# Martial arts as defense on the streets



## Gweilo (Jul 19, 2019)

I have recently read that there are those who believe martial arts are ineffective in a street fight, myself,  I do not believe this to be the case, yes it depends on the individual, but every little helps I say, anyhow, found this interesting video on line, and thought I would share it with you, my particular favourite is the Muay Thai cop.


Martial arts in street fight - Martial arts - Self defense - fitness in Erbil Iraq | Facebook


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

Saying "martials arts are ineffective for ___" or "martial arts are great for ___" is a lot like saying "a toolbox of tools will be useful for ____ job" or "don't use any toolbox tools for ____". It really is too general a term to be useful for the discussion, IMO.

For many people, martial arts includes a wide range of systems and training approaches, which may or may not (depending who you ask) include modern Wushu, BJJ, boxing, Olympic TKD, bare-knuckle fight training, fencing, and tons more. Some of that has some pretty direct application in some defensive scenarios. Some doesn't. Most are somewhere between "all" and "none" being applicable.

What is trained, how it's trained, and how it's evaluated matters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

A side point - most of those videos don't appear to be self-defense. They look like consensual fights.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 19, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I have recently read that there are those who believe martial arts are ineffective in a street fight, myself,  I do not believe this to be the case, yes it depends on the individual, but every little helps I say, anyhow, found this interesting video on line, and thought I would share it with you, my particular favourite is the Muay Thai cop.
> 
> 
> Martial arts in street fight - Martial arts - Self defense - fitness in Erbil Iraq | Facebook



It's not that this art or that art or all arts are useless in a street fight.

It's that fight training and 'martial arts' training don't always have a ton of overlap.

I don't care WHAT style you do; if your training consists of doing forms or katas in the air and practicing on a compliant partner or no partner, you just aren't learning to fight.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> A side point - most of those videos don't appear to be self-defense. They look like consensual fights.



So if an aggressive bloke approaches me, wanting to fight, engaging him is no longer self defense, it becomes consensual?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> So if an aggressive bloke approaches me, wanting to fight, engaging him is no longer self defense, it becomes consensual?


That's not at all related to what I said.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> So if an aggressive bloke approaches me, wanting to fight, engaging him is no longer self defense, it becomes consensual?


there's an ongoing what is the definition if self defence debate on here, I go with the British law definition, finding yourself in a situation where you have honest belief that the other person means you harm or they are the one who is initiating the violence, even if you make no attempt to leave or calm it down. it then becomes very very difficult to split a consensual fight from an attack


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's not at all related to what I said.



I do not see how the security guard, doing his job was consensual, the other clips maybe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> there's an ongoing what is the definition if self defence debate on here, I go with the British law definition, finding yourself in a situation where you have honest belief that the other person means you harm or they are the one who is initiating the violence, even if you make no attempt to leave or calm it down. it then becomes very very difficult to split a consensual fight from an attack


Does British law not include anything about something being consensual, as an exclusion from the self-defense defense? In other words, you can do just as much to someone when you agree to fight them as you could if they jumped you, with identical legal protection?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I do not see how the security guard, doing his job was consensual, the other clips maybe.


I didn't say none of them were self-defense.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 19, 2019)

Given most TMA generally doesnt cover the skillset needed for self defence i disagree.     On a tradtional stance of all what you needing for self defence beaing a martial skill and martial arts meant to teach you that, i disagree.   But thats traditional usage. 

they generally dont cover the most important self defence skill:  you can run. 
I think Ramsey dewy put it as or at least self defence schools etc as (at least the bad ones) teaching you to meet violence with wimpy violence. 

Have to say my favorite self defence thing is the person who just runs from a knife.  

Edit:  fat RIP, i didnt fully read your post clearly.     Some styles work better than others though for diffrent things.



gpseymour said:


> In other words, you can do just as much to someone when you agree to fight them as you could if they jumped you, with identical legal protection?



I will have to look into which countries have Mutual combat in the U.K.     Its obviously not fully banned as we have prize fights.           Im pretty sure you cant claim self defence if you agreed to fight someone though, you could if they break the rules of the fight or continue after you withdrew your consent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

Rat said:


> I will have to look into which countries have Mutual combat in the U.K.     Its obviously not fully banned as we have prize fights.           Im pretty sure you cant claim self defence if you agreed to fight someone though, you could if they break the rules of the fight or continue after you withdrew your consent.


That's what I would expect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

Rat said:


> Have to say my favorite self defence thing is the person who just runs from a knife.


Which is great when it's a good option. I'd guess in most cases running away makes it not worth their while, if you can run with any pace. 

When I was 30, running was likely to fit a lot of scenarios. Today, I'd limit it to those situations where my above statement seems (to my quick judgment) to be applicable. If I think they're actually intent on doing harm, on bad days I wouldn't trust my knees to let me make that turn-and-dash without impairing the other guy first.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Does British law not include anything about something being consensual, as an exclusion from the self-defense defense? In other words, you can do just as much to someone when you agree to fight them as you could if they jumped you, with identical legal protection?


no British law includes injuries caused by concesensual activities as criminal injuries, for which you can be prosecuted, with the exception of some specifics in specific circumstances ,  boxing has a specific exemption, other ma are a bit open to interpretation, but proberbly coverd , at a club setting, hard sparing in the park between two private individual is very very iffy,therefore any actual fight consensual or not is likely to lead to a prosecution if anything other than superficial injuries are sustained and of course they found out


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Which is great when it's a good option. I'd guess in most cases running away makes it not worth their while, if you can run with any pace.
> 
> When I was 30, running was likely to fit a lot of scenarios. Today, I'd limit it to those situations where my above statement seems (to my quick judgment) to be applicable. If I think they're actually intent on doing harm, on bad days I wouldn't trust my knees to let me make that turn-and-dash without impairing the other guy first.



Body armour is a decent middle as it reduced the risk for getting  incapacitating hit if you get ambushed, but you generally should look at avoidance for weapons first especially if you arent armed or armoured, in contrast to people who get those disarms taught to them that gives them a false confidence its good counter advice/reality based advice to have their mind based into what would happen.  

I suppose it also depends on if you live in a stand your ground state as well if you could deploy a pistol in the U.S for it and how its worded.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> no British law includes injuries caused by concesensual activities as criminal injuries, for which you can be prosecuted, with the exception of some specifics in specific circumstances ,  boxing has a specific exemption, other ma are a bit open to interpretation, but proberbly coverd , at a club setting, hard sparing in the park between two private individual is very very iffy,therefore any actual fight consensual or not is likely to lead to a prosecution if anything other than superficial injuries are sustained and of course they found out


Okay, by that description, it should be fairly easy to draw the line between consensual fighting and self-defense. Did I mis-read your earlier post - I thought you were saying you followed the British law model of not distinguishing between them?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

Rat said:


> Body armour is a decent middle as it reduced the risk for getting  incapacitating hit if you get ambushed, but you generally should look at avoidance for weapons first especially if you arent armed or armoured, in contrast to people who get those disarms taught to them that gives them a false confidence its good counter advice/reality based advice to have their mind based into what would happen.
> 
> I suppose it also depends on if you live in a stand your ground state as well if you could deploy a pistol in the U.S for it and how its worded.


None of that has much relevance to the idea of running. Availability and legality of armor and weapons is another area of discussion, entirely.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, by that description, it should be fairly easy to draw the line between consensual fighting and self-defense. Did I mis-read your earlier post - I thought you were saying you followed the British law model of not distinguishing between them?


No it's anything but easy, which was the point I was making , SD is at any point you believe your at risk, you don't need to wait to be attacked If by his words actions or movements you feel threatened then you can punch him  , as most fights included some sort of threats , posturing  in the build up, then the differenance between an agreed fight and SD is very difficult to determine ,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> No it's anything but easy, which was the point I was making , SD is at any point you believe your at risk, you don't need to wait to be attacked If by his words actions or movements you feel threatened then you can punch him  , as most fights included some sort of threats , posturing  in the build up, then the differenance between an agreed fight and SD is very difficult to determine ,


Legally, there is a distinction in many jurisdictions. If you agree to the conflict, there has to be pretty serious escalation for a self-defense claim to be considered valid. In discussion, the distinction is pretty easy in a non-legal discussion at a high level, but harder in some cases. It comes down to this: If you agreed to fight someone when it would have been reasonably easy to NOT do that (in other words, they don't force the point by attacking against your will), then it's not self-defense.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Does British law not include anything about something being consensual, as an exclusion from the self-defense defense? In other words, you can do just as much to someone when you agree to fight them as you could if they jumped you, with identical legal protection?



Nope, here it is either self defense, assault, or public disorder.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2019)

Rat said:


> they generally dont cover the most important self defence skill: you can run.



Well.....running isnt self defense....its retreat.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 19, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Well.....running isnt self defense....its retreat.



Survive, run, avoid, control, evade and if necessary destroy, it's all about surviving,


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 19, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> So if an aggressive bloke approaches me, wanting to fight, engaging him is no longer self defense, it becomes consensual?


That depends on whether he gives you a choice or not.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> A side point - most of those videos don't appear to be self-defense. They look like consensual fights.



Because self defense is a meaningless word.

Weasel words are still the best description.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 19, 2019)

RTKDCMB said:


> That depends on whether he gives you a choice or not.



In a situation where they are very aggressive, you can tell by their body language, if they all mouth,  or if they are a threat,
Are they breathing heavy, are they full of adrenaline, shouting and screaming, probably all mouth, calm breathing and not agetated  beware.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 19, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Well.....running isnt self defense....its retreat.



It is action taken to defend your persons.  So self defence fits, going back to there isn't a definitive definition for self defence.


----------



## Buka (Jul 19, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Well.....running isnt self defense....its retreat.



Unless your chasing someone, then it's the pursuit part of The Hunt. 

But it's also a pain in the backside.....not to mention the knees and other parts of the body. I have no desire to fight anybody, had enough of that. But I tell ya, when you age, your perspective changes, because I HATE running now. 

If you force me into a running situation - Caveat Emptor, kid, you asked for it.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Legally, there is a distinction in many jurisdictions. If you agree to the conflict, there has to be pretty serious escalation for a self-defense claim to be considered valid. In discussion, the distinction is pretty easy in a non-legal discussion at a high level, but harder in some cases. It comes down to this: If you agreed to fight someone when it would have been reasonably easy to NOT do that (in other words, they don't force the point by attacking against your will), then it's not self-defense.


who agrees to a fight,, ? generally after some sort of run in,someones says il punch your lights out, the other says, try it, so he does, and a fight happens, where was the agreement ?,
uk laws doesn't require you to back down or try and leave if your being threatened, running twenty yard to get at him might take some explaining


----------



## Gaucho (Jul 19, 2019)

Karate was huge by the late 1970s.  Various serious MA had been used by military forces for a long time (100 years?), but karate and the MA thing was a big trendy flash in North America.  I recall an interview in some MA magazine, with a serving British military officer of a high enough rank to be interviewed for publication, and with some knowledge of the subject being queried.   There had been a decade of high profile martial arts stuff going on said the interviewer; what was the British Army and their various specialist forces doing now in the way of training for unarmed combat?

The officer replied: "We have some of the best people in the world in that sort of thing, and we have done a fair bit of experimentation and study, and eventually we came back to military combat jiu-jitsu." 

Mind you, "military combat jiu-jitsu" is usually meant not to "beat someone up," but to kill your opponent if possible or render him useless, unless a live capture is required, in which case they no doubt send in their top guys.  Street fights aren't usually meant to kill, but jiu-jitsu can be modified so that the opponent does not die when hitting the pavement at high speed.

One thing about jiu-jitsu is that it is a "complete" SD system, so that you may specialize in the take-down, grappling, striking, or any other part of it if you wish.  Mind you, the same can be said of a number of other Oriental martial arts.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2019)

Rat said:


> It is action taken to defend your persons.  So self defence fits, going back to there isn't a definitive definition for self defence.



Disagree.  Running away is simply running away.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Nope, here it is either self defense, assault, or public disorder.


So, if two people decide to step outside and fight, which is it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Because self defense is a meaningless word.
> 
> Weasel words are still the best description.


