# Is ground and pound ethical?



## Jared Traveler (Sep 25, 2022)

With MMA ground and pound has become somewhat acceptable. How does this fit into legal and ethical self-defense?

What conditions do you consider it acceptable? How do you determine when enough forces has been used? How might this look on a cellphone camera? How could this change an altercation from a legal use of force, to excessive force?

What are your guys thoughts on ground and pound for self-defense?


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> With MMA ground and pound has become somewhat acceptable. How does this fit into legal and ethical self-defense?
> 
> What conditions do you consider it acceptable? How do you determine when enough forces has been used? How might this look on a cellphone camera? How could this change an altercation from a legal use of force, to excessive force?
> 
> What are your guys thoughts on ground and pound for self-defense?


LE has protocols it must follow, generally holding them to a higher standard in regard to inflicting harm than civilians are held to.  There are guidelines for LTL actions such as pepper spray and Taser.   And, yes, cell phone cameras are often not the friend of LE in these anti-police times.  Excessive concern for the optics can cause hesitation and second guessing possible administrative/legal results which is dangerous to the arresting officer who is putting himself at risk in the heat of combat. 

I think the general public should follow this basic rule:  _Inflict no more harm than is required to render the assailant unwilling/incapable of continuing the attack. _Of course, there is some gray area, IMO, depending on the nature of the attack.  Some will need more persuading than others. There will be a point beyond which further pounding the guy is just uncalled for and excessive.  Now, if the attacker was assaulting my wife or daughter, or trying to kill me, that point may be pretty far down the line.


----------



## Jimmythebull (Sep 26, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> There will be a point beyond which further pounding the guy is just uncalled for and excessive. Now, if the attacker *was assaulting my wife or daughter, or trying to kill me, that point may be pretty far down the line.*


exactly this.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> What conditions do you consider it acceptable? How do you determine when enough forces has been used? How might this look on a cellphone camera? How could this change an altercation from a legal use of force, to excessive force?


Always acceptable.  There are various intensity levels for ground and pound.  I can change that if needed.  Some cases will be more brutal than others.  Enough is when the attacker is no longer a threat and that also may be depending on if I think he'll get back up and try to pull a hidden weapon on me, or if I can see that he has had enough.  It just depends on the intensity that leads into the ground and pound.  If I think the person will get back up then he's going to take a lot more punishment, so that I can safely leave the scene and or call the police.

Ground and pound doesn't guarantee victory in a fight on the street.  I think people often compare themselves to professional fighters and the truth is that many of us or not.  A person may go into ground and pound mode and get over powered after the third strike and then be on the receiving end of ground and pound.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> With MMA ground and pound has become somewhat acceptable. How does this fit into legal and ethical self-defense?
> 
> What conditions do you consider it acceptable? How do you determine when enough forces has been used? How might this look on a cellphone camera? How could this change an altercation from a legal use of force, to excessive force?
> 
> What are your guys thoughts on ground and pound for self-defense?


I think that ethics is a very different discussion than legality, and you threw in optics, as well. 

What is legal?  I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think ground and pound is illegal.

What looks reasonable?  Well, that's a tough one to answer.  If you're captured in cellphone footage, I'm presuming you are in a fight that you probably could have avoided.   What you can convince the police is anyone's guess.

What is ethical?  If you're in a fight, you've probably already lost the ethics battle, IMO.  Because you're harming someone willingly and intentionally.  You can argue that it is justified, but I think that's more of a way to let yourself off the hook so that you can live with what you've done.  I'm deeply distrustful of anyone who talks about killing or injruing people casually.


----------



## Jimmythebull (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> If you're captured in cellphone footage, I'm presuming you are in a fight that you probably could have avoided.


why? a fight can happen anywhere & people like to film it.  Outside a club, or even you fighting with the people next door to you. cell phones are everywhere this is 2022 !


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jimmythebull said:


> why? a fight can happen anywhere & people like to film it.  Outside a club, or even you fighting with the people next door to you. cell phones are everywhere this is 2022 !


Exactly.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think that ethics is a very different discussion than legality, and you threw in optics, as well.
> 
> What is legal?  I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think ground and pound is illegal.


Legality and ethical are always connected. The legal discussion is important, but only as a stepping stone(in almost all cases) to under the real question, the ethics. 

Ground and pound is illegal and it isn't. It depends on context. Like all use of force decisions.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Legality and ethical are always connected. The legal discussion is important, but only as a stepping stone(in almost all cases) to under the real question, the ethics.
> 
> Ground and pound is illegal and it isn't. It depends on context. Like all use of force decisions.


Legality and morality are connected. 

Ethics of harming or killing others is only connected to legality if you use the legality to justify your actions.  In other words, it's a sort of causal relationship... "It's legal.  Ergo, it's ethical."   I don't personally buy that argument.  

Morality, which is what I think you're getting at, works the other way.  "It's moral.  Ergo, it is (or should be) legal."


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> What looks reasonable?  Well, that's a tough one to answer.


It is a tough one. But what looks "bad" is more easily identify. Being bigger and stronger than someone, sitting on top of them so they can't run a way, then punching them for 30 seconds, looks pretty bad.

In some cases reasonable, but it some cases not, and it certainly looks bad.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> It is a tough one. But what looks "bad" is more easily identify. Being bigger and stronger than someone, sitting on top of them so they can't run a way, then punching them for 30 seconds, looks pretty bad.
> 
> In some cases reasonable, but it some cases not, and it certainly looks bad.


Yeah, what I meant by optics and what looks reasonable is to point out that this is entirely subjective and not related to ethics, morality, or legality.  It's all about optics, and one's ability to align the optics to something that will communicate ethics, morality, or legality.  Better get a persuasive lawyer with a strong ability to persuade others.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> If you're captured in cellphone footage, I'm presuming you are in a fight that you probably could have avoided.


Thanks for your reply Steve, there is a lot to unpack from your comments, so I'm trying to break it down in segments. The comments above is a massive assumption. I can't imagine how you could come to this conclusion with so little facts of any case. It seems like maybe you have some type of bias against.... I could say what. 

But these types of assumptions and biases are exactly why the laws are so clearly spelled out regarding self-defense. And why if someone actually does end up in front of a jury, people get educated on how you can't make guilt/innocent decisions on presumptions like that. 

With that said, I think you were implying this as a moral judgement, maybe not a legal one? In either case this seems like a shot in the dark wild speculation. People start filming everything these days.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> What you can convince the police is anyone's guess.


What you are doing in a self-defense case is not or should not be guess work. It is a matter of giving them enough pieces of the puzzle so that they can articulate in their report that your force was legal, as spelled out in the law. 

You aren't trying to sell them a story, you should be documenting truth. If you can't articulate important giant pieces of legal self-defense at the scene, and ultimately a detailed statement through an attorney, perhaps what you did wasn't justified. In which case say nothing, you are a criminal at that point.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> What is ethical?  If you're in a fight, you've probably already lost the ethics battle, IMO.  Because you're harming someone willingly and intentionally.  You can argue that it is justified, but I think that's more of a way to let yourself off the hook so that you can live with what you've done.


