# On Hitting First



## Bill Mattocks (May 2, 2016)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.  Just my opinion.  I have a background in law enforcement, but I am not a cop either and have not been one for a very long time.

An old saying in karate is that there is no first strike in karate.  Many people interpret this in many ways, but some people believe it means you have to wait to be attacked before you can respond.  That's not how I interpret it.

I actually follow the laws of self-defense of most US states, including Michigan, where I live.  Typically, the laws of self-defense have nothing to say about who hits first.  The law doesn't care.  The law also doesn't care if you have martial arts training or not.

Many of us who were raised in the USA may have had certain 'rules' instilled in us by our parents or by society.

1) Don't hit first.
2) If you have to fight, fight fair.

What that typically means is that as kids, we are expected not to initiate a fight, but if we have to fight, we don't pull hair, kick in the testicles, bite, pick up weapons, etc, etc.  We are expected to square off, punch punch, maybe bloody up a nose or lip, shake hands, and move on.  Hey, nice morals, I'm all for it!

But that's not self-defense.  That's schoolyard fighting.  Very different in most circumstances.

So what is self-defense and when can you do it?

Self-defense laws in western nations commonly descend from Roman Law, which during the time of Justinian were *"*_*vim vi repellere licet,"* _meaning* 'it is permitted to repel force with force'.*

So, do you have to wait for an aggressor to swing on you before you can defend yourself?

Normally, no.

In most jurisdictions in the US (and perhaps in many other nations),* the threat of force is itself force.*

In other words, if a person cocks their fist at me, they have threatened me.  That's unlawful and therefore I have the right to defend myself with *actual *force. They didn't necessarily swing that fist at me - but they have indeed already broken the law by threatening to use unlawful force on me.

There is more to it than just that, though.  In addition to presenting a threat of unlawful violence, in most US jurisdictions, it must be such that a so-called_ reasonable and prudent_ person would believe the person was capable of making good on their threat.

Here are some examples:

1) Bad guy cocks a fist at me and says he is going to punch me out.  But he's in a wheelchair and 50 feet away from me.  Could he reasonably make good on his threat? Probably not.  In that case, I'm not justified in running over to him and punching his lights out.

2) Bad guy tells me he is going to punch my lights out and he's all up in my face.   Angry face, shouted words, clenched fists, etc.  Can he reasonably make good on his threat?  Yes.  Am I justified in kicking his gonads up around his tonsils?  Yes, in most jurisdictions.  I don't have to wait for him to swing on me; in fact, it would be stupid of me to do so.

Now, keep in mind that the law does not care what his actual intent is.  The law cares about what the mythical 'reasonable and prudent' person would THINK his intent was.

That also means that I do not get to decide that some random stranger represents a threat to me and punch him out for no reason.  It's not MY judgment that the law cares about, it's the judgment of the so-called 'reasonable and prudent' person.  It would NOT be 'reasonable and prudent' to believe that some guy walking past me who gives me a dirty look or calls me a name represents an actual threat to me.

So, once we start defending ourselves, when do we have to stop?  Presuming we can defeat the bad guy, what's the place where the law tells us we have stop hitting them?

There are no black-and-white rules about that in most cases.  Typically the courts have ruled that you have to stop when the threat stops - in some cases, when you perceive the threat to have stopped.

What about what kind of force you can use to defend yourself?  Same thing, there are no black-and-white rules.  Typically, you have to use only that type of force that a reasonable person would feel was appropriate.  Does that mean you can use a machine gun on a guy who trips you?  Probably not.  However, if you happen to be a black belt in a martial art and you use your skills on a guy who tried to punch you out, will you be held liable for using unjustified force?  Probably not.

The Michigan Supreme Court has said _*“a person in a state of excitement cannot be expected to make fine distinctions as to the extent of injuries likely to be inflicted and, thus, the amount of force needed for self-defense”*_

In other words, if you have the legal right to defend yourself in the first place, you are allowed to get to it, and immediately.  When to stop and how much force to use is generally left up to the person defending themselves, so long as their beliefs are justified.  

Also please note that most jurisdictions say nothing - NOTHING - about a person's status as a martial artist.  In the eyes of the law, your training has no bearing on your right to self-defense or your ability to apply force to defend yourself.  You are NOT expected to 'hold yourself to a higher standard' or 'warn the aggressor before using your martial arts training,' etc.  Those are myths.  IF you choose to do it, great, good for you.  But the law requires no such thing.

