# Wing Chun in street fight



## Tanaka (Aug 17, 2010)

I came across this video of a street fight today. Does this guy look like he was using wing chun?






actually I saw some comments that said this was a movie lol.


----------



## coffeerox (Aug 17, 2010)

Tanaka said:


> I came across this video of a street fight today. Does this guy look like he was using wing chun?



Yes it does.  He shouldn't have let him bear hug him though.  In my opinion, I would have been gone after the kick but for some reason 'chunners' like to counter attack.  He had the advantage but I don't know why he wasn't continuing the chain punching once that attack passed.


----------



## Tanaka (Aug 17, 2010)

coffeerox said:


> Yes it does.  He shouldn't have let him bear hug him though.  In my opinion, I would have been gone after the kick but for some reason 'chunners' like to counter attack.  He had the advantage but I don't know why he wasn't continuing the chain punching once that attack passed.



Well I'm not sure about my question anymore since some people are saying it's a movie.
It's a movie then I'm sure it's choreographed, but for a movie it sure looked pretty real.


----------



## zepedawingchun (Aug 17, 2010)

coffeerox said:


> . . . .I would have been gone after the kick but for some reason 'chunners' like to counter attack. He had the advantage but I don't know why he wasn't continuing the chain punching once that attack passed.


 
Because counter attack is one of the main concepts of Wing Chun. By initiating the attack first, you give your opponent the opportunity to intercept you and strike you first. Even Bruce Lee understood that. Basic precept, punch last, hit first. But if you wait until they punch, commit to the attack, you can counter and hit them first without risking them changing their attack. 

I agree with you, he should have continued by doing some battle punching until his opponent was down.  He was probably using the kick to prevent the guy from just jumping in or bridging the gap too soon.


----------



## dungeonworks (Aug 17, 2010)

It is a choreographed movie.  Notice how nobody is blocking the open area between the camera and the "fight"?  How many barfights have you seen where this happens.  It's as real as John Cena vs The Undertaker! LOL


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 17, 2010)

I have to agree it looks choreographed. (still cool)


----------



## BloodMoney (Aug 17, 2010)

Wonder what movie thats from, anyone?

Re:counter attacking I personally dont agree with that, I see the logic, and to an extent I agree. Counter attacks are tactically sound, and _in theory _are good, but from my experience its hard to simply evade an attack on the street and then counter attack. I prefer the "**** im in a bad situation, this guy is gunna hit me, im gunna chain punch his face as hard and fast as I can" technique  The best defense is a good offense as they say, I am never gunna wait for a guy to attack, what if hes a lightweight boxing champ and can jab before you can blink? Often an attack will happen  suddenly and without forewarning, I would personally prefer to keep someone outside of my comfort zone, and when they enter it strike...as opposed to relying on being able to read his telegraphed movements and strike before him. 

"By initiating the attack first, you give your opponent the opportunity to intercept you and strike you first"

...or you knock him out immediately before he can even get a chance to attack?


----------



## matsu (Aug 18, 2010)

i,m with you on this one bloodmoney...
we are taught if the situation is getting critical and you know its about to kick off.....hit first!
thats why sifu has our hands in a defensive "i dont want any trouble" pose the minute my guard is touched.... bam!
just my tuppence
it looks choreographed but cool clip!
matsu


----------



## dosk3n (Aug 18, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> Often an attack will happen suddenly and without forewarning


 

Agreed they do but I have a neat little trick for keeping me in my comfort zone when someone is getting verbally agressive. 

My sifu pointed it out to me that if someone is being agressive in any other manner than physical then I have a goatee beard and I should use it to my advantage.

I just need to sort of cross my arms and with my right arm I just start stroking my beard like Im listening to him but that I couldnt care a less. 

He may see I dont care and walk away or if he does attack my hand that is stroking my beard is in the perfect position to Lap Sau his attack and hit first.

Explains why the stereotypical Kung Fu master would have a long white beard lol.


----------



## matsu (Aug 18, 2010)

lol mate
sifu always has his arms folded... but in a certain way that allows him to do exactly what you hae described.
so youre going for the zz top look from now on yeah ?
wish i had the patience i get to 2 weeks max and its gotta go, itchy and drives me nuts!
matsu


----------



## dosk3n (Aug 18, 2010)

Mines more of a soul patch on my chin lol but its there and thats what matters. Stops my looking like im just rubbing my chin for no reason


----------



## cwk (Aug 18, 2010)

What you guys are talking about is just different variations of the fence. Geoff Thompson has wrote some good stuff on the subject.
he also talks about asking your would be attacker an irrelevant question a split second before hitting them with a preemptive strike. their brain will automatically start to engage the question, giving you a split second window of opportunity.
 I worked as a doorman at busy nightclub and a couple of city centre pubs in my home town of Hull in the north of England for a short period (about a year, maybe a year and a half) and I would definitely say a good fence is a must.Saved me from eating glass or sovereign rings a couple of times lol.


----------



## matsu (Aug 18, 2010)

just had 2 of mr thompsons books arrived over the weekend. will be an unsociable herbert this week lol with me nose in a book.
matsu


----------



## dosk3n (Aug 18, 2010)

Can you name some of these books as I think I may go shopping when I get paid.

