# When should you fight?



## BrothersMA (Mar 9, 2016)

when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?

(note: the law might not agree but im asking from more a moral point)

Thank you


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

So many scenarios. Anyone in particular that makes you ask?


----------



## BrothersMA (Mar 9, 2016)

No. Just looking to see what people say.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

In my previous line of work, hands was all the time, albeit in a passive fashion until it was time not to be. In everyday life I would rather walk away and let them have their five minutes of gloating. Happens that way the older you get, despite having feelings to the contrary. Well does to me anyway.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?
> 
> (note: the law might not agree but im asking from more a moral point)
> 
> Thank you



When I feel that someone is about to lay their hands on me in a threatening manner.  I always have the right to defend myself, and that includes by striking first if I (as a 'reasonable man') believe I am about to be attacked.

For example, a person approaches me, stating that he is going to hit me, and raises his fist in a threatening manner.  I am not going to wait for him to throw the punch before I strike him.

If a person says he is going to punch me, but doesn't close the distance between us and doesn't appear to be about to hit me, then I will not strike him.  At least not until it becomes clear that he a) can hit me and b) is about to hit me.

If I can simply leave and avoid the entire thing, I will do that.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 9, 2016)

In this country the law and the moral right agree when it comes to self defence.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> In my previous line of work, hands was all the time, albeit in a passive fashion until it was time not to be. In everyday life I would rather walk away and let them have their five minutes of gloating. Happens that way the older you get, despite having feelings to the contrary. Well does to me anyway.



Should have added in a verbal person mouthing off type of thing. No shame in letting someone think they are Superman, different if they want to test that.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 9, 2016)

When I feel that there is a 'reasonable enough' (it is reasonable if someone is rushing towards me with a knife, it is not reasonable if I'm in a low income area and someone comes towards me without giving an explanation) threat or chance that someone is about to attack me or someone that I care about. Very situational, and can't really give a distinct answer.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 9, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> In this country the law and the moral right agree when it comes to self defence.


What is the law/moral right? I find it too situational to see how a complete agreement would occur.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> When I feel that there is a 'reasonable enough' (it is reasonable if someone is rushing towards me with a knife, it is not reasonable if I'm in a low income area and someone comes towards me without giving an explanation) threat or chance that someone is about to attack me or someone that I care about. Very situational, and can't really give a distinct answer.



Actually, the 'reasonable person' standard doesn't get that nuanced as to be concerned with specifics such as neighborhood.

Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With regard to self-defense, this is instructional:

Self-Defense Overview - FindLaw



> *Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?*
> 
> Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm.  What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable man” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm.  The concept of the “reasonable man” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.
> 
> - See more at: Self-Defense Overview - FindLaw



The right to self-defense cannot be reduced a set of 'yes' and 'no' illustrations; each use of force in self-defense is different.  The 'reasonable person' test is the general litmus test to discover whether or not (usually in retrospect) a given use of self-defense was legal or not.

In my experience, far too many people either try to reduce the 'reasonable person' test to a set of rules that can be always and reliably applied, or they decide that whatever *they* personally find threatening is therefore justified in self-defense, which is very far from the truth.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 9, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, the 'reasonable person' standard doesn't get that nuanced as to be concerned with specifics such as neighborhood.


I guess reasonable was the wrong word, as I was not referring to the 'reasonable person' standard.



> In my experience, far too many people either try to reduce the 'reasonable person' test to a set of rules that can be always and reliably applied, or they decide that whatever *they* personally find threatening is therefore justified in self-defense, which is very far from the truth.



Yup, not referring to the test/standard, I am referring to what I would personally find threatening. I consider myself to be reasonable, which is why I used that word, but did not realize this was a reference to a specific concept. However, and regardless of what should be morally or legally correct, if I am feeling threatened and there is a legitimate reason for it based on another's actions, I will respond. Now, if you include the law, my standard for what constitutes as a threat will likely rise so I don't get in legal trouble, but I see that as a problem rather than a benefit, since it's adding an extra fear that gets in the way of my judgment.