This is a fine if those are your morals, but regarding justification of using force you should consider supreme court rulings. Which overtly and strongly disagree with you. Both liberal and conservative judges have pored over these cases in great detail. Justifiable use of force, justifiable homicide are not legally subjective opinions. The courts have determined clearly and repeatedly that in many, many cases one is legally justified in using force. 

Intentionally and willing using legal and ethical counter violence is not even close to the same as being a violent person and using violence.


----------



## skribs (Sep 26, 2022)

Part of the problem with being "good for the cameras" is are you good for the cameras at the moment you decide to use force?  Clips can be edited and taken out of context to make you look like the bad guy.

The important part of any self-defense scenario is your use of force stops when the attack does.  If you have someone pinned and they are still fighting, then you can use ground and pound or submission moves to encourage or force them to stop.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> I am deeply distrustful of anyone who talks about killing or injruing people casually.


This is totally up to you to be distrustful of these people. However I think it's worth considering that the person who is not comfortable legally and ethical using lethal force, or lesser force, is far more likely to be attacked. 

You can see this in most videos of people being attacked, sucker punched or whatever. The more they try to deescalate by communicating that they will not fight, the more it green lights assaultive behavior from an attacker. 

If you communicate (it's very hard to bluff this against an experienced criminal) that you will without question injure and/or kill him, you are far less likely to have to use force.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

skribs said:


> Clips can be edited and taken out of context to make you look like the bad guy.


Good points Skribs, and certainly true in the court of opinions, and society mob justice. But an edited video I wouldn't imagine would make it into court under the "best evidence rule."


----------



## Jimmythebull (Sep 26, 2022)

skribs said:


> Clips can be edited and taken out of context to make you look like the bad guy.


and if more than one person films it ? .. which is often the case & CCTV cameras


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Thanks for your reply Steve, there is a lot to unpack from your comments, so I'm trying to break it down in segments. The comments above is a massive assumption. I can't imagine how you could come to this conclusion with so little facts of any case. It seems like maybe you have some type of bias against.... I could say what.
> 
> But these types of assumptions and biases are exactly why the laws are so clearly spelled out regarding self-defense. And why if someone actually does end up in front of a jury, people get educated on how you can't make guilt/innocent decisions on presumptions like that.
> 
> With that said, I think you were implying this as a moral judgement, maybe not a legal one? In either case this seems like a shot in the dark wild speculation. People start filming everything these days.


If you think I’m talking about the law, we aren’t on the same page.  Ethics, morality, and legality are not synonymous.  

I’m actually not all that interested in a discussion of legality, but I’m very interested in ethics.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> What you are doing in a self-defense case is not or should not be guess work. It is a matter of giving them enough pieces of the puzzle so that they can articulate in their report that your force was legal, as spelled out in the law.
> 
> You aren't trying to sell them a story, you should be documenting truth. If you can't articulate important giant pieces of legal self-defense at the scene, and ultimately a detailed statement through an attorney, perhaps what you did wasn't justified. In which case say nothing, you are a criminal at that point.


Got it.  So, it's a legal discussion.  May I suggest to you, then, that when you introduce concepts like ethics, it obscures your point?



Jared Traveler said:


> This is a fine if those are your morals, but regarding justification of using force you should consider supreme court rulings.


This literally made me laugh out loud.  Don't get me wrong.  I get what you mean, but SCOTUS as an arbiter of morality is tenuous in the best of times, and given Dobbs, this isn't the best of times. 



Jared Traveler said:


> Which overtly and strongly disagree with you. Both liberal and conservative judges have pored over these cases in great detail. Justifiable use of force, justifiable homicide are not legally subjective opinions. The courts have determined clearly and repeatedly that in many, many cases one is legally justified in using force.
> 
> Intentionally and willing using legal and ethical counter violence is not even close to the same as being a violent person and using violence.


I'm trying to help you understand that you are conflating ethics, morality, and legality, and you're continuing to mash them together willy-nilly.  Makes it hard to discuss the issues.  It seems, though, like you tend to be defaulting to what is legal, which is cool.

If the discussion gets back to actual discussion of ethics and/or morality, I'm totally down.  But if you think that whether something is legal or not is the final arbiter of morality, we're not going to get very far. 



Jared Traveler said:


> This is totally up to you to be distrustful of these people. However I think it's worth considering that the person who is not comfortable legally and ethical using lethal force, or lesser force, is far more likely to be attacked.



Right.  I don't think taking lives, or even intentionally injuring people, is ever ethical.  And yet, I was in the military and prepared to take lives, if necessary.  It's an interesting ethical conundrum, and something I find pretty interesting.  But when folks are cavalier about killing or injuring other folks, that's concerning to me. 

We might find some common ground on situations when we have no choice but to kill or injure others.  We might agree that there are times when our right to live is threatened by others, or that we are doing so out of a sense of duty or the greater good.  But I believe that hurting or killing others is always something that should carry some emotional and ethical weight, and done with regret, if at all. 



Jared Traveler said:


> You can see this in most videos of people being attacked, sucker punched or whatever. The more they try to deescalate by communicating that they will not fight, the more it green lights assaultive behavior from an attacker.
> 
> If you communicate (it's very hard to bluff this against an experienced criminal) that you will without question injure and/or kill him, you are far less likely to have to use force.


I think you're the one making some crazy assumptions now.  It's okay, though.  I better understand what you're interested in talking about now, and it makes sense.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> Right. I don't think taking lives, or even intentionally injuring people, is ever ethical. And yet, I was in the military and prepared to take lives, if necessary. It's an interesting ethical conundrum, and something I find pretty interesting. But when folks are cavalier about killing or injuring other folks, that's concerning to me.



That is quite often justified ideologically. So killing is technically good because.....

Which is the same ideologically of justifying morality with legality.

I tried to steer clear of that sort of thing with my own morality because it seems dishonest. Even if it was comfortable.

I also notice people are suggesting morality is about consequence. So something is bad because I might get in trouble. 

Which again is very ideological.


----------



## Jimmythebull (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> Right. I don't think taking lives, or even intentionally injuring people, is ever ethical. And yet, I was in the military and prepared to take lives, if necessary. It's an interesting ethical conundrum, and something I find pretty interesting. But when folks are cavalier about killing or injuring other folks, that's concerning to me.


so you were never a front line soldier.


----------



## Jimmythebull (Sep 26, 2022)

drop bear said:


> That is quite often justified ideologically. So killing is technically good because.....
> 
> Which is the same ideologically of justifying morality with legality.
> 
> ...


I am honestly trying to choose my words here..   maybe i was never so educated as you , just more experienced.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jimmythebull said:


> so you were never a front line soldier.


