# Kung Fu Fighter Video



## arnisandyz (Jun 24, 2005)

Sorry if this was posted before!

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/kungfufighter.html


----------



## swiftpete (Jun 25, 2005)

Fantastic! It looks like the other guy mouths off then loses his bravado a bit when he sees him go into his stance but goes ahead with the fight anyway.Then gets what's coming to him! shame they stopped filming so soon after the knockout


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 25, 2005)

swiftpete said:
			
		

> Fantastic! It looks like the other guy mouths off then loses his bravado a bit when he sees him go into his stance but goes ahead with the fight anyway.Then gets what's coming to him! shame they stopped filming so soon after the knockout


yes true, but it was probably just cut to save bandwidth space on the site, I'm sure that there was more to it. 
This was apt: (from the site) 


> Description:
> This is hilarious. A kid gets in a streetfight and busts into some Kung Fu stance. I thought it was more of a joke to mock the other fighter until he one punches him and knocks him out.



Pretty good little clip... one hit... ding!


----------



## Hannya (Jun 25, 2005)

I saw this the other day, and it looks like a lucky punch to me. The kid threw 5-6 punches and they were WAY off, then he got lucky with the hook. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera stopped rolling because the kid got back up and returned the favor multiple times 

 Anyone know what stance he was using? Are there really defensice/offensive stances that are practical for street fights?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jun 25, 2005)

Hannya said:
			
		

> I saw this the other day, and it looks like a lucky punch to me. The kid threw 5-6 punches and they were WAY off, then he got lucky with the hook. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera stopped rolling because the kid got back up and returned the favor multiple times
> 
> Anyone know what stance he was using? Are there really defensice/offensive stances that are practical for street fights?


i would say luck is a part of any fight as well as skill. this kid stuck to his game plan without letting the other guy throw him off. 
end result kung fu - 1, street punk - 0

i think thats the biggest downfall of any martial artist.......they practice and practice to refine their fighting style.....when they actually get into a fight, they fight the other guys fight instead of making the other guy fight their fight.
lay down with the dogs and you get the fleas.


----------



## bignick (Jun 25, 2005)

Hannya said:
			
		

> I saw this the other day, and it looks like a lucky punch to me. The kid threw 5-6 punches and they were WAY off, then he got lucky with the hook. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera stopped rolling because the kid got back up and returned the favor multiple times
> 
> Anyone know what stance he was using? Are there really defensice/offensive stances that are practical for street fights?


 Could also chalk that up to nerves...Kid had probably never been in a fight and was probably scared to death...but he kept his cool...after the first short engagement he might have calmed down and adjusted his aiming and timing...either way, his training obviously gave him the confidence to deal with the situation and he did...


----------



## clfsean (Jun 25, 2005)

Lots of luck... 
Little skill... 
No kung fu... 

The kid came out ok, but I wouldn't read much into it past that.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 25, 2005)

clfsean said:
			
		

> Lots of luck...
> Little skill...
> No kung fu...
> 
> The kid came out ok, but I wouldn't read much into it past that.



i agree :supcool:


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 25, 2005)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Sorry if this was posted before!
> 
> http://www.big-boys.com/articles/kungfufighter.html


You know, he might look a little silly busting some stances.. But I think that should have been fair warning to back off.  Dude didn't take the warning and got his face split.  This is my favorite video ever.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 25, 2005)

clfsean said:
			
		

> Lots of luck...
> Little skill...
> No kung fu...
> 
> The kid came out ok, but I wouldn't read much into it past that.


I thought he did well. Near the end of the video when the camera is in a bad spot you can sorta see where the opponent comes in for attack, and has his fists totally confounded. I think the MA'ist controlled the fight the entire time. He didn't even come close to getting hit. And hey, oppurtunity for a haymaker? Sure take it. Like I've said before if you forget the form of the tiger don't forget to be ferocious like the tiger.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 25, 2005)

Hannya said:
			
		

> Anyone know what stance he was using? Are there really defensice/offensive stances that are practical for street fights?


The one that stands out in my mind, that I wouldn't expect to see is the steal stance. The steal is great for bridging the gap, hence the name. You "steal" space on your opponent. He doesn't use it effectively but what can you expect. You really have to remember that few have nerves of iron, if you don't some skill is going to go out the window regardless. He uses a series of very badly done cat, horse and lunge stances.  But what I think was his strong point in the fight is him taking a lot of quick steps forward, again bridging the gap and using the KF fighting concept of constant forward pressing motion. With all his imperfections in the fight I give him an A++ for controlling his opponent and sticking it to him with one good shot.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 26, 2005)

I think the person who played the kung fu role here confounded his opponent by having the lead hand so far forward that a jab/cross was stymied. Was it real kung fu? The stances seemed consistent, so I do think he's studied something. The KO punch was sloppy, but isn't that often the case in a real life situation, with the adrenalin flowing and all?