Getting that Wing Chun Warrior book also.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 18, 2010)

It does look staged.  Its good stage work though.

I personally like counter-fighting.  It just suits me better.  It has also kept me out of trouble.

Mr Police Officer: "Who started the fight?"
Witnesses: Pointing at the guy that is not me "He did!"
Me: doesn't have to sit in the back of a squad car

I'm not saying every situation you should wait for the attack.  Just saying that I prefer to if it is unarned.  Someone pulls a weapon, then waiting is not a good idea.


----------



## matsu (Aug 18, 2010)

type in geoff thompson in amazon mate....

watch my back is his autobiogra[hy
and dead or alive is the self defence book. its not a steb by step guide. it has lot of mental aspects to the topic. very in depth.

i hope ill b able to use the counter attack more as i get better at reacting rather than reading. i often get caught in sparring as i,m trying to almost guess his move.
oops
matsu


----------



## Tanaka (Aug 18, 2010)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have to agree it looks choreographed. (still cool)



Yeah it had me fooled because it doesn't look like other staged fighting scenes in most movies.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 18, 2010)

I think whoever directed this camera work did a great job.  that so many people thought it was a real fight says something.


----------



## BloodMoney (Aug 18, 2010)

matsu said:


> thats why sifu has our hands in a defensive "i dont want any trouble" pose the minute my guard is touched.... bam!



hahah we do the exact same, exactly. Some may call it "cheap" and my answer is yup, I definitely put in cheap shots. I want to win not get an honor badge, I dont see a ref and no ones paying me to take this fight, its only ever gunna be some dickhead accosting me on the street as I am a passive person so yeah, hit first...and second, and forth and fifth....



dosk3n said:


> Agreed they do but I have a neat little trick for keeping me in my comfort zone when someone is getting verbally agressive.
> *snip*



hahah love it!

Same with asking them a question and then attacking...absolutely love that **** lol! Derrin Brown mixed with Bruce Lee 



WC_lun said:


> Mr Police Officer: "Who started the fight?"
> Witnesses: Pointing at the guy that is not me "He did!"
> Me: doesn't have to sit in the back of a squad car



Fair call.

Mine would go more like this:

Police Officer: I wonder who knocked this young street thug out?
*looks around the empty street*
Witness: Some guy that ran off that way
Me: *long gone*

Seriously, I know it sounds bad but ive seen bouncers get arrested for fighting off multiple attackers, friends go to jail for defending themselves against weapon attacks etc...I aint sticking round for the law, I dont respect them enough in my country to actually think theyll see the situation for it is. Ive had it before, guy is KO'd, im fine without a scratch, I must have been the aggressor. Pfft. Its harsh but I tell my students the same, dont be there when the law shows up.


----------



## Rion (Aug 21, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> hahah we do the exact same, exactly. Some may call it "cheap" and my answer is yup, I definitely put in cheap shots. I want to win not get an honor badge, I dont see a ref and no ones paying me to take this fight, its only ever gunna be some dickhead accosting me on the street as I am a passive person so yeah, hit first...and second, and forth and fifth....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can't agree anymore, in the UK it's even worse you hurt someone breaking into your house and your the one going to jail.

So do what you have to do and move along.


----------



## cwk (Aug 21, 2010)

tell me about it.
About 9 years ago, a friend of mine was attacked by two blokes in a taxi queue while he was waiting with his girlfriend. Now, my mate's a bit of a big, handy lad and he gave these two blokes a bit of a beating. Anyway to cut a long story short, my mate ended up getting sent to prison. for being attacked! Where's the justice in that?


----------



## matsu (Aug 21, 2010)

*Can't agree anymore, in the UK it's even worse you hurt someone breaking into your house and your the one going to jail*

dont even get me started on this...... although recently an asian businessman got his sentence appealled after he beat the intruder up.
about time some good ole common sense came into play.
if tyhe burglar wasnt there he wouldnt have got hurt.
no way on this earth would i not protect my house and family from someone who broke into my house. no way!!
sorry rant over lol
matsu


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2010)

Rion said:


> *Can't agree anymore, in the UK it's even worse you* *hurt someone breaking into your house and your the one going to jail*.
> 
> So do what you have to do and move along.


 
No, you don't. You are repeating what is basically an urban myth. You are allowed, by law to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If in fear of your life you can strike first and you can use a weapon, you can even kill. You will have to justify the force you use but as long as it's reasonable you will not be taken to court. 

The Asian business man who was taken to court was arrested because he left his house and along with two others chased a man down several streets and beat him up with cricket bats. That's not defending yourself and it's not reasonable.

I've heard a great many stories about friends of friends etc who 'only defending' themselves but when the story is probed into deeper it turns out the force was far from reasonable. it's reasonable to hit someone, it's not reasonable to kick them ion the head when down. I take every story of people being done for 'just defending' themselves with a large pinch of salt now.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 21, 2010)

cwk said:


> tell me about it.
> About 9 years ago, a friend of mine was attacked by two blokes in a taxi queue while he was waiting with his girlfriend. Now, my mate's a bit of a big, handy lad and he gave these two blokes a bit of a beating. Anyway to cut a long story short, my mate ended up getting sent to prison. for being attacked! Where's the justice in that?