Nope.  Not a combat troop.  I was an ammo troop in the Air Force.  My brother was the combat soldier.  He enlisted a year before me, and volunteered for airborne infantry.  The physical and emotional toll it took on him was significant.  I work with a lot of combat vets in my job.  I mean, the USA has been at war for over 2 decades now so there are a lot of vets out there.  From what I've seen, there has been a toll taken on pretty much all of them.


----------



## Jimmythebull (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> Nope.  Not a combat troop.  I was an ammo troop in the Air Force.  My brother was the combat soldier.  He enlisted a year before me, and volunteered for airborne infantry.  The physical and emotional toll it took on him was significant.  I work with a lot of combat vets in my job.  I mean, the USA has been at war for over 2 decades now so there are a lot of vets out there.  From what I've seen, there has been a toll taken on pretty much all of them.


I worked with the Americans on a few occasions


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2022)

Jimmythebull said:


> I am honestly trying to choose my words here..   maybe i was never so educated as you , just more experienced.



Mabye. Who knows?


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve those comments were all direct responses to your comments. My use of the law was not willy-nilly in any way. It was used to articulate that your thoughts on the subject regarding the morality of using force are far from even extreme liberal minds, that actually have the responsibility of determining what the law considers morally right. In the form of justifiable.


Steve said:


> I think you're the one making some crazy assumptions now.  It's okay, though.  I better understand what you're interested in talking about now, and it makes sense.


Regarding the above comment, if you think my comments regarding someone "green lighting an attack" because they display compliant behavior in a potentially violent confrontation is a wild assumption, you simply aren't knowledgeable on the subject.

No matter how much we discuss it, I feel you are going to retain your way of thinking on this. I feel like you have some ingrained thinking and bias on some of these subjects and that fine. I am certainly not responsible for changing your mind on any of it.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Which is the same ideologically of justifying morality with legality.
> 
> I tried to steer clear of that sort of thing with my own morality because it seems dishonest. Even if it was comfortable.
> 
> ...


Who is doing this?


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Steve those comments were all direct responses to your comments. My use of the law was not willy-nilly in any way. It was used to articulate that your thoughts on the subject regarding the morality of using force are far from even extreme liberal minds, that actually have the responsibility of determining what the law considers morally right. In the form of justifiable.
> 
> Regarding the above comment, if you think my comments regarding someone "green lighting an attack" because they display compliant behavior in a potentially violent confrontation is a wild assumption, you simply aren't knowledgeable on the subject.
> 
> No matter how much we discuss it, I feel you are going to retain your way of thinking on this. I feel like you have some ingrained thinking and bias on some of these subjects and that fine. I am certainly not responsible for changing your mind on any of it.


Jared I think that you’re misunderstanding me, and I’m honestly not sure how or why. But it seems like you’re getting a little frustrated. When I say ethics, morality, and legality aren’t synonymous, I’m not speaking metaphorically.  

I’ll say it as plainly as I can. Something that is legal does not necessarily equal something that is moral. So when you use the one as evidence of the other, it doesn’t work.  And you’re flipping back and forth a lot.  Willy nilly, one might say.  

You’re talking about what is legal, and that’s great. It’s a very good topic. My suggestion is that you not muddy the waters with ethics and morals.  Those are entirely different discussions, and it doesn’t seem like you’re all that interested in understanding why.  

You ask for opinions, and then get squirrelly at the idea someone disagrees with you.  I mean, no matter how much we discuss this, I’m getting the distinct impression you are going to retain your way of thinking.  But if you aren’t interested in diverse opinions, I recommend you stop asking for them, Jared.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Who is doing this?


okay. You did it again.  Unintentionally very funny.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> okay. You did it again.  Unintentionally very funny.


Okay Steve, you don't get what I'm trying to say. I'm spinning my wheels here. I'm bringing a lot of legit points that are falling on deaf ears.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Okay Steve, you don't get what I'm trying to say. I'm spinning my wheels here. I'm bringing a lot of legit points that are falling on deaf ears



You’re really good at irony.   I think I get you better than you think.   If it helps, I can tell you there’s no subtext to what I’m writing.  It’s all very literal.  You just seem to be having trouble differentiating between morality and legality.  I guess that’s to be expected from someone with a LEO background. 

Have a good evening and when you’re ready to listen a little yourself, I think we could have a great conversation.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> You’re really good at irony.   I think I get you better than you think.   If it helps, I can tell you there’s no subtext to what I’m writing.  It’s all very literal.  You just seem to be having trouble differentiating between morality and legality.  I guess that’s to be expected from someone with a LEO background.
> 
> Have a good evening and when you’re ready to listen a little yourself, I think we could have a great conversation.


Let me work on my listing skills. Your opinion is that there is irony in my words? That sense of irony comes from the fact that you believe I can't separate morality and the legal aspects of self-defense? You think I'm trying to make an argument that if it's legal then it's moral?


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 26, 2022)

I also understand Steve that in the original post I included moral and legal questions. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of separating them, it just means I thought they were both important in determining the use of ground and pound as a tactic.

I you make a use of force decisions this includes both the legal aspect and a moral decision. We can discuss morals in a silo, and that's fine. But you don't make use of force decisions in a silo, not in the real world.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 27, 2022)

If Steve, for moral reasons you will never use ground and pound, the legal aspect doesn't apply to you. I can agree to that. But anyone who will use it under certain circumstances, must consider the legal and moral aspects together.


----------



## Holmejr (Sep 27, 2022)

If someone is truly bent on murdering, then that person must be absolutely stopped. If by chance you get into an altercation with them, they must fully submit or die. It just is what it is. You pray that their loved ones somehow find wisdom and understanding in a such a terrible situation. Of course, there are people that equate all killing to murder. IMO, as “nice” as that seems, they have a confused moral compass.


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Let me work on my listing skills. Your opinion is that there is irony in my words? That sense of irony comes from the fact that you believe I can't separate morality and the legal aspects of self-defense? You think I'm trying to make an argument that if it's legal then it's moral?





Jared Traveler said:


> I also understand Steve that in the original post I included moral and legal questions. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of separating them, it just means I thought they were both important in determining the use of ground and pound as a tactic.
> 
> I you make a use of force decisions this includes both the legal aspect and a moral decision. We can discuss morals in a silo, and that's fine. But you don't make use of force decisions in a silo, not in the real world.


I think you’re getting a little mixed around here.  The issue isn’t whether or not you can distinguish between morality and legality, it’s that you just aren’t doing it. 

The problem with this is… well it’s confusing for one.  But it’s also just not very helpful.  Laws can be immoral.  And things for which there is no law can be moral.  People often must choose between legal and moral.  

But this isn’t one of them.  Ground and pound isn’t illegal.  Just like a right hook isnt illegal.  That is inconvenient to your premise, so you get conceptual and start bringing in morality.  Which is cool.  I like that topic.  

But morality intersects with legality inconsistently.  What I mean by that is, some laws are immoral on purpose where the goal is cruelty.  Many are immoral because the goal or tactics are immoral.  Laws motivated by greed for example.  