Not really. It's pretty descriptive. Just because you don't like some things some people say when talking about it, that doesn't invalidate the entire term.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> who agrees to a fight,, ? generally after some sort of run in,someones says il punch your lights out, the other says, try it, so he does, and a fight happens, where was the agreement ?,
> uk laws doesn't require you to back down or try and leave if your being threatened, running twenty yard to get at him might take some explaining


There's a fair amount of people deciding to "take it outside". Those clips included significant audiences that were cheering the combatants along.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, if two people decide to step outside and fight, which is it?


quite possibly all three of those


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

T


Gaucho said:


> Karate was huge by the late 1970s.  Various serious MA had been used by military forces for a long time (100 years?), but karate and the MA thing was a big trendy flash in North America.  I recall an interview in some MA magazine, with a serving British military officer of a high enough rank to be interviewed for publication, and with some knowledge of the subject being queried.   There had been a decade of high profile martial arts stuff going on said the interviewer; what was the British Army and their various specialist forces doing now in the way of training for unarmed combat?
> 
> The officer replied: "We have some of the best people in the world in that sort of thing, and we have done a fair bit of experimentation and study, and eventually we came back to military combat jiu-jitsu."
> 
> ...


The term "jiu-jitsu" (and the variants) is pretty vague. It's not really a single art, but a classification of arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree.  Running away is simply running away.


If we use a definition of "defending yourself from harm against a physical attack", running counts. It's right on the margin even for that definition, but it is a way of avoiding that harm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> quite possibly all three of those


How does it become self-defense in that situation? I mean, without someone escalating by bringing a weapon, etc.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> There's a fair amount of people deciding to "take it outside". Those clips included significant audiences that were cheering the combatants along.


what have they taken outside ? , their argument !,agreeing to go out for an arguments isn't the same as an agreement to fight, and people arguing seem unlikely to reach an agreement on a fight, how do they seal their agreement  with a hand shake! .I fail to see what bystanders have to do with it ? nor any evidence any of those people were inside in the recent past.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> How does it become self-defense in that situation? I mean, without someone escalating by bringing a weapon, etc.


as explained, as soon as one is in fear of his safety, an assault has occurred on him by the other one, then he can defend himself, then the police turn up and charge one or both with section 5 publicorders act


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If we use a definition of "defending yourself from harm against a physical attack", running counts. It's right on the margin even for that definition, but it is a way of avoiding that harm.



Meh....just call it what it is....running away....avoiding an attack.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, if two people decide to step outside and fight, which is it?


Public disorder, unless one of them get stupid.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> There's a fair amount of people deciding to "take it outside". Those clips included significant audiences that were cheering the combatants along.



So self defense doesn't include an audience?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> what have they taken outside ? , their argument !,agreeing to go out for an arguments isn't the same as an agreement to fight, and people arguing seem unlikely to reach an agreement on a fight, how do they seal their agreement  with a hand shake! .I fail to see what bystanders have to do with it ? nor any evidence any of those people were inside in the recent past.


Okay, you're nitpicking words, rather than following the discussion. I was hoping for some actual information.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Public disorder, unless one of them get stupid.


Thanks. I thought that might be the case, but wanted to get clarity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Meh....just call it what it is....running away....avoiding an attack.


It is running away. And it's something that can be done in a self-defense situation. I'm not sure there's a way to divide it wholly from self-defense. In some situations, it's the best choice while defending - get some space and time, and get out. It doesn't always happen before there's an attack - may be escape, rather than avoidance.

Not much sense in nitpicking it one way or the other. It's a tool that may or may not apply in a given situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So self defense doesn't include an audience?


It can, but it's going to be less common that a crowd gathers and cheers on two people when one of them is trying to avoid the fight and get away. Except in school - happened a fair amount back in school.

That's why I said it appeared many of those weren't self-defense situations. We don't really know the context, but what we can see there looks a lot like a couple of guys decided to square off and fight.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It can, but it's going to be less common that a crowd gathers and cheers on two people when one of them is trying to avoid the fight and get away. Except in school - happened a fair amount back in school.
> 
> That's why I said it appeared many of those weren't self-defense situations. We don't really know the context, but what we can see there looks a lot like a couple of guys decided to square off and fight.



And a square off fight isn't self defense?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, if two people decide to step outside and fight, which is it?



If you are using legal terminology then running away and deescalation isn't self defense because there has been  no assult.


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, you're nitpicking words, rather than following the discussion. I was hoping for some actual information.


no Im. not, if we are( and we are) talking about the legal concept if sd then we also need to consider the legal concept of " agreement" as that will be what used in any court case


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> And a square off fight isn't self defense?


It is if you're forced into it. It isn't if you decide you'd like to have a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> If you are using legal terminology then running away and deescalation isn't self defense because there has been  no assult.


Agreed, because legal terminology (the "self-defense" defense) only deals with actions that would otherwise be illegal. I don't normally stick to just the legal definition, for that reason.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> no Im. not, if we are( and we are) talking about the legal concept if sd then we also need to consider the legal concept of " agreement" as that will be what used in any court case


No, you're really just trying to find something to argue about. I asked for clarification of something you said earlier, and now you're trying to argue about really vague points.


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No, you're really just trying to find something to argue about. I asked for clarification of something you said earlier, and now you're trying to argue about really vague points.


no you were taking issues( arguing) with what is said, by introducing the concept of agreement,  if you can't adequately define agreement in the context of a legal discussion it's your point which is both " vague" and  irrelevanand

so a direct question on your point,  how in this scenario your painting of two persons " agreeing to go outside, has " agreement "been communicated and accepted by both parties, in essence how was the verbal contract to fight made !


----------



## Bruce7 (Jul 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> no you were taking issues( arguing) with what is said, by introducing the concept of agreement,  if you can't adequately define agreement in the context of a legal discussion it's your point which is both " vague" and  irrelevanand
> 
> so a direct question on your point,  how in this scenario your painting of two persons " agreeing to go outside, has " agreement "been communicated and accepted by both parties, in essence how was the verbal contract to fight made !



While I find the idea of discussing contact law as it would relate to fighting interesting me.
A law forum would be a better place for discussion.


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> While I find the idea of discussing contact law as it would relate to fighting interesting me.
> A law forum would be a better place for discussion.


Why ? We are diiscussing the law of self defence ,  which that then is  important part


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, you're nitpicking words, rather than following the discussion. I was hoping for some actual information.


You just basically summed up all of jobos posts right there


----------



## Bruce7 (Jul 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> Why ? We are diiscussing the law of self defence ,  which that then is  important part


I agree with you, but this a complicated subject to which one judge might rule one way and different judge might rule another way.
There is criminal law against fighting and you have contact civil law that might allow a verbal contact to say there is no assault.
Example: fighting in the ring is not assault based on contact law. Apply that to a verbal contract would very tricke.
I don't think there is president for that.
There is no clear cut answer.


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2019)

Rat said:


> Given most TMA generally doesnt cover the skillset needed for self defence i disagree.     On a tradtional stance of all what you needing for self defence beaing a martial skill and martial arts meant to teach you that, i disagree.   But thats traditional usage.
> 
> they generally dont cover the most important self defence skill:  you can run.
> I think Ramsey dewy put it as or at least self defence schools etc as (at least the bad ones) teaching you to meet violence with wimpy violence.
> ...





Rat said:


> Given most TMA generally doesnt cover the skillset needed for self defence i disagree.     On a tradtional stance of all what you needing for self defence beaing a martial skill and martial arts meant to teach you that, i disagree.   But thats traditional usage.
> 
> they generally dont cover the most important self defence skill:  you can run.
> I think Ramsey dewy put it as or at least self defence schools etc as (at least the bad ones) teaching you to meet violence with wimpy violence.
> ...


Prize fighting us specifically banned in the UK , there's a legal difference between fighting for payment and prize fighting


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> no you were taking issues( arguing) with what is said, by introducing the concept of agreement,  if you can't adequately define agreement in the context of a legal discussion it's your point which is both " vague" and  irrelevanand
> 
> so a direct question on your point,  how in this scenario your painting of two persons " agreeing to go outside, has " agreement "been communicated and accepted by both parties, in essence how was the verbal contract to fight made !


Go back and re-read my posts. I was asking questions, because what you said didn't match what I'd assumed the case was. Your responses seemed to imply something and I asked another question. You decided it was time for an argument.

EDIT: To your question. Dunno. Two guys decide to have a fight. Doesn't matter for the point how they did it. Could be a handshake. Could be a challenge accepted. Could be a dare. Could be a signed contract written on a table napkin. Doesn't much matter for the point of the question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> Prize fighting us specifically banned in the UK , there's a legal difference between fighting for payment and prize fighting


Interesting - I don't know if there's a legal difference in the US, but professional fighters are often referred to as "prize fighters". What's the difference in the UK?


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Go back and re-read my posts. I was asking questions, because what you said didn't match what I'd assumed the case was. Your responses seemed to imply something and I asked another question. You decided it was time for an argument.
> 
> EDIT: To your question. Dunno. Two guys decide to have a fight. Doesn't matter for the point how they did it. Could be a handshake. Could be a challenge accepted. Could be a dare. Could be a signed contract written on a table napkin. Doesn't much matter for the point of the question.


It . Matters very much if you going to make a legal point that it isn't self defence , there has to be a very specific form of words , so that both can be said to have agreed,  and then having gone out side to " fight" either  can change his mind , then that agreement is null and void and self defence can apply again


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, because legal terminology (the "self-defense" defense) only deals with actions that would otherwise be illegal. I don't normally stick to just the legal definition, for that reason.



self defense legally, is a defense against an assault charge.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It is if you're forced into it. It isn't if you decide you'd like to have a fight.



How come?

You are still defending yourself. He is still attacking you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 21, 2019)

jobo said:


> It . Matters very much if you going to make a legal point that it isn't self defence , there has to be a very specific form of words , so that both can be said to have agreed,  and then having gone out side to " fight" either  can change his mind , then that agreement is null and void and self defence can apply again


For my question, it doesn't matter. The law will have a definition (probably through case law) of what constitutes "consent". I don't get to define that. That's why I said, "Dunno." I'm guessing by your stalling that you don't, either, and that you really didn't know what you were talking about in the post that started this nonsense. I think this has run its course.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> How come?
> 
> You are still defending yourself. He is still attacking you.


By that definition, any time two people fight, it's self-defense. Not my definition.


----------



## jobo (Jul 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> For my question, it doesn't matter. The law will have a definition (probably through case law) of what constitutes "consent". I don't get to define that. That's why I said, "Dunno." I'm guessing by your stalling that you don't, either, and that you really didn't know what you were talking about in the post that started this nonsense. I think this has run its course.


i see youve changed the word under consideration ( again) consent andagreement are not interchangeable words, but the legal definition of consent is pretty much established in most countries as being " informed" consent, that is you clearly know what you are consenting to and that's its consent with free will and that you can with drW that consent at any time.

if someones says, letsstep outside and settle this argument man to man, its far from clear you have consented to a fight,
if they say  come outside and I'm punch your lights out, you clearly haven't given them consent to knock you out, it's not clear at all if you have given them consent to try and knock you out, all you've done it go outside, there's no  agreement to fight.

if they are very very clear about their intent and you verbally agree to fight them and go outside, then you can say after the first punch, I with draw my consent, then if it carries on, you are now defending them self's against an attack for which there is no consent.

just as in an actual fight by consent in a licienced boxing ring, either party can quit when ever they want, if the other party continues there is no consent and what they are doing is assault, for which self defence is available to you


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> A side point - most of those videos don't appear to be self-defense. They look like consensual fights.



So this is by your personal definition of self defense. Not any sort of consensus.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So this is by your personal definition of self defense. Not any sort of consensus.


We've talked about this before - there are a several generally accepted definitions that get used. I try to specify what my definition is to keep down misunderstandings. Nothing particularly special about mine - that's why I said including consensual fighting didn't fit my definition (rather than saying it's wrong, because there are others who'd probably include it in their definition, for just the reason you pointed out). It doesn't make much sense to me as a concept if we include consensual fighting, but I'm not the arbiter of "right".


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> And a square off fight isn't self defense?


So not commenting on the legal definition or anything like that. But ive got a group of friends who engage (or used to engage) in a technically illegal boxing tournament, where they basically meet up in a parking lot, fight whoever their designated to fight that day, go to the hospital if needed, and at the end of the day go home till next time. Its a square off fight, not sanctioned by anyone, entirely voluntary. None of them would consider it self defense (again, ive no idea if legally it would be considered self defense or assault if any of them were ever arrested)


----------



## Buka (Jul 21, 2019)

It’s probably best to remember that things having to do with law vary from state to state, from country to country etc.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> We've talked about this before - there are a several generally accepted definitions that get used. I try to specify what my definition is to keep down misunderstandings. Nothing particularly special about mine - that's why I said including consensual fighting didn't fit my definition (rather than saying it's wrong, because there are others who'd probably include it in their definition, for just the reason you pointed out). It doesn't make much sense to me as a concept if we include consensual fighting, but I'm not the arbiter of "right".