It depends.  What are the laws of the nation?  I'm going to assume there is some similarity in basic principles with US law, since US law comes from the Old Common Law, in significant part.  So, the next question is was his response reasonable and proportionate to the threat?  Did his actions constitute an attack under the law because he moved in on them after they had stopped fighting?

All we've got is your super-sketchy description and "where's the justice."  The details make all the difference.


----------



## BloodMoney (Aug 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You will have to justify the force you use *but as long as it's reasonable you will not be taken to court. *



I actually lol'd at this.

In a perfect world, yes. But I ask you, whos definition of reasonable? Was the judge there that night in the alleyway? Did the cops see the situation, feel the anxiety and danger you did? Cops have pepper spray, tasers, batons (and backup) to protect them, youll find what they think is reasonable might just differ from yours.

Im sorry but I completely disagree with the *bold* part of your sentence. Ive seen people go down for some incredibly unreasonable reasons. Maybe where you live but over here your expected to just lay down and get the **** kicked out of you. No thanks.



Tez3 said:


> -  it's reasonable to hit someone, it's not reasonable to kick them ion the head when down. I take every story of people being done for 'just defending' themselves with a large pinch of salt now.



Once again, who determines when its reasonable to kick someone where? Its all very well to comment when your sitting back observing, or reading about it, but what about being there in the moment and fearing for your life? What if an assailant is trying to kill me, and I dont want him getting back up, he might be armed or just way bigger than me, or perhaps on drugs etc. I see what your saying, and I agree people use dubious amounts of force sometimes, but should I be punished for reacting too violently when someone else provoked the situation in the first place? Is the onus on me to show restraint and carefully cuddle an assailant into submission when he couldnt give a **** about me or my safety? Plenty of guys round my neighborhood who wouldnt give a second though to stomping on my head while im down, yet im expected to not use the same force in response?

In a perfect situation I would use only the exact amount of force required to stop an attack...but the reality is I am not going to go gently on a criminal just for his sake, someone my size cant afford to crank on a strength based arm lock and simply subdue a 6'6" drunken rugby player. Im going to punch him in the throat, consequences be damned, I read the papers and I know people get stomped to death in my city, that aint gunna be me...I got a wife to come home to.


----------



## dungeonworks (Aug 21, 2010)

Either way, at the end of the day, it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.


----------



## cwk (Aug 22, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> It depends.  What are the laws of the nation?  I'm going to assume there is some similarity in basic principles with US law, since US law comes from the Old Common Law, in significant part.  So, the next question is was his response reasonable and proportionate to the threat?  Did his actions constitute an attack under the law because he moved in on them after they had stopped fighting?
> 
> All we've got is your super-sketchy description and "where's the justice."  The details make all the difference.



It happened in England and all I can go on is what my mate told me and there's no reason why he would lie to me.
apparently, one of the blokes punched him in the head a couple of times and was lining up another one when my mate hit him,put on his backside and then kicked him in the face as he was getting back up to have another go. the other guy saw what happened to his friend  and lost his bottle (funny how that happens eh?).Anyway, the guy who got kicked had a few teeth missing and a pretty bad concussion.
yeah, maybe you could say he shouldn't have kicked him when he went down but come on, this is the real world. if I hit someone who's attacking me and they go down and then try to get back up, you can bet your **** I'll kick them in the head. A lot of the time in these situations, the adrenaline is pumping so hard because of fear/anger and everything happens so fast that there's no time to think about stuff like "am I only using reasonable force here?". I worked on the doors in the UK and I've seen the damage a group of yobs will do to someone just for fun and there's no way I want to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence. if it was me, I'd do whatever it took and use whatever level of force it took until I felt sure the assault was over and I was safe. I'd worry about the consequences later, as I expect would most people. In the UK anyway.
maybe it's different in the US


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 22, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> I actually lol'd at this.
> 
> In a perfect world, yes. But I ask you, whos definition of reasonable? Was the judge there that night in the alleyway? Did the cops see the situation, feel the anxiety and danger you did? Cops have pepper spray, tasers, batons (and backup) to protect them, youll find what they think is reasonable might just differ from yours.
> 
> ...


 

Ok first of all the police don't decide who goes to court and who doesn't, they don't make that judgement, the Crown Proscecution Service do. If you read the laws on self defence yes you will find that fear, circumstances etc are all to be taken into consideration which is why they don't get prosecuted in the first place. The police will always question everyone involved and take statements, often this is mistaken by laymen for being arrested or being blamed but it's not. No one has been taken to court for genuinely defending themselves however much damage they may have done to their attacker despite what you might read in the tabloids here.

You would be surprised by the amount of force that can actually be used here and no you aren't expected to lie down and take a beating at all. There's been various stories in the news recently of people hitting back at attackers, none have been arrrested for it nor have they got anything less than congratulations from the police though with the caveat for people to be careful when having a go.
My instructor spent some time in NZ among shall we say the less non violent people there and not once did he get arrested for anything he did to defend himself and he's quite a handy guy when it comes to self defence.