----------



## Simon Curran (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm not a Kung Fu stylist, so I couldn't comment on the perfection of his technique, but like a lot of others have said, he did well considering the tension of the situation, and at no point did the other guy look to be the one in control


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 26, 2005)

i saw that video the other day but i have quite a few things to say about it..

 the guy in the red shirt didn't seem like he really knew kungfu, if he did he must have been just joined recently because if you see his steps and his stances, he's quite unbalanced. also, his leg positions are out in a way where he can easily have his knee cap broken

 also, he starts swearing showing that he isn't that disciplined

 i remember seeing one segment where he tried to jab but stepped with his back leg and crossed it over his front leg behind himself. the other guy could have easily knocked him out here.

 as for the hit, neither of them knew what they were doing. they just started swinging like little girls, the guy in the red shirt just kept unctrollably swinging his arms outwards similar to a high block but not really until eventually one of his swings hit the other guy

 i would have liked to see what happened after that punch. i'm sure the guy in red was knocked out


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jun 26, 2005)

i think most people have in their heads the picture of a perfect fight, if they were ever to be involved in one. the reality is, no fight is ever perfect......and they never look quite the way you want them to look.
but i would wager that the people saying this have never been in a fight......or maybe they have, but have not seen what they look like while doing it.


----------



## Marcus Buonfiglio (Jun 26, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> You know, he might look a little silly busting some stances.. But I think that should have been fair warning to back off.  Dude didn't take the warning and got his face split.  This is my favorite video ever.



This video was discussed on another forum. I am posting a response from Mr. Brown that has an interesting perspective. Mr. Brown is one of my students.
Also in reviewing the video the actions of the attacker in reaching around his back prior to the engagement would have resulted in me attacking immediately.  The action is consistent with bring a weapon from concealment into battery.

Here is Mr. Brown's post:
I heard a story of about fifteen years ago in Arizona a cop was attempting to take down a pretty tough guy, with no back up. Was a sketchy situation in a bad part of town, and the cop did a horrible job of following protocol and waiting for additional help. After chasing this person into a bad an unknown area, the guy turned on him and assumed what the officer later called a "threatening stance", and invited him to scrap. The officer drew and shot him, killing him.

As the story goes, he felt his life was immediately threatened, and given the range and conditions of the situation, he had no alternative but to drop the guy.

He was relieved of all charges, and continued to serve in the police force.

Whether this is a true story or not, it gives lesson in presenting to an enemy what you know. Assume a "karotty" stance, and you raise your enemy's awareness and caution of you - bad tactics. Sun Tzu's treatise has been around for 2500 years for a reason. Such warnings may be enough, in the attacker's mind, to warrant his use of a weapon, or other actions more severe than what he originally intended.

Just a thought. This also brings some light to the natural standing position from which we are trained to commence action in a technique, and what it can offer in terms of display of knowledge and, perhaps more importantly, what it appears as to the bystander. In many cases the bystanders will make or break you in the police report that follows.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 26, 2005)

i have to agree with that too. when the guy in the red shirt started to make room and went into his qigong stance, he went into a threatening position that was basically an open invitation for trouble. if the attacker was injured, the bystanders would have been able to hold the guy in the red shirt liable.

 i've read in some kungfu magazines about how victims of attack who know martial arts end up taking down the attacker and end up injuring the attacker. then a few weeks or months later, they're being sued for assault. some of them lose the case because the jury has the idea that every martial artist is going to be like cain in the kungfu tv shows and be able to keep 100% control over the entire situation


----------



## dsp921 (Jun 26, 2005)

I agree with the last couple of posts about the stances.  I think the extreme stances are less of a warning and more tipping your hand.  There are a number of reasons why this could be bad.  Maybe your opponent will suddenly view you as more of a threat then he originally assumed and hitting the stances would make him go for a weapon or cause his friends to join in.  I myself would rather keep as normal a posture as possible and not give away any advantage.  I also agree with moving in fast as soon as it looked like the guy was reaching for something, like behind his back or when he went for his shoe. 
Did the KO punch look more like a hammer strike and not so much a haymaker?  I could be wrong, and I'll have to watch again more closely, but it did look like a palm up strike.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 26, 2005)

I agree with the comments about not letting on what you know...but in this case, it did seem to intimidate the other person, and I thought it nearly kept the fight from happening (hard to tell).

It'd be nice to know if this person really knows a kung fu style!


----------



## RBaddorf (Jun 27, 2005)

Could be the guy is self taught from a book.  He tried to use stances and techniques, but at the wrong time and in the wrong way.  I would hope that if he ever did go to a school, the instructor would have taught the proper uses of stances, and proper closing techniques.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 27, 2005)

jkdhit said:
			
		

> i
> i remember seeing one segment where he tried to jab but stepped with his back leg and crossed it over his front leg behind himself. the other guy could have easily knocked him out here.


That's a steal stance as mentioned before.. Totally part of KF, totally in the wrong place IMHO.. I always percieved using steals as part of sword combat rather than empty handed.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 27, 2005)

Marcus Buonfiglio said:
			
		

> Also in reviewing the video the actions of the attacker in reaching around his back prior to the engagement would have resulted in me attacking immediately.  The action is consistent with bring a weapon from concealment into battery.


I pointed this out on another forum where we were discussing the same vid.  So far you're the only one I've seen that also keyed in on this.  Like you said, If I saw someone move in this manner I'd be all over them.  "Mr. kung-foo" was lucky this guy wasn't reaching for a weapon or he'd have been toast.

---------------

As far as assuming a position that's immediately recognized as a "fighting stance," I don't think it's the smartest thing to do, like some of ya'll have said, doing this would "tip your hand."  