Yeah. You didn't clarify in that post it was a personal definition of self defense. Which has what got everyone trying to work out what the consensus was.

Of course there isn't one. Which is why I describe it as a weasel word.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> So not commenting on the legal definition or anything like that. But ive got a group of friends who engage (or used to engage) in a technically illegal boxing tournament, where they basically meet up in a parking lot, fight whoever their designated to fight that day, go to the hospital if needed, and at the end of the day go home till next time. Its a square off fight, not sanctioned by anyone, entirely voluntary. None of them would consider it self defense (again, ive no idea if legally it would be considered self defense or assault if any of them were ever arrested)



So on the street with no rules and no ref and someone attacking you isn't considered self defense.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So on the street with no rules and no ref and someone attacking you isn't considered self defense.


There was technically a ref. Someone decided who won and who lost. But either way, both people agreed to attack each other. So while they're technically defending themselves, their also technically assaulting someone at the same time.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> There was technically a ref. Someone decided who won and who lost. But either way, both people agreed to attack each other. So while they're technically defending themselves, their also technically assaulting someone at the same time.



Well yeah. Technically they are both engaging in self defense.

But otherwise yeah everyone is going to have their own definition. And that in itself changes the definition of self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. You didn't clarify in that post it was a personal definition of self defense. Which has what got everyone trying to work out what the consensus was.
> 
> Of course there isn't one. Which is why I describe it as a weasel word.


You use that as a baiting term. That's far beneath you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So on the street with no rules and no ref and someone attacking you isn't considered self defense.


That seems a stretch of his description - and seems purposely worded to lead the discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Well yeah. Technically they are both engaging in self defense.
> 
> But otherwise yeah everyone is going to have their own definition. And that in itself changes the definition of self defense.


There are a handful of commonly used definitions. I don't think I've ever heard anyone include consensual fights (like boxing matches, whether sanctioned or not) in the self-defense concept. In your past statements, you quite clearly haven't. So what's your purpose in pushing hard for the inclusion now...or is it just you trying to get an argument out of the person who said it wasn't included??


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> There are a handful of commonly used definitions. I don't think I've ever heard anyone include consensual fights (like boxing matches, whether sanctioned or not) in the self-defense concept. In your past statements, you quite clearly haven't. So what's your purpose in pushing hard for the inclusion now...or is it just you trying to get an argument out of the person who said it wasn't included??



I have a few time included unsanctioned boxing matches as self defense.

And there are not a handful of commonly used definitions. There is no consensus on what the definition is.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That seems a stretch of his description - and seems purposely worded to lead the discussion.



It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You use that as a baiting term. That's far beneath you.



This is what the term means.

"*Weasel words*" are a colloquial term for *words* or phrases used to avoid being forthright. *Weasel words* are used when the speaker wants to make it seem like they've given a clear answer to a question or made a direct statement, when actually they've said something inconclusive or vague."

So you can make a statement like. "most of those videos don't appear to be self-defense. They look like consensual fights." and it sounds definitive.

But you are not using the dictionary description. You are not using the legal definition. You are using your personal definition or a handful of commonly used definitions.(which is meaningless in itself)

And so a  term seems definitive it is really meaningless.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> This is what the term means.
> 
> "*Weasel words*" are a colloquial term for *words* or phrases used to avoid being forthright. *Weasel words* are used when the speaker wants to make it seem like they've given a clear answer to a question or made a direct statement, when actually they've said something inconclusive or vague."
> 
> ...


Yeah, I know what "weasel word" means. And you're using it to bait. Because most folks use it NOT to avoid being forthright, but because the term works well for most folks having reasonable discussion with the intent of understanding each other, rather than the intent of baiting a discussion.

It doesn't work for you, because you like that it doesn't work for you.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, I know what "weasel word" means. And you're using it to bait. Because most folks use it NOT to avoid being forthright, but because the term works well for most folks having reasonable discussion with the intent of understanding each other, rather than the intent of baiting a discussion.
> 
> It doesn't work for you, because you like that it doesn't work for you.



You went from a pretty simple statement that didn't have your opinion attached to it.

 To of course saying that is not what you said. Or that is not what you meant or a common definition is.

I mean what works well for most folks?

Has anyone defined self defense yet?

This discussion goes precisely how weasel words work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You went from a pretty simple statement that didn't have your opinion attached to it.
> 
> To of course saying that is not what you said. Or that is not what you meant or a common definition is.
> 
> ...


You make the claim that people use it to avoid being honest. Yet many people have reasonable discussions about the concept/topic without such obvious baiting and acrimony. When they disagree about the definition, they either agree on a definition for the discussion or debate the reasons for their definition. I've never seen anyone use it to avoid honesty or purposely to confuse people. The differences in definitions are mostly nuance, so in most discussions what is/is not part of the definition is of minor significance.

You like to make it a big deal and act like nobody knows what the concept is, simply because there's variation in the detail of the definition. But most people - yes, including you, though you won't admit it - know quite well what the concept is, and the only argument is about some of the edges of the topic.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You make the claim that people use it to avoid being honest. Yet many people have reasonable discussions about the concept/topic without such obvious baiting and acrimony. When they disagree about the definition, they either agree on a definition for the discussion or debate the reasons for their definition. I've never seen anyone use it to avoid honesty or purposely to confuse people. The differences in definitions are mostly nuance, so in most discussions what is/is not part of the definition is of minor significance.
> 
> You like to make it a big deal and act like nobody knows what the concept is, simply because there's variation in the detail of the definition. But most people - yes, including you, though you won't admit it - know quite well what the concept is, and the only argument is about some of the edges of the topic.



I haven't seen this discussion where everyone agrees on your terms. Can you present that for me please.

(Or where you agree to theirs)

It seems that your definition is not based on anything. That's fine but it still doesn't make a consensus or a reasonable discussion about the topic.

It also means that regardless of your personal beliefs. Everyone's definition is valid.

Like discussing the meaning of happiness.

I have seen people use it to avoid honesty and purposely confuse person.

For example someone shows a video of a street fight as evidence of self defense and someone else claims that the evidence isn't really self defense.

Which is how you started this piece.

Otherwise. Here is Ian Abernathy using the vague definition of self defense to create a point that is pretty stupid.






And this is designed so that someone who may not be a top tier fighter is able to stay relevant in the market.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I haven't seen this discussion where everyone agrees on your terms. Can you present that for me please.
> 
> (Or where you agree to theirs)
> 
> ...


Okay, so let me be blunt. You use self-defense as a weasel word. By that I mean you use it - intentionally - do derail discussions. Other people have reasonable discussions and debates around it, then you show up with your own agenda and hard bias and purposely derail those discussions. You appear to have no intention of actually getting somewhere useful with your hyperbole, because you don't suggest a different method of communication. You just stand on the side saying, "doesn't mean that, has no meaning, you can't use that word honestly."

If you don't like the word, don't use it. Don't want others to use it, suggest a better better one. But I don't think you'll have much luck, since most folks seem to have little trouble having reasonable discussions using the common term.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

That was a long discussion, @ gpseymour would you consider the fact, that if I was in a consensual fight, I am no longer using self defense?
I think you were correct (I think it was you, but it was some time back in the thread) that jobo's quote on a verbal contract would not stand as a judge could not accept that a contract could be binding if it was perceived to be in connection with illegality,  but does a consensual fight mean those involved waiver their right to a legal defense of self defense?


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> That was a long discussion, @ gpseymour would you consider the fact, that if I was in a consensual fight, I am no longer using self defense?
> I think you were correct (I think it was you, but it was some time back in the thread) that jobo's quote on a verbal contract would not stand as a judge could not accept that a contract could be binding if it was perceived to be in connection with illegality,  but does a consensual fight mean those involved waiver their right to a legal defense of self defense?


the problem with this is there aren't many consensual fights, its tends that one is a lot keener on fighting than the other and he is just standing his ground/ declining to back down rather than consenting

so a simple scenario for consideration. ( based on a real event)  I'm walking down the canal and some seriously big bozo onbig mountain bike rides straight at me, I don' mov ,  he swerves at the last second skids to a haltit the side of me, I call him a stupid ****, he threats to punch me, i say try it mate and see what happens, he goes to dismount and, I hit him in the face with t?he contents of a fairly full fairly hot large costa full cream latte, and then knock hm of the bike, he gets back on and calls me names as he cycles off.

did I consent to that " fight" or was I defending myself ? I could have moved out of his way, I could have apologised for inconvieniancing him, I could have retreated  or just walked on, I could have waited to find out if he actually intended to punch me or was just trying to use his size to intimidated me


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> the problem with this is there aren't many consensual fights, its tends that one is a lot keener on fighting than the other and he is just standing his ground/ declining to back down rather than consenting
> 
> so a simple scenario for consideration. ( based on a real event)  I'm walking down the canal and some seriously big bozo onbig mountain bike rides straight at me, I don' mov ,  he swerves at the last second skids to a haltit the side of me, I call him a stupid ****, he threats to punch me, i say try it mate and see what happens, he goes to dismount and, I hit him in the face with t?he contents of a fairly full fairly hot large costa full cream latte, and then knock hm of the bike, he gets back on and calls me names as he cycles off.
> 
> did I consent to that " fight" or was I defending myself ? I could have moved out of his way, I could have apologised for inconvieniancing him, I could have retreated  or just walked on, I could have waited to find out if he actually intended to punch me or was just trying to use his size to intimidated me



If you ask me, in my opinion you was the agressor,  you initiated the fight, you struck first, in a court of law, you should be charged with assault. This has nothing to do with self defense.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

Just to clarify, you took none of the steps in self defense, no avoidance or evasion, you went straight to destryour,  there was no control.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> If you ask me, in my opinion you was the agressor,  you initiated the fight, you struck first, in a court of law, you should be charged with assault. This has nothing to do with self defense.


well no, that's not uk law, an assault has taken place when the other person has put you in fear of your safety, first by ridding at me, then by threaning violence, once that assault has occurred your allowed to defend yourself by striking first, there no requirement to mitigate or retreat or gve them first punch, those are issues to be considered by the court, but as long as they believe that you believed your safety was at risk then your fine


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

In your own words he swerved at the last minute, saying that in court I believe would put the blame squarely on you, you made no attempt to avoid, in fact you instigated it with your stupid **** quote, I can only hope you are not an instructor, especially children.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> In your own words he swerved at the last minute, saying that in court I believe would put the blame squarely on you, you made no attempt to avoid, in fact you instigated it with your stupid **** quote, I can only hope you are not an instructor, especially children.



no try reading, I said last second. that a heart beat away from being crashed into.

as I've said there is no legal requirement to avoid a confrontation, no requirement to back down or retreat, and if they are being a stupid **** your allowed to tell them so

I have passed my wisdom on to children being bullied, which is smack them in the nose very hard / before they hit you,  and if possible reduce them to a bloodymess before someone breaks it up. which is a very sensible thing to do


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> In your own words he swerved at the last minute, saying that in court I believe would put the blame squarely on you, you made no attempt to avoid, in fact you instigated it with your stupid **** quote, I can only hope you are not an instructor, especially children.


1i was stood out side the trafford centre with my "nephew " (and his dad,) id taken hm under my wing when he was 9 and being seriously bullied at school, he was 17 at this points and some guy walking past made a nasty comment about us smoking near the doorway, before I could speak he said, "talk to me like that you stupid fat bald **** and I'm slap you., " which is right out of my play book .he dad turned , smiled at me and said " your work here is done"


----------



## Nuuli (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> So if an aggressive bloke approaches me, wanting to fight, engaging him is no longer self defense, it becomes consensual?