Bottom line - self-defense law is really not that difficult to grasp.  It may seem that way to people who want to make it seem complicated or unfair.  It's not.

If a reasonable and prudent person (see many only definitions of what that means) believes that they are in imminent danger of being unlawfully attacked, they may defend themselves from that attack.

Even if there was no actual attack intended - if a reasonable and prudent person would have believed it was going to happen, it is still legal to defend against it.

Even if you're a eleventy-dozen degree black belt who knows six different styles of dim mak and can rip out human hearts - you are still allowed to defend yourself.  

You don't have to register your hands and feet as deadly weapons with the police.  You don't have to warn an attacker that you know Kung Fu, Karate, or Ho Chi Minh.  You don't have to restrain yourself from using your 'full powers' to defend yourself from attack.

You do not have to avoid kicking them in the snarglies, biting, hair-pulling, tripping, throwing, or whatever else your devious little mind can come up with.  If it's really self-defense we're talking about, all options are available.

Some states - not many - impose a duty to retreat before one can defend oneself. In other words, if you can run away, you must do so according to the law.  Frankly, I am too old, too fat, and my knees are bad; I would not be able to outrun some young punk intent on cleaning my clock.  So even if the law required it, that option isn't mine to take.

I recommend that people learn about the laws of self-defense where they live.  It's usually not much more difficult than a simple Google search.


----------



## mograph (May 2, 2016)

In Canada:
Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 2, 2016)

mograph said:


> In Canada:
> Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law?


Very informative, thank you!


----------



## drop bear (May 2, 2016)

How does that play out for you in court?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 2, 2016)

How about "challenge fight" since most of the challenge fights don't involve with law?

- Someone challenges you,
- you accept the challenge,
- you jump in,
- one punch to your opponent's face,
- your opponent is down,
- the fight is over.

Self-defense doesn't address this area very well.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 2, 2016)

It's pretty much "game on" in the state of Georgia we have a "Stand your ground law" and one city where near where I live made it a law that every house owner must own a gun.  I pretty much walk around assuming that most people have guns or some kind of concealed weapon.  The statistics for 2015 concealed weapon's permit for Georgia was 600,000 permits. I'm already mentally at the point that if have to fight then I need to be brutal simply because the person may have a weapon near by.  In my mind I'm already at a disadvantage because I don't carry.


----------



## drop bear (May 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How about "challenge fight" since most of the challenge fights don't involve with law?
> 
> - Someone challenges you,
> - you accept the challenge,
> ...



It is not self defence. There is more than on legal use of force.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How about "challenge fight" since most of the challenge fights don't involve with law?
> 
> - Someone challenges you,
> - you accept the challenge,
> ...



That's because mutual combat isn't self defense, although it can result in that.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How about "challenge fight" since most of the challenge fights don't involve with law?
> 
> - Someone challenges you,
> - you accept the challenge,
> ...



Depends on if your locale has a "mutual combat" statute. Here, if you say any of the myriad variations on "I dare you" then I can give you a smack. Legally.

On the other hand, other than Hollywood movies and cases where the party being punched is a colossal wuss, very few fights are really ended with one punch.
Not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying if your strategy revolves around that concept, you're likely to be disappointed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 2, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying if your strategy revolves around that concept, you're likely to be disappointed.


Back in 1973, a Chinese guy in Taiwan name Li Ming-Shin who claimed that he could throw 7 punches within 1 second. He also had spinning kicks as pretty as Bruce Lee had. When he arrived NYC, US, an American guy who trained tiger claw in NYC challenged him. In that public match, the tiger claw guy threw only one punch on his opponent's face and knock his opponent down/out within 8 seconds. It was on almost all MA magazines that month. Don't know if anybody still remember it.


----------



## punisher73 (May 2, 2016)

Another factor to consider is how an assault/battery is charged and viewed in some courts.  

If your local agency is like most, unless it is REALLY clear cut with witnesses who all agree with your version, there is a good chance that both parties will be arrested.  Depending on local ordinances, it could be "Assault and Battery" (state statute) or something like a "Disorderly by Fighting" (local/city ordinance).  Some jurisdictions, will not charge based on "mutual combat" if there are no injuries, or they may charge both parties.