Of course, it looks like this was just another juvenile "pissing match."  Either of them could have walked away and chose not too.  When red-shirt hit his stance and the other guy backed off he should have called it a day.  Both of them are idiots in my book.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 27, 2005)

I have seen an instance or 2 where someone broke down into a stance during a street altercation and it didn't go as planned.
 One was a guy who squared off with a cop in ohio.....
  The cop actually turned out to be a 3 time international TKD champion and 3 times Panama games grand champion....AND H2H combat instructor for the police dept!
 He kind of enjoyed the challenge
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  Here in the UK......
 there was shotokan instructor who got attacked by a 19yr old "career criminal" (he already had a long record for violent assaults) some years back and the young man had a knife.
  The instructor was empty handed.......
 SEVERAL stitches later,he killed the guy in self-defense.
  The instructor got 15-life.
 The judges lame a** excuse : "as instructor of the martial arts,you should have known better".
  Of course....this comming from a pansy *** judge who has never even seen a fight,let alone be in one,,felt totally qualified and justified to speak on this subject, even when the dead guys PARENTS petitioned the court for the instructors release! THEY knew thier son was a scumbag and he had it commin!
 So,over here...you'd be screwed for what the guy in red shirt did.
 But it is getting better,slowly but surely.


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 27, 2005)

i've seen the steal stance too but only with straight swords, never with kf.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 27, 2005)

For learning pursposes, can anyone explain the mechanics and proper usage of the 'steal stance'?  Thanks


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 27, 2005)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Sorry if this was posted before!
> 
> http://www.big-boys.com/articles/kungfufighter.html


why apologize, why say "if", when you yourself posted it at least twice


----------



## arnisador (Jun 27, 2005)

RBaddorf said:
			
		

> Could be the guy is self taught from a book.


 Hmmm, that's a possibility--he learned from a book, or DVD, or from watching a sibling who actually _did_ study.

 I agree that the cross-behind step is risky! What if he gets tackled just then?


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 27, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> He kind of enjoyed the challenge
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 27, 2005)

For the record I must also add that it looks like he had ample chance to walk away, and didn't take it.  Which of course sucks.

I showed this video to some non-martial artists and they agree the final shot looks like dumb luck.. I stand by my opinion that it was a combination of some calculation and a lot of luck.  Luck seems like it is often a factor in just about any battle.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 27, 2005)

I too have heard that the U.K. is harsh on those acting in self-defense. I wonder if it's true?


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 27, 2005)

as far as the courts are concerned,you are allowed to use whatever you want to defend yourself....but then you have explain WHY you HAD what you used in the first place.
  If you get attacked by 5 guys with clubs and knives...yes,you can use a knife,but then you have to explain why you had a knife in the first place and 8,maybe 9 times out of ten....you got a minimun of 2 years for being posession.If it has a locking blade...up to 5 years.
  When all is said and done.....
 the law is made by a PILE O PANSIES who know NOTHING about thier life being on the line and they never will.
  They blatantly ignore any input from hospital services,victim support services or even the beat officers who actually know the truth of things at hand.
  At one time (and this dates back to a time when a man could be arrested for being gay...but the was NO WAY a woman could be gay,queen victoria refused to believe that was possible), the police was portrayed as a perfect crime fighting unit and ONLY they could fight crime.The law makers have a fiiiirm grip on the word "vigilante".
  Now,in the 21st century.....
 Everything insight is banned,NOT because of the lame reason they spew all opver the news.."we trying to keep these out of the hands of criminals"..
 but because they are trying to get assaults on the police to go down.
  This is the ONLY LEO comminuity on the planet that is unarmed.
 Pepper spray and asp batons just ain't getting it.
 and the criminal element KNOW the police can't do a damn thing about it.
  If you get attacked on you own property,law states you must run inside your house,lock the door and call the police.
  If they manage to get inside,you are supposed to lock yourself in a room and wait for the police.
 Again,do nothing.
  They do lie,sorry,"say" you can defend yourself in your home...but if you hit the assailant more than once..you are arrested for "no-reasonable" force.
  If you chase someone for stealing your property...YOU get arrested.
 The police are so perfect...they WILL find it.
  The police here act as mindreaders.
  If you have a spotless record and they pick you at random and find something on you THEY don't like...they KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt...you WILL commit a crime with it!
  If you say you carry a kubaton for DEFENSE...you done.
 If you say the magic word implying self preservation,then you freely admit that you ARE INTENDING to cause bodily harm and therefore...you ARE a criminal.
  Fortunately,the street police are getting wise and taking more things into consideration.But that isn't happening fast enough.
  I have recieved 2 pieces of advice off the record here from police....
 1) do NOT hang around when you are done! Leave the area immediately!
 2) dead men don't argue.

 The last one may be extreme,but living here in south london,
 you have middle eastern gangs,jamaican gangs(yardies) british "firms" ( look up the Kray twins and the charlie richardson gang) eastern block gangs from all countries,far east gangs(triads flourish here in london) and you have gypsies(pykies) and list goes on.
  They fear nothing and nobody.

 Why do you think I specialise in knife fighting?
 They do.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 27, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> as far as the courts are concerned,you are allowed to use whatever you want to defend yourself....but then you have explain WHY you HAD what you used in the first place.
> If you get attacked by 5 guys with clubs and knives...yes,you can use a knife,but then you have to explain why you had a knife in the first place and 8,maybe 9 times out of ten....you got a minimun of 2 years for being posession.If it has a locking blade...up to 5 years.
> When all is said and done.....
> the law is made by a PILE O PANSIES who know NOTHING about thier life being on the line and they never will.
> ...


 
All this, and I am still mad as hell about those tea tarriffs they inflicted on us.