It can be depending on the circumstances. Let's say... Some obnoxious bloke insults you and challenges you to a fight. You in turn respond, assume a fighting stance and engage. That could be considered mutual consent. Same situation, bloke insults you, challenges you to a fight, but you keep walking. He continues and attacks, you react with your m.a. skills and overcome him. Second situation you defended yourself. This is over simplified. Fights can and are often considered consensual depending on the circumstances leading up to the event.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> I have passed my wisdom on to children being bullied, which is smack them in the nose very hard / before they hit you, and if possible reduce them to a bloodymess before someone breaks it up. which is a very sensible thing to do



I do not think you would know sensible, if it crept up behind you and bit you on the **** IMHO. There are times you have to fight, there are times you avoid or de-escalate, if you stand up in court and say, I smashed his nose in, and threw my hot coffee on him, because he almost hit me with his bike, and I thought he was going to assault me, I think you may have a good chance of a fine, or even a bit of bird.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Nuuli said:


> It can be depending on the circumstances. Let's say... Some obnoxious bloke insults you and challenges you to a fight. You in turn respond, assume a fighting stance and engage. That could be considered mutual consent. Same situation, bloke insults you, challenges you to a fight, but you keep walking. He continues and attacks, you react with your m.a. skills and overcome him. Second situation you defended yourself. This is over simplified. Fights can and are often considered consensual depending on the circumstances leading up to the event.


considered by who and in what part of the world ?


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

Nuuli said:


> It can be depending on the circumstances. Let's say... Some obnoxious bloke insults you and challenges you to a fight. You in turn respond, assume a fighting stance and engage. That could be considered mutual consent. Same situation, bloke insults you, challenges you to a fight, but you keep walking. He continues and attacks, you react with your m.a. skills and overcome him. Second situation you defended yourself. This is over simplified. Fights can and are often considered consensual depending on the circumstances leading up to the event.



Welcome to mt, you defend yourself in either situation, but when does it come within the legal bounds of self defense.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

Nuuli said:


> Some obnoxious bloke insults you and challenges you to a fight. You in turn respond, assume a fighting stance and engage. That could be considered mutual consent



Let's assume I feel I have no escape, and my only exit is beyond this bloke, is this then a consensual fight?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> That was a long discussion, @ gpseymour would you consider the fact, that if I was in a consensual fight, I am no longer using self defense?
> I think you were correct (I think it was you, but it was some time back in the thread) that jobo's quote on a verbal contract would not stand as a judge could not accept that a contract could be binding if it was perceived to be in connection with illegality,  but does a consensual fight mean those involved waiver their right to a legal defense of self defense?


It's a lot of the same skills (if we talk about self-defense as the act of actively defending against an attack, rather than prevention), but I wouldn't classify a consensual fight as self-defense. It's an arbitrary division in some ways, but I think most people make a similar distinction, because they are thinking of it conceptually.

It's my understanding that in many jurisdictions there's no "self-defense" defense available against assault charges if you agreed to enter the fight. There's probably some limitation on that exclusion (if the other person pulls a knife, for instance).


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I do not think you would know sensible, if it crept up behind you and bit you on the **** IMHO. There are times you have to fight, there are times you avoid or de-escalate, if you stand up in court and say, I smashed his nose in, and threw my hot coffee on him, because he almost hit me with his bike, and I thought he was going to assault me, I think you may have a good chance of a fine, or even a bit of bird.[/QUOTbike didnt smash him on the nose I pushed him of the bike, I'm confident that with a good solicitor that's self defence , that and the complete absence of witnesses and the fact he was 30 years younger  , when should I have defended my self, after he had punched me?  or should I just have begged for mercy.
> 
> your telling me what you think, not what the law requires


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> the problem with this is there aren't many consensual fights, its tends that one is a lot keener on fighting than the other and he is just standing his ground/ declining to back down rather than consenting
> 
> so a simple scenario for consideration. ( based on a real event)  I'm walking down the canal and some seriously big bozo onbig mountain bike rides straight at me, I don' mov ,  he swerves at the last second skids to a haltit the side of me, I call him a stupid ****, he threats to punch me, i say try it mate and see what happens, he goes to dismount and, I hit him in the face with t?he contents of a fairly full fairly hot large costa full cream latte, and then knock hm of the bike, he gets back on and calls me names as he cycles off.
> 
> did I consent to that " fight" or was I defending myself ? I could have moved out of his way, I could have apologised for inconvieniancing him, I could have retreated  or just walked on, I could have waited to find out if he actually intended to punch me or was just trying to use his size to intimidated me


I'm assuming you're talking about the legalities (since that's where this side-thread started, IIRC). In most cases, I think that wouldn't be considered a consensual fight. A consensual fight would be more if he said, "Dude, I could kick your butt," and you replied "Meet me in the parking lot in 10 minutes" then met him there and fought. Same for two guys who agree to fight for money (without it being sanctioned - so just two guys duking it out in a lot).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> well no, that's not uk law, an assault has taken place when the other person has put you in fear of your safety, first by ridding at me, then by threaning violence, once that assault has occurred your allowed to defend yourself by striking first, there no requirement to mitigate or retreat or gve them first punch, those are issues to be considered by the court, but as long as they believe that you believed your safety was at risk then your fine


Some variation of that appears to be true in many US jurisdictions, too. "Assualt" can begin before actual physical contact, so a claim of self-defense may be viable if you put in the first punch (or latte).


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I do not think you would know sensible, if it crept up behind you and bit you on the **** IMHO. There are times you have to fight, there are times you avoid or de-escalate, if you stand up in court and say, I smashed his nose in, and threw my hot coffee on him, because he almost hit me with his bike, and I thought he was going to assault me, I think you may have a good chance of a fine, or even a bit of bird.


 I didnt smash him on the nose I pushed him of the bike, I'm confident that with a good solicitor that's self defence , that and the complete absence of witnesses and the fact he was 30 years younger , when should I have defended my self, after he had punched me? or should I just have begged for mercy.on't your not telling me what the law requires, you telling me what you think


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> I didnt smash him on the nose I pushed him of the bike, I'm confident that with a good solicitor that's self defence , that and the complete absence of witnesses and the fact he was 30 years younger , when should I have defended my self, after he had punched me? or should I just have begged for mercy.on't your not telling me what the law requires, you telling me what you think


While that one might stray into some grey area, I'd tend to agree that he'd crossed the line where a reasonable person might think attack is imminent.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> I didnt smash him on the nose I pushed him of the bike, I'm confident that with a good solicitor that's self defence , that and the complete absence of witnesses and the fact he was 30 years younger , when should I have defended my self, after he had punched me? or should I just have begged for mercy.on't your not telling me what the law requires, you telling me what you think



Fact, 2 people were on the canal way, fact there was a near miss, fact you gave and insult, he gave a threat, you responded by relieving him of his bicycle, and then gave him a generous swig of your coffee, judges are set in their ways, but they are not stupid, even it was 50 50 in the beginning, but the coffee would put you in a very questionable situation, and if your attitude is the same in court, as it was on the canal way, I think you are on a loser.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Fact, 2 people were on the canal way, fact there was a near miss, fact you gave and insult, he gave a threat, you responded by relieving him of his bicycle, and then gave him a generous swig of your coffee, judges are set in their ways, but they are not stupid, even it was 50 50 in the beginning, but the coffee would put you in a very questionable situation, and if your attitude is the same in court, as it was on the canal way, I think you are on a loser.


your not good at comprehension ! your getting facts in the wrong order,,, fact 1, he assualt d me by deliberately riding his bike at me, fact 2,, he threatened me with physical harm and fact 3 then undertook an action that lead me to believe he was about to carry out that threat.

me insulting him  and suggesting he could try if he wanted,has no bearing on if it was self defence or not and is a perfectly reasonable  response to someone deliberately  ridding their bike at you and threatening you

a month later, there was a report in the local paper about him, I recognised his picture , were someone had strangled him and thrown him in the canal  and stamped on his fingers when he tried to get out, that's pushing self defence a bit,, so he got awat light  and obviously didn't learn his lession


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm assuming you're talking about the legalities (since that's where this side-thread started, IIRC). In most cases, I think that wouldn't be considered a consensual fight. A consensual fight would be more if he said, "Dude, I could kick your butt," and you replied "Meet me in the parking lot in 10 minutes" then met him there and fought. Same for two guys who agree to fight for money (without it being sanctioned - so just two guys duking it out in a lot).


I'm not sure that consensual fighting is a legal concept, sport is/ can be consensual violence , but only with in the rules or the context  of the sport, there s a limit to what has been agreed. anything beyond that is assualt , soccer players agree to being kicked, launching a thigh high leg breaking tackle is an assualt,  no one agreed to that.  other than that, it's either under the heading of self defence or it's not.


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

The problem is, you are always right, in your own mind, I have been to court 3 times on a self defense/assault/affray/public disorder question, yes there is an element of who's story convinces the judge in magistrates, and the jury in crown court, but in order to win, you need to convince these people you acted in a reasonable way, and these people have seen it heard it, and been sold it umpteen (thanks Buka) before, they have heard what is plausible in guilty and not guilty people's minds before, they know what is logical and reasonable, if I invade your space, this is not assault,  it makes you uncomfortable for sure, but you have to prove or persuade beyond reasonable doubt.
For the record, I won 2 and lost 1, but all 3 occasions,  I genuinely believed I was acting in self defense, the 1 I lost was because, I had pushed them to the ground, and followed up with a secondary action, the 1 I lost, the judge told me, had I stopped, after putting them to the ground, he would have took my point, but because I followed up with a secondary action, when at that point they could not have been a threat, I lost, had I waited until they had got to their feet, deemed them still a threat, I would have won.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so let me be blunt. You use self-defense as a weasel word. By that I mean you use it - intentionally - do derail discussions. Other people have reasonable discussions and debates around it, then you show up with your own agenda and hard bias and purposely derail those discussions. You appear to have no intention of actually getting somewhere useful with your hyperbole, because you don't suggest a different method of communication. You just stand on the side saying, "doesn't mean that, has no meaning, you can't use that word honestly."
> 
> If you don't like the word, don't use it. Don't want others to use it, suggest a better better one. But I don't think you'll have much luck, since most folks seem to have little trouble having reasonable discussions using the common term.



You still haven't come to a consensus on what the common term even means. Most folks have pages of trouble having reasonable discussions. So far nobody has accepted your definition. And so the discussion will continue to be about who's personal made up opinion of self defense has more merit. 

You are making claims you can't prove and are not true.

As for derailing. That was your first post on this thread. Because so far nobody has accepted your definition of self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure that consensual fighting is a legal concept, sport is/ can be consensual violence , but only with in the rules or the context  of the sport, there s a limit to what has been agreed. anything beyond that is assualt , soccer players agree to being kicked, launching a thigh high leg breaking tackle is an assualt,  no one agreed to that.  other than that, it's either under the heading of self defence or it's not.



It sort of is. There is a reference tool used to show defence against assult.

CAMELS
Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> CAMELS
> Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence



Is this an actual guide for UK police?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Is this an actual guide for UK police?



I havent heard of it until now, but then 90% of the sources i get are U.S centric.  

Definately have to fish out a self defence and the law course.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> The problem is, you are always right, in your own mind, I have been to court 3 times on a self defense/assault/affray/public disorder question, yes there is an element of who's story convinces the judge in magistrates, and the jury in crown court, but in order to win, you need to convince these people you acted in a reasonable way, and these people have seen it heard it, and been sold it umpteen (thanks Buka) before, they have heard what is plausible in guilty and not guilty people's minds before, they know what is logical and reasonable, if I invade your space, this is not assault,  it makes you uncomfortable for sure, but you have to prove or persuade beyond reasonable doubt.
> For the record, I won 2 and lost 1, but all 3 occasions,  I genuinely believed I was acting in self defense, the 1 I lost was because, I had pushed them to the ground, and followed up with a secondary action, the 1 I lost, the judge told me, had I stopped, after putting them to the ground, he would have took my point, but because I followed up with a secondary action, when at that point they could not have been a threat, I lost, had I waited until they had got to their feet, deemed them still a threat, I would have won.


it may be your failure to grasp the law, that keeps ending you in court, I don't ned to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, that burden falls on the prosecution, so much as there is a reverse burden ofevidence on me, that is only on the balance of probabilities, all I have to do is give a doubt that is reasonable and I'm off free, in the absence of independent witnesses that really easy to do.  repeat the mantra, I believed my life was at risk, no matter what the question,thats  the answer

you can if course turn self defence in to assault by not stopping when you should reasonably do so, as it seems you found out


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure that consensual fighting is a legal concept, sport is/ can be consensual violence , but only with in the rules or the context  of the sport, there s a limit to what has been agreed. anything beyond that is assualt , soccer players agree to being kicked, launching a thigh high leg breaking tackle is an assualt,  no one agreed to that.  other than that, it's either under the heading of self defence or it's not.