This is something specifically for me in response to absence of law, and I don't think there should be a law/legal edict based on it because while I consider myself reasonable/clear-headed/just, I would not consider many others to be the same, and I'm sure people have a different opinion of me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> I guess reasonable was the wrong word, as I was not referring to the 'reasonable person' standard.
> 
> Yup, not referring to the test/standard, I am referring to what I would personally find threatening. I consider myself to be reasonable, which is why I used that word, but did not realize this was a reference to a specific concept. However, and regardless of what should be morally or legally correct, if I am feeling threatened and there is a legitimate reason for it based on another's actions, I will respond. Now, if you include the law, my standard for what constitutes as a threat will likely rise so I don't get in legal trouble, but I see that as a problem rather than a benefit, since it's adding an extra fear that gets in the way of my judgment.
> 
> This is something specifically for me in response to absence of law, and I don't think there should be a law/legal edict based on it because while I consider myself reasonable/clear-headed/just, I would not consider many others to be the same, and I'm sure people have a different opinion of me.



Thanks for the explanation.  I think I understand what you're saying.

All I can say is that in my former life in law enforcement, it seemed that everyone I ever apprehended for assault seemed to think they were exercising self-defense.  For things like 'bad stares' and 'shooting off his mouth at me', and so on.  _"Dude dissed me so I defended myself by cracking him the face."_  Yeah, no.

Typically, when we've discussed this notion here on MT, people tend to jump to the opposite conclusion and assume that the law requires a person to get punched before they can legally defend themselves, which is also incorrect.  If someone says they're going to punch me, and they ball up their fist and raise it and they're coming towards me, I have every reason to think they're going to do what they are threatening to do.  In legal terms, I've already been assaulted, and I am free to defend myself on that basis.

Now, reflecting back to 'moral' justification, everyone is different.  And people are free to come up with their own definitions.  As you said, depending on circumstances, they may have to deal with the legal repercussions of that.  _*"He had it coming"*_ is not, despite popular theory, a legal defense.


----------



## Buka (Mar 9, 2016)

When somebody is about to fight me or has already started, to help somebody else, or when someone has done me wrong.

Remember now, the OP had "YOU".


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2016)

For the last twenty years I was fighting people for $25 an hour. And that was mostly to make someone else rich.


----------



## geezer (Mar 9, 2016)

A different perspective on fighting. Whitey Bulger's advice to his son:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 9, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?


If some attacks you, you can back up, run, and avoid the fight. When someone attacks your family member, you will need to beat up that attacker that

- even his own mother won't be able to recognize him.
- he will need to crawl on the ground to find his missing teeth.
- he will regret that his mother ever brought him into this world.
- he will feel the earth is too dangerous to live and he will need to move to Mars.
- he won't be able to control his body function for the rest of his life.
- he will need to have cosmetic surgery to reconstruct his new face.
- ...

Those are "how badly you can beat up someone" that I have learned through my online books reading.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 9, 2016)

Personally, I would only lay hands on someone if I felt I or another person was at imminent risk of harm. There could be other times when I feel it could be argued, but they seem so rare and unlikely that I do not really consider them.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

drop bear said:


> For the last twenty years I was fighting people for $25 an hour. And that was mostly to make someone else rich.



No offence intended, but like the backyard MMA scene with Brendan? Hopefully you have seen Warrior.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2016)

Even the pope will punch you for insulting his mother.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 9, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All I can say is that in my former life in law enforcement, it seemed that everyone I ever apprehended for assault seemed to think they were exercising self-defense. For things like 'bad stares' and 'shooting off his mouth at me', and so on. _"Dude dissed me so I defended myself by cracking him the face."_ Yeah, no.



Here that's called getting your retaliation in first.


----------



## BrothersMA (Mar 9, 2016)

I notice alot of people put to defend someone else. 
Do you have to know the person? 
Or Would you just jump into a fight of strangers (not because your job requires it)?