If you are criminally charged, and want to spend the money to fight it (one reason why many times it is charged with the local ordinance, small fine and no jail and cheaper to say your guilty of causing a disruption by fighting in public).  It will go before the jury, and then your claim of "self-defense" will be read as a jury instruction to the jury to consider the factors of the case to see if it meets the elements.  Self-Defense, is kind of an "affirmative defense" meaning that you agree that the actions you took would normally be a crime (in this case, using force on another person), but that because of the circumstances it is allowable.  The jury will now decide if what you did was reasonable and necessary to protect yourself.

But, as I said before.  It will depend on your local jurisdiction and how they handle cases like that on how/if it will be charged.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Back in 1973, a Chinese guy in Taiwan name Li Ming-Shin who claimed that he could throw 7 punches within 1 second. He also had spinning kicks as pretty as Bruce Lee had. When he arrived NYC, US, an American guy who trained tiger claw in NYC challenged him. In that public match, the tiger claw guy threw only one punch on his opponent's face and knock his opponent down/out within 8 seconds. It was on almost all MA magazines that month. Don't know if anybody still remember it.



OK, sure. Now compare that to the thousands upon thousands of fights that did _not_ end after one punch to the face. 
As I said, if your strategy revolves around the notion of a one punch knockout, you're going to be sorely disappointed.


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How about "challenge fight" since most of the challenge fights don't involve with law?
> 
> - Someone challenges you,
> - you accept the challenge,
> ...



If you are fighting in public here you can be arrested for affray/public nuisance/anti social behaviour/ disturbing the peace in any combination. Basically it's very stupid to accept challenges.

If you are fighting in a competition then it's mutually agreed violence, quite legal.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

punisher73 said:


> Another factor to consider is how an assault/battery is charged and viewed in some courts.
> 
> If your local agency is like most, unless it is REALLY clear cut with witnesses who all agree with your version, there is a good chance that both parties will be arrested.  Depending on local ordinances, it could be "Assault and Battery" (state statute) or something like a "Disorderly by Fighting" (local/city ordinance).  Some jurisdictions, will not charge based on "mutual combat" if there are no injuries, or they may charge both parties.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

That is one of the reasons I stated that the person applying self-defense should make it very clear and state loudly for the benefit of witnesses that they do NOT want to fight, they JUST WANT TO LEAVE, and so on.  I would raise my hands in a non-threatening position, say "Dude, I don't want to fight, please leave me alone, I'm going to leave now, please don't hit me," etc.  If he twitches, I destroy him.  But I make it VERY clear that he is the aggressor, even if I hit first.

Now, getting people to fess up to the cops that you did all this can be another matter entirely.  But I will at least go through the motions and make them loud and obvious that I am trying NOT to fight.


----------



## elder999 (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Agreed.
> 
> That is one of the reasons I stated that the person applying self-defense should make it very clear and state loudly for the benefit of witnesses that they do NOT want to fight, they JUST WANT TO LEAVE, and so on.  I would raise my hands in a non-threatening position, say "Dude, I don't want to fight, please leave me alone, I'm going to leave now, please don't hit me," etc.  If he twitches, I destroy him.  But I make it VERY clear that he is the aggressor, even if I hit first.
> 
> Now, getting people to fess up to the cops that you did all this can be another matter entirely.  But I will at least go through the motions and make them loud and obvious that I am trying NOT to fight.



Not only that I don't want to fight, but that I'm scared-frightened..._"Dude I don't want to fight-*you're scaring me*-please leave me alone."_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

elder999 said:


> Not only that I don't want to fight, but that I'm scared-frightened..._"Dude I don't want to fight-*you're scaring me*-please leave me alone."_



Excellent!  I agree.


----------



## Jaeimseu (May 3, 2016)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 3, 2016)

Jaeimseu said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Sagacity of the conversation rendered you speechless?



I'm with Bill and Elder. Hell, even in the ER, where I cannot just walk away, I do my damnedest to make it clear that I don't want to fight, and flat out ask people "please, cooperate with us."


----------



## Jaeimseu (May 3, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sagacity of the conversation rendered you speechless?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Bill and Elder. Hell, even in the ER, where I cannot just walk away, I do my damnedest to make it clear that I don't want to fight, and flat out ask people "please, cooperate with us."