I don't know that the terms is a legal term, but I have been told (by folks who ought to know) that the concept exists in more or less the way I've been trying to describe it. That's about as far as my knowledge on the topic goes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You still haven't come to a consensus on what the common term even means. Most folks have pages of trouble having reasonable discussions. So far nobody has accepted your definition. And so the discussion will continue to be about who's personal made up opinion of self defense has more merit.
> 
> You are making claims you can't prove and are not true.
> 
> As for derailing. That was your first post on this thread. Because so far nobody has accepted your definition of self defense.


You assume that's how the discussion would go, yet there are many discussions on here where - even if the definition question comes up - the discussion is not derailed by an inability to agree on the basic concept.

Just because there are differences in some details, that doesn't mean folks don't agree on the basic concept.

Nor does any of that mean people are using the term to purposely avoid being honest. Which is the claim you've made. Which I really doubt you believe, because you don't raise a stink every time the words are used, just when you don't like someone's point (usually because you think people whose teaching is aimed at self-defense are shysters).


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It sort of is. There is a reference tool used to show defence against assult.
> 
> CAMELS
> Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence


that's Australian?

auz law to the most part follows uk law, apart from shooting kangaroos and such. there's auz case law that's been used in the uk,  consent in that context may then more more mundane things, cutting someones hair with out consent is assault, fighting isn't really an offence( maybe public order) but hurting someone is, law generally allows consensual harm, or chastisement up to common assault level, so an amicable contest or wild sex were no one gets hurt is fine


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's Australian?
> 
> auz law to the most part follows uk law, apart from shooting kangaroos and such. there's auz case law that's been used in the uk,  consent in that context may then more more mundane things, cutting someones hair with out consent is assault, fighting isn't really an offence( maybe public order) but hurting someone is, in law generally allows consensual harm, or chastisement up to common assault level, so an amicable contest were no one gets hurt is fine



Yeah. And it is a reference tool rather than law.

You can't duche bag in public. So an amicable contest out the front of a pub is a public disorder crime of some sort.

The closest we have is tent boxing. But it is pretty rare.

Otherwise we do have one punch or coward punch rules now which means if I hit someone and really hurt them it is one of the most severely punished crimes you can commit. But that is just an Australian thing.

Although I would not be suprised if you did similar for knife crime at some point.

*"One Punch* Can Kill – Unlawful Striking Causing Death. ... The offence was introduced in 2014 under the Safe Night Out *Legislation* Act 2014 (*Qld*) following a string of deaths involving*single* punches. Unlawful striking causing death carries a minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment"


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You assume that's how the discussion would go, yet there are many discussions on here where - even if the definition question comes up - the discussion is not derailed by an inability to agree on the basic concept.
> 
> Just because there are differences in some details, that doesn't mean folks don't agree on the basic concept.
> 
> Nor does any of that mean people are using the term to purposely avoid being honest. Which is the claim you've made. Which I really doubt you believe, because you don't raise a stink every time the words are used, just when you don't like someone's point (usually because you think people whose teaching is aimed at self-defense are shysters).



You keep making these allegations against me that are not true based on facts that didn't happen. With no evidence.

Show me this discussion that you think worked.

*"Nor does any of that mean people are using the term to purposely avoid being honest. Which is the claim you've made. Which I really doubt you believe,"*

The Ian Abernathy video is a good example of the method used dishonestly or at least so naively to amount to the same thing. They may or may not be doing this on purpose. I don't know. 

But the misinformation amounts to the same thing and people are making a ton of money out of that misinformation. 

Saying avocados cures cancer is a harmful  lie designed to generate money. Isn't baiting or agenda driven. It is evidence driven.

Saying self defense is so vague a term as to be meaningless in the way it is used in marketing and therefore a weasel word. Falls in to the same category.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You keep making these allegations against me that are not true based on facts that didn't happen. With no evidence.
> 
> Show me this discussion that you think worked.
> 
> ...


Saying it's too vague to be meaningful (which I'd still argue) is a LOOOOOONG way from saying people use it to avoid being forthright.

Your bias overcomes your ability to have reasonable discussions sometimes.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Saying it's too vague to be meaningful (which I'd still argue) is a LOOOOOONG way from saying people use it to avoid being forthright.
> 
> Your bias overcomes your ability to have reasonable discussions sometimes.



So show me this discussion that worked.

You keep claiming it is me. Fine. Show this self defense conversation that didn't bog down on terms. There are plenty of conversations that I am not part of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 25, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So show me this discussion that worked.
> 
> You keep claiming it is me. Fine. Show this self defense conversation that didn't bog down on terms. There are plenty of conversations that I am not part of.


Let's start with the simple observation that you're the only person really raising a stink about the term. It gets used frequently (several times in the last few days, in fact - I've been watching) in discussions, and nobody seemed to have any problem with the usage, or with comprehension of the message. Heck, you even let it slide in a couple of cases.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. I'm pretty certain you don't really believe some of the crap you've said here. You like to throw names sideways at me - you decided some time ago apparently that I'm a pet project and you need to change something about me. Not sure why, and don't care. But you raise this level of argument with me from time to time, blowing things out of proportion. Your confirmation bias gets much worse at these times, and your arguments get silly.

I'm going to drop this one now. It's been entertaining.


----------



## jobo (Jul 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't know that the terms is a legal term, but I have been told (by folks who ought to know) that the concept exists in more or less the way I've been trying to describe it. That's about as far as my knowledge on the topic goes.


It exists in ring fights, as there is an agreed rule set to which both have agreed, and a pass from the legal restraints, its a lot less certain what if anything has been agreed in a fight on a pub carpark, if someone pulls out a bottle, has that been agreed? if one thinks its a fist fight and you kick him in the head has he signed on for that, whe,  can somebody change their mind and require you to stop. to say its consensual, with out specify what has been consented to is nonsence


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Let's start with the simple observation that you're the only person really raising a stink about the term. It gets used frequently (several times in the last few days, in fact - I've been watching) in discussions, and nobody seemed to have any problem with the usage, or with comprehension of the message. Heck, you even let it slide in a couple of cases.
> 
> I'm not here to do your homework for you. I'm pretty certain you don't really believe some of the crap you've said here. You like to throw names sideways at me - you decided some time ago apparently that I'm a pet project and you need to change something about me. Not sure why, and don't care. But you raise this level of argument with me from time to time, blowing things out of proportion. Your confirmation bias gets much worse at these times, and your arguments get silly.
> 
> I'm going to drop this one now. It's been entertaining.



If you are suggesting that self defence isn't a weasel word because 9 out of 10 martial artists agree.

I don't think you understand what the term really means.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 25, 2019)

jobo said:


> It exists in ring fights, as there is an agreed rule set to which both have agreed, and a pass from the legal restraints, its a lot less certain what if anything has been agreed in a fight on a pub carpark, if someone pulls out a bottle, has that been agreed? if one thinks its a fist fight and you kick him in the head has he signed on for that, whe,  can somebody change their mind and require you to stop. to say its consensual, with out specify what has been consented to is nonsence


You'd have to talk to someone more versed in law to find out the particulars. I only know the concept exists.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2019)

jobo said:


> It exists in ring fights, as there is an agreed rule set to which both have agreed, and a pass from the legal restraints, its a lot less certain what if anything has been agreed in a fight on a pub carpark, if someone pulls out a bottle, has that been agreed? if one thinks its a fist fight and you kick him in the head has he signed on for that, whe,  can somebody change their mind and require you to stop. to say its consensual, with out specify what has been consented to is nonsence



When we do a statement to the cops we always have to put in there we did not give permission to be assaulted.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 25, 2019)

drop bear said:


> When we do a statement to the cops we always have to put in there we did not give permission to be assaulted.



I don't think that's at all uncommon. I think most places have some sort of law allowing mutual combat. If they didn't, sparring would be illegal.


----------



## Invisibleflash (Jul 30, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I have recently read that there are those who believe martial arts are ineffective in a street fight, myself,  I do not believe this to be the case, yes it depends on the individual, but every little helps I say, anyhow, found this interesting video on line, and thought I would share it with you, my particular favourite is the Muay Thai cop.
> 
> 
> Martial arts in street fight - Martial arts - Self defense - fitness in Erbil Iraq | Facebook



Better to have tools than not. But if you get caught up in form and BS, then too much learning may be a problem. I'm old, so I prefer weapons with the hands as backup.

I saw a video where a pimp was going after some do-gooder that didn't like the pimp slapping around a girl. The pimp got taken out with one chop to the neck. Was a pleasure to watch.

Only thing better would be to see some guy pull out a gun and dispatch a group of knife wielding jihadist's in the UK.

...I'd pay $$ to see that.

Of course, the pimp video was old. The pimp may have had a gun nowadays. 

They had a vid from UK that showed a do-gooder being stabbed to death on the subway. Do-gooder kept harassing the person for doing wrong. The bad boy had enough and stabbed the do-gooder dozens of times.

Beside weapons and hands, I try to avoid trouble. That saves me most of the time.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 10, 2019)

Usually, I just look at a dictionary, when I need to understand what a term means. I really have no use for personal definitions.

As for Martial Arts on the streets, it worked for me Kwon Bup that is. As a matter of fact, the Pinan fighting forms, that I learned were very useful against more than one or two attackers.

I think that most of the people, that say these things, have never actually used it in the streets or they attempted to use a sport based art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Usually, I just look at a dictionary, when I need to understand what a term means. I really have no use for personal definitions.
> 
> As for Martial Arts on the streets, it worked for me Kwon Bup that is. As a matter of fact, the Pinan fighting forms, that I learned were very useful against more than one or two attackers.
> 
> I think that most of the people, that say these things, have never actually used it in the streets or they attempted to use a sport based art.


The problem is that dictionaries report what definitions are in common usage, rather than dictating them. And personal definitions often have more nuance than the dictionary version, which makes understanding what someone else means by a term important in some situations.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The problem is that dictionaries report what definitions are in common usage, rather than dictating them. And personal definitions often have more nuance than the dictionary version, which makes understanding what someone else means by a term important in some situations.


I understand some of the reasoning, but disagree with its premise, as there is an entire profession that studies these words and provides a universal definition. And, changing the definition of a word, in order to support an argument, pretty much nullifies the argument.

I leave it to the pro's, it is their job.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 10, 2019)

I will give a simple example

Scientific Theory and Hypotheses, I won't go into detail on their definitions as I assume, a majority of people on here understand their meaning.

If we are to allow the religious definition concerning a Theory, then they would be justified in removing science from school. And, if we were to cater to that definition that most of them hold, then that would be detrimental to just about ALL modern conveniences.

Are we to accept this definition, that clearly suits their agenda, or should we go with the actual definition?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Usually, I just look at a dictionary, when I need to understand what a term means. I really have no use for personal definitions.
> 
> As for Martial Arts on the streets, it worked for me Kwon Bup that is. As a matter of fact, the Pinan fighting forms, that I learned were very useful against more than one or two attackers.
> 
> I think that most of the people, that say these things, have never actually used it in the streets or they attempted to use a sport based art.



Well the trick is to stay away from these vague umbrella concepts. And make a critique on more specific concepts.

So martial arts works in self defense because videos. 

And we could go something like. What I would avoid in fight no 3 is he jumped off top for a submission or fight number 4 he unnecessarily kicked the guy leaving himself open for legal repercussions. 

As opposed to self defence makes you 20% more self defensier.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I will give a simple example
> 
> Scientific Theory and Hypotheses, I won't go into detail on their definitions as I assume, a majority of people on here understand their meaning.
> 
> ...



For martial arts we should go with a scientific approach and so use scientific definitions when we can.

So facts for example have evidence.

The scientific method song.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I understand some of the reasoning, but disagree with its premise, as there is an entire profession that studies these words and provides a universal definition. And, changing the definition of a word, in order to support an argument, pretty much nullifies the argument.
> 
> I leave it to the pro's, it is their job.


I'm not talking about someone changing the definition to support an argument. Usage changes over time, and exact definitions are nearly always an approximation of the conceptual use of language. The reason it takes professionals to do this is that they have to try to cover as much ground as possible with as few definitions as possible. The term "self-defense" is a prime example. I know exactly what I mean by it, and you probably know exactly what you mean by it. But communicating to each other the nuances of difference in what we mean in our heads is difficult. A quick definition helps a lot, but the apparently hard borders of that definition rarely match the concept's less-stark edges.

