.
Then, you must consider the time quotient. More often than not, you will not have the luxury of time to assess the gravity of the situation. You just know you are in some degree of danger. And while it is true an 'experienced' person should be able to levy their attack, you do not know the attacker's abilities, mental state, or mind set, so again, fair game IMHO.
It makes the old saying "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" very, very true.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles. What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing? What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?

I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years? It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.

The question is whether ground and pound is ethical. I think it's as ethical as any other thing that can injure another person. Which means yes to some and no to others.

What's interesting to me is what it takes for someone to flip. We have dudes on this forum who will very casually talk about permanently maiming or killing someone. So, where is the line for them? We have some folks (or maybe I'm the only one) who finds the idea of really hurting someone else pretty repugnant. So, for folks like me, what other values would have to be competing with this one, to turn to violence as the answer?

I think it's an individual thing, and legality only intersects with this because obeying the law is one of those competing values. There's the trite phrase "It's better to be tried by 12 than to be carried out by six." When someone says this to me, it's them saying that they would rather risk killing or injuring someone unjustly than to risk being injured or killed themselves. Some folks on here will read that and think, "yeah, of course." And some will think the opposite.

There might be some additional factors, a person might be the sole provider for a family. That may color a persons reasoning. If I die or go to hospital, my aged mother may not have support… I may justify unethical or immoral acts to protect an interest that is not my own. If my loved one is near I may see the danger in a different context than when I was a young single man. It might not change what I perceive to be my set of morals, but it could certainly change my boiling point.

 

[Steve]

There might be some additional factors, a person might be the sole provider for a family. That may color a persons reasoning. If I die or go to hospital, my aged mother may not have support… I may justify unethical or immoral acts to protect an interest that is not my own. If my loved one is near I may see the danger in a different context than when I was a young single man. It might not change what I perceive to be my set of morals, but it could certainly change my boiling point.

Great points. Duty is a very common value. In this case, when you talk about your aged mother, you're speaking directly to filial duty, and I totally get it. There isn't much I wouldn't do to protect or support my mom.

Once upon a time, I enlisted in the USAF out of a sense of duty to country. I was not a combat troop, but I was munitions during Desert Storm and my job was to ensure that everything from small arms to missiles functioned as designed. There was a pretty direct line between me doing my job well and people being hurt and killed. I still think about that quite a bit, and my military service led pretty directly to my work in civil service supporting aged and/or disabled people... service more compatible with my values (even when they got unruly and violent).

 

[tkdroamer]

Great points. Duty is a very common value. In this case, when you talk about your aged mother, you're speaking directly to filial duty, and I totally get it. There isn't much I wouldn't do to protect or support my mom.

Once upon a time, I enlisted in the USAF out of a sense of duty to country. I was not a combat troop, but I was munitions during Desert Storm and my job was to ensure that everything from small arms to missiles functioned as designed. There was a pretty direct line between me doing my job well and people being hurt and killed. I still think about that quite a bit, and my military service led pretty directly to my work in civil service supporting aged and/or disabled people... service more compatible with my values (even when they got unruly and violent).

Thank you for your service.
I do think it is 'easier' for people who have been in that type or a similar line of duty to compartmentalize things easier and/or quicker. The ability to slice through the what-ifs and the social/legal dilemmas and see the bigger picture is vitally important in an encounter.

 

[drop bear]

Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles. What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing? What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?

I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years? It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.

The question is whether ground and pound is ethical. I think it's as ethical as any other thing that can injure another person. Which means yes to some and no to others.

What's interesting to me is what it takes for someone to flip. We have dudes on this forum who will very casually talk about permanently maiming or killing someone. So, where is the line for them? We have some folks (or maybe I'm the only one) who finds the idea of really hurting someone else pretty repugnant. So, for folks like me, what other values would have to be competing with this one, to turn to violence as the answer?

I think it's an individual thing, and legality only intersects with this because obeying the law is one of those competing values. There's the trite phrase "It's better to be tried by 12 than to be carried out by six." When someone says this to me, it's them saying that they would rather risk killing or injuring someone unjustly than to risk being injured or killed themselves. Some folks on here will read that and think, "yeah, of course." And some will think the opposite.

I quoted the wrong thing.

Anyway.


A thing I noticed from bouncing is that quite often bouncers were standoffish to give themselves the emotional armour to turn around and hurt a guy.

And I think the banter about justification for killing people works the same way.

They can't face that they may just do something awful so they have to rework that in to they are really doing something good.

 

[drop bear]

If the other person is unable to fight back in anyway at all you stop!!!! Still there is the character of the other person, if he gets back up after healing for a time does he go out and still try to hurt others? Does he have any conscience at all? There are people out there that don’t care do you allow them to go before some judge that just gives them a slap on the wrist which is a incentive for them to do it again?

 

[tkdroamer]

I quoted the wrong thing.

Anyway.


A thing I noticed from bouncing is that quite often bouncers were standoffish to give themselves the emotional armour to turn around and hurt a guy.

And I think the banter about justification for killing people works the same way.

They can't face that they may just do something awful so they have to rework that in to they are really doing something good.

Bouncers have a tough job. Knowing you will turn someone's ribs or skull into cream pie before the night is over would definitely change my thought process.

 

[Steve]

You are a pop culture encyclopedia!

 

[Tez3]

Was walking home one night this guy in a station wagon tried to run over me, he was drunk he got out and took a swing at me he gets back in his car and takes off drunk! Given the fact that drunks maims and kills other people in a crash and the drunks walks away unharmed while other people’s families gets to cry over there lost loved one or has to spend the rest of there lives and possibly there life savings taking care of there maimed loved ones!! How many families life’s did i effect that night by make sure he could not get behind that wheel that night?

What did the police say when you reported it? Was he caught?

 

[Darren]

What did the police say when you reported it? Was he caught?

Did not report it there were no cell phones back then.

 

[Darren]

Great points. Duty is a very common value. In this case, when you talk about your aged mother, you're speaking directly to filial duty, and I totally get it. There isn't much I wouldn't do to protect or support my mom.

Once upon a time, I enlisted in the USAF out of a sense of duty to country. I was not a combat troop, but I was munitions during Desert Storm and my job was to ensure that everything from small arms to missiles functioned as designed. There was a pretty direct line between me doing my job well and people being hurt and killed. I still think about that quite a bit, and my military service led pretty directly to my work in civil service supporting aged and/or disabled people... service more compatible with my values (even when they got unruly and violent).

Wished I could have gotten into the military, have bad ears and failed the hearing test by 5 decibels, but it saved my life found out I had can’t spell it but it’s akin to benign cancer that grows inside the ear eating the ear bones then grows on the wall between the brain eventually eating into the brain and kills ya did not even know I had it! It was already on the wall of my brain and had eaten a pin size hole in the wall going into the brain 40-50 years ago they did not know how to treat it and it killed people. After 9-10 surgeries they got it all!!! So many times I should have died just can’t understand why I am still here!!!!!!