Apparently I'm so talented that I can leave a comment simply by attempting to scroll text on my phone. Sorry for the inadvertent post.


----------



## mograph (May 3, 2016)

punisher73 said:


> If your local agency is like most, unless it is REALLY clear cut with witnesses who all agree with your version, there is a good chance that both parties will be arrested.


It's my understanding that law enforcement and the justice system prefer a peaceful environment: they like to keep the peace. It keeps things calm, simple, and safe. 

As a result, they don't look kindly on people who disturb that peace. It makes them nervous, buggers up their day, and forces them to make decisions that have negative consequences.

But if you _have_ to defend yourself against someone who means you physical harm, I'd agree with the others: behave in such a way that witnesses would not see you as an aggressive person. IMO, witnesses try to make sense of what they're seeing and want to see a clear "white hat, black hat" situation. When you win, their reports have to be "he was forced to defend himself," rather than "he kicked the crap out of that aggressive jerk." While the latter may make you look tough and heroic to the witnesses, I think the _system_ may only look kindly on you if the aggressor was a hardened criminal and your life was really in danger ... in the opinion of the system.

Without the clear "white hat, black hat" assessment, the reports could be "two guys were fighting." Of course, witnesses will probably support their _friend_ in their reports. (shrug)

Ideally, you want witnesses to report "the aggressive jerk tripped over his own feet and fell face-first onto the concrete. The other guy just got out of the way in time." 

Of course, I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## mograph (May 3, 2016)

Jaeimseu said:


> Apparently I'm so talented that I can leave a comment simply by attempting to scroll text on my phone.


Your post-fu is impressive! Didn't see it coming!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

mograph said:


> It's my understanding that law enforcement and the justice system prefer a peaceful environment: they like to keep the peace. It keeps things calm, simple, and safe.
> 
> As a result, they don't look kindly on people who disturb that peace. It makes them nervous, buggers up their day, and forces them to make decisions that have negative consequences.
> 
> ...



Absolutely agree.

And again applying my own circumstances, which I realize are not the same as everyone else's, I have to add that I am a late-middle-aged (OK, almost elderly) man with a full-time job as a trained professional, no criminal record, and no history of getting in fights, provoked or otherwise.  I'm the stereotypical guy who is 'just minding his own business' (FYI, every bad guy says that, no lie).  The cops will tend to believe me - I present myself well.  The courts will tend to believe me - I'm an upstanding productive member of society.  And honestly, I don't hang around in bars, go to parties, look for fights, or otherwise present myself as someone who wants to fight.

The aggressive young guy in the beer-soaked t-shirt and cutoffs who picked a fight with me and looks like he hasn't had a bath in a week won't come out looking like the victim.


----------



## mograph (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm the stereotypical guy who is 'just minding his own business' ...  I don't hang around in bars, go to parties, look for fights, or otherwise present myself as someone who wants to fight.


Same here. I do feel bad for the guys who are equally peaceful and stay out of trouble, but may have gotten the wrong socioeconomic end of the stick, or just _look_ young, tough and mean and may get challenged a lot (while we usually get ignored, thank God). They probably have to be _extra_ careful to stay out of fights.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

mograph said:


> Same here. I do feel bad for the guys who are equally peaceful and stay out of trouble, but may have gotten the wrong socioeconomic end of the stick, or just _look_ young, tough and mean and may get challenged a lot (while we usually get ignored, thank God). They probably have to be _extra_ careful to stay out of fights.



Yes, that is true.  For what it's worth, I did not get a free ride; I was most definitely on the lower end of the spectrum, but I do not deny that I had a lot of advantages.  Good brain, not born into a cycle of crime and extreme poverty, and so on.  I was able, through sheer luck and some hard work, to get to a better place.  I am grateful and hip to the fact that I could fall just as fast back to where I came from.  But some people don't get the breaks I got, and I'm sorry that's true.


----------



## HW1 (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Also please note that most jurisdictions say nothing - NOTHING - about a person's status as a martial artist.  In the eyes of the law, your training has no bearing on your right to self-defense or your ability to apply force to defend yourself.  You are NOT expected to 'hold yourself to a higher standard' or 'warn the aggressor before using your martial arts training,' etc.  Those are myths.  IF you choose to do it, great, good for you.  But the law requires no such thing.