And I'm more than familiar with 6'6'' drunken rugby players here, come across them most nights. Ours are mostly Fijians who want a fight after a few too many pops of rum.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 22, 2010)

cwk said:


> It happened in England and all I can go on is what my mate told me and there's no reason why he would lie to me.
> apparently, one of the blokes punched him in the head a couple of times and was lining up another one when my mate hit him,put on his backside and then kicked him in the face as he was getting back up to have another go. the other guy saw what happened to his friend and lost his bottle (funny how that happens eh?).Anyway, the guy who got kicked had a few teeth missing and a pretty bad concussion.
> yeah, maybe you could say he shouldn't have kicked him when he went down but come on, this is the real world. if I hit someone who's attacking me and they go down and then try to get back up, you can bet your **** I'll kick them in the head. A lot of the time in these situations, the adrenaline is pumping so hard because of fear/anger and everything happens so fast that there's no time to think about stuff like "am I only using reasonable force here?". I worked on the doors in the UK and I've seen the damage a group of yobs will do to someone just for fun and there's no way I want to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence. if it was me, I'd do whatever it took and use whatever level of force it took until I felt sure the assault was over and I was safe. I'd worry about the consequences later, as I expect would most people. In the UK anyway.
> maybe it's different in the US


 

As you say you can only go on what he told you and the fact that his adrenaline was running high at the time what he thinks was the truth may well not have been. The guy on his backside may not have been getting back up at all, may in fact have been laid on the floor. The CPS is short of money and will not proscecute unless it has a water tight case with a lot of witness statements so I would suggest that things may not have been as described.

I'm well used to violent encounters and I'm well used to seeing people defend themselves and having no problems with it, rarely are doormen for example arrested for defending themselves even if they strike first which again is allowable under UK law. If you feel in danger of your life you may strike first and the police have no problem with that. Kicking someone on the ground however may be a problem if he wasn't getting up again. Kicking teeth in rarely causes severe concussion which I suggest may have been caused by the guy hitting his head on the ground when he went down the first time making it doubtful he was getting up as described making the kick in the teeth gratituious. Don't forget medical evidence would have been called. Defending yourself if one thing kicking a semi unconcious man on the ground in the face is another. Working out how fights happen and carry on gets easier after the first few hundred you've had to work on.


----------



## profesormental (Aug 22, 2010)

Greetings.

In the last month, 2 incidents of armed robbers that have boon shot by store owners have occurred. Up to now, no prosecution. Both are near my school.

So we train hard and train in a way that can be defended in court if needed.

In a fight, I wouldn't worry about looking "Chunny" and using the WC "guard". I start from stances that assume no aggression, yet are "guards".

I use the guard to dictate what targets are vulnerable and not covered so that if the attacker throws a strike, I know where it's going.

Funny stance = awareness of upcoming beating or getting laughed at.

I like non of those alternatives.

In a court, it can also mean intent to do harm, which would suck for me.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Rion (Aug 22, 2010)

My boss's neighbor's house got broken into the other week, these two guys climbed through the bedroom window masked and dragged him and his wife out of their bed, and started asking where the safe was.

Now my boss lives in a well to do street, with nice cars parked outside and you would be lead to believe that yes these sorts of homes must have safes in each and everyone of them but as my boss says, who has a safe now a days.

Anyway this guy was tied up and asked repeating where the safe was, as he didn't have one you can guess his answer. Not liking the sound of this, one of the attackers heated up his iron and placed it on his back, with third degree burns i can only hazard a guess at the look of surprise on these two goons face when told that, there was no safe.

Not believing what was being said, they must have heard this poor mans granddaughter in her room, dragging her they placed a knife to her face and asked the same question again.

Now i don't know what, scared them off but they left after that.

So when people say to me, only use reasonable force when met with aggression i cant take that advise to heart, mostly everyone on here is older than me and lot of you would say it's the ignorance of youth

but 

9 times out of ten faced in situation like i mention above am looking to hurt you as much as i can and I'll deal with the problems that follow afterwards whatever they may be.

That's just me.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 22, 2010)

cwk said:


> It happened in England and all I can go on is what my mate told me and there's no reason why he would lie to me.
> apparently, one of the blokes punched him in the head a couple of times and was lining up another one when my mate hit him,put on his backside and then kicked him in the face as he was getting back up to have another go. the other guy saw what happened to his friend  and lost his bottle (funny how that happens eh?).Anyway, the guy who got kicked had a few teeth missing and a pretty bad concussion.
> yeah, maybe you could say he shouldn't have kicked him when he went down but come on, this is the real world. if I hit someone who's attacking me and they go down and then try to get back up, you can bet your **** I'll kick them in the head. A lot of the time in these situations, the adrenaline is pumping so hard because of fear/anger and everything happens so fast that there's no time to think about stuff like "am I only using reasonable force here?". I worked on the doors in the UK and I've seen the damage a group of yobs will do to someone just for fun and there's no way I want to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence. if it was me, I'd do whatever it took and use whatever level of force it took until I felt sure the assault was over and I was safe. I'd worry about the consequences later, as I expect would most people. In the UK anyway.
> maybe it's different in the US


Why wouldn't you friend tell the truth?  I'll assume he did -- as he saw and remembered it.  People routinely present their version of something in a way that's most favorable to them.  What if something your friend did or said instigated the fight?  What if as the guy was "getting up to have another go" in your friend's version -- witnesses report that the guy was saying some form of "I give... just let me get out of here!"  Your friend may not have even heard him; look up auditory exclusion if you don't know why.