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Even the pope will punch you for insulting his mother.



Yeah probably, but the Swiss Guard will probably take care of that


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 9, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> I notice alot of people put to defend someone else.
> Do you have to know the person?
> Or Would you just jump into a fight of strangers (not because your job requires it)?


Unless it is very clear what is going on in the fight with strangers, I will not jump in. If I think they have a gun, I will not jump in. I don't know the situation, and I'm not going to get myself shot because someone is getting revenge on the guy who jumped him last week.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> I notice alot of people put to defend someone else.
> Do you have to know the person?
> Or Would you just jump into a fight of strangers (not because your job requires it)?



Why are you asking? Something tells me that confrantatation is not you are used to dealing with. To the latter no, only a numpty would so. What we Brit would call a complete Twat!
I


----------



## BrothersMA (Mar 9, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Why are you asking? Something tells me that confrantatation is not you are used to dealing with. To the latter no, only a numpty would so. What we Brit would call a complete Twat!
> I


Something told you wrong then. 
But that is neither here nor there. 
If you would fight to protect someone what criteria would have to be met in order for you to do so?


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 10, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> Something told you wrong then.
> But that is neither here nor there.
> If you would fight to protect someone what criteria would have to be met in order for you to do so?



Yeah sorry. Think I misinterpreted something. My bad. Generally speaking, and not citing a family member, spouse or otherwise, fighting someone else's cause is not always black and white. Charging into a situation without evaluation can be dangerous. I took a sucker punch once simply because I let red mist overtake my reasoning. My only criteria for me personally would be self defence if I had to fight, otherwise I just attend a situation and break it up. In reality most situations blow out very quickly, the just detaining is normally the case. I won't take a slap from anybody without reposte. Equally I won't take one for someone either, generally. There are situations that would modify that. Ie if I saw a female in trouble with a male. Thankfully though I have never been in that situation, but fighting someone else's cause is not impossible, just a sticky wicket. Just my opinion. Did not mean anything by that post BTW against you. I am prone to missing out words.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 10, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Why are you asking? Something tells me that confrantatation is not you are used to dealing with. To the latter no, only a numpty would so. What we Brit would call a complete Twat!
> I



I just like that you used the word twat and go away with it roflmao.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 10, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I just like that you used the word twat and go away with it roflmao.



Damn, I keep forgetting that word is considered really rude around here  Post hopefully will just be modified.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 10, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Damn, I keep forgetting that word is considered really rude around here  Post hopefully will just be modified.



Shh I don't think they know what it means.......


----------



## Buka (Mar 10, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> I notice alot of people put to defend someone else.
> Do you have to know the person?
> Or Would you just jump into a fight of strangers (not because your job requires it)?



Don't have to know the person, no. And I won't always jump in, dependent on circumstances.
If it's two chumps having a fight, I'm getting popcorn.


----------



## MAfreak (Mar 11, 2016)

Buka said:


> Don't have to know the person, no. And I won't always jump in, dependent on circumstances.
> If it's two chumps having a fight, I'm getting popcorn.


haha totally agreed. 

i definitely would fight when i see someone is molesting women or kids or torturing animals.
i don't have to know these persons or animals i just feel it as a duty, especially with martial arts/combat sports background.
when guys provoke just me, its fine. i had such situations and stayed calm and it wasn't escalating to a fight then.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 11, 2016)

Buka said:


> Don't have to know the person, no. And I won't always jump in, dependent on circumstances.
> If it's two chumps having a fight, I'm getting popcorn.



I saw a man and a woman fighting one time.  A guy walking by tried to help her, until they both started beating him up.  I guess she was the only one allowed to beat up her boyfriend.  Made me think twice about ever helping someone again.  I was going to help too, but I was about half a block away and once I realized what was going on, I said F that.