At one time, slavery was the law of the land, which forced some folks to choose between morality and legality.  Henry David Thoreau wrote all about civil disobedience. MLK, Gandhi… and today we have doctors in some states forced to choose between their Hippocratic oath and a law that prevents them from performing a life saving abortion.  




Jared Traveler said:


> If Steve, for moral reasons you will never use ground and pound, the legal aspect doesn't apply to you. I can agree to that. But anyone who will use it under certain circumstances, must consider the legal and moral aspects together.



Okay. So here’s the point.  We are moral creatures only when we live by a set of values.  Obeying the laws of the land is a moral value.  Caring for others and service to the greater good are also moral values.  So the discussion I thought we would have is when these values are in conflict.  That’s interesting to me. 

 I really don’t like the idea of intentionally harming another person.  But I might need to some day.  In the same way a doctor might not like the idea of breaking the law and potentially being arrested for saving the life of a mother who has an ectopic pregnancy that will kill her if left untreated.  But they do it because it’s ethical.  

And in a crisis, when you have to make a decision between two values, it’s useful to understand them.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think you’re getting a little mixed around here.  The issue isn’t whether or not you can distinguish between morality and legality, it’s that you just aren’t doing it.
> 
> The problem with this is… well it’s confusing for one.  But it’s also just not very helpful.  Laws can be immoral.  And things for which there is no law can be moral.  People often must choose between legal and moral.
> 
> ...


I agree and have agreed with 90 percent of of what you are saying in this post. The majority of what you are countering me on, I was never arguing and have always agreed with.


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> I agree and have agreed with 90 percent of of what you are saying in this post. The majority of what you are countering me on, I was never arguing and have always agreed with.


Terrific.  At one point You did say though that you think I’m on the far left fringe, so surely you can understand my confusion.  

What is the 10% you don’t agree with?   Or maybe, what is the point or points you think I’m misunderstanding?  

Have you ever heard of the trolly dilemma?   If so, do you think a legal analysis would be the same as an ethical analysis?


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> Terrific.  At one point You did say though that you think I’m on the far left fringe, so surely you can understand my confusion.
> 
> What is the 10% you don’t agree with?   Or maybe, what is the point or points you think I’m misunderstanding?
> 
> Have you ever heard of the trolly dilemma?   If so, do you think a legal analysis would be the same as an ethical analysis?


I'm getting on a 24+ hour plane ride soon, so my communication will be on existent or spotty at best.

But let's start with what I 100 percent agree with. You should not base your morals on the law. Lots of immoral things have been legal in the past. 

I myself have done things extremely illegal in certain places on the globe to help people that a gov didn't want helped. I have demonstrated this believe by taking massive risks. So I completely agree with that.

I was never suggesting you do something just because it is legal.


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> I'm getting on a 24+ hour plane ride soon, so my communication will be on existent or spotty at best.
> 
> But let's start with what I 100 percent agree with. You should not base your morals on the law. Lots of immoral things have been legal in the past.
> 
> ...


Have a safe flight.


----------



## Jimmythebull (Sep 27, 2022)




----------



## Darren (Sep 27, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> With MMA ground and pound has become somewhat acceptable. How does this fit into legal and ethical self-defense?
> 
> What conditions do you consider it acceptable? How do you determine when enough forces has been used? How might this look on a cellphone camera? How could this change an altercation from a legal use of force, to excessive force?
> 
> What are your guys thoughts on ground and pound for self-defense?


Walked into my dojo once to spar I was going to just throw all kicks to work on my kicking, what I did not know was this dude was into leg destructions so being a dumb *** I threw my kicks, couple of holes in my shins!!!  Never seen the dude again ever! I had it in my mind that when I saw him again yeah I was going to ground and pound round and round!!!!!  So you come up against one like that GROUND and POUND!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 27, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> With MMA ground and pound has become somewhat acceptable. How does this fit into legal and ethical self-defense?
> 
> What conditions do you consider it acceptable? How do you determine when enough forces has been used? How might this look on a cellphone camera? How could this change an altercation from a legal use of force, to excessive force?
> 
> What are your guys thoughts on ground and pound for self-defense?


If attacked, end the threat and leave.  End of discussion.


----------



## tkdroamer (Sep 28, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> LE has protocols it must follow, generally holding them to a higher standard in regard to inflicting harm than civilians are held to.  There are guidelines for LTL actions such as pepper spray and Taser.   And, yes, cell phone cameras are often not the friend of LE in these anti-police times.  Excessive concern for the optics can cause hesitation and second guessing possible administrative/legal results which is dangerous to the arresting officer who is putting himself at risk in the heat of combat.
> 
> I think the general public should follow this basic rule:  _Inflict no more harm than is required to render the assailant unwilling/incapable of continuing the attack. _Of course, there is some gray area, IMO, depending on the nature of the attack.  Some will need more persuading than others. There will be a point beyond which further pounding the guy is just uncalled for and excessive.  Now, if the attacker was assaulting my wife or daughter, or trying to kill me, that point may be pretty far down the line.


This is where my favorite saying applies; you have to know that you know that you know.


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If attacked, end the threat and leave.  End of discussion.


I know you ended the discussion, but there are questions.



tkdroamer said:


> This is where my favorite saying applies; you have to know that you know that you know.


sorry.  I think @Bill Mattocks ended the discussion.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 28, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> You can see this in most videos of people being attacked, sucker punched or whatever. The more they try to deescalate by communicating that they will not fight, the more it green lights assaultive behavior from an attacker.


Many times, most times, when a thug threatens you (by words or posture) with imminent bodily harm, he has already formed his intent to hurt you.  He is _not_ open to hear your logical or emotional appeal of why it's a bad idea, or civilly discuss with you the pros and cons of beating your a**.  One's attempts to do this will only serve as a source of entertainment to him and build his confidence.  The case where this may be helpful is when a trained fighter is trying to lull the attacker to lower his guard, thinking he has easy prey, their favorite kind.  

"If you seek peace, prepare for war."  More often than not, displaying strength, _and the will to use it_, will prevent aggression.  Something many of our leaders seem to forget throughout history.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 28, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> Many times, most times, when a thug threatens you (by words or posture) with imminent bodily harm, he has already formed his intent to hurt you.  He is _not_ open to hear your logical or emotional appeal of why it's a bad idea, or civilly discuss with you the pros and cons of beating your a**.  One's attempts to do this will only serve as a source of entertainment to him and build his confidence.  The case where this may be helpful is when a trained fighter is trying to lull the attacker to lower his guard, thinking he has easy prey, their favorite kind.
> 
> "If you seek peace, prepare for war."  More often than not, displaying strength, _and the will to use it_, will prevent aggression.  Something many of our leaders seem to forget throughout history.



I find a civil discussion while I am grounding and pounding the person to be much more convincing.