As to whether you're expected to assess the force you use as it goes -- you are.  You have that obligation, especially after seeking training in fighting.  In the US, you won't (normally- because each state is different and each judge can be a world unto themselves) be held to the same standard as a cop, but your response must be proportionate.  As a police officer, I'm expected to scale up or down my response as the subjects behavior changes...  As a trained martial artist, you also are expected to be able to change your reaction as the fight develops.  I'm confident, because I have several friends who are cops in England, that English law is not so different.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 22, 2010)

Y'know what -- and I'm guilty here, too! -- we're moving off topic.  I'll happily take the discussion of proportional response, home invasion robberies, etc. over to General Self Defense, and we can pull this thread back on-topic.


----------



## dungeonworks (Aug 22, 2010)

Sounds to me like English Law is similar to our Federal Law here in the USA.  The part where things in the USA get sketchy is the intangible of each State's Law.  Crime and punishment can really vary from state to state.


----------



## dungeonworks (Aug 22, 2010)

What were we talking about again???


----------



## matsu (Aug 22, 2010)

wing chun in a street fight lol.
remember the youtube clip???...... anyone??

so we are all amuch agreed that we adopt a posture/pose/guard/fence that deosnt look like we want to fight or are disinterested but one that can be quickly turned into our first counter or even attack if need be.

sifu always says we should  hold our hands in a nervous wave saying i dont want to fight you.... but the face is saying..."bring it on i,m ready"..
.. that has happened to me i was saying one thing but facially signalling a very different intention. the guy looked confused and then almost hesitant after about 30 secs and then gobbed off saying he knew i was scared and he would see me later!...as he strolled off looking good to his mates.

anyone else got tips on facing down aggressors so that we dont have to make that first strike or attempt a counter??
matsu


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 22, 2010)

Rion said:


> My boss's neighbor's house got broken into the other week, these two guys climbed through the bedroom window masked and dragged him and his wife out of their bed, and started asking where the safe was.
> 
> Now my boss lives in a well to do street, with nice cars parked outside and you would be lead to believe that yes these sorts of homes must have safes in each and everyone of them but as my boss says, who has a safe now a days.
> 
> ...


 

Don't assume reasonable force is minimum force or that it means going easy on an attacker, it doesn't mean that at all. The law was changed a long while back from minimum to reasonable to allow for all circumstances.

Sorry if this is off subject though its important it's understood what force you can use. If as in the above case the attackers were killed by the householder thats reasonable, if you KO someone thats reasonable, it's not reasonable to torture them before killing them or to KO someone then stamp on his head and body while he's out cold. Know your laws properly.


----------



## Rion (Aug 22, 2010)

I honestly hope that, anyone facing such matters would know when to stop, but i don't think anyone can honestly say how far someone would go to protect their loved ones.

Fear and anger clouds a lot of judgments.


----------



## mograph (Aug 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Sorry if this is off subject though its important it's understood what force you can use. If as in the above case the attackers were killed by the householder thats reasonable, if you KO someone thats reasonable, it's not reasonable to torture them before killing them or to KO someone then stamp on his head and body while he's out cold. Know your laws properly.


Anger is the key, isn't it? If we are seasoned martial artists who have learned to control our anger, then we're less likely to use more force than is necessary or reasonable. If, however, we haven't yet learned to control the anger, we're more likely to give the creep a few extra hits just for good measure. I'm not a seasoned martial artist yet ... but I know when my anger could escalate things in the early stages, so I've learned to keep my mouth shut in matters of potential road rage, for example. But if someone threatened my wife, and I were able to do something about it, I really don't know what would happen.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 22, 2010)

mograph said:


> Anger is the key, isn't it? If we are seasoned martial artists who have learned to control our anger, then we're less likely to use more force than is necessary or reasonable. If, however, we haven't yet learned to control the anger, we're more likely to give the creep a few extra hits just for good measure. I'm not a seasoned martial artist yet ... but I know when my anger could escalate things in the early stages, so I've learned to keep my mouth shut in matters of potential road rage, for example. But if someone threatened my wife, and I were able to do something about it, I really don't know what would happen.


 

The problem with anger too is not that you will do the other guy too much damage but that you will lose the fight and end up badly hurt yourself, there's where the control of martial arts is most useful. You would be of no use to your wife if you went off the deep end and you were the one being knocked out. learning to defend yourself properly involves being aware of danger, knowing your options etc. All things one can train for and most of all keeping a calm head in circumstances that would normally have you lashing out/losing it. We must train to lose that red mist, the by product would be the use of 'reasonable' force but the main purpose is to enable us to survive the encounter.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Aug 24, 2010)

Interesting topic. Ive had too many confrontations for my own good and not all of them ended happily, but the key to surviving was mainly just to keep the pressure on (rather than let the attacker regain his thoughts)

There is an argument for and against emotional content within fights. Some say fear keeps you alive and others have the 30 second blast rule (just go at the opponent with full on rage for 30 seconds etc). Others argue that if you figt with anger you lose focus and technical skill