----------



## rupton (Jun 28, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> For the record I must also add that it looks like he had ample chance to walk away, and didn't take it. Which of course sucks.
> 
> I showed this video to some non-martial artists and they agree the final shot looks like dumb luck.. I stand by my opinion that it was a combination of some calculation and a lot of luck. Luck seems like it is often a factor in just about any battle.


Agreed, but I look at luck in a fight differently.  To me luck isn't if one of my techniques connects properly (that's skill, hopefully resulting from years of correct practice combined with good no mind and control), luck is if I have the opportunity to A.) never be in that situation in the first place or B.) have the chance to quickly get away.  I hope no one uses this as a good example of self defense.  I mean there was no self defense aspect to it.  It looks to me like the Kung-Fu guy got a little pissed off, lost his temper and started to fight.  There was a couple of times where he was up in the other guys face saying "Come on" and the attacker stopped to tie his shoe for goodness sake, not a lot of immediate urgency there ;-)  Tell me this kid probably couldn't have, shouldn't have walked away.  There's nothing budo like or honorable IMO of knocking some guy down who probably deserves it.  Just my $.02


----------



## jkdhit (Jul 3, 2005)

i think the guy deserved it for starting the whole confrontation but the guy in the red shirt needs to be taught a lesson too


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 3, 2005)

If I wanted to watch two clowns fighting, I would go to the circus. 

In all honesty, though, I think the guy who got knocked out deserved it.  I do wish the tape would have continued running so I could see his homeboys reactions to the knockout.  Other than that, it seemed like pure dumb luck.  He tried the hit he "trained" and kept missing, so he just started swinging.  This guy was lucky the guy he knocked out was a bigger clown than he was.   It's just an example of someone with poor training and no clue fighting someone with NO training and no clue.


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 3, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> Is it me or does the UK punish people for defending themselves a lot? I hear stories like this all the time.


In all fairness, the US has several double standards, although not as bad as the UK.

For example, if homeboy would have popped red shirt good enough to break his nose, it would be misdemeanor assault in PA. If red shirt actually had a bb (just for hypo purposes), it's felony assault because he has a bb. Same goes for boxers and other MAers.


----------



## dsp921 (Jul 3, 2005)

BaiKaiGuy said:
			
		

> In all fairness, the US has several double standards, although not as bad as the UK.
> 
> For example, if homeboy would have popped red shirt good enough to break his nose, it would be misdemeanor assault in PA. If red shirt actually had a bb (just for hypo purposes), it's felony assault because he has a bb. Same goes for boxers and other MAers.


Is this true?  Sounds pretty unfair to me.


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 3, 2005)

Yup.  the Pennsylvania high courts have held that Black Belts, Career Boxers (amateur), certain military types and pretty much all professional fighters have a higher burden when arguing self-defense.  They also have a higher burden on the "one punch rule" which I referred to in my above post.  Trust me, I've argued this one several times in court to get my clients off the felony charges...

I can't remember the case off the tope of my head, I've never actually defended a black belt, thankfully.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 3, 2005)

BaiKaiGuy said:
			
		

> Yup. the Pennsylvania high courts have held that Black Belts, Career Boxers (amateur), certain military types and pretty much all professional fighters have a higher burden when arguing self-defense. They also have a higher burden on the "one punch rule" which I referred to in my above post. Trust me, I've argued this one several times in court to get my clients off the felony charges...
> 
> I can't remember the case off the tope of my head, I've never actually defended a black belt, thankfully.


Thank god I live in Missouri, where a punch is still a punch, a kick is still a kick, no matter who it's from.


----------



## dsp921 (Jul 3, 2005)

I understand that if the case is a "one punch homicide" the MAist would have a harder time in court. But, if a "regular" person hits someone and breaks their nose it's a simple assault, if a BB hits that same person in the same situation with the same result (a broken nose), it's now a felony assault for no other reason than person two is a BB? Wow, that's wrong if you ask me. They might as well require BBs to register themselves as deadly weapons....
And I thought lawmakers in Mass. where over the line. I take it by your comments you are an attorney so I guess you would know the laws in your state, crazy as they are. But you haven't defended a BB as of yet, and still had to agrue against felony charges, I'm a little confused.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jul 3, 2005)

It's just seems to be the way the country is going. Bad guys have way more rights than the average guy. What's really frightening, is that this trend is starting to spread. I've heard that the Chicago area is no place for any kind of self defense argument. Florida has tried a non martial artist for felony assualt with a punch. Granted the guy that got hit died, but the original charge was murder. It was later reduced to manslaughter. In fact I think there was more than one case in Florida. Yet drunk drivers keep on drinking and driving and getting released. :idunno:


----------



## dsp921 (Jul 3, 2005)

I can understand felony charges if the guy dies, BB or not.  The part that bugs me is that what I think is being said here is that if a non-MAist breaks a nose it's assault, if a BB does the same thing it's a felony simply because the guy has a BB.  Sounds like discrimination to me.


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 3, 2005)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> I can understand felony charges if the guy dies, BB or not. The part that bugs me is that what I think is being said here is that if a non-MAist breaks a nose it's assault, if a BB does the same thing it's a felony simply because the guy has a BB. Sounds like discrimination to me.


Fair or not, our (PA) courts have held that someone trained to fight is held to a higher standard than some kid off the street because of that knowledge.  The cases are pretty clear, and mention black belts, boxers, etc by name.

The reason I menitoned that I haven't had to defend a black belt was simply illustrative.  The law is against MAers, fair or not, and I'd hate to see the results of the appeal I'd have to write as the PA courts are quite anti-defendant.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 3, 2005)

But, many black belts are weekend warriors. I'd hope they'd decide whether to hold it against people on a case-by-case basis!