----------



## crazydiamond (Mar 12, 2016)

Only when necessary, when I think I have no out, when my friends or family  or a child or helpless person are in threat,  

Beyond this - why should i risk getting hurt? I am a big guy, a lot people tend to be intimated by  me. On top of this I have two years of mixed martial arts right now. However, I look at some of my instructors - and at the surface some of them look dorky, scrawny, or out of shape, but when I spare or train with them - I am overwhelmed with their ability to fight. You never know who you are going to face off against - so the reasons better be very high.


----------



## BrothersMA (Mar 12, 2016)

Thank you all for your answers. As for my own, i only fight if i feel it is right thing to do. (i feel this is common here too)
Do right because it is right, no other reason.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?
> 
> (note: the law might not agree but im asking from more a moral point)
> 
> Thank you


When they put me in danger. Words don't do that, but a punch, shove, or grab does.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Thanks for the explanation.  I think I understand what you're saying.
> 
> All I can say is that in my former life in law enforcement, it seemed that everyone I ever apprehended for assault seemed to think they were exercising self-defense.  For things like 'bad stares' and 'shooting off his mouth at me', and so on.  _"Dude dissed me so I defended myself by cracking him the face."_  Yeah, no.
> 
> ...


This is what I mean when  I say "putting me at risk". It can happen before they strike (as in your example), but not with just words.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2016)

Buka said:


> When somebody is about to fight me or has already started, to help somebody else, or when someone has done me wrong.
> 
> Remember now, the OP had "YOU".


I did leave out the helping someone else who is at risk. That's definitely a trigger for me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 12, 2016)

If someone tries to fight you and if you have MA skill, you can just play 100% defense until your opponent gives up. It will be a good opportunity for you to test your 

- footwork, 
- dodging skill, 
- blocking skill, and 
- ability to take a body shot. 

Also you don't have to worry about any legal issue (go to jail, or pay medical bill).

A friend of mine got into a bar fight. In 20 minutes, his opponent could not hit him. After 20 minutes, his opponent sat down on the couch, didn't know what had just happened. That fight ended and nobody got hurt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If someone tries to fight you and if you have MA skill, you can just play 100% defense until your opponent gives up. It will be a good opportunity for you to test your
> 
> - footwork,
> - dodging skill,
> ...


That assumes you don't trip or get sucker punched by his buddy, and he doesn't get lucky. I don't like the odds on that. Someone doesn't have to be good, or even intend to, to hurt you badly. They just have to slip in the right way at the right moment. I'll defend as much as I need to, to reduce that chance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That assumes you don't trip or get sucker punched by his buddy, and he doesn't get lucky. I don't like the odds on that. Someone doesn't have to be good, or even intend to, to hurt you badly. They just have to slip in the right way at the right moment. I'll defend as much as I need to, to reduce that chance.


If you play defense and not hitting back but your opponent still wants to attack you, it will give you a good reason to hurt him and you don't have to feel bad about it. You can always test your defense skill first and then test your offense skill afterward.

Is that what self-defense is about? You don't want to hurt your opponent unless your opponent deserves to be hurt


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you play defense and not hitting back but your opponent still wants to attack you, it will give you a good reason to hurt him and you don't have to feel bad about it. You can always test your defense skill first and then test your offense skill afterward.
> 
> Is that what self-defense is about? You don't want to hurt your opponent unless your opponent deserves to be hurt


I'm not opposed to waiting out weak attacks for a brief moment, but even those must be terminated. A drunk guy who can barely stand can still fall into me and knock me down, hitting my head on the way down. That's no better for me than getting hit while standing. Mind you, it won't take much to take that drunk guy down, so I probably won't have to hurt him. The post I replied to talked about spending minutes defending, rather than ending the engagement. That's a poor choice, in my opinion.

EDIT: I don't draw a line between "defensive skill" and "offensive skill". Blocks and blending should flow directly into strikes, locks, and throws. Oh, and I don't test my skills on the street. That's what the dojo is for. Testing them on the street requires the arrogance of assumed functional invincibility, or simply not knowing (or caring) about the potential consequences.