----------



## tkdroamer (Sep 29, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> Many times, most times, when a thug threatens you (by words or posture) with imminent bodily harm, he has already formed his intent to hurt you.  He is _not_ open to hear your logical or emotional appeal of why it's a bad idea, or civilly discuss with you the pros and cons of beating your a**.  One's attempts to do this will only serve as a source of entertainment to him and build his confidence.  The case where this may be helpful is when a trained fighter is trying to lull the attacker to lower his guard, thinking he has easy prey, their favorite kind.
> 
> "If you seek peace, prepare for war."  More often than not, displaying strength, _and the will to use it_, will prevent aggression.  Something many of our leaders seem to forget throughout history.


This is exactly the delicate moment in an encounter where the way it is handled is very different for a LEO. An Officer will have already assessed the situation and the environment, taking into consideration all the possible threats and the level of personal backup. He/she will maintain a level of authority, both verbally and with countenance to maintain control of the situation, usually minimizing physical encounters. If hands-on becomes necessary, it is hard and fast.
The average Joe may decide a hard first strike is the way to go and get in the other guy's face. A more experienced fighter may stand out of range and wait for the other guy to make a move. In this way, whatever intent has already been formed does have as much bearing on the first move.
This can be a rabbit trail of possibilities. Based on experience and training, a person's go-to move will be very different.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Sep 29, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> Many times, most times, when a thug threatens you (by words or posture) with imminent bodily harm, he has already formed his intent to hurt you.  He is _not_ open to hear your logical or emotional appeal of why it's a bad idea, or civilly discuss with you the pros and cons of beating your a**.  One's attempts to do this will only serve as a source of entertainment to him and build his confidence.  The case where this may be helpful is when a trained fighter is trying to lull the attacker to lower his guard, thinking he has easy prey, their favorite kind.
> 
> "If you seek peace, prepare for war."  More often than not, displaying strength, _and the will to use it_, will prevent aggression.  Something many of our leaders seem to forget throughout history.


There is a lot more that plays into these encounters. First one can often deselect themselves as a target. Also in almost all cases the build up is extremely important as the attack is still building confidence. The attack is not eminent until it occurs.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 29, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> The attack is not eminent until it occurs.


We differ here.  I consider it imminent when the attacker has formed a committed intent (decision to strike) and is ready, willing and able to execute that intent.  

Sometimes this is done prior to approach and sometimes, as you say, takes a little time to "build up."  The latter case provides a possibility for de-escalation but is much more difficult in the first case.


----------



## tkdroamer (Sep 30, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> We differ here.  I consider it imminent when the attacker has formed a committed intent (decision to strike) and is ready, willing and able to execute that intent.
> 
> Sometimes this is done prior to approach and sometimes, as you say, takes a little time to "build up."  The latter case provides a possibility for de-escalation but is much more difficult in the first case.


To add to my previous post about how an officer would have already assessed the situation/attacker, they would have already applied de-escalation tactics as well. It is all part of the evidence building process.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> The attack is not *eminent *until it occurs.





isshinryuronin said:


> We differ here.  I consider it *imminent *when the attacker has formed a committed intent (decision to strike) and is ready, willing and able to execute that intent.


Regarding the topic, you guys seem to have a pretty specific scenario in mind when you're posting, as you refer to thugs, etc.  The violence I'm likely to encounter isn't a thug.  Well, it might be.  But I deal with people who are not rational.  Often homeless, often addicted to something, often mentally ill, and often angry about something.  The folks I deal with are seldom acting with forethought.  They are upset and it's up to me to calm them down.  Occasionally, they get violent.  I can definitely tell when violence is imminent, and I can assure you all that it is very different in context than a bar fight or a random mugging.

On another note, this may seem very nitpicky, but the meaning of words does matter and can lead to misunderstanding.  

*Eminent *is something that is significant... prominent.  It's an old timey word not commonly used.  The more common use of this word is to say something is preeminent, to suggest that it is the best in that field (i.e., it stands out among its peers).  

*Imminent *refers to something that is_ about _to happen.  If it is occurring, it is (by definition) no longer imminent.

@isshinryuronin 's use of imminent makes more sense... to me, at least.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2022)

In my personal opinion, ground and pound on a hard surface is a level of brutality that I will try to avoid at all costs. Further, there are more humane, effective, and efficient ways to end a confrontation once you have entered that position than turning someone's face and brains into hamburger. That said, I would not say that MMA made ground and pound any more "acceptable" than it already was. If a sociopath gets on top of you, they're going to start hitting you in the face. That's true in 2022, and it was true in 1922, 1822, 1722, and 1022 B.C..


----------



## Darren (Oct 10, 2022)

Hanzou said:


> In my personal opinion, ground and pound on a hard surface is a level of brutality that I will try to avoid at all costs. Further, there are more humane, effective, and efficient ways to end a confrontation once you have entered that position than turning someone's face and brains into hamburger. That said, I would not say that MMA made ground and pound any more "acceptable" than it already was. If a sociopath gets on top of you, they're going to start hitting you in the face. That's true in 2022, and it was true in 1922, 1822, 1722, and 1022 B.C..


Never ever fight on a hard surface, my head and the cement has already met on many numerous times and occasions!!!  At 57 not looking to fight anyway!!!  But in my younger years always choose the grass to fight on!!!


----------



## Oily Dragon (Oct 10, 2022)

Darren said:


> Never ever fight on a hard surface, my head and the cement has already met on many numerous times and occasions!!!  At 57 not looking to fight anyway!!!  But in my younger years always choose the grass to fight on!!!


Sand is best, IMHO.

Snow is a runner up but it depends on the pack.


----------



## Darren (Oct 10, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Sand is best, IMHO.
> 
> Snow is a runner up but it depends on the pack.


Can see we’re sand would be the idea place, if ya was around it!!!  Good suggestion!!!!


----------



## tkdroamer (Oct 11, 2022)

Hanzou said:


> In my personal opinion, ground and pound on a hard surface is a level of brutality that I will try to avoid at all costs. Further, there are more humane, effective, and efficient ways to end a confrontation once you have entered that position than turning someone's face and brains into hamburger. That said, I would not say that MMA made ground and pound any more "acceptable" than it already was. If a sociopath gets on top of you, they're going to start hitting you in the face. That's true in 2022, and it was true in 1922, 1822, 1722, and 1022 B.C..


Fully agree that the risks have not changed. 

I feel it is the takedown that poses the greatest risk. This is a good comment to differentiate MMA and Roman Greco wrestling. When on the ground, I think 'ground and pound' is safer than standing arts, especially from a training aspect. Safer, not necessarily softer. 
Doing any of them on a hard surface would escalate the risks, with takedowns and stand-up fighting being at a higher level of order IMHO. 
Regardless, there needs to be a controlled environment for training, especially when going hard.


----------



## GojuTommy (Oct 25, 2022)

By and large it will depend on how long the GnP lasts. 2-3 punches probably. 5+ punches? Probably not.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Darren said:


> Never ever fight on a hard surface, my head and the cement has already met on many numerous times and occasions!!!  At 57 not looking to fight anyway!!!  But in my younger years always choose the grass to fight on!!!