----------



## rupton (Jul 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But, many black belts are weekend warriors.


 Hi arnisador, that statement confused me.  What do you mean by black belts being weekend warriors?


----------



## Dan G (Jul 3, 2005)

Kung Fu vid was very funny. They both deserved a good slap though! One for being an obnoxious toe rag and the one in the red shirt for taking such a ludicrous stance in a street fight, forcing the confrontation, allowing the bloke to reach for a potentially concealed weapon, and for not kicking him in the face when he adjusted his shoelaces. Fight wasn't needed, from the amount of circling and posturing the mouthy bloke wasn't interested in taking it physical. Curious as to what the camera was doing there too.

Stuff below is a bit off topic, previous post on UK law and stuff got me feeling all warm and positive and "devil's advocatey" about the small island I live on...



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> as far as the courts are concerned,you are allowed to use whatever you want to defend yourself....but then you have explain WHY you HAD what you used in the first place.


Spot on! It is illegal to use force against another person in the UK except in a limited number of circumstances. Self defence, prevention of crime or injury, and executing a citizens arrest allow a member of the public to use "reasonable force". Depending on the circumstances and the subjective state of mind of the member of the public at the time it is potentially permissable to use extreme measures or weapons.

Carrying weapons or items adapted as weapons in a public place is an offence entirely separate to any act of violence performed in self-defence. 
Justifying carrying a weapon and justifying use of a weapon are two separate legal issues.



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> If you get attacked by 5 guys with clubs and knives...yes,you can use a knife,but then you have to explain why you had a knife in the first place and 8,maybe 9 times out of ten....you got a minimun of 2 years for being posession.If it has a locking blade...up to 5 years.


You are allowed to defend yourself using reasonable means. Whilst it might actually be reasonable to use a razor sharp katana in self defence the law expects you to have an excellent reason for having it with you at the time. If you are walking the dog in the park with a sword in one hand you will go to jail, and rightly so, if you are on the way back from iaido training or buying one in a shop you have a legitimate reason for carrying one. As a UK citizen I am pretty happy with the law on this point.

Mandatory sentences for carrying blades in public are a fact of life in the UK. Some agree some disagree. It limits the options available for legal self-defence. On the other hand it is a very good way of putting armed criminals in jail before they have the opportunity to leave an innocent MOP dead or crippled. It is arguably a statistics game which balances the reduced risk of encountering a knife on the street with the chance that you may have to face one unarmed... 



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> When all is said and done.....
> the law is made by a PILE O PANSIES who know NOTHING about thier life being on the line and they never will.
> They blatantly ignore any input from hospital services,victim support services or even the beat officers who actually know the truth of things at hand.


A bit of a generalisation! 

In UK slang a pansy is:

1) a homosexual man.
2) someone weak or effeminate in behaviour.

The law is made by a democratically elected parliament, it is administered by the court system and primarily the police. I am positive that the sexuality and gender mannerisms of the executive, court officers or the police has no effect on public policy and enforcement of UK law with respect to self-defence or carrying of weapons.

Common sense and demographics tell us that for most of the last century, and until very recently parliament and the courts were largely filled with citizens who had survived WW2 or WW1. These were people who had in fact very personal and sustained experience of "their life being on the line". Until very recently almost all judges and most politicians would have had family or friends sacrifice their life during the 40's. Often socially very conservative this generation has been surprisingly strong and liberal in outlook when defending civil liberties against government encroachment (in particular freedom of speech/official secrets act cases). Not "pansies" just people with a powerful and very personal understanding of the colossal sacrifices made in the 40's in the name of liberty and democracy. This understanding of the price paid to secure some of our liberties is definitely changing for the worse! 



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> At one time (and this dates back to a time when a man could be arrested for being gay...but the was NO WAY a woman could be gay,queen victoria refused to believe that was possible), the police was portrayed as a perfect crime fighting unit and ONLY they could fight crime.


True, until comparitively recently consensual "buggery" between adult men was illegal, but there was no law specifically making lesbian acts illegal. "buggery" between consenting adults, male or female is now legal, (although the family pets remain off limits):xtrmshock !

In Victorian times the Police were not seen as the perfect "crime fighting unit", the creation of the modern Police force under Robert Peel was a radical new experiment, and faced huge problems, primarily a genuine crime problem fuelled by abject poverty, and broad and largely well founded public perception of corruption in the pre-Peel constabularies. 



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> The law makers have a fiiiirm grip on the word "vigilante".


The law of England & Wales does not use nor need the term "vigilante". The law is clear, there are offences of violence, and there are defences to such offences including self defence and the prevention of crime. 



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Now,in the 21st century.....
> Everything insight is banned, NOT because of the lame reason they spew all opver the news.."we trying to keep these out of the hands of criminals"..
> but because they are trying to get assaults on the police to go down.


Either reason seems perfectly fair to me provided it is successful.



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> This is the ONLY LEO comminuity on the planet that is unarmed.
> Pepper spray and asp batons just ain't getting it.
> and the criminal element KNOW the police can't do a damn thing about it.


A little bit of web research will show that members of the police services in the UK (with the exception of the former RUC - the Police Service of Northern Ireland who remain armed) are against the routine carrying of firearms. If someone has the guts the skill and the confidence to do the job unarmed who has any right to argue with that? I am proud that we have a police force that is prepared to shoulder extra risk in the belief that the community is better served if most officers enforce the law unarmed.