This may be in the state court but in the civil suit your attacker files afterwards I guarantee their attorney will bring up your martial arts training the moment he finds out about it. Just throwing this in the hat as a variable, I don't have answers.


----------



## mograph (May 3, 2016)

HW1 said:


> This may be in the state court but in the civil suit your attacker files afterwards I guarantee their attorney will bring up your martial arts training the moment he finds out about it. Just throwing this in the hat as a variable, I don't have answers.


Civil court is a bit looser, isn't it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

HW1 said:


> This may be in the state court but in the civil suit your attacker files afterwards I guarantee their attorney will bring up your martial arts training the moment he finds out about it. Just throwing this in the hat as a variable, I don't have answers.



Always a possibility.  Civil lawsuits have a lower standard for conviction, and a defendant's background can be brought up, depending on the court and the judge, etc.

However, in many US states, self-defense is proof against criminal and civil prosecution.

Here's a pretty good response:

“IMMUNITY” FROM CIVIL SUIT AFTER LAWFUL USE OF DEFENSIVE FORCE :  FACT OR FICTION?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

mograph said:


> Civil court is a bit looser, isn't it?



The requirement for conviction is a 'preponderance of evidence' whereas in criminal court, it's 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  In other words, criminal court has to find you guilty as sin, civil court just has think you are probably guilty of the offense.  That would be what happened to OJ Simpson.  Not guilty in criminal court, guilty in civil court.


----------



## jks9199 (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How about "challenge fight" since most of the challenge fights don't involve with law?
> 
> - Someone challenges you,
> - you accept the challenge,
> ...


Mutual combat nullifies self defense concerns. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Basically it's very stupid to accept challenges.


Back in the 70th, Bruce Frantzis went to Taiwan and challenged anybody who was willing to fight him. Nobody accepted his challenged. He finally challenged my teacher in the park.






Also back in the 70th, Frank MeMaria went to Taiwan and challenged anybody who was willing to fight him, Wu San-Chu accepted the fight. The fight was set up in public and over 10,000 tickets was sold. The Taiwan government was afraid that if Wu lose the fight, the audience might cause some riot (anti-American), that fight was set up in private. 

I respect both Bruce and Frank for their courage, spirit, and love in MA.


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2016)

It would be a very rare occurrence for a criminal act here to also go to a civil court, I've never heard of it happening.
Making and accepting challenges are for the ego driven.


----------



## Buka (May 3, 2016)

Legal parts aside....how about the thread title applied to the tactical side of things? Or moral? Or societal?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> It would be a very rare occurrence for a criminal act here to also go to a civil court, I've never heard of it happening.
> Making and accepting challenges are for the ego driven.



I don't know about your country, but if you train MA and you live in Taiwan, you will settle everything by yourself without letting the law to be involved. If you let law to get involved, people will look down on you for the rest of your life.

Old saying said, "MA business should be settled in the MA way." If you beat me today, I'll train hard for the next 10 years. 10 years later I will request a re-match. I do hope this kind of MA spirit can be preserved from generation to generation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Buka said:


> Legal parts aside...


In the CMA world, if you get yourself injury of killed when you have Shuai Chiao jacket on, you cannot sue anybody. If you have your SC jacket on, you cannot turn down any challenge when your opponent also has SC jacket on. Of course if you don't want to accept that challenge, the moment that your opponent puts on his SC jacket, you can take off yours.

The legal issue just doesn't apply to the MA world that much. At least that was the society I used to live in.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

Buka said:


> Legal parts aside....how about the thread title applied to the tactical side of things? Or moral? Or societal?



Sure, let's talk about them!

Tactically, I would argue that is not wise to allow someone to swing on you first before you begin to defend yourself in most circumstances.  Keeping in mind that every situation is unique, I would still tend to believe that anyone can land a lucky punch, or a person can take an unintended fall due to slipping, losing balance, etc.  Allowing the aggressor to attack first could well lead to a one-shot defeat, or even involve serious injury or death.

Granted that it 'looks better' if the aggressor swings first and you are then clearly seen to be defending yourself rather than attacking.  But that's about the only tactical advantage I can see to waiting to let the aggressor attack first.