----------



## MAfreak (Mar 13, 2016)

testing on the streets also would be a street fight and not self defense.
in real self defense, i think, there is no time for testing around and one shouldn't take the risk. also self defense must not even be fighting.
avoiding an escalation, if possible, is also self defense and teached in reliable schools.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Charging into a situation without evaluation can be dangerous.


Not only dangerous, you may just help the wrong guy. When you see A beats up on B, may be because B just went to bed with A's wife and deserved to be beaten up by A.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not only dangerous, you may just help the wrong guy. When you see A beats up on B, may be because B just went to bed with A's wife and deserved to be beaten up by A.



Indeed. In my experience, domestics are one of the most difficult to gauge. As funny as this may sound to observers, one incident involved a female hitting on another male. It transpired that initial thoughts that the male that was wacked by her handbag, was in fact her boyf, rather than him hitting on her. He dumped her and left the club. While thinking that someone deserves it, that does not hold up in court. So as I said, black and white is a sticky wicket. In many cases when a doorman thinks a situation is a 100 percent clear, it is still 50/50. I made that mistake myself. Silent aggression is the worst. Why both parties get taken to the front door to be worked by the staff and police.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 16, 2016)

MAfreak said:


> testing on the streets also would be a street fight and not self defense.
> in real self defense, i think, there is no time for testing around and one shouldn't take the risk. also self defense must not even be fighting.
> avoiding an escalation, if possible, is also self defense and teached in reliable schools.



Street situations are so organic as it were, SD while very worthwhile, would be engage and retreat, or engage and restrain. If that is possible in that given situation. If someone presents a credible threat to life, it really is fight or flight, irrespective of the consequence of the action.


----------



## Lameman (Mar 22, 2016)

My background is in streetfighting. While in my mispent youth, I met a professional streetfighter. He is one of the few fights I have lost, and so I asked him to teach me to fight. He hesitated for a minute then said, "Alright, I will teach you what I wish someone had taught me. If you can safely lose a fight, it is always better to lose then to win." In three years, training under him I learned more about not fighting, then fighting. In streetfighting, there are no escalations of violence. Its either kill or defend. On or off. In short, you fight when your opponant makes you afraid for your safety. And then you hospitalize or kill them. Average fight lasts about three seconds. Maybe I should say a little more. In real street situations, people rarely think about the next fight. A real streetfighter always considers the consequences. If someone is stupid enough to attack you, they are stupid enough to attack you with a gun. While in close quarters, fine. But next time? Trust me getting shot at is not fun. Remember, the best self defence is not putting yourself in a situation in the first place.


----------



## mograph (Mar 22, 2016)

Lameman said:


> "... it is always better to lose than to win." In three years, training under him I learned more about not fighting, then fighting.





Lameman said:


> A real streetfighter always considers the consequences. If someone is stupid enough to attack you, they are stupid enough to attack you with a gun. While in close quarters, fine. But next time? Trust me getting shot at is not fun. Remember, the best self defence is not putting yourself in a situation in the first place.


Very wise. If you win, you can anger the opponent, who can come back with or without his friends, and do you _serious_ harm when you least expect it. Consequences.
However, if you can lose safely, the opponent has saved face, feels powerful and will probably leave you alone. Is this right?

(BTW, I'm extrapolating my own experience diffusing conflict. I have no streetfighting experience.)


----------



## LeftchopFTW (Mar 22, 2016)

I think if someone even looks at you the wrong way it is okay to give them a swift arm bar. 

If they look at you negatively think about it.. Their thoughts are not pure and it is to me the same as hitting me.

I once put a pregnant lady in a Kimura for looking me up and down.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 22, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not only dangerous, you may just help the wrong guy. When you see A beats up on B, may be because B just went to bed with A's wife and deserved to be beaten up by A.



Deserves to be beaten up? wow, that's a strange place you are coming from, do you also believe the wife should be beaten? If your wife sleeps with someone else you leave her you don't go out committing a criminal offence. Of all the reasons NOT to fight this is near the top.