Technical terms are usually more limited, so easier to define. "Force" has a clear (so far as I know, anyway) definition in physics, but the way the word is used in common English is much more nuanced.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I will give a simple example
> 
> Scientific Theory and Hypotheses, I won't go into detail on their definitions as I assume, a majority of people on here understand their meaning.
> 
> ...


That's an example of manipulating the argument by switching definitions. That's a logical fallacy (I've forgotten the name for it). The common-language use of "theory" (e.g., "I have a theory about why that happens") doesn't match the scientific usage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Well the trick is to stay away from these vague umbrella concepts. And make a critique on more specific concepts.
> 
> So martial arts works in self defense because videos.
> 
> ...


Keep straw manning that. You rant and rave about that term,  but never suggest a better term for discussing the things people (pretty much everyone I've talked to about those concepts) use the term for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> For martial arts we should go with a scientific approach and so use scientific definitions when we can.
> 
> So facts for example have evidence.
> 
> The scientific method song.


Except it's not really fully scientific, even in MMA. Folks use training methods they believe work, and some of those are really not supported by science (some are shown to have really little or no effect in scientific studies). And you REALLY spend too much time trying to draw a distinction between competition and non-competition training...all while making a really good point that there's not that much difference between most of the skills needed in the two contexts.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Keep straw manning that. You rant and rave about that term,  but never suggest a better term for discussing the things people (pretty much everyone I've talked to about those concepts) use the term for.


I just did in that post.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Except it's not really fully scientific, even in MMA. Folks use training methods they believe work, and some of those are really not supported by science (some are shown to have really little or no effect in scientific studies). And you REALLY spend too much time trying to draw a distinction between competition and non-competition training...all while making a really good point that there's not that much difference between most of the skills needed in the two contexts.



Not really. If you listen to the song. That is the basic process.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 11, 2019)

I will, myself continue to use the definition provided by linguistic professional s. As, stated before, these people are professionals with years of study and decades of experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I will, myself continue to use the definition provided by linguistic professional s. As, stated before, these people are professionals with years of study and decades of experience.


So here's the first one I find: "the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime." That leaves a lot of undefined borders, because it doesn't really delineate what "one's...interests" would include.

Here's the second one I found: "the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative." That already has a different element (protecting another person), unless we consider that within "one's...interests".

That's what I mean. Two people can use that first definition, agree that it's correct, and still disagree on the boundaries of it. Because it's conceptual (as opposed to the legal definition, where the boundaries tend to be better defined by case law - though that still varies somewhat by jurisdiction).


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 11, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> So if an aggressive bloke approaches me, wanting to fight, engaging him is no longer self defense, it becomes consensual?


That is correct. At least in the initial stages. The first choice should always be to walk away. If that option is taken away by the other person, it becomes self defense. If it is taken away by yourself, then it becomes consensual.


----------



## pdg (Aug 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That is correct. At least in the initial stages. The first choice should always be to walk away. If that option is taken away by the other person, it becomes self defense. If it is taken away by yourself, then it becomes consensual.



Seems very much like interpretations vary wildly...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I just did in that post.


Except you really didn't. You suggested an approach for discussing individual situations, which I agree with. But how do you suggest we refer to the body of those situations most folks would refer to as self-defense situations? What's a better term?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Except you really didn't. You suggested an approach for discussing individual situations, which I agree with. But how do you suggest we refer to the body of those situations most folks would refer to as self-defense situations? What's a better term?



Why do we need to refer to them in those terms?

Especially when it makes analysis more difficult.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Why do we need to refer to them in those terms?
> 
> Especially when it makes analysis more difficult.


I never said we need to refer to it in those terms. But it is useful to be able to talk about the concept overall. Not having a term for that is like trying to talk about that sport one game at a time. You can dissect each play, each period, and each game. But you can't talk bigger than that, because you can't really talk about the sport without giving it a name. You can't talk about disagreements over what really it is, because you can't refer to it.

Without a term, it becomes more vague.


----------



## Gweilo (Aug 12, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That is correct. At least in the initial stages. The first choice should always be to walk away. If that option is taken away by the other person, it becomes self defense. If it is taken away by yourself, then it becomes consensual.



I agree with the avoidance part, but if the option to escape is taken away by the other person, if I wait for them to attack me, then retaliate, in your opinion would be self defense, but if I strike my opponent pre emptively, this is consensual? Even if the attack is immenent?. I do not know about US law, but in the UK, if it's a person's word against another's,  with no, or inconclusive evidence, then the rule of probability is used, a person confronting me, blocking my escape, telling me they are going to smash my face in, or worse, a pre emptied strike would in my opinion constitute an act of self defense, but not in the case of a near miss in senario in jobo's post.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I agree with the avoidance part, but if the option to escape is taken away by the other person, if I wait for them to attack me, then retaliate, in your opinion would be self defense, but if I strike my opponent pre emptively, this is consensual? Even if the attack is immenent?. I do not know about US law, but in the UK, if it's a person's word against another's,  with no, or inconclusive evidence, then the rule of probability is used, a person confronting me, blocking my escape, telling me they are going to smash my face in, or worse, a pre emptied strike would in my opinion constitute an act of self defense, but not in the case of a near miss in senario in jobo's post.


I agree, but in my opinion that is still the other person taking your options away. 
It can often be a grey area and a personal judgement that each person has to make for themselves. 

Strike first, strike hard certainly has its merits. I cannot run at any real speed any more so it would be pretty high on my list of "what would I do first".


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So here's the first one I find: "the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime." That leaves a lot of undefined borders, because it doesn't really delineate what "one's...interests" would include.
> 
> Here's the second one I found: "the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative." That already has a different element (protecting another person), unless we consider that within "one's...interests".
> 
> That's what I mean. Two people can use that first definition, agree that it's correct, and still disagree on the boundaries of it. Because it's conceptual (as opposed to the legal definition, where the boundaries tend to be better defined by case law - though that still varies somewhat by jurisdiction).



This is actually a great example of what I am talking about. If we are to determine what this means "self defense that is" to each of us and we discuss the meanings that you have posted, it would require you to define what each word, in that discription, means to you. So, that I would know exactly what you are discussing.

But, if I disagree with your definitions, the conversation would simply get bogged down, with trying to understand each others personal definitions concerning the self-defense concept.

It is simply to much, people are just different and will most likely come up with a discription that suits their argument. Which in the end only leads to understanding one person's idea of whatever concept.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> This is actually a great example of what I am talking about. If we are to determine what this means "self defense that is" to each of us and we discuss the meanings that you have posted, it would require you to define what each word, in that discription, means to you. So, that I would know exactly what you are discussing.
> 
> But, if I disagree with your definitions, the conversation would simply get bogged down, with trying to understand each others personal definitions concerning the self-defense concept.
> 
> It is simply to much, people are just different and will most likely come up with a discription that suits their argument. Which in the end only leads to understanding one person's idea of whatever concept.


You're overcomplicating it. Language is used to convey concepts we have in our brains. It is inexact, by its nature. So long as we understand each other, we don't need an exact definition of every word involved. You haven't needed to ask me to define any of the words in my posts, because the general concept of those words makes sense. In context, the usage becomes clearer. Some words are simply a bit more nuanced, so may need some discussion if we want to make sure we're talking about the same defined boundaries.

Definitions in dictionaries give us some guidance as to what someone likely meant by the use of the word (or, from the other side, what someone is likely to understand our usage to be). But they can't define the boundaries of the concept without getting lengthy.


----------



## jobo (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're overcomplicating it. Language is used to convey concepts we have in our brains. It is inexact, by its nature. So long as we understand each other, we don't need an exact definition of every word involved. You haven't needed to ask me to define any of the words in my posts, because the general concept of those words makes sense. In context, the usage becomes clearer. Some words are simply a bit more nuanced, so may need some discussion if we want to make sure we're talking about the same defined boundaries.
> 
> Definitions in dictionaries give us some guidance as to what someone likely meant by the use of the word (or, from the other side, what someone is likely to understand our usage to be). But they can't define the boundaries of the concept without getting lengthy.


that's a mostly incorrect view you've expressed many time, in order to force your particular definition on people, but it's clear that the process you describe is  NOT happening here or the prelonged discussion on the definition of self defence would not be happening in which case only exact definitions rather than wooly word to describe wooly concepts will address the problem


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's a mostly incorrect view you've expressed many time, in order to force your particular definition on people, but it's clear that the process you describe is  NOT happening here or the prelonged discussion on the definition of self defence would not be happening in which case only exact definitions rather than wooly word to describe wooly concepts will address the problem


Except that you've ENTIRELY missed my point (as you usually do, I believe on purpose). My point isn't that others must use or even accept my definition. I provide mine so they know what I meant. I happily use others' definitions when discussing something they said (because the way they intended the word is what's important in that context).

So, give me an exact definition of self-defense that everyone could use, with clear boundaries. (For your statements to make sense, you'll have to find it defined in a dictionary, so that others would be able to look it up when the term is used.)


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're overcomplicating it. Language is used to convey concepts we have in our brains. It is inexact, by its nature. So long as we understand each other, we don't need an exact definition of every word involved. You haven't needed to ask me to define any of the words in my posts, because the general concept of those words makes sense. In context, the usage becomes clearer. Some words are simply a bit more nuanced, so may need some discussion if we want to make sure we're talking about the same defined boundaries.
> 
> Definitions in dictionaries give us some guidance as to what someone likely meant by the use of the word (or, from the other side, what someone is likely to understand our usage to be). But they can't define the boundaries of the concept without getting lengthy.


Actually I am not, if you are to describe something, you would need to define it exactly to me or my own interpretations will take affect and we still would not understand each others stance.

I believe this why we hear "we can agree to disagree" so much these days and in my personal opinion...that expressions definition is a copout to me.


----------



## jobo (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Except that you've ENTIRELY missed my point (as you usually do, I believe on purpose). My point isn't that others must use or even accept my definition. I provide mine so they know what I meant. I happily use others' definitions when discussing something they said (because the way they intended the word is what's important in that context).
> 
> So, give me an exact definition of self-defense that everyone could use, with clear boundaries. (For your statements to make sense, you'll have to find it defined in a dictionary, so that others would be able to look it up when the term is used.)


I've given it previously in this thread, which is the uk legal definition of self defence. if you don't like that, pick an an American legal definition, ( if there's a difference those differences are of major importance)those are indeed as clearly defined as its possible to get and as self defence is first and foremost a legal concept any thing other than a legal definition is totally inadequate to convey the meaning


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Actually I am not, if you are to describe something, you would need to define it exactly to me or my own interpretations will take affect and we still would not understand each others stance.
> 
> I believe this why we hear "we can agree to disagree" so much these days and in my personal opinion...that expressions definition is a copout to me.


But that's where you're overcomplicating it. Language conveys (mostly) concepts. Concepts are not precise, by their very nature. So, as long as we understand each other, we don't need precision.

If you think definitions never differ, then why do dictionaries often have multiple definitions for the same word? And how do we figure out which one people are using? Do you always have to ask each time which definition of a given word someone intends?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> I've given it previously in this thread, which is the uk legal definition of self defence. if you don't like that, pick an an American legal definition, ( if there's a difference those differences are of major importance)those are indeed as clearly defined as its possible to get and as self defence is first and foremost a legal concept any thing other than a legal definition is totally inadequate to convey the meaning


So, that definition takes precedence over the definition used in any other jurisdiction? If we each use the legal definition in our jurisdiction, how can we ever converse over the topic? By the approach you're attempting to use, there are literally at least dozens of variations of the definition. (And that's without even considering common usage, which doesn't restrict itself to the legal definition.)


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> But that's where you're overcomplicating it. Language conveys (mostly) concepts. Concepts are not precise, by their very nature. So, as long as we understand each other, we don't need precision.
> 
> If you think definitions never differ, then why do dictionaries often have multiple definitions for the same word? And how do we figure out which one people are using? Do you always have to ask each time which definition of a given word someone intends?


That is determined by the subject at hand. But, if we accept everyone's personal definition, they have probably gone outside the bounds of the subject matter.


----------



## Gweilo (Aug 12, 2019)

Can we have an extra button added to the agree, disagree, like at the bottom of the post options. I suggest a ***** slap button


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> That is determined by the subject at hand. But, if we accept everyone's personal definition, they have probably gone outside the bounds of the subject matter.