Exactly. I was just thinking about posting to ask if  people thought ground and pound is the best way to deal with a situation. Putting aside legalities, ethics and morality should one try to avoid it because it's bad self defence or use it because it works?


----------



## Darren (Oct 26, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Exactly. I was just thinking about posting to ask if  people thought ground and pound is the best way to deal with a situation. Putting aside legalities, ethics and morality should one try to avoid it because it's bad self defence or use it because it works?


That would depend on the other person.


----------



## Steve (Oct 26, 2022)

I think this topic really depends on where you are starting.  If you start with the idea that harming people at all is generally unethical, it makes things a little more clear, in my opinion.  Then the presumption is that ground and pound, like any other action that will injure, maim, or possibly kill someone, is immoral by default.  So, the question then becomes, what might be an exception to the general rule?


----------



## Darren (Oct 26, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think this topic really depends on where you are starting.  If you start with the idea that harming people at all is generally unethical, it makes things a little more clear, in my opinion.  Then the presumption is that ground and pound, like any other action that will injure, maim, or possibly kill someone, is immoral by default.  So, the question then becomes, what might be an exception to the general rule?


The other person.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think this topic really depends on where you are starting.  If you start with the idea that harming people at all is generally unethical, it makes things a little more clear, in my opinion.  Then the presumption is that ground and pound, like any other action that will injure, maim, or possibly kill someone, is immoral by default.  So, the question then becomes, what might be an exception to the general rule?


It would be the difference between GNP because you are concerned the guy will get up. Or GNP because you know they can't. 

I am all for being unethical. But I don't feel it should be done unnecessarily.


----------



## Darren (Oct 27, 2022)

drop bear said:


> It would be the difference between GNP because you are concerned the guy will get up. Or GNP because you know they can't.
> 
> I am all for being unethical. But I don't feel it should be done unnecessarily.


If the other person is unable to fight back in anyway at all you stop!!!! Still there is the character of the other person, if he gets back up after healing for a time does he go out and still try to hurt others? Does he have any conscience at all? There are people out there that don’t care do you allow them to go before some judge that just gives them a slap on the wrist which is a incentive for them to do it again?


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2022)

drop bear said:


> It would be the difference between GNP because you are concerned the guy will get up. Or GNP because you know they can't.
> 
> I am all for being unethical. But I don't feel it should be done unnecessarily.


Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles.  What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing?  What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?  

I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years?  It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.  

The question is whether ground and pound is ethical. I think it's as ethical as any other thing that can injure another person.  Which means yes to some and no to others. 

What's interesting to me is what it takes for someone to flip.  We have dudes on this forum who will very casually talk about permanently maiming or killing someone.  So, where is the line for them?  We have some folks (or maybe I'm the only one) who finds the idea of really hurting someone else pretty repugnant.  So, for folks like me, what other values would have to be competing with this one, to turn to violence as the answer? 

I think it's an individual thing, and legality only intersects with this because obeying the law is one of those competing values.  There's the trite phrase "It's better to be tried by 12 than to be carried out by six."  When someone says this to me, it's them saying that they would rather risk killing or injuring someone unjustly than to risk being injured or killed themselves.  Some folks on here will read that and think, "yeah, of course."  And some will think the opposite.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2022)

Darren said:


> The other person.


Do you mean, like, if the person is too short?


----------



## Darren (Oct 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles.  What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing?  What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?
> 
> I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years?  It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.
> 
> ...





Steve said:


> Do you mean, like, if the person is too short?


Those short guys can kick some butt!!


----------



## Darren (Oct 27, 2022)

Was walking home one night this guy in a station wagon tried to run over me, he was drunk he got out and took a swing at me he gets back in his car and takes off drunk! Given the fact that drunks maims and kills other people in a crash and the drunks walks away unharmed while other people’s families gets to cry over there lost loved one or has to spend the rest of there lives and possibly there life savings taking care of there maimed loved ones!! How many families life’s did i effect that night by make sure he could not get behind that wheel that night?


----------



## tkdroamer (Oct 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles.  What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing?  What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?
> 
> I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years?  It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.
> 
> ...


It is a very difficult line to see, and one that is different person to person. On top of that, knowing there will be some level of legal action involved just adds to the complexity. 
But factoring certain things out to make it a black & white decision is important in a life/death or severe injury encounter. When a person has recognized that level of threat, everything is fair game IMHO. 
Then, you must consider the time quotient. More often than not, you will not have the luxury of time to assess the gravity of the situation. You just know you are in some degree of danger. And while it is true an 'experienced' person should be able to levy their attack, you do not know the attacker's abilities, mental state, or mind set, so again, fair game IMHO. 
It makes the old saying "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" very, very true.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Oct 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles.  What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing?  What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?
> 
> I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years?  It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.
> 
> ...


There might be some additional factors, a person might be the sole provider for a family. That may color a persons reasoning. If I die or go to hospital, my aged mother may not have support…   I may justify unethical or immoral acts to protect an interest that is not my own. If my loved one is near I may see the danger in a different context than when I was a young single man. It might not change what I perceive to be my set of morals, but it could certainly change my boiling point.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> There might be some additional factors, a person might be the sole provider for a family. That may color a persons reasoning. If I die or go to hospital, my aged mother may not have support…   I may justify unethical or immoral acts to protect an interest that is not my own. If my loved one is near I may see the danger in a different context than when I was a young single man. It might not change what I perceive to be my set of morals, but it could certainly change my boiling point.


Great points.   Duty is a very common value.  In this case, when you talk about your aged mother, you're speaking directly to filial duty, and I totally get it.  There isn't much I wouldn't do to protect or support my mom.  

Once upon a time, I enlisted in the USAF out of a sense of duty to country.  I was not a combat troop, but I was munitions during Desert Storm and my job was to ensure that everything from small arms to missiles functioned as designed.  There was a pretty direct line between me doing my job well and people being hurt and killed.  I still think about that quite a bit, and my military service led pretty directly to my work in civil service supporting aged and/or disabled people... service more compatible with my values (even when they got unruly and violent).


----------



## tkdroamer (Oct 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> Great points.   Duty is a very common value.  In this case, when you talk about your aged mother, you're speaking directly to filial duty, and I totally get it.  There isn't much I wouldn't do to protect or support my mom.
> 
> Once upon a time, I enlisted in the USAF out of a sense of duty to country.  I was not a combat troop, but I was munitions during Desert Storm and my job was to ensure that everything from small arms to missiles functioned as designed.  There was a pretty direct line between me doing my job well and people being hurt and killed.  I still think about that quite a bit, and my military service led pretty directly to my work in civil service supporting aged and/or disabled people... service more compatible with my values (even when they got unruly and violent).