I think it really comes down to the individual and what style they train. Wing chun requires the muscles to have a degree of relaxation which is hard to do if the individual is angry (anger usually means tension). Ive always thought of the forms as a good way of training that calmness (performing techniques without emotion etc)


----------



## BloodMoney (Aug 24, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ok first of all the police don't decide who goes to court and who doesn't, they don't make that judgement, the Crown Proscecution Service do. If you read the laws on self defence yes you will find that fear, circumstances etc are all to be taken into consideration which is why they *don't get prosecuted* in the first place. The police will *always* question everyone involved and take statements, often this is mistaken by laymen for being arrested or being blamed but it's not. *No one* has been taken to court for genuinely defending themselves however much damage they may have done to their attacker despite what you might read in the tabloids here.



*Always? no one?* I hear what your saying and I agree with a lot of it, but the reality is if you really think NO ONE has ever been taken to court for genuinely defending themselves then you live in an interesting fantasy world mate. Im not going to list of all the many stories I have to convince you, but I can assure you when it comes to the law and courts *always *and *no one *dont come into it. Individual police can distort facts or reports (they have a very big part to play in you being charged, despite you asserting they dont decide who goes to court, they decide who to arrest and therefore who goes to court) and individual judges can sentence people differently. I think you are generalizing far too much, either that or the UK is a magical land of justice for all where no one is ever unfairly prosecuted (in which case I would love to live there!).



Kamon Guy said:


> Interesting topic. Ive had too many confrontations for my own good and not all of them ended happily, but the key to surviving was mainly just to keep the pressure on (rather than let the attacker regain his thoughts)



Agreed 100% Thats kind of my point, that aggressively attacking in order to defend yourself (instead of controlling techniques, or just blocking and backing away etc) is frowned upon, or in some cases will get you arrested. The reason being is because Chun looks vicious (at least, it should if done right). Running at someone chain punching as fast as you can does not look like passive defense, and well to be honest it isnt. 

I nearly got in a whole lot of trouble for "keeping the pressure on". I had the cops searching for me after an incident at a party where about 6 guys accosted me. They threw the first punches, where clearly in gang mentality and outnumbered me 6 to 1, let alone the fact they had been causing trouble at the party all night. Eventually they caused trouble with the wrong person (me) and took swings, I put down Alpha Male and his sidekick quickly. Suddenly the police are called and chaos ensues. One of the thugs has a broken nose and is laid out on the ground, the other a few nice lumps on his face and is yelling etc, and I dont have a scratch so I must have been the bad guy and put the "cheap shots" in (to be fair I did use cheap tactics, chain punching  ). I got out of there fast. Then I get told by friends from the party that the cops were searching for me for ages and asking round my name etc, as I had "disturbed the peace". Some witnesses said I "violently attacked them" (I only chainpunched, no other move, and as soon as one was down I left him) and was "starting trouble" (they attacked me out of the blue and I tried verbally calming the situation, to no effect). Guess who those witnesses where? The friends of the two guys I put down. Despite my other friends explaining the situation (it was a racially motivated attack) the cops still were out for me, and continued for some time. Lucky I dont have faith in our system and didnt stick around otherwise I would have been arrested.

I could give a thousand other examples, including doormen being arrested on duty for defending the bar against multiple attackers, an instructor being jailed for knocking out a guy who attacked him randomly in the street with a hammer etc...


----------



## zepedawingchun (Aug 24, 2010)

I had a friend 20 years ago who was a blackbelt in Hapkido at the time.  He went to a party, was having a good time, drinking and enjoying himself.  While he was there, a guy who was drunk, started picking on him (my friend was 5'9" about 160 lbs. and the other guy was 6'1", 225 lbs. or so), pushing him around.  My friennd told him he needed to cut it out or he might get hurt.  But the guy kept pushing.  Finally, the big guy pushed him, threw a couple of punches at my friend.  Well, my friend blocked them all and returned just one punch to the guy, hit him in the face.  The big guy fell down like a rock, but hit his head on the corner of a very hard table. . . . cracked his head open and it killed the guy.  

My friend ended up going to prison for 7 years, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter.  No consideration of self defense what so ever.  The judge giving some ******** excuse, claimed because my friend was a trained martial artist, he should have been able to control the situation (his punch) so the big guy wouldn't have fallen and hit his head.

You have to be careful what you say, sometimes.  I think because my friend warned the guy first, then something ensued, that the police and the court thought my friend was determined to hurt the guy, sort of setting up the situation, and looking to get into a fight.  Which my friend was not.  He was a pretty happy go lucky guy up to that time.


