masherdong
2nd Black Belt
When they hit you first! Not talking about a shoving match either.
masherdong
2nd Black Belt
When a woman's big 360 lb boyfriend comes in and sucker punches you in the jaw while you are trying to make a phone call.
L
lvwhitebir
Guest
The right time to "fight" is when there is an immediate threat to you or another, the threat is believable, and there is no chance of getting away from the threat. This is how the law typically defines a self-defense situation. If any of the three is missing, it's no longer self-defense.
WhiteBirch
WhiteBirch
masherdong
2nd Black Belt
That is sad, but soooo true. Especially in Texas.
From the posts I skimmed, it seems like the others covered it pretty well. I don't think you ever want to fight if you can avoid it. I think what people should aim for is to prevent a fight situation from happening in the first place. Keep conflicts from escalating to the point where people want to get physical. Leave or run away if you have to; you stay safe that way. But I do suspect that there may be times when you're forced to fight, because you or a loved one is under the threat of immediate physical harm or already under attack. Then you do what you have to. I heard something, and I'll admit that it could have been on the Jackie Chan Adventures cartoon, that went something like "the best fight is that of no fight". And I think that's the goal. Most of us are training in MA so that we can defend ourselves if we need to, but I think we all hope that we won't ever be tested and have to use that training. Stopping the fight before it starts, I think that's the ideal.
ginshun
2nd Black Belt
I was going to say as soon as the guy spills your beer and it drips to where you couldn't suck it off the bar, but that doesn't seem to be the cosensus. :lol:
In all seriousness though, I think that the right time to fight, is if you feel that you are in immidiate danger, and there is no other option.
In all seriousness though, I think that the right time to fight, is if you feel that you are in immidiate danger, and there is no other option.
GAB
3rd Black Belt
Hi,
If you are not getting paid to fight or it is for training...
Well the best thing to do is avoid, escape, do what you can, don't throw the first blow or the second if you can avoid, do it if not, the circumstances are what you have to take into account...
I am very much inclined to go along with Adept also...
Kosho Shorei Ryu kempo is a good art, read and learn.
Regards, Gary
If you are not getting paid to fight or it is for training...
Well the best thing to do is avoid, escape, do what you can, don't throw the first blow or the second if you can avoid, do it if not, the circumstances are what you have to take into account...
I am very much inclined to go along with Adept also...
Kosho Shorei Ryu kempo is a good art, read and learn.
Regards, Gary
Brother John
Senior Master
I appreciate the sentiment, but I think that often times the best defense is a good offense. If you feel that the danger is on the brink and unavoidable, then attack is just as justafiable as defense. Besides, if you strike first... chances are you can avoid it getting worse than it needs to be.GAB said:
just something to think about.
Your Brother
John
GAB
3rd Black Belt
Hi John,Brother John said:
Thought about it for over 40 years, still think the same...I have taken to many reports and have seen to many decent people go to jail for that kind of mentality...It is ok in the dojo but not in the real world...
The cost's are unbelievable when you get a lawyer and go to court and have a record and have to explain it everytime you get a job or you can not buy a gun or, well you understand.
You are from someplace that handles all these innocent person's. Did they go in and "cop" to it? Or did they get convicted on a not guilty plea???
Sorry I stick with my post...Regards, Gary
Brother John
Senior Master
I understand where you are coming from Gary, no need to apologize.GAB said:
But isn't it the case that you merely need to believe that the danger is believable, immanent and unavoidable? If these criteria are met isn't proactively confronting the wouldbe assailant ok?
You probably know more than I do on this.
I get them AFTER court. :whip:
Your Brother
John
masherdong
2nd Black Belt
All I know is if someone strikes me or at me, I feel that I must defend myself. I am not going to sit there and let someone kick my butt! If I am going to the hospital, then someone is coming with me.
P
PragmaticMartialArtist
Guest
Legally, the time to fight or not to fight is complex. What is more complex is when to stop. At some point, even if you were justified to fight, you may become the agressor and your justification will no longer be warranted.
There is the physical aspect of fighting but also verbal. Sometimes just saying "Stop" of "No" may be enough.
There is the physical aspect of fighting but also verbal. Sometimes just saying "Stop" of "No" may be enough.
L
lvwhitebir
Guest
Brother John said:
It also matters *why* you think the threat is believable, imminent, and unavoidable (this one gets most people). Just because you're paranoid and think everyone within 3 feet of you is going to attack doesn't mean you can go around beating people up. If the "average" person would think the threat is believable then you'd probably be OK. I'm not a fan of preemptive strikes simply because the threat is usually avoidable.
The "unavoidable" part gets most people (usually men) because they don't simply walk away when in a confrontation. It gets to be a battle of egos. If you have the chance to walk away and don't, your claim of self-defense is severely hurt. It doesn't matter if he punches you, pushes you, or throws his beer in your face. If you can simply disengage by moving away and don't, you're "fighting" instead of "acting in self-defense."
My definitions are "fighting" is an act of punishment or domination. People "fighting" are simply trying to hurt the other, plain and simple. "Self-defense" is an act of retreat and survival. When acting in "self-defense" your goal is simply to disengage in the least damaging way possible.
Using these definitions, it's *never* OK to fight. There is always another recourse to settle disputes. The law punishes people who fight, not people who act in self-defense.
A word about "self-defense." Self-defense is not "striking back because he hit first." If he hits you and walks away, it is *not* self defense to attack him and in doing so you can be sued or put in jail. You have become the attacker. Self-defense, as far as the law is concerned, is putting forth enough energy to stop the current attack only. Self-defense is not an act of dealing justice. It is purely an act to ensure your survival.
WhiteBirch
47MartialMan
Master of Arts
When one gets up in age, maturity, and responsibility, avoidance of areas where a possible physical confrontation may arise.
However when physically attacked the response should be per accordance with the threat. You wouldn't want to break someone's neck just because they had tried to shove you.
However when physically attacked the response should be per accordance with the threat. You wouldn't want to break someone's neck just because they had tried to shove you.
Similar threads