Now, moral...  I suspect different people are going to have different takes on what is moral to do when an aggressor attempts to start a fight.  I would argue that survival is a moral imperative, with the proviso that the person defending themselves cannot themselves be a threat to others.  That is, emptying a handgun magazine into a crowd because someone in it pegged you with a bottle is neither self-defense nor moral, although it may certainly be survival if the crowd contains people trying to injure or kill you.  However, since we appear to talking mainly about unarmed personal combat, I think we can tuck that away.  In general, I would say that legitimate self-defense is moral.

Societal depends very much on the society, the time, place, and location.  Drunken barroom brawling can involve elements of self-defense, but does it conform to the desires of society?  Perhaps in some cases, not in others.

Recent example...just in the news in the last day or so...

Man badly injured after he picks fight with amateur MMA fighter

*"Man badly injured after he picks fight with amateur MMA fighter*
*By Staff report*

*Posted May 2, 2016 at 7:42 PM*
*Updated May 2, 2016 at 9:01 PM *

*A 26-year-old man was taken to the hospital with serious injuries after he picked a fight with a man who turned out to be an amateur mixed martial arts fighter in downtown Springfield early Saturday, according to police.Marcus D. Miller of the 1600 block of South 17th Street suffered a large gash on his face and two swollen eyes, police said.Miller allegedly fought with Curtis M. Eller, 25, of Taylorville, who according to several online fighting sites is a top-ranked amateur fighter in Illinois."*
​Now, at first glance, this would appear to be a 'feel good' story about a man who decided to threaten a MMA fighter, but there's more to it than that.

Reading on, it appears the struggle occurred at a bar, where the guy who got beaten was arguing with a bouncer, who was refusing to let him enter.  The MMA fighter decided to jump in on the side of the bouncer and he worked the drunk over pretty good.

At the same time, however, one of the MMA fighter's pals attempted to punch the drunk while a cop was handcuffing the drunk, but he accidentally punched the cop in the face; he got arrested along with the drunk.

Given the circumstances, a bunch of drunks fighting in a bar, although self-defense was certainly involved, I am not sure you could argue that this is the kind of situation that society would normally condone.  Yes, the MMA fighter got punched, defending himself, and apparently quite well.  But he is the one who chose to get involved in the situation between a drunken customer and a bouncer, and his buddy is the one who decided to 'help out' and punched out the cop, getting himself arrested in the process.

So...yeah.  I will grant that there are times and places where self-defense, while legal and probably moral, is also probably socially unacceptable.  Bunch of drunks not being smart can lead to things like that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Also back in the 70th, Frank MeMaria went to Taiwan and challenged anybody who was willing to fight him, Wu San-Chu accepted the fight. The fight was set up in public and over 10,000 tickets was sold. The Taiwan government was afraid that if Wu lose the fight, the audience might cause some riot (anti-American), that fight was set up in private.



Not for nothing, but Frank DeMaria is in prison.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not for nothing, but Frank DeMaria is in prison.


I know. Many years after that challenge fight. It has nothing to do with that challenge fight though.

Tactically -

In any fight, you try to protect your head as much as possible and don't let your opponent to hit your head. What strategy can help you to get there? IMO, by using "rhino guard" to get "head lock (or double over hooks)" is the best strategy.


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know about your country, but if you train MA and you live in Taiwan, you will settle everything by yourself without letting the law to be involved. If you let law to get involved, people will look down on you for the rest of your life.
> 
> Old saying said, "MA business should be settled in the MA way." If you beat me today, I'll train hard for the next 10 years. 10 years later I will request a re-match. I do hope this kind of MA spirit can be preserved from generation to generation.



I live in a civilised country where we respect the law, which we've had for a couple of thousand years. Martial artists aren't special they have to abide by the law the same as everyone else, why wouldn't they. What you describe is exactly what I said it is, ego driven.


----------



## elder999 (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not for nothing, but Frank DeMaria is in prison.


He's up for parole, and will likely get it early next year.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I live in a civilised country where we respect the law, ...


We may live on different planets.

In US (a civilized country too), I had someone who brought his girlfriend with him, knocked on my front door, and asked for a challenge fight in my own living room. He was an European Judo champ. But he asked for Taiji push hand challenge. I told him that I don't do push hand but I don't mind spar or wrestle with him. He said he had bad knee and could not wrestle any more. My friend in Austin told me about that guy also went to his MA school and challenged him 2 days later.