----------



## BloodMoney (Aug 24, 2010)

zepedawingchun said:


> I had a friend 20 years ago who was a blackbelt in Hapkido at the time.  He went to a party, was having a good time, drinking and enjoying himself.  While he was there, a guy who was drunk, started picking on him (my friend was 5'9" about 160 lbs. and the other guy was 6'1", 225 lbs. or so), pushing him around.  My friennd told him he needed to cut it out or he might get hurt.  But the guy kept pushing.  Finally, the big guy pushed him, threw a couple of punches at my friend.  Well, my friend blocked them all and returned just one punch to the guy, hit him in the face.  The big guy fell down like a rock, but hit his head on the corner of a very hard table. . . . cracked his head open and it killed the guy.
> 
> My friend ended up going to prison for 7 years, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter.  No consideration of self defense what so ever.  The judge giving some ******** excuse, claimed because my friend was a trained martial artist, he should have been able to control the situation (his punch) so the big guy wouldn't have fallen and hit his head.
> 
> You have to be careful what you say, sometimes.  I think because my friend warned the guy first, then something ensued, that the police and the court thought my friend was determined to hurt the guy, sort of setting up the situation, and looking to get into a fight.  Which my friend was not.  He was a pretty happy go lucky guy up to that time.



Clearly this didnt happen in the UK, or the police would have praised him for his efforts and the judge would have level headedly seen the situation for what it was 

Seriously though, that is horrible, and just the kind of example I was trying to extrapolate on. How do you control just one punch? How do you know the guy you punch has a glass jaw? Was the onus on your friend to just calmly restrain the much larger aggressor, thereby risking his own life? This is exactly what I was talking about, a good example, if the word good can indeed be used in such a ******** situation.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> *Always? no one?* I hear what your saying and I agree with a lot of it, but the reality is if you really think NO ONE has ever been taken to court for genuinely defending themselves then you live in an interesting fantasy world mate. Im not going to list of all the many stories I have to convince you, but I can assure you when it comes to the law and courts *always *and *no one *dont come into it. Individual police can distort facts or reports (they have a very big part to play in you being charged, despite you asserting they dont decide who goes to court, they decide who to arrest and therefore who goes to court) and individual judges can sentence people differently. I think you are generalizing far too much, either that or the UK is a magical land of justice for all where no one is ever unfairly prosecuted (in which case I would love to live there!).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Firstly, I'm not 'mate'. Secondly, you are talking about a different country from mine, your experiences are different from what happens here mostly it would seem because of your seemingly more violent than normal lifestyle.. Please don't tell me either what my job is, the police don't have as much to say as you seem to think, and justice is often a case of how much money is available to proscecute. There's much more likilihood of criminals getting away with things than there is of people being done for defending themselves. Arresting someone doesn't mean they will be charged and taken to court, the CPS will decide that on what evidence there is not all of it police evidence either. It is actually frustrating to the police that known criminals and known offenders are not being taken to court. Self defence doesn't come up nearly as often as you imagine it does in fights etc.
Perhaps the rather violent lifestyle you seem to lead makes you somewhat biased. The police can only go on what's put in front of them, if they aren't witnesses themselves what else is there to go on.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 25, 2010)

Honestly if you defend yourself the chance of you getting prosecuted depends upon a few things.  Did you use an amount of force reasonable to the situation?  Was there an out other than force?  Prior acts on your part. If you are a known trouble maker you are gonna get charged quicker than someone with no record. What the prosecutor feels like doing.  Some prosecutors will charge someone at the drop of a hat trying to make a name for themselves.  Others are more realistic and more interested injustice.

I had an aquantance that shot a man dead as he opened up his front door.  The man had come to rob the place and as he pried the door open, my aquantance shot him.  No charges were filed.

I had another aquantance that worked as a bouncer in a local bar.  A patron got drunk and started causing trouble.  He pulled a knife on my bouncer friend and my bouncer friend hit him.  He knocked out a few of his teeth and broke his jaw.  Bouncer friend spent 18 months in jail for it.

I had to defend myself from an attack while waiting for the bus.  There was a witness who called 911 and an ambulance.  police got there very quick and I got to spend about 30 minutes in the back of a squad car.  The cops released me with an atta boy and questions about what I had trained in.

Bottom line is you never know, so commit violence as a last resort.  If you have to defend yourself then do what is neccesary and deal with whatever consequences come about.  I hate the phrase "Better to be judged by 10 than carried by 8," because it sounds cavalier towards violence, but it is true.  A good rule of thumb I tell guys I train is if its your ego that's gonna get bruised then walk away.  If you or someone close to you is gonna get bruised, then do what you gotta do.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Aug 25, 2010)

My input on this...

I live in the UK and know (for a fact - but  cant discuss how on an open forum) that even those who genuinely defend themselves will often be scrutinized. It is part of a police investigation to examine both sides and then take the evidence to the CPS for them to decide whether the case will go to court etc

Innocent people who are attacked and then defend themselves, resulting in the attackers getting injured will often be subject to scrutiny

Of course there is a difference between a person defending himself (controlling their attacker and knocking them out etc) and a person carrying it on so that the guy is left in a bloody heap on the floor

Its always hard to decide proportionality in confrontations. I have been approached many times in clubs by drunk guys and would be hardmen who want to try it on. Usually it is down to problems in their lives (girlfriend left them etc) and for that, I do feel some kind of pity. It is also that which would make it tragic if a martial artist took them apart. Sure, no one should be starting fights, no matter how bad their life is, but at the same time it would be horrible to think that the guy got hurt badly because of it

In comparison, if a guy came at me with a knife or gun and the only option was to end his life, then as someone else has said, it is better to survive and be judged by a court of his peers, than to be shot or stabbed

If someone takes a weapon onto the street, then my belief is that they have lost all rights to be dealt with as a human being


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 25, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> Clearly this didnt happen in the UK, or the police would have praised him for his efforts and the judge would have level headedly seen the situation for what it was
> 
> Seriously though, that is horrible, and just the kind of example I was trying to extrapolate on. How do you control just one punch? How do you know the guy you punch has a glass jaw? Was the onus on your friend to just calmly restrain the much larger aggressor, thereby risking his own life? This is exactly what I was talking about, a good example, if the word good can indeed be used in such a ******** situation.