In fact all areas of the UK have mobile armed response units, and certain units and forces are routinely armed. E.g. Civil Nuclear Constabulary, Police Service of Northern Ireland, MOD Police, Diplomatic Protection Group, SO.19, airport units etc etc. 

Gun crime in the UK is very low, and whilst this remains the case the current policy makes sense. For the moment pepper spray and asp batons do seem to cut it, and criminals also know that carrying firearms isn't a smart way of having either a long criminal career or a healthy long life...



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> If you get attacked on you own property,law states you must run inside your house,lock the door and call the police.
> If they manage to get inside,you are supposed to lock yourself in a room and wait for the police.
> Again,do nothing.
> They do lie,sorry,"say" you can defend yourself in your home...but if you hit the assailant more than once..you are arrested for "no-reasonable" force.


This is simply not the way the law works! Anybody on your property without permission is trespassing, this is not a crime. Everybody has the right to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser, this is again not a crime, although the law prefers it if you ask them to leave before thumping them. A trespassser who attacks you is committing an assault, which is a crime; just as on the street, you may use reasonable force to defend yourself, this is legally defensible. A trespasser who is stealing is a burglar, you may effect a citizens arrest, remove them from your property or defend yourself, again using reasonable force, and still remain within the law.

The law does not expect you to run and hide under the stairs, and the law is quite happy for you to hit an intruder as many times as you personally believe is reasonably neccessary for effective self defence. (BTW the jury has to believe that you subjectively were in a state of mind where a reasonable person would do what you did, a subjective objective test. If you acted reasonably given your personal belief, but that belief is way out of kilter with the rest of society then you might be innocent, but also sectioned as insane . So best to keep quiet about any "voices"... )

Recent cases show that the law does not allow you to tie up and torture burglars, nor does it allow you to shoot a teenager twice in the back as they run away from your property. 

On the other hand a known gangster who stabbed and killed an undercover police officer (trespassing in his garden on a surveillance op) was held to have acted in reasonable force, as he convinced the jury that he was in fear of his life and thought the officer to have been from a rival gang. It seems that if you have the right story and a convincing subjective state of mind you can quite literally get away with murder if you are on your own property!



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> If you chase someone for stealing your property...YOU get arrested.


This is simply not true. Everyone in the UK has the right to effect a "citizen's arrest" if a crime is being committed. However, the police are not allowed to give suspects a "good shoeing" and neither is a member of the public. Both face arrest if they do so.



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> The police are so perfect...they WILL find it.
> The police here act as mindreaders.
> If you have a spotless record and they pick you at random and find something on you THEY don't like...they KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt...you WILL commit a crime with it!


The Police do the best they can, and their role is to enforce the law, not their personal likes and dislikes. Largely they do this very well. Anyone that breaks the law and carries a weapon should not be surprised if the Police decide that the court deserves to hear an explanation. For better or for worse it is a simple matter of action and consequences.



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> If you say you carry a kubaton for DEFENSE...you done.
> If you say the magic word implying self preservation,then you freely admit that you ARE INTENDING to cause bodily harm and therefore...you ARE a criminal.


If you admit to carrying an item with the intent to use it at some point as an improvised weapon you are:

1) very very stupid!

2) now a criminal!

If life is getting a bit scary simple practical solutions are either:

1) a good solid umbrella (appropriate most days of the year over here)!

2) practising some very convincing excuses for the kubotan, chainsaw, or whatever else one decides to carry. :tank: 

3) alter one's attitude to risk taking, and accept that sometimes "stuff" happens that can't be controlled, and enjoy life in the meantime.




			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Fortunately,the street police are getting wise and taking more things into consideration.But that isn't happening fast enough.
> I have recieved 2 pieces of advice off the record here from police....
> 1) do NOT hang around when you are done! Leave the area immediately!


Pretty good advice - both legally and from the point of view of personal safety. 



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> 2) dead men don't argue.


But if you don't know the law of self defence thoroughly you will likely talk yourself into jail anyway!



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> The last one may be extreme,but living here in south london,
> you have middle eastern gangs,jamaican gangs(yardies) british "firms" ( look up the Kray twins and the charlie richardson gang) eastern block gangs from all countries,far east gangs(triads flourish here in london) and you have gypsies(pykies) and list goes on.
> They fear nothing and nobody.
> 
> ...


Knife skills are great, but if someone ends up killing a member of an organised crime outfit then the legal consequences are the least of their worries.
London does have a significant amount of organised crime, anyone in a situation with a reason to fear physical harm from an organised crime element needs a lifestyle alteration/emigration/chat with your friendly local bobby would be in order.

I might be playing a bit of devils advocate here, as UK weapons controls are very strict, and some were brought in as a knee jerk response by politicians keen to look good on law and order issues. Generally it works, knife culture is relatively manageable and firearms offences are very low by any comparable international standards, however law abiding citizens have lost personal freedoms when it comes to weapons, in particular firearms training/sports. 

There is nothing much wrong with our laws on self defence (apart from domestic violence - and that is being altered) that a good lawyer and a good personal understanding of law, evidence and court procedure can't fix. 
Our government is democratic, and our courts and police forces are exceptionally honest and generally very competent. 

Bammx2 , I sort of understand where you are coming from on a lot of this, and I can understand why a person may wish to carry a weapon illegally. It does sound as if you had had a bit of a bad day when you wrote the post.