We don't have to accept everyone's personal definition, but if we want to have effective communications we have to acknowledge that the dictionary definition isn't complete for all situations. So if we're in doubt, we need a common working definition to share for a discussion.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> We don't have to accept everyone's personal definition, but if we want to have effective communications we have to acknowledge that the dictionary definition isn't complete for all situations. So if we're in doubt, we need a common working definition to share for a discussion.


We need the actual definition to completely understand the discussion. Agreeing on a different definition, will change the concept of the subject, effectively removing the reason for even having a discussion. At least on my end.


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> We don't have to accept everyone's personal definition, but if we want to have effective communications we have to acknowledge that the dictionary definition isn't complete for all situations. So if we're in doubt, we need a common working definition to share for a discussion.



Going off the available evidence of this particular discussion, we're far from having a common working definition in this instance...

Part of the reason for this disparity is that the huge variety of legal definitions are actually clouding the colloquial usage that we'd be much more likely to (almost) universally accept.

In essence, self defence is easy to understand - it's the action of defending oneself. Simple.

But then as soon as you start a discussion on the subject in detail, problems arise with whether you're defending yourself or defending someone else, whether it's actually classifiable as self defence if you didn't comply with the duty to retreat and/or stand your ground (and then an argument about those duties not applying everywhere), whether it's transformed into a consensual fight because you hit back/hit first, how fast and how far you are able to run and whether your assailant is armed with a cheeky cabernet.

I can't see a way to move this forward myself.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

And for those who enter the conversation at a later time, will be seriously confused concerning the actual subject at hand. This is why we have definitions that are universal, so that everyone will understand. Deviating from those definitions, is what cause confusion.


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> And for those who enter the conversation at a later time, will be seriously confused concerning the actual subject at hand. This is why we have definitions that are universal, so that everyone will understand. Deviating from those definitions, is what cause confusion.



But a universal definition is something we don't have here.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> But a universal definition is something we don't have here.


To many individual self proclaimed definitions cause this very problem and is why I do not fable in individual definitions.


----------



## jobo (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, that definition takes precedence over the definition used in any other jurisdiction? If we each use the legal definition in our jurisdiction, how can we ever converse over the topic? By the approach you're attempting to use, there are literally at least dozens of variations of the definition. (And that's without even considering common usage, which doesn't restrict itself to the legal definition.)


no that definition takes precedance e for me it's the only one that is applicable, you need to find the legal definition in your jurisdiction, then we all have to realise that conversations with others in a different jurisdiction on what should be included in the definition of self defence is pointless, as each has the only definition they are ever likely to need.

if you share a jurisdiction, then discussions are equally pointless, as it's already defined in legal text and a quick google will put the matter to bed for ever


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Except that you've ENTIRELY missed my point (as you usually do, I believe on purpose). My point isn't that others must use or even accept my definition. I provide mine so they know what I meant. I happily use others' definitions when discussing something they said (because the way they intended the word is what's important in that context).
> 
> So, give me an exact definition of self-defense that everyone could use, with clear boundaries. (For your statements to make sense, you'll have to find it defined in a dictionary, so that others would be able to look it up when the term is used.)



Except nobody knows what you mean because the term is vague. 

And then you use that vagueness to claim you didn't mean or say what you said.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I never said we need to refer to it in those terms. But it is useful to be able to talk about the concept overall. Not having a term for that is like trying to talk about that sport one game at a time. You can dissect each play, each period, and each game. But you can't talk bigger than that, because you can't really talk about the sport without giving it a name. You can't talk about disagreements over what really it is, because you can't refer to it.
> 
> Without a term, it becomes more vague.



Oh. You never said that?

Here we go again.

You asked the question. How do we create an umbrella term that defines self defense that everyone can agree to. 

And the answer is we don't.

We define the specifics and the umbrella term takes care of itself. 

We still have self defense as a concept. We just don't compete to claim ownership of it. 

Would you punch in self defence?
It is a stupid question. There are specific circumstances to punch  there are ones that might be better not to. 

Adding self defense makes that concept awkward. But people use it for its marketing value. As it sounds definitive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

..


Guthrie said:


> We need the actual definition to completely understand the discussion. Agreeing on a different definition, will change the concept of the subject, effectively removing the reason for even having a discussion. At least on my end.


Okay, so which definition? That's the question. And what do you do when the definition doesn't clearly define the edges of the concept? Or do you just ignore that and hope everyone has the same edges in mind?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> Going off the available evidence of this particular discussion, we're far from having a common working definition in this instance...
> 
> Part of the reason for this disparity is that the huge variety of legal definitions are actually clouding the colloquial usage that we'd be much more likely to (almost) universally accept.
> 
> ...


We can come up with a common definition, as long as we all recognize nobody needs to "win". So, if you and I start talking about the topic and realize we aren't using the same definition, I can accept yours (let's assume you used the word first), or we could take a moment to figure out what's common about our use of the term. Or we can decide it's not really important and just choose a definition that fits the discussion at hand.

With self-defense, this happens a lot. The definition I use is closer to the legal definition, and so more limited than the definition many people use (which includes avoidance, alarm systems, etc.). In discussion, I can usually figure out pretty quickly if they're including (in that discussion) those other areas. If so, I simply use their definition of self-defense for that discussion, so we aren't talking at cross-purposes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> And for those who enter the conversation at a later time, will be seriously confused concerning the actual subject at hand. This is why we have definitions that are universal, so that everyone will understand. Deviating from those definitions, is what cause confusion.


You keep saying that. Yet you haven't addressed any of the issues inherent in that approach. You don't seem to really want to discuss this, yet you keep tossing in comments that only reiterate an approach I've already pointed out has limitations.

Not sure what your goal is here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> no that definition takes precedance e for me it's the only one that is applicable, you need to find the legal definition in your jurisdiction, then we all have to realise that conversations with others in a different jurisdiction on what should be included in the definition of self defence is pointless, as each has the only definition they are ever likely to need.
> 
> if you share a jurisdiction, then discussions are equally pointless, as it's already defined in legal text and a quick google will put the matter to bed for ever


So, you just don't talk about it with anyone who lives somewhere else? No overlapping concepts can ever be discussed in that context?

And all of this ignores that self-defense isn't only a legal concept (as an affirmative defense). That's one use of the word.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Except nobody knows what you mean because the term is vague.
> 
> And then you use that vagueness to claim you didn't mean or say what you said.


No. You just like to say people do that. It's your way of baiting people, trying to get them away from actual discussion into your attempts at verbal traps. It's not terribly productive, especially when you continue to prosecute it over several threads.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Oh. You never said that?
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> ...


I said we never had to use specific terms. See, you're once again trying to make weasling out of your poor communication skills.

So, you think we don't lose anything by never talking about responding to non-consensual physical violence outside of agreed-upon fights, except insofar as we discuss them individually...never as an overall group? Really?


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You keep saying that. Yet you haven't addressed any of the issues inherent in that approach. You don't seem to really want to discuss this, yet you keep tossing in comments that only reiterate an approach I've already pointed out has limitations.
> 
> Not sure what your goal is here.


No, I have given my reasons, you just do not want to accept that I do not care about personal definitions. I told you why, it causes confusion. It is something that allows a person to be right all the time

Yes, I have lost interest in that type of discussion.


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> We can come up with a common definition, as long as we all recognize nobody needs to "win". So, if you and I start talking about the topic and realize we aren't using the same definition, I can accept yours (let's assume you used the word first), or we could take a moment to figure out what's common about our use of the term. Or we can decide it's not really important and just choose a definition that fits the discussion at hand.



That's all well and good if it's you and I having a discussion, we reach an accord as to where the boundaries are.

And it can easily accommodate a few more participants, as long as their predefined boundaries aren't too dissimilar to ours (or one or all of us will move sufficiently to make it work - that happens a lot).

But in an open forum it gets difficult, because Bob says our boundaries are far too narrow for what he can/does do - so we could expand and continue.

But then Frank says that's no good because 80% of the discussion is stuff he can't (/won't) use, and Darryl backs him up.

Then Stuart says Frank and Bob are stupid and don't know what they're talking about, Laura jumps in to defend Bob, Bob says he can fight his own arguments, Tarquin says he's a vegan and we all end up arguing about bacon.

Not that I'm saying it's not entertaining, just that I've come to accept that most subject matter (especially transatlantic) needs to have a wide interpretation...


----------



## jobo (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, you just don't talk about it with anyone who lives somewhere else? No overlapping concepts can ever be discussed in that context?
> 
> And all of this ignores that self-defense isn't only a legal concept (as an affirmative defense). That's one use of the word.



you can talk about it, just don't keep pushing your home sdpun definition on ppeople it is only a legal concept,if it wasn't for the legal concept of unlawful assault there wouldn't be any need for the concept of self defence,  it would just be called fighting


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> No, I have given my reasons, you just do not want to accept that I do not care about personal definitions. I told you why, it causes confusion. It is something that allows a person to be right all the time
> 
> Yes, I have lost interest in that type of discussion.


Yes, you've given reasons, and acted as if there are no inherent issues in that approach. You've not been actually discussing anything from the beginning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> That's all well and good if it's you and I having a discussion, we reach an accord as to where the boundaries are.
> 
> And it can easily accommodate a few more participants, as long as their predefined boundaries aren't too dissimilar to ours (or one or all of us will move sufficiently to make it work - that happens a lot).
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

I think that when people are using, logic, reasoning and critical thinking, they misunderstand the concept concerning definitions.

The definitions, that are agreed upon, are meant to have their start in known and accepted definitions. A person, is not meant to come up with what they individually think it means.

This is where dictionaries, a legal definitions are important.

This is why legal definitions are extremely important, the courts thedecide if what you have done, follows the lawful definitions and that is why, the legal definitions seem vague. It is the circumstance related to the legal definition that are important.

I see this mistake made by a people when it comes to an agreement in defining words or expressions.

Doing it this way, (what it means to you even if agreed upon by the other party) gives one of the parties an upper hand in the debate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> you can talk about it, just don't keep pushing your home sdpun definition on ppeople it is only a legal concept,if it wasn't for the legal concept of unlawful assault there wouldn't be any need for the concept of self defence,  it would just be called fighting


I don't push my definitions. You actually ought to know that. I generally use common-usage definitions. When mine differs from someone else's, I generally let them know (to acknowledge any confusion it may have created) then work with theirs, unless there's a reason theirs doesn't fit the topic as it is being discussed (as when *you* often step into a discussion and insist others must use the definition of a word as you prefer it, when a different usage is already working well for those invovled).


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2019)

Great discussion though, but it's my Friday and I have some training to do.

Gpseymour- enjoyed your rhetoric, you are quite intelligent. And, I mean that in a complimentary way.

You sir, are a Master Debater....yuk yuk...pun is not intended, but it was funny nevertheless.

Might get back on later, have a good night.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No. You just like to say people do that. It's your way of baiting people, trying to get them away from actual discussion into your attempts at verbal traps. It's not terribly productive, especially when you continue to prosecute it over several threads.



I never said that.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I said we never had to use specific terms. See, you're once again trying to make weasling out of your poor communication skills.
> 
> So, you think we don't lose anything by never talking about responding to non-consensual physical violence outside of agreed-upon fights, except insofar as we discuss them individually...never as an overall group? Really?



Yes. Unless there are specific requirements at play consensual vs non consensual is a false distinction.

Also a marketing ploy.  

It is basically women's deodorant. 

And we see this all the time. Does boxing work in the street. And you can take a situation where someone boxes 3 guys then moves on to wreck everyone else in the room. 

And so instead of looking at the specifics you can turn around and discount all those examples because he didn't disengage or whatever the personal definitions are. 

And it is kind of dumb. If you can wade your way through 5 guys. Compliant, non compliant is basically a post note. Not a real critique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I never said that.


Okay. Go with that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yes. Unless there are specific requirements at play consensual vs non consensual is a false distinction.
> 
> Also a marketing ploy.
> 
> ...


So here's where your dogma gets in the way. You confuse an attempt to discuss with marketing, because you don't like the idea of training that's focused on self-defense.

I can't think of anything useful that can come from this discussion, since you appear to be be entirely incapable of discussing anything that gets near that word without bringing out all the worst possible kinds of strawmen and other attempts to divert discussion.

You used to be capable of actual discussion, even when we disagreed. I'm not sure what happened.