Thank you for your service. 
I do think it is 'easier' for people who have been in that type or a similar line of duty to compartmentalize things easier and/or quicker. The ability to slice through the what-ifs and the social/legal dilemmas and see the bigger picture is vitally important in an encounter.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> Makes sense, and you raise a good point, which is that ethical dilemmas put folks in precisely that position, where they must make a decision that creates conflict between two values or principles.  What I mean is, if we can agree for the sake of argument that it is unethical, what would it take for you to do this unethical thing?  What other principles or values would have to be competing with this one?
> 
> I mentioned the trolley dilemma earlier, which has been around in some form or another for, I don't know... maybe 100 years?  It's an interesting exercise that actually changes quite a bit when you discuss it from an ethical standpoint vs a legal standpoint.
> 
> ...


I quoted the wrong thing. 

Anyway. 


A thing I noticed from bouncing is that quite often bouncers were standoffish to give themselves the emotional armour to turn around and hurt a guy.

And I think the banter about justification for killing people works the same way.

They can't face that they may just do something awful so they have to rework that in to they are really doing something good.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2022)

Darren said:


> If the other person is unable to fight back in anyway at all you stop!!!! Still there is the character of the other person, if he gets back up after healing for a time does he go out and still try to hurt others? Does he have any conscience at all? There are people out there that don’t care do you allow them to go before some judge that just gives them a slap on the wrist which is a incentive for them to do it again?


----------



## tkdroamer (Oct 27, 2022)

drop bear said:


> I quoted the wrong thing.
> 
> Anyway.
> 
> ...


Bouncers have a tough job. Knowing you will turn someone's ribs or skull into cream pie before the night is over would definitely change my thought process.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2022)

drop bear said:


>


You are a pop culture encyclopedia!


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 27, 2022)

Darren said:


> Was walking home one night this guy in a station wagon tried to run over me, he was drunk he got out and took a swing at me he gets back in his car and takes off drunk! Given the fact that drunks maims and kills other people in a crash and the drunks walks away unharmed while other people’s families gets to cry over there lost loved one or has to spend the rest of there lives and possibly there life savings taking care of there maimed loved ones!! How many families life’s did i effect that night by make sure he could not get behind that wheel that night?


What did the police say when you reported it? Was he caught?


----------



## Darren (Oct 27, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> What did the police say when you reported it? Was he caught?


Did not report it there were no cell phones back then.


----------



## Darren (Oct 27, 2022)

Steve said:


> Great points.   Duty is a very common value.  In this case, when you talk about your aged mother, you're speaking directly to filial duty, and I totally get it.  There isn't much I wouldn't do to protect or support my mom.
> 
> Once upon a time, I enlisted in the USAF out of a sense of duty to country.  I was not a combat troop, but I was munitions during Desert Storm and my job was to ensure that everything from small arms to missiles functioned as designed.  There was a pretty direct line between me doing my job well and people being hurt and killed.  I still think about that quite a bit, and my military service led pretty directly to my work in civil service supporting aged and/or disabled people... service more compatible with my values (even when they got unruly and violent).


Wished I could have gotten into the military, have bad ears and failed the hearing test by 5 decibels, but it saved my life found out I had can’t spell it but it’s akin to benign cancer that grows inside the ear eating the ear bones then grows on the wall between the brain eventually eating into the brain and kills ya did not even know I had it! It was already on the wall of my brain and had eaten a pin size hole in the wall going into the brain 40-50 years ago they did not know how to treat it and it killed people. After 9-10 surgeries they got it all!!!  So many times I should have died just can’t understand why I am still here!!!!!!


----------



## Darren (Oct 27, 2022)

Darren said:


> Wished I could have gotten into the military, have bad ears and failed the hearing test by 5 decibels, but it saved my life found out I had can’t spell it but it’s akin to benign cancer that grows inside the ear eating the ear bones then grows on the wall between the brain eventually eating into the brain and kills ya did not even know I had it! It was already on the wall of my brain and had eaten a pin size hole in the wall going into the brain 40-50 years ago they did not know how to treat it and it killed people. After 9-10 surgeries they got it all!!!  So many times I should have died just can’t understand why I am still here!!!!!!


Cholesteatoma​


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Oct 27, 2022)

drop bear said:


> I quoted the wrong thing.
> 
> Anyway.
> 
> ...


I agree with this completely. It really is a moral dilemma a person has to reconcile in some way to relieve that inner conflict. I think the existence of that conflict speaks to our deep (often subconscious) sense of community as a species. Killing or severely injuring people can have negative psychological effects on that sense of community and cause injury to how we relate to others.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Oct 27, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> Bouncers have a tough job. Knowing you will turn someone's ribs or skull into cream pie before the night is over would definitely change my thought process.


That means you aren’t good at it. Bouncing experts dont have to use violence very often.


----------



## tkdroamer (Oct 28, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That means you aren’t good at it. Bouncing experts dont have to use violence very often.


I sure that is the 'hope'. Reality is very different in some bars/clubs. I don't think people with the mindset "nothing bad is ever going to happen" last very long in that job.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 28, 2022)

Darren said:


> Did not report it there were no cell phones back then.


Public phones, going to police station?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Oct 28, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> I sure that is the 'hope'. Reality is very different in some bars/clubs. I don't think people with the mindset "nothing bad is ever going to happen" last very long in that job.


I did it for a couple years on weekends at a punk rock club in Riverside CA. Called Spanky’s Cafe. It definitely got rough some times. I got stabbed, and  then beaten with a cue stick, my boss got his arm broken, people went to hospital, etc. I prided myself on my ability to talk to people rather than grab and eject. The vast majority of times, a friendly reminder to be friendly was enough.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 28, 2022)

I got violent with people. It depends on the club.

Some are just garbage pits that need to be cleaned out. Some are so massive and busy that you don't have time to talk to people. Some you don't really have the control you want so you have to over react.

And example would be some 24hr McDonald's. You don't intox, you don't dress code. Basically at 3am everyone who is not suitable to be out in public is in McDonald's causing drama. 

So tons of fights happen.


----------



## MetalBoar (Oct 28, 2022)

drop bear said:


> I got violent with people. It depends on the club.
> 
> Some are just garbage pits that need to be cleaned out. Some are so massive and busy that you don't have time to talk to people. Some you don't really have the control you want so you have to over react.
> 
> ...


Yep, I've never worked as a bouncer, but I have been a late night server at Denny's.  We got the bar rush as soon as the bars closed.  A whole diner filled with drunk people led to some problems more or less every weekend night.  I've also bartended, and even though it was all restaurants and not party bars, we still had the occasional guy who wanted to start something with another customer or the staff.


----------



## Darren (Oct 28, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Public phones, going to police station?


I was on the street in the middle of a fight ya don’t pay attention to where phones are, nor plate numbers your only thought is survival and making it home to ya family and he took off so fast that even god his self could not have caught up with him.


----------



## Steve (Oct 28, 2022)

drop bear said:


> I got violent with people. It depends on the club.
> 
> Some are just garbage pits that need to be cleaned out. Some are so massive and busy that you don't have time to talk to people. Some you don't really have the control you want so you have to over react.
> 
> ...