I picked up on your post partly because some of the legal stuff was way off the mark, and partly because it is embarassing to portray the UK (even the seedier bits of London) as some sort of Dark Future crime ridden Police State. Most of the people on this forum are from the US and will rightly laugh themselves sick at the suggestion that the UK is a dangerous country with citizens under seige and law enforcement in a state of collapse.

The thing is I really feel that a thorough understanding of self defence law is crucial, especially rules of evidence and court procedure. A partial understanding is really unhelpful, and can get people into needless trouble. 

I also have lived in South London (Streatham) and actually rather liked it. Some bits were dodgy some weren't.
We both know that the UK isn't all cream teas, Royal Weddings and sunny games of cricket, but it is by and large a nice place to live, it is pretty safe and the system of government is relatively honest and efficient. I have lived in a fair few places and I like it here.

There is street crime and worse, but I do not live in daily fear of it. Fear attracts trouble like "the proverbial" attracts flies. I find life here works out pretty well just by being aware and enjoying myself. London is a unique city, and there is loads of good stuff here to balance the bad.

Good luck with the training, PM me if you want any pointers on reading up on the legal side of stuff.

Cheers

Dan


----------



## arnisador (Jul 3, 2005)

rupton said:
			
		

> Hi arnisador, that statement confused me.  What do you mean by black belts being weekend warriors?


 I mean, if in PA it is the case that black belts are always considered to be the infamous people with 'hands registered as deadly weapons' w.r.t. self-defense, then it seems that that's unfair. I know people from some martial arts schools who train once/week for an hour and aren't all that deadly. To lump them in with a full-time pro boxer who works out for several hours per day doesn't seem right.


----------



## Adept (Jul 4, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> Gun crime in the UK is very low, and whilst this remains the case the current policy makes sense.


 Yes, but violent crime and homicide rates have both _increased_ while the firearm laws have tightened.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 4, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Yes, but violent crime and homicide rates have both _increased_ while the firearm laws have tightened.


Yeah, but that's because the knives haven't been banned....yet.  It'll be really safe soon.  You won't have to worry about any dangerous kitchen knives.  Fork and spoon registration are next.


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But, many black belts are weekend warriors. I'd hope they'd decide whether to hold it against people on a case-by-case basis!


Not my understanding, no.  The law wasn't written by instructors, remember?


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 4, 2005)

Funny vid, but no need for that Kung Fu stance just to throw a right hook, you know? I think that stance was more of a, look at me I know Kung Fu, and to impress his girl, you know he got some nookie that night bwahaahaa!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 4, 2005)

BaiKaiGuy said:
			
		

> Not my understanding, no. The law wasn't written by instructors, remember?


 The lesson? Stay at brown belt forever.



			
				DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Funny vid, but no need for that Kung Fu stance just to throw a right hook, you know? I think that stance was more of a, look at me I know Kung Fu, and to impress his girl, you know he got some nookie that night bwahaahaa!


 Probably, though he shouldn't have.  That was the goofiest stance i've ever seen in a real fight.  I think it was so successful because the other guys couldn't stop laughing long enough to fight him.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jul 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think it was so successful because the other guys couldn't stop laughing long enough to fight him.



whatever works right...?  the guy was still one lucky dude :idunno:


----------



## Dan G (Jul 4, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Yes, but violent crime and homicide rates have both _increased_ while the firearm laws have tightened.


What you are saying is probably true. I don't have the data to argue about increase or decrease in crime rates _since firearms restrictions were introduced_, but see below for some data that puts the UK into a bit of perspective.

See link for UK crime stats.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0705.pdf

Firearms offences - 
Handgun - down 13% (4532 offences)
Rifle - down 9% (50 offences)
Shotgun - down 11% (617 offences)
Replica firearms offences up 66% (3268 offences)

Recorded crime statistics show violence against the person up by 10% and serious violence against the person up by 4%. On the other hand British Crime Survey shows violent crime down by 3%.

Police recording of crime is also getting more efficient and the rise in violent crime is attributed to changes in recording methods and recent "criming" focus (i.e. record everything even if it will never get to court).

International crime statistics:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf

Homicide rates per 100,000 of population:

South Africa - 56.5
Estonia - 12.2
USA - 6.3
Northern Ireland - 3.1
Scotland 2.1
EU average - 1.7
England & Wales - 1.5

City homicide rates per 100,000
Washington DC - 50.8
Amsterdam - 5.4
Belfast - 5.2
Copenhagen - 3.4
Berlin - 3.2
Brussels 2.7
EU capital cities average - 2.7
London - 2.4

I am not going to argue about changing crime rates, the stats I have quoted don't fully show that data, and I am not arguing that firearm restriction is a major success in reducing overall violent crime.

My points are pretty simple:

1) The UK as a whole is pretty safe in comparison with almost any other country. Homicide in Washington DC is 10 times as high as in Belfast, a UK city until recently that had one of the longest running terrorist "troubles" of the 20th century, and continues to have a problem with sectarian murder, and increasingly organised crime violence.

2) London is a safer city than the EU average, safer even than sedate little 'burbs like Brussels and Copenhagen!

3) Gun and knife restrictions have not turned the UK into a dangerous place, even by European let alone world standards, and may arguably have made the place marginally safer...

4) Gun crime in the UK is low enough that the majority of Police Officers do not need or want to carry firearms to do their job. Whether or not you agree with the system it does actually still continue to work in terms of managing crime!

I don't actually support the current firearms restrictions. They were knee jerk political actions rather than well thought out policy, even if they do seem to result in more "armed robberies" with water pistols or toy guns than previously.