Also in US (a civilized country too), when I had my MA school (Peishaolin Kung Fu Institute 1973 - 1976), I had people walked into my MA school and asked for challenged as:

- punch only,
- kick and punch only,
- wrestling only.

It happened for more than 20 times in those 4 years.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 3, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> and one city where near where I live made it a law that every house owner must own a gun.


I cannot imagine how they could possibly hope to enforce such a law.  I am certain it would crumble at the first legal challenge, if they did try to enforce it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We may live on different planets.
> 
> In US (a civilized country too), I had someone who brought his girlfriend with him, knocked on my front door, and asked for a challenge fight in my own living room. He was an European Judo champ. But he asked for Taiji push hand challenge. I told him that I don't do push hand but I don't mind spar or wrestle with him. He said he had bad knee and could not wrestle any more. My friend in Austin told me about that guy also went to his MA school and challenged him 2 days later.
> 
> ...



I think you may be confusing 'challenge' with asking to spar.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Back in the 70th, [...]



And in the 1870's, 1770's and 1670's, people challenged each other with deadly weapons and deadly intent. And killed each other.
It's not any of those '70's anymore.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I cannot imagine how they could possibly hope to enforce such a law.  I am certain it would crumble at the first legal challenge, if they did try to enforce it.



It has never been enforced, but the way the law was written, anyone who chose not to have a gun didn't have to have one.

Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
_​It was intended as a symbolic response to a town in Illinois that banned guns completely (Morton Grove, IL).  The Morton Grove law has since been repealed, but Kennesaw's has never been enforced, so it's never been challenged in court.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I cannot imagine how they could possibly hope to enforce such a law.  I am certain it would crumble at the first legal challenge, if they did try to enforce it.


It's impossible to enforce and it does crumble under legal challenges. People are just idiots and unfortunately some of those idiots are in government.  There are people who think that guns are the ultimate protection and politicians feed on that.  The NRA has stated that if people had guns then they could stop bad people.  Unfortunate someone had to learn the hard way that just because you have a gun doesn't mean you can't get shot.

‘He thought he could help’: Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead

This kind of plays back to the multiple discussion on here about schools that teach useless self-defense which makes the person put themselves in a worse situation than they would have been in, if didn't take the self-defense class.  Ironically had this person not had his gun, he wouldn't have made the decision that he did and would still be alive.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I think you may be confusing 'challenge' with asking to spar.


What's the difference? When a stranger who asks you for sparring, how will you know whether his intention is friendly, or unfriendly?


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It has never been enforced, but the way the law was written, anyone who chose not to have a gun didn't have to have one.
> 
> Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


  It's all crazy to me. It looks like there are some other towns in other states that are trying or thinking about making similar laws.  I guess everyone misses "The wild west" lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> And in the 1870's, 1770's and 1670's, people challenged each other with deadly weapons and deadly intent. And killed each other.
> It's not any of those '70's anymore.


Nothing special about 70th. It just both events happened in the 70th. In the last 40 years, I have not heard about any American who travel to Taiwan (or China) and ask for open challenge. I assume when Robert Smith went to Taiwan, that kind of challenge was quite popular.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

Well, it was a nice thread while it lasted.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the difference? When a stranger who asks you for sparring, how will you know whether his intention is friendly, or unfriendly?


I'll know after the first punch and I'll be 100% certain about his intention if he fails to ease up.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, it was a nice thread while it lasted.


It's still a good thread lol.  And hitting first is still valid


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll know after the first punch and I'll be 100% certain about his intention if he fails to ease up.


That's the problem. When a stranger asks you for sparring, you truly don't know whether he tries to spar with you in light contact, or full contact. In MA, there is a big difference between accepting challenge from a friendly challenger vs. from an unfriendly challenger. The problem is how will you know?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, it was a nice thread while it lasted.


One guy asked, "May I spar with you?", I said. "OK". I then moved in and took him down. Someone asked me, "Why didn't you wait for him to attack you?" I said, "He asked for challenge, why should I give him any chance to attack me first?"

To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. That's why to "hit first" is always toward your advantage.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

The one thing I can say about hitting first is that. If you do it, then you better make sure you do a good job at it.   There's nothing like swatting at bee that was only buzzing around you, and then to be stung because you swatted at the bee.   