----------



## jobo (Aug 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So here's where your dogma gets in the way. You confuse an attempt to discuss with marketing, because you don't like the idea of training that's focused on self-defense.
> 
> I can't think of anything useful that can come from this discussion, since you appear to be be entirely incapable of discussing anything that gets near that word without bringing out all the worst possible kinds of strawmen and other attempts to divert discussion.
> 
> You used to be capable of actual discussion, even when we disagreed. I'm not sure what happened.


its you that's being dogmatic with YOUR DEFINTION.

you can call any sort of training self defence f you wish, but it's meaningless. if you use that training, the law and only the law decades of what you did was self defence or not. there's no other judge. what you need to train them is to fight and when the law allows you to and when it requires you to stop. there may be certain techniques that are more useful for an unexpected attack, but does alter that they are fighting techniques not some magical " self defence"

if your charging them money, to tell them common sense things there mother should have told them and calling that " self defence" then your taking money under false pretences. if your teaching them conflict resolution, that fine, but it's conflict resolution and no use at all it someone grabs you b the throat


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> its you that's being dogmatic with YOUR DEFINTION.


You keep making claims like that, but there's a problem with your claim: I don't ask anyone to use my definition, nor even insist I have to use it in any given discussion. I'm happy to use any reasonable definition presented - I'm more interested in the communication.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> you can call any sort of training self defence f you wish, but it's meaningless. if you use that training, the law and only the law decades of what you did was self defence or not. there's no other judge. what you need to train them is to fight and when the law allows you to and when it requires you to stop. there may be certain techniques that are more useful for an unexpected attack, but does alter that they are fighting techniques not some magical " self defence"
> 
> if your charging them money, to tell them common sense things there mother should have told them and calling that " self defence" then your taking money under false pretences. if your teaching them conflict resolution, that fine, but it's conflict resolution and no use at all it someone grabs you b the throat


I might point out again here that you're actually comical. You're trying really hard to impugn my definition....without haven any idea (apparently) what my definition is.


----------



## jobo (Aug 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I might point out again here that you're actually comical. You're trying really hard to impugn my definition....without haven any idea (apparently) what my definition is.


well your definition seems to vary by the hours, I've read it many times and it's never the same as last time and won't be the same tomorrow, this intentional vagueness allows you to say " I didn't say that " if someone pulls you up on ivia

so for the sake of fair exchange, my definition is,,  what ever the legal definition is in what ever jurisdiction is being discussed.

in no more than 20 words, what's your definition of the day ?


----------



## Gweilo (Aug 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> well your definition seems to vary by the hours, I've read it many times and it's never the same as last time and won't be the same tomorrow, this intentional vagueness allows you to say " I didn't say that " if someone pulls you up on ivia
> 
> so for the sake of fair exchange, my definition is,,  what ever the legal definition is in what ever jurisdiction is being discussed.
> 
> in no more than 20 words, what's your definition of the day ?


I can sum you up in one word, but just in case there are fragile people reading, I will change it to Obstinate. I mean was you born like it, or have you had to work very hard at it ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> well your definition seems to vary by the hours, I've read it many times and it's never the same as last time and won't be the same tomorrow, this intentional vagueness allows you to say " I didn't say that " if someone pulls you up on ivia
> 
> so for the sake of fair exchange, my definition is,,  what ever the legal definition is in what ever jurisdiction is being discussed.
> 
> in no more than 20 words, what's your definition of the day ?


Yeah, except it doesn't vary. I've rarely been asked for mine, so rarely bothered to post it. It has some definite boundaries. What makes it look like I change mine is that I don't insist on using my own when another is in play already.

My definition is much closer to yours than to the most common usage on this forum. The main difference is that I'm not limited by a single jurisdiction, nor by the legal constraints. So, my definition doesn't depend upon whether a court in any given jurisdiction would recognize a self-defense defense. Otherwise, you and I use pretty much the same definition.

EDIT: Hit post too soon. So, pretty concisely, my definition of self-defense is physically defending against a physical attack (outside of consensual fights, war, etc.).


----------



## drop bear (Aug 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So here's where your dogma gets in the way. You confuse an attempt to discuss with marketing, because you don't like the idea of training that's focused on self-defense.
> 
> I can't think of anything useful that can come from this discussion, since you appear to be be entirely incapable of discussing anything that gets near that word without bringing out all the worst possible kinds of strawmen and other attempts to divert discussion.
> 
> You used to be capable of actual discussion, even when we disagreed. I'm not sure what happened.



You diverted the discussion on about your first post. Unnecessarily trying to make the distinction between street fights and self defense. I gave been trying to bring it back. 

The whole self defense industry is a mess of slogans and misinformation. 

The argument We have is ultimately is you think they are true and I think they are suspect. And we use different methods to discern this. I try to use data and evidence. You use anecdotes. 

This for me has been a years long progression that has come from comparing what has been said about fighting people in the street and actually fighting people in the street. 

And if you want to make the distinction also what has been said about self defense and actual application of self defence. 

And training self defense based system and training sport based systems.

And then seeing how the mind set changes between those two approaches (ultimately when they really shouldn't)

Using data and evidence means the weight is placed on scientific method. So I can place weight on a method that I can use consistently in the gym under controlled conditions. And observe equally effective but different methods. And I play around with best technique vs best fit for the person and so on. But it means I have to group martial arts in to a meta concept rather than a specific one. But I come up with a core set of principles. 

So works becomes works consistently.
Street fighting becomes a distilled version of what works to be a conservative version of works. 
And self defense isn't really a definition but a result. 

Using anecdotes forces you to accept a lot of outlying ideas that you don't really test and can't quantify. You have been told the earth is flat. You believe it. You get upset when i demand for practical purposes it is round. 

The issue is. From my experience. That your method of self defence is inefficient. And it does not equip you mentally and physically for the sort of engagements you are training specifically for. (See didn't need to say self defense there because it is not a real term)


----------



## drop bear (Aug 13, 2019)

And because this is a similar but connected idea.

We can see this demonstrated really well with BJJ.

Where we have this connection from the mat to the ring to the street.

You can tell in real world aplication that BJJ players are pretty much doing the same thing they were learning in the gym.

You take them out in the park. It is still pretty much the same show.

You run up and sucker punch them. Same show.

And the reason BJJ is such a good example of this idea is they technically do so much that is wrong.

They take people to the ground, roll off top mount, don't get up when they should, don't strike when they should.

Yet even though self defense is supposed to be this specific beast people completely untrained in self defense But trained in fighting seem to be incredibly successful at it.

Now if someone who is untrained in self defense is better at self defense than self defense experts.

The distinction to a large extent is being used to hamper people's progress.

So this.
Log In or Sign Up to View

Is more self defense than this.


----------



## jobo (Aug 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, except it doesn't vary. I've rarely been asked for mine, so rarely bothered to post it. It has some definite boundaries. What makes it look like I change mine is that I don't insist on using my own when another is in play already.
> 
> My definition is much closer to yours than to the most common usage on this forum. The main difference is that I'm not limited by a single jurisdiction, nor by the legal constraints. So, my definition doesn't depend upon whether a court in any given jurisdiction would recognize a self-defense defense. Otherwise, you and I use pretty much the same definition.
> 
> EDIT: Hit post too soon. So, pretty concisely, my definition of self-defense is physically defending against a physical attack (outside of consensual fights, war, etc.).


that's not at all like mine, as its not a definitive definition, which is the definition of definition.

all it does is leave further controversy on one the definition of physical, attack and defence is


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You diverted the discussion on about your first post. Unnecessarily trying to make the distinction between street fights and self defense. I gave been trying to bring it back.


A fairly common distinction, and I didn't really make a big deal about it. Most of the posts that resulted from my side comment (which I actually labeled as such) were about whether there was a legal exception for consensual fighting or not. A side discussion about a related topic...which wasn't really led by me, but by others' comments and questions. You see that as a purposeful diversion, because you are dogmatically unable to see clearly when anyone uses the term self-defense.



> The whole self defense industry is a mess of slogans and misinformation.


Blatantly dogmatic" "the whole...industry". And then you'll reach for a few convenient confirmation-bias-supported points to say it is, in fact, the whole industry. And you'll ignore literally all evidence to the contrary.



> The argument We have is ultimately is you think they are true and I think they are suspect. And we use different methods to discern this. I try to use data and evidence. You use anecdotes.


You're quite funny. You once again don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. Just as you usually make blatantly uninformed assumptions about how I train and teach, you now also make blatantly uninformed comments about what you think I think. And, as usual, you get it wrong.

You'd do much better if you ever asked a sincere question, with the intention of finding out. But you decided long ago that I'm unskeptical and must practice (and believe in) all the worst things you think of in your stereotyped view of self-defense training.



> This for me has been a years long progression that has come from comparing what has been said about fighting people in the street and actually fighting people in the street.


And I've always looked at your input about what is and isn't useful as valuable, because of that (though your own suggestion would have me completely ignore it), then check it both with what others have experienced and with what I can manage against resisting opponents. But you'll have a problem with that entire process, because my focus happens to include the term "self-defense", which automatically blinds you to everything.



> And if you want to make the distinction also what has been said about self defense and actual application of self defence.
> 
> And training self defense based system and training sport based systems.
> 
> And then seeing how the mind set changes between those two approaches (ultimately when they really shouldn't)


Except that I've said many times I think good sport training is an excellent base for SD preparation. I do believe (based on my experience in how folks train) that having a SD focus (either personally or as a group) adds some benefit. But you have never been able to have a reasonable discussion about that, because your bias against the term "self-defense" means everything about it must be wrong, whether you've examined it or not.



> Using data and evidence means the weight is placed on scientific method. So I can place weight on a method that I can use consistently in the gym under controlled conditions. And observe equally effective but different methods. And I play around with best technique vs best fit for the person and so on. But it means I have to group martial arts in to a meta concept rather than a specific one. But I come up with a core set of principles.


Overall a reasonable approach, though less scientifically rigorous (by necessity) than you seem to believe it is. There are restrictions on what we can reasonably do to control variables, and we have to live with that.



> So works becomes works consistently.


So, here you're saying your definition is the right one. The thing you accused me of doing. I'll mention that I don't have a problem with your usage here, but when you add a word to a word and say that's the meaning of the original word, that's clearly adjusting the definition to your purpose. A reasonable usage, as I said, but when you assert (as you seemed to) that leaving out "consistently" is not really "works", you're imposing your usage upon others.



> Street fighting becomes a distilled version of what works to be a conservative version of works.
> And self defense isn't really a definition but a result.


Wait. I thought you said that term was a "weasel word". Only when others use it?



> Using anecdotes forces you to accept a lot of outlying ideas that you don't really test and can't quantify. You have been told the earth is flat. You believe it. You get upset when i demand for practical purposes it is round.


No, it really doesn't. Just because I use them, that doesn't mean I have to accept what they provide. They're input to the total process. You said you use your own experience. That's just anecdotes. That they are your anecdotes changes only that you know they're more or less true (memory is unreliable, but you likely remember the situation generally accurately). It doesn't change that they're still one-offs. Same for my own self-defense situations (dunno what term you prefer I use - they weren't really fights, so "street fights" seems a poor term).



> The issue is. From my experience. That your method of* self defence* is inefficient. And it does not equip you mentally and physically for the sort of engagements you are training specifically for. (See didn't need to say self defense there because it is not a real term)


The issue is, you don't really know what my method of self-defense is. You've never really sincerely tried to find out. Because the term "aikido" (apparently as evil to you as "self-defense") is in the name, you've made continued (and often dramatically incorrect) assumptions about what it is I do. 

Oh, and I'll point you you actually DID use the term "self defence" - right before you didn't. I highlighted it for you.

Thanks for again sharing your bias and assumptions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yet even though self defense is supposed to be this specific beast people completely untrained in self defense But trained in fighting seem to be incredibly successful at it.


An assertion I've made, myself many times. But you won't remember that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's not at all like mine, as its not a definitive definition, which is the definition of definition.
> 
> all it does is leave further controversy on one the definition of physical, attack and defence is


You're hilarious.


----------



## Gweilo (Aug 14, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's not at all like mine, as its not a definitive definition, which is the definition of definition.
> 
> all it does is leave further controversy on one the definition of physical, attack and defence is



Is that your definate definitive definition of a definitive definition?


----------



## jobo (Aug 14, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Is that your definate definitive definition of a definitive definition?


no its my definite definitive definition of a defintion''s definitive defintion


----------