You take your victim as you find them is the general rule.  It's your bad luck if you attack someone who's got a hidden vulnerability.  I don't really know all the details of the case presented, nor of the defense presented in court.  On the topic of defense in court -- my advice is always simple:  Hire the best attorney, experienced in that facet of the law, that you can beg or borrow enough money to afford when your life or your liberty are at risk.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 25, 2010)

Kamon Guy said:


> My input on this...
> 
> I live in the UK and know (for a fact - but  cant discuss how on an open forum) that even those who genuinely defend themselves will often be scrutinized. It is part of a police investigation to examine both sides and then take the evidence to the CPS for them to decide whether the case will go to court etc
> 
> ...


Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying I did something that would ordinarily be illegal -- but I was justified in committing an assault & battery (in this instance) because I was attacked first.

The police should investigate it and make sure that the proper person gets locked up.  It's their duty.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Aug 25, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying I did something that would ordinarily be illegal -- but I was justified in committing an assault & battery (in this instance) because I was attacked first.
> 
> The police should investigate it and make sure that the proper person gets locked up. It's their duty.


 
Not always so. The police would look at the degree of injury on both parties, especially if there are no witnesses 

If someone 'attacked' you and you ended up breaking their arm, you would probably end up getting arrested, especially if the other party wanted to press charges

What usually happens in these instances is that the aggressor does not want to procede in making statements etc, because they know that they would get into trouble as well

The law is not always cut and dry and I know of numerous instances where people have gotten into trouble because they defended themselves 'too much'!

Personally I feel that the defensive party should be given the benefit of the doubt most of the time, but there are occasions where it is hard to decide what exactly happened and who was to blame


----------



## wtxs (Aug 25, 2010)

Kamon Guy said:


> If someone takes a weapon onto the street, then my belief is that they have lost all rights to be dealt with as a human being



Such person has no regard for his own life or any body's, I will not assume as you all shouldn't, that he/she would not go pass the point of taking my life ( intentionally or not) in order to take what they want.
I will stand with others that chanted:soapbox: the cliche "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".:angry:


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2010)

Kamon Guy said:


> Not always so. The police would look at the degree of injury on both parties, especially if there are no witnesses
> 
> If someone 'attacked' you and you ended up breaking their arm, you would probably end up getting arrested, especially if the other party wanted to press charges
> 
> ...


 

It is very hard to tell who was defending themselves and who was attacking especially in street altercations. The police must investigate everyone involved, it's not fair if they don't. Here as well as I've said before being arrested isn't the same thing in every country, here it doesn't mean a huge lot as it does in the States, it may well go no further and you'll be de-arrested. People who are innocent often get very upset at being questioned by the police, I can see their point and do sympathise but there's a lot of people who will attack and say they were defending themselves and the other person attacked them. How do you sort that out if each person is blaming the other, there's no witnesses and drink is involved as it usually is in these cases. 

The law here states that if in fear of your life you may attack first and if that force is lethal and you can justify it there will be no charges, the police will of course investigate, you may be arrested as there is a death but the CPS has stated many times they will not take someone to court who is defending themselves in the true belief they are in danger. The police can't take sides whatever people may think, a thorough investigation has to take place. The media like to hype things up and politicians like to jump on the bandwagon so distortions and inaccuracies are reported and made much off. The case of the householder and his brothers who chased down and battered one of the thieves is a case in point. While having sympathy for someone who is the victim of a horrible and terrifying crime, it has to be be realised you can't take the law into your own hands in this way, what if they'd beaten an innocent man who was just passing instead? It's natural enough to want to belt the burglar but did it have to be three against one with cricket bats and iron bars in the street a long way from the home?

It's hard for people to be objective about self defence but they need to see it sometimes from a police officers view and see why investigating everyone is necessary. It's in all our interests that the first person to claim they attacked in self defence or were 'just defending themselves' isn't believed immediately without checking. It could be you they are accusing when you are innocent so its a good job the police look at everything they can.


----------



## Rion (Aug 26, 2010)

The bottom line is,the police,the judges,the witness they are all human and human beings make mistakes. So no matter how hard the system tries the right people will go down and the wrong people will walk free.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 26, 2010)

Rion said:


> The bottom line is,the police,the judges,the witness they are all human and human beings make mistakes. So no matter how hard the system tries the right people will go down and the wrong people will walk free.


 

I'm hoping you mean that the other way round? The wrong people go down and the guilty go free. We can only try to do our best to make sure we are prepared if attacked and that we also know the law, so many don't and assume it's what the media says it is, it rarely is. Know your rights, know your self defence and do your best, thats all anyone can do.


----------