Hitting someone first in an effort to defend yourself is really no different than someone hitting you first as an attack.  After that first hit is thrown all hell may break loose. 
If you have to hit someone first then understand that you will most definitely have to hit that person more than once to get out of it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 3, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's impossible to enforce and it does crumble under legal challenges. People are just idiots and unfortunately some of those idiots are in government.  There are people who think that guns are the ultimate protection and politicians feed on that.  The NRA has stated that if people had guns then they could stop bad people.  Unfortunate someone had to learn the hard way that just because you have a gun doesn't mean you can't get shot.
> 
> ‘He thought he could help’: Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead
> 
> This kind of plays back to the multiple discussion on here about schools that teach useless self-defense which makes the person put themselves in a worse situation than they would have been in, if didn't take the self-defense class.  Ironically had this person not had his gun, he wouldn't have made the decision that he did and would still be alive.



This is probably deserving of a separate thread.
Three points:
1 - He made a LOT of mistakes that led up to his being shot.
2 - For every case like this you can find, there are dozens (hundreds?) more where the armed citizen does, in fact, stop the bad guy. 
3 - How could you possibly know what he would have done if he had been unarmed?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 3, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's still a good thread lol.  And hitting first is still valid


It shall go on without me.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's the problem. When a stranger asks you for sparring, you truly don't know whether he tries to spar with you in light contact, or full contact. In MA, there is a big difference between accepting challenge from a friendly challenger vs. from an unfriendly challenger. The problem is how will you know?


I see what you are saying now.  In my case I was sparring with a stranger and it wasn't really a formal challenge.   In martial arts, you know when it's a formal challenge because they come off that way as being hostile.  If someone came to my school and wanted to spar then I could do that with no problem.  If someone came to the same school challenging me saying that Jow Ga was useless, then I'll make him sign a waiver and then proceed to kick his butt, if possible.  

If I win then I have to win in a way that would make him less likely to come back to shoot me. lol.  (sorry about the gun reference but it's true).  If I lose then he won't have any hard feelings about beating me.  I know for most martial arts schools sparring rules are set before sparring is done.  Outside of schools sparring rules may or may not be set.  It may be difficult to tell when someone will take sparring too far, but when someone formally challenges you then there is no mistake.

I worked at Blockbuster Videos in my 20's and a customer came to me yelling at me if I wanted to fight him.  He kept saying that, and now that I've read a little about Mutual Combat law, I'm thinking he was trying to get me to say yes so he could claim that.  Unfortunately for him my low paying part-time job was more important than he was.  I left the building and the manager took over.  When the guy came outside he had nothing to say. Go figure.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> This is probably deserving of a separate thread.


 Yep it does. I'll be willing to talk about it in a different thread


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 3, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> If you have to hit someone first then understand that you will most definitely have to hit that person more than once to get out of it.


If you hit first "with control", your opponent can feel your speed and not your power. If he is smart and understands that you have no intention to hurt him, the challenge can be ended "friendly" there. If you break your opponent's nose on your 1st punch, the challenge fight may end "unfriendly".

I don't get into street fight that much except when I was young. I do get into a lot of challenge fights. IMO, there is nothing wrong to attack first in any challenge fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you hit first "with control", your opponent can feel your speed and not your power. If he is smart and understands that you have no intention to hurt him, the challenge can be ended "friendly" there. If you break your opponent's nose on your 1st punch, the challenge fight may end "unfriendly".


When I spar with strangers I'm 100% defense and <30% attack power.  I can never tell if someone decides to lose control so I'll defend myself as if that's what they will do.


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the difference? When a stranger who asks you for sparring, how will you know whether his intention is friendly, or unfriendly?





Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you hit first "with control", your opponent can feel your speed and not your power. If he is smart and understands that you have no intention to hurt him, the challenge can be ended "friendly" there. If you break your opponent's nose on your 1st punch, the challenge fight may end "unfriendly".
> 
> I don't get into street fight that much except when I was young. I do get into a lot of challenge fights. IMO, there is nothing wrong to attack first in any challenge fight.



Wow. Just. Wow.


----------



## mograph (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, it was a nice thread while it lasted.


I was thinking the same thing ... but it may be simmering down, thanks to cooler heads.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It has never been enforced, but the way the law was written, anyone who chose not to have a gun didn't have to have one.
> 
> Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Yeah, figured as much


----------