Lameman said:


> My background is in streetfighting. While in my mispent youth, I met a professional streetfighter. He is one of the few fights I have lost, and so I asked him to teach me to fight. He hesitated for a minute then said, "Alright, I will teach you what I wish someone had taught me. If you can safely lose a fight, it is always better to lose then to win." In three years, training under him I learned more about not fighting, then fighting. In streetfighting, there are no escalations of violence. Its either kill or defend. On or off. In short, you fight when your opponant makes you afraid for your safety. And then you hospitalize or kill them. Average fight lasts about three seconds. Maybe I should say a little more. In real street situations, people rarely think about the next fight. A real streetfighter always considers the consequences. If someone is stupid enough to attack you, they are stupid enough to attack you with a gun. While in close quarters, fine. But next time? Trust me getting shot at is not fun. Remember, the best self defence is not putting yourself in a situation in the first place.




What is a 'professional' streetfighter? A person who goes around assaulting others? Do you perhaps mean a bare knuckle or other type who actually takes arranged fights? Taking arranged fights has little to do with defending yourself when you are out for a quiet drink and get attacked. As for 'killing' your opponent in arranged fights, not, not really, in films perhaps but there's not much money to be made in dead fighters so it's not viable to have oppnents kill each other. Sounds very macho posted up though.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 22, 2016)

LeftchopFTW said:


> I think if someone even looks at you the wrong way it is okay to give them a swift arm bar.
> 
> If they look at you negatively think about it.. Their thoughts are not pure and it is to me the same as hitting me.
> 
> I once put a pregnant lady in a Kimura for looking me up and down.


----------



## Flatfish (Mar 22, 2016)

LeftchopFTW said:


> I think if someone even looks at you the wrong way it is okay to give them a swift arm bar.
> 
> If they look at you negatively think about it.. Their thoughts are not pure and it is to me the same as hitting me.
> 
> I once put a pregnant lady in a Kimura for looking me up and down.





Aren't you a peach?


----------



## Lameman (Mar 22, 2016)

To answer your question. The less tactful way of putting it. He was a gang member. As a professional streetfighter, his job was to fight. That's what he did for a living. Not all of those fights were to the death. You don't have to kill your opponant to win a fight. But if you feel that you need to fight for your life, you need to take that stuff seriously. If you are screwing around, you can find yourself in a really dangerous situation, really quick. What is it? First survive, second defend yourself, third stop the fight, fourth resolve the conflict, and then, if you can, make friends. Remember, that a friend is a shield, while an enemy is a knife in the back. To Mograph, basically yeah.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 22, 2016)

Lameman said:


> To answer your question. The less tactful way of putting it. He was a gang member. As a professional streetfighter, his job was to fight. That's what he did for a living. Not all of those fights were to the death. You don't have to kill your opponant to win a fight. But if you feel that you need to fight for your life, you need to take that stuff seriously. If you are screwing around, you can find yourself in a really dangerous situation, really quick. What is it? First survive, second defend yourself, third stop the fight, fourth resolve the conflict, and then, if you can, make friends. Remember, that a friend is a shield, while an enemy is a knife in the back. To Mograph, basically yeah.



Your guy wasn't a street fighter then he was a gang member, a thug in other words. There is an implied glamour given to the word 'street fighter' that doesn't reflect reality.

Incidentally in the UK 'screwing around' means having sex with quite a few people.