My first job was at a McDonalds just down the hill from Greek Row and a mile or so from Husky Stadium.  I know exactly what you mean.  😅


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Oct 28, 2022)

drop bear said:


> I got violent with people. It depends on the club.
> 
> Some are just garbage pits that need to be cleaned out. Some are so massive and busy that you don't have time to talk to people. Some you don't really have the control you want so you have to over react.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, it happens. I have definitely had my share of nonsense. It seems a world ago, thank goodness.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 29, 2022)

Darren said:


> I was on the street in the middle of a fight ya don’t pay attention to where phones are, nor plate numbers your only thought is survival and making it home to ya family and he took off so fast that even god his self could not have caught up with him.


Awareness even or especially in a fight is vital.


----------



## Darren (Oct 29, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Awareness even or especially in a fight is vital.


Yeah!


----------



## Oily Dragon (Oct 29, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> Yep, I've never worked as a bouncer, but I have been a late night server at Denny's.  We got the bar rush as soon as the bars closed.  A whole diner filled with drunk people led to some problems more or less every weekend night.  I've also bartended, and even though it was all restaurants and not party bars, we still had the occasional guy who wanted to start something with another customer or the staff.


Late night at Denny's.  You just made me feel old.  And hungry.


----------



## tkdroamer (Oct 29, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I did it for a couple years on weekends at a punk rock club in Riverside CA. Called Spanky’s Cafe. It definitely got rough some times. I got stabbed, and  then beaten with a cue stick, my boss got his arm broken, people went to hospital, etc. I prided myself on my ability to talk to people rather than grab and eject. The vast majority of times, a friendly reminder to be friendly was enough.


But you got stabbed and beaten with a cue stick?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Oct 30, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> But you got stabbed and beaten with a cue stick?


Yes. Breaking up a fight. Not my finest hour.


----------



## GojuTommy (Nov 3, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> Bouncers have a tough job. Knowing you will turn someone's ribs or skull into cream pie before the night is over would definitely change my thought process.


Bouncers doing that are **** people. They have a team to work with to remove people, either they’re extremely strong, and don’t have any control, or they and their team are using their job as a cover to assault people. Either way, **** people.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2022)

GojuTommy said:


> Bouncers doing that are **** people. They have a team to work with to remove people, either they’re extremely strong, and don’t have any control, or they and their team are using their job as a cover to assault people. Either way, **** people.



You don't always have a team.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 5, 2022)

drop bear said:


> You don't always have a team.


I blame Roadhouse for this misconception.


----------



## GojuTommy (Nov 5, 2022)

drop bear said:


> You don't always have a team.


Then the owner is a piece of **** as well who needs to stop skimping on security.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 5, 2022)

GojuTommy said:


> Then the owner is a piece of **** as well who needs to stop skimping on security.



OK so we need to have 5000 people at the place. 
To have a team of three to handle all situations This means 15000 security on hand. 

Or are you saying that they need to hire police which also raises the cost 

In the end the bar to have patrons would need to charge $20 for a Lite bear in a can pulled directly from the case. 
$30 if you want one from the fridge. 

Or maybe people should not act out or do things that require interactions with a bouncer?
Maybe , just maybe ?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2022)

GojuTommy said:


> Then the owner is a piece of **** as well who needs to stop skimping on security.



Pretty much. But that is almost every owner. And almost every person.

I did this big rant once about cops bash and shoot people because as a society we are happy to have one cop in a car attending incidents.

The the response was.

Well who is going to pay for that?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I blame Roadhouse for this misconception.



Yeah most clubs are the before version. I like the be nice speech.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2022)

Rich Parsons said:


> OK so we need to have 5000 people at the place.
> To have a team of three to handle all situations This means 15000 security on hand.
> 
> Or are you saying that they need to hire police which also raises the cost
> ...



5000 can be a bit safer because you probably have ten guys to deal with trouble.

When it's low like 50 and you are facing 4 guys is where it gets super hinky.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 5, 2022)

drop bear said:


> 5000 can be a bit safer because you probably have ten guys to deal with trouble.
> 
> When it's low like 50 and you are facing 4 guys is where it gets super hinky.



Hi Drop Bear, 
I agree. 
It can be hinky with 50 or a couple hundred. 

Yet, I was stabbed in the leg in a crowd of 10k wall to wall people and thought I was just hit. Realizing it, and moving towards them was about 15-30 seconds at most, yet I could never catch them in the crowd and they were gone. 

My point to other poster though was that if the "Cheap" owner has to have enough to guarantee groups handle the issue 100% of the time, means 100% coverage by said group. 

It can be done with high power hoses for crowd control. 
It can be done with Tear Gas
It can be done with superior numbers. Hence my comment. 
Or one plays the numbers games and has coverage and sometimes a team member can be isolated by accident or on purpose. 

Not arguing with you. 
I was trying to jump to the bottom of the slippery slope of saying only numbers would solve the problem.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 5, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah most clubs are the before version. I like the be nice speech.


The blind slide guitarist is who really held the DD together.  Toughest job in the room.


----------



## GojuTommy (Nov 5, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Pretty much. But that is almost every owner. And almost every person.
> 
> I did this big rant once about cops bash and shoot people because as a society we are happy to have one cop in a car attending incidents.
> 
> ...


Eh, it’s more as a society we’re ok with the wrong type of people with the wrong mindset, and are ok with it, imho.

PA vs mims is a perfect example. If a cop can’t provide reasonable articulable suspicion their safety is at risk, they shouldn’t have the power to order people out of their cars.

If a person is not willing to ensure a subject is armed, AND an active threat, before using deadly force, then that person should not be a cop.

If you’re not willing to guarantee 100% that using deadly force is absolutely justified to protect yourself you shouldn’t be a cop. Lives of civilians at risk, I don’t mind some more leeway, after all I don’t believe a suspect should have to shoot an innocent before police use appropriate force.

Police abuse and unjustly shoot people when there’s 2 or 4 or 6 of them on scene for every suspect.

Back to the bouncer thing though, I guess I go to either the high class bars or the bars in really bad places, but every bar I can recall going to has had at least 2 bouncers and 1 male bartender or bar back working.


----------



## GojuTommy (Nov 5, 2022)

Rich Parsons said:


> OK so we need to have 5000 people at the place.
> To have a team of three to handle all situations This means 15000 security on hand.
> 
> Or are you saying that they need to hire police which also raises the cost
> ...


I have absolutely no clue where you’re getting 1500 security from.

I said a team. I worked security at a hospital with several thousand patients possible, with hundreds of visitors, hundreds of staff, hundreds of students, hundreds of researchers and unknowable number of randoms of campus. I personally averaged going hands on bout once per shift, guess how many people we had per shift. 10.

Most clubs or bars also don’t hold any where near 5k people, so no clue where that number came from.

A typical club or bar should be fine with between 2-5 bouncers

On top of all of this most issues in a bar or club of any size will involve people who can’t walk or see straight, so the idea that a bouncer needs to cave in someone’s skull dealing with a violent or aggressive drunk is laughable.


----------