I do feel the need to point out that currently the UK is a quiet safe place to live. The biggest issue here at the moment is "ASBO's" (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) - basically mid-teens being a pain in the neck are the UK's single biggest crime focus... not exactly the end of the world, and easily fixed with a stern word and a bit of intestinal fortitude!

I get the hump when we are portrayed as being on the brink of some kind of societal meltdown, or fascist takeover. It simply isn't true, the UK has actually coped very well with huge social problems, including the Northern Ireland troubles, yet still remains one of the safest and more free places on the planet to live one's life.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's because the knives haven't been banned....yet. It'll be really safe soon. You won't have to worry about any dangerous kitchen knives. Fork and spoon registration are next


Please don't get me started on this one!:deadhorse 

I love my cooking and have a great set of potentially illegal kitchen knives:samurai:! 

The ban will never happen and was just publicity seeking nonsense by an idiot pressure group that the media decided to run with. Any country that is seriously worried about kitchen knives has too much free time and not enough real danger to keep people genuinely busy. There is more than enough commonsense here that kitchen knife bans will never happen, but it is worrying that anyone was daft enough to even suggest it. Rather embarassed to be living here when I hear this one!

Still if they do ban knives forks and spoons I guess life here will get pretty creative... don't hold your breath, but it could only be a matter of time before people are holding up banks with egg whisks and UK martial arts will soon have innovative new weapons sets using kitchen appliances like toasters, oven mitts and pizza cutters... similar weapons restrictions worked really well in Okinawa over the past few centuries...
Cheers:cheers: 

Dan:asian:


----------



## Adept (Jul 4, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> What you are saying is probably true. I don't have the data to argue about increase or decrease in crime rates _since firearms restrictions were introduced_, but see below for some data that puts the UK into a bit of perspective.
> 
> See link for UK crime stats.
> 
> ...


 I wasn't trying to paint England as a haven for the violent criminal, sorry if that came through in my post. I was just trying to point out that even though gun-crime is down, homicide, violent offences and serious violent offences are up. Which effectively blows the position "less guns and weapons makes a safer country" right out of the water.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 7, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> I wasn't trying to paint England as a haven for the violent criminal, sorry if that came through in my post. I was just trying to point out that even though gun-crime is down, homicide, violent offences and serious violent offences are up. Which effectively blows the position "less guns and weapons makes a safer country" right out of the water.


No apology needed, your post was spot on and I entirely agree with it. When I expressed irritation at the way UK crime is presented it was not intended in any way as a criticism of your valid, rational and well founded comments - and I apologise if my remarks came across that way. 
I thought your post made perfect sense. After reading it I did a quick bit of research into stats. What you say is definitely supported by some of the more authoritative stats out there, and I definitely agree with you when you say that there is no meaningful link between UK gun control and overall rates of violence. 

My irritation is reserved for some of the rather sensationalised press reporting of UK crime recently, and the way perception of crime risk is manipulated across the political spectrum to whip up enthusiasm for a particular agenda, whether it be stronger or weaker weapons control, longer or shorter sentences, various educational approaches or whatever. 

Thanks for your posts, I appreciated them and learned some interesting stuff when I looked into the stats behind them.

Cheers

Dan:asian:


----------



## GRIM (Jul 10, 2005)

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA, that said nail the guy when he was tying his shoe or what ever he was doing and then go for the next one in the group. 

 Dancing around and playing grab-*** hardly makes for a fight be it self defense or other wise. Still you gotta hand to the red shirt jackass he watches the matrix the day before and manages to make it work.

  With Respect,
      GRIM


----------



## Tripitaka of AA (Jul 13, 2005)

Is there a way to track the posts from Dan G?

I have enjoyed his contribution to this thread immensely and I hope to see more


----------



## jonah2 (Jul 13, 2005)

Tripitaka of AA said:
			
		

> Is there a way to track the posts from Dan G?


Right click his name - 'View profile' - Under Forum info 'Find all posts by ..'

Jonah


----------



## Troy Ostapiw/Canada (Jul 15, 2005)

*I have to say I sure would have liked to see the end of that fight.   I think it goes to show that when the real thing happens you techniques change drastically,  adrenaline sets in, you loose fine,  complex motor skills, its not like sparring at a club.  Your body responds with gross motor movements, just like we saw.   Its reality; the Kung Fu guy had a better reach than the punk.  It looked like a classical mess, but the end result we saw, was  the Kung Fu guy getting a solid head shot putting the punk down.   Maybe luck?  but studying martial arts should put the odds of victory in your favour.  It wasnt pretty, much like reality, but it did work.   Of course what happened later may never be know, unless the people who took the  video send out the rest of round two.*

*If I had to guess I would say the kung fu guy had a couple years training 3-4 in a classical southern Chinese system.  Just a guessI love those clips..Troy*


----------



## first123class (Jul 25, 2005)

He knocked him down,
 that the bottom line.
In the matter of fact he should have finished him on the ground, to make sure the other kid would not get up.


----------



## Adept (Jul 25, 2005)

first123class said:
			
		

> In the matter of fact he should have finished him on the ground, to make sure the other kid would not get up.


 Yeah, but thats a good way to get yourself slapped with an assault charge.


----------



## Martialscientist (Jul 25, 2005)

I did a forum search on one puch rule,
could not find it.
What is that?


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 25, 2005)

Legal theory as to what constitutes Felonious Assault versus Misdemeanor Assault.


----------