----------



## Lameman (Mar 22, 2016)

Really? That's what you are going to get hung up on? To correct your ignorance, not all gang members are thugs. A gang member is someone who has made a bad choice, and found themselves in bad situation or vice versa. Also, my friend wasn't a leg breaker, or an enforcer. It was more conditional, if we knew a situation could go south, and you couldn't bring a gun, or reinforcments, he was there to make sure everyone came home alive. Gang members make bad choices, they find themselves in a lot of bad situations. Some of them have learned how to avoid and get out of, those bad situations. The beginning of wisdom, is learning to learn from the mistakes of others.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 22, 2016)

Lameman said:


> Really? That's what you are going to get hung up on? To correct your ignorance, not all gang members are thugs. A gang member is someone who has made a bad choice, and found themselves in bad situation or vice versa. Also, my friend wasn't a leg breaker, or an enforcer. It was more conditional, if we knew a situation could go south, and you couldn't bring a gun, or reinforcments, he was there to make sure everyone came home alive. Gang members make bad choices, they find themselves in a lot of bad situations. Some of them have learned how to avoid and get out of, those bad situations. The beginning of wisdom, is learning to learn from the mistakes of others.




Yeah, right. Sing me a sad, sad song. I actually know more about gangs than you assume I do and you also don't know the reason I know about gangs.


----------



## Paul_D (Mar 24, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?
> 
> (note: the law might not agree but im asking from more a moral point)
> 
> Thank you


If I have attempted to resolve or avoid a physical outcome, and it has become clear that they are determined not to seek anything other than a physical solution.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 24, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Your guy wasn't a street fighter then he was a gang member, a thug in other words. There is an implied glamour given to the word 'street fighter' that doesn't reflect reality.


I don't know, being a 'street fighter' sounds pretty accurate to describe a gang member that 'fights people in the streets'. Only part I could have an issue with is professional, since that means he makes a living off of it, but if that was his job in the gang (which it sounds like ti was) it makes a decent amount of sense.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> I don't know, being a 'street fighter' sounds pretty accurate to describe a gang member that 'fights people in the streets'. Only part I could have an issue with is professional, since that means he makes a living off of it, but if that was his job in the gang (which it sounds like ti was) it makes a decent amount of sense.



Bikers have been known to throw some mmaers bouncers or footballers a few bucks to bash people they dont like.

Standover men.


Ironically in the 70,s they were tkd guys.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 25, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> I don't know, being a 'street fighter' sounds pretty accurate to describe a gang member that 'fights people in the streets'. Only part I could have an issue with is professional, since that means he makes a living off of it, but if that was his job in the gang (which it sounds like ti was) it makes a decent amount of sense.



It's the whole 'street fighter' nonsense which has been taken up by quite a lot of people who should better, it comes with certain connotations that glamorise  'the street'. Certain self defence instructors will advertise their training as making you 'street ready' and we've all seen those comments on social media where some cockwomble goes on about being 'a street fighter' or who has a mate who is a 'street fighter'. 'I'm 'ard me I'm a street fighter'. We have perfectly nice people posting up asking if some techniques would work on 'on the street' as if it were a ringing endorsement of that technique. Call a spade a spade,  a gang member is just that a gang member, so he fights others that doesn't make him Jean-Claude Van Damme, that makes him a gang member who fights other gang members, and?


----------



## Lameman (Mar 25, 2016)

In a way, I completly agree with Tez3. Maybe not as angry about it. Sure, I could teach you to fight, but my style has been around what, 30 years? Tested on a couple of dozen guys with varying levels of skill. Wing chun, karate, jiu jitsu, boxing, etc. Have been around forever, tested against god knows how many people. As soon as I hear, I'm training a style I created, I think, "What, you don't trust your training enough to get you through a fight? What makes your new style any better then everything you've been taught?" Not a critisizim of personal fighting style. But if you are going to teach a fighting style, teach something thats been properly tested. If you are good at that, then I will look at your personal style. As for what works on the street, anything. Takes about 5 minutes of training to beat the average wannabe hard***. Remember, hard is just another word for stupid.


----------



## Emilee <3 (Mar 25, 2016)

BrothersMA said:


> when do YOU feel it is ok to put hands on someone else?
> 
> (note: the law might not agree but im asking from more a moral point)
> 
> Thank you




From a personal perspective:
-when they are threatening to harm you or a friend/family member/etc
-when there is no choice and you've already tried to diffuse the situation multiple times, it's better to strike first and get an advantage so you can end the fight quickly


----------